HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-21 Agenda PacketMEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, services are available to members
of our community who require special assistance to participate in public meetings. If you require special assistance,
48-hour prior notification will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for an assisted listening device (ALD) for the
hearing impaired, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting and/or large print agendas. Please
contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227 for more information, or request assistance from the staff or
Sergeant-at-Arms at the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: To address the legislative body on items of interest not scheduled for public hearing, Request to
Speak forms will be made available at the meeting and are collected by the staff or Sergeant at Arms. Some legislative
bodies may provide different Request to Speak forms for public hearing items.
AUDIO/VIDEO ACCESS TO BROADCASTED MEETINGS: City Council and Planning Commission meetings are televised live
on HBTV-3 Channel 3, and can be viewed via live or archived website at https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com.
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Council Chambers
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
No Study Session / Closed Session - 4:00 PM / Successor Agency Special Meeting and
City Council/Public Financing Authority
Regular Meeting - 6:00 PM
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
LYN SEMETA, Mayor
JILL HARDY, Mayor Pro Tem
PATRICK BRENDEN, Councilmember
KIM CARR, Councilmember
BARBARA DELGLEIZE, Councilmember
ERIK PETERSON, Councilmember
MIKE POSEY, Councilmember
STAFF
OLIVER CHI, City Manager
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, City Clerk
ALISA BACKSTROM, City Treasurer
1
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit)
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
20-13421.Mayor Semeta to announce: Pursuant to Government Code §
54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet
with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and
Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City
Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following:
Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA); Management Employees'
Organization (MEO); Police Officer's Association (POA); Police
Management Association (PMA); Marine Safety Management
Association (MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association
(SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
CLOSED SESSION
20-13522.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following Workers’ Compensation Claims:
a. Cormac O’Connell v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp.
Case Nos. COHB-11-0005; COHB-16-0309; and COHB-17-0266.
b. Bernard Atkins v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case
No. COHB-18-0040.
c. Gary Kim v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No.
COHB-16-0098.
d. Larry Pitcher v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case
No. COHB-15-0196.
Page 1 of 9
2
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
e. Richard Spencer v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp.
Case No. COHB-19-0003.
f. Estella Miranda v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp.
Case No. COHB-12-0242.
20-13333.Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor
negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in
attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert
Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Municipal
Employees’ Association (MEA); Management Employees'
Organization (MEO); Police Officer's Association (POA); Police
Management Association (PMA); Marine Safety Management
Association (MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association
(SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
20-13304.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: HBPOA and Yasha Nikitin v. City of
Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-01093906.
20-13315.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: Rosier (Maliek) v. City of Huntington
Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: SACV 18-2175 DOC (DFMx).
20-13326.Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, four (4).
20-13437.Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney
regarding the following lawsuit: City of Huntington Beach v. State of
California (SB 54); OCSC Case No. 30-2018-00984280.
6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AND CALL TO ORDER A
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT
Page 2 of 9
3
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ROLL CALL
Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, Brenden
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any
faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form
of invocation.
19-12038.Pastor Nader Hanna of Faith Lutheran Church of Huntington Beach
and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
19-12459.Mayor Semeta to call on Victoria Alberty for the “Adoptable Pet of
the Month”
20-134710.Mayor Semeta to present a commendation to Visit Huntington Beach
President & CEO Kelly Miller and staff to recognize and celebrate the
organization’s 30 years of destination brand marketing and
promotion of Surf City USA as a global destination
20-132711.Mayor Semeta to kick off her “Making a Difference in Huntington
Beach” Awards Program by giving her first award to the volunteers
of the Secret Garden and the HB Tree Society
19-124412.Mayor Semeta to call on Dawn McCormick of Timeless Treasures
Boutique who will present donation to the Waggin’ Trails Rescue
Foundation from money raised from their boutique
19-122413.Mayor Semeta to call on players and coaches from the Marina High
School Varsity Football Team to recognize them as CIF Champions
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
Page 3 of 9
4
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
20-135114.Update on the Ascon Landfill Project
20-135615.Update on Councilmember Brenden and Peterson’s September 16,
2019 request that staff return to Council with Ordinance(s) related to
Sober Living Homes
CONSENT CALENDAR
19-124816.Approve and Adopt Minutes
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes
and the special meetings of the Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Successor
Agency dated December 16, 2019, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Recommended Action:
20-132517.Annual Review of the City Code of Ethics
Direct the City Clerk to record in the official minutes that the City Code of Ethics was
presented to the City Council, City Manager, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors
for their review and distribution as required by Resolution No. 2016-73.
Recommended Action:
20-134418.Receive and file the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional
Housing Needs Assessment process
Receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process
status update.
Recommended Action:
19-129619.Approve appointments to the Huntington Beach Human Relations
Task Force (HRTF) as recommended by City Council liaisons Mayor
Pro Tem Jill Hardy and Councilmember Patrick Brenden
A) Approve the reappointments of Natalie Moser and Vashia Rhone for terms to expire
December 31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Jill Hardy and Patrick
Recommended Action:
Page 4 of 9
5
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Brenden; and,
B) Approve the appointments of Ashley Dos Santos, Antonio Benitez, and Hemesh
Patel for terms to expire December 31, 2021, as recommended by City Council liaisons
Jill Hardy and Patrick Brenden; and ,
C) Approve the appointments of Rhonda Bolton, Teresa Carlisle and Timothy Stuart for
terms to expire December 31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Jill Hardy
and Patrick Brenden .
19-129120.Authorize use of existing on-call construction
management/inspection contracts with Wallace and Associates,
Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek for City
related projects
Authorize the use the existing on-call construction management/inspection contracts with
Wallace and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek for
any City related projects and activities including those in the approved CIP.
Recommended Action:
20-132121.Adopt Resolution No. 2020-08 to accept and approve the
Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19 and Make
Government Code Section 66006 and 66001 Findings
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-08, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach to Accept and Approve the Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 2019 and to Make the Findings as required by Government Code Section
66006(b) and 66001(d).”
Recommended Action:
19-127722.Approve and authorize execution of two Landscape Maintenance
Agreements with the State of California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for Pacific City Retail and Pasea Hotel for
Maintenance of Landscape Improvements within the State Highway
Right of Way on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)
A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and record the “Landscape
Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of
Huntington Beach” for the Pacific City Retail project (Attachment 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and record the “Landscape
Recommended Action:
Page 5 of 9
6
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of
Huntington Beach” for the Pasea Hotel project (Attachment 2).
20-132823.Approve and authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
with Waymakers to authorize a one-year contract extension and
additional compensation of $114,509 for management of the Victim
and Witness Assistance Services Program; and, approve grant fund
appropriation
A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute “Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Community Service Programs, Inc.
(Waymakers) for Victim and Witness Assistance Services;” and,
B) Approve appropriation of $114,509 contingent upon grant funding provided by the
California Office of Emergency Services, and increase professional services authority for
the commensurate amount.
Recommended Action:
19-128524.Approve and authorize execution of an Amendment to a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Orange County
Transportation Authority and the cities of Fountain Valley and Costa
Mesa to extend the deadline for completion of street improvements
associated with the potential removal of the Garfield/Gisler crossing
of the Santa Ana River
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute “Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of
Understanding C-6-0834 Among Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington
Beach and Orange County Transportation Authority Regarding Agency Responsibilities for
Implementing the Consensus Recommendation for the Garfield-Gisler Bridge Crossing
over the Santa Ana River.”
Recommended Action:
19-129025.Approve and authorize execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) Between the City of Huntington Beach and SC
Cleaning Specialist for the Installation and Maintenance of Marina
Trash Skimmer at 16011 Santa Barbara Lane
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the “Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and SC Cleaning Specialist
for the Installation and Maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmer(s) in Huntington Harbour,”
(16011 Santa Barbara Lane).
Recommended Action:
Page 6 of 9
7
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
20-134626.Approve the appointment of Scott Haberle to the position of Fire
Chief, and authorize the City Manager to execute the employment
agreement
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the “Employment Agreement between
the City of Huntington Beach and Scott Haberle” for the position of Fire Chief.
Recommended Action:
19-124927.Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01 authorizing the Director of Public
Works to submit application(s) and administer the Used Oil Payment
Program (UOPP) for Eligible CalRecycle Grants; and, appropriate
funds
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01 , "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Submit Application(s) and
Administer the Used Oil Payment Program for Eligible CalRecycle Grants;” and,
B) Appropriate $54,699 to used Used Oil OPP grant fund account 96066046.69505.
Recommended Action:
20-129928.Adopt Resolution No. 2020-02 approving the submittal of an
application to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
for funding under the Project V Community-Based
Transit/Circulators Program
Adopt Resolution 2020-02 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach approving the submittal of the Project V application to the Orange County
Transportation Authority for funding under the Project V Community-Based
Transit/Circulators Program.”
Recommended Action:
20-130129.Adopt Successor Agency Resolution Nos. 2020-02 and 2020-01
approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and
Administrative Budget for the Huntington Beach Successor Agency
for the period of July 1, 2020, through June 3, 2021, in accordance
with Health and Safety Code Section 34177 and related actions
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Successor Agency
Administrative Budget for the Period July 1, 2020 , through June 30, 2021;” and ,
Recommended Action:
Page 7 of 9
8
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-02, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule for the Period July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 (‘ROPS 20-
21’).”
PUBLIC HEARING
19-117030.Public Hearing Continued Open from December 16, 2019 to consider
Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 (Huntington Beach Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance Update) by approving for introduction
Ordinance Nos. 4193, 4194, 4195, 4196, 4197, 4198 and 4199
A) Find Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which
supplements the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment No. 1); and
B) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and
approve for introduction:
Ordinance No. 4193, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled R Residential Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4194, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 203 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled Definitions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4195, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 204 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled Use Classifications (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4196, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions (Zoning Text
Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4197, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled Site Standards (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4198, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 212 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Recommended Action:
Page 8 of 9
9
AGENDA January 21, 2020City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Ordinance Titled I Industrial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);” and,
Ordinance No. 4199, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Titled C Commercial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
(Attachment Nos. 3 - 9).
19-120531.Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development
Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 (3rd Street
Commercial Building)
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council take the following action(s):
A) Find the Proposed Project Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457; and ,
B) Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No.
19-001 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No.1).
Recommended Action:
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
19-128932.Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4202, which amends Chapter
13.54 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding specific
events to prohibit weapons at parades and protests
Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4202, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 13.54 Regarding Specific Events to Prohibit Weapons at
Parades and Protests.”
Recommended Action:
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is
Monday, February 3, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California.
INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND
STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
Page 9 of 9
10
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1342 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall
recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City
Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and
Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Municipal Employees’ Association
(MEA); Management Employees' Organization (MEO); Police Officer's Association (POA);
Police Management Association (PMA); Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA) Surf
City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™11
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1352 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following Workers’ Compensation
Claims:
a. Cormac O’Connell v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case Nos. COHB
-11-0005; COHB-16-0309; and COHB-17-0266.
b. Bernard Atkins v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No. COHB-18-
0040.
c. Gary Kim v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No. COHB-16-0098.
d. Larry Pitcher v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No. COHB-15-
0196.
e. Richard Spencer v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No. COHB-19
-0003.
f. Estella Miranda v. City of Huntington Beach; Workers’ Comp. Case No. COHB-12-
0242.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™12
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1333 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to
meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in
attendance: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police,
regarding the following: Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA); Management Employees'
Organization (MEO); Police Officer's Association (POA); Police Management Association
(PMA); Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’
Association (SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™13
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1330 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: HBPOA and Yasha
Nikitin v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-01093906.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™14
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1331 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Rosier (Maliek) v.
City of Huntington Beach, et al.; USDC Case No.: SACV 18-2175 DOC (DFMx).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1332 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, four
(4).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1343 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed
Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: City of Huntington
Beach v. State of California (SB 54); OCSC Case No. 30-2018-00984280.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™17
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1203 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Pastor Nader Hanna of Faith Lutheran Church of Huntington Beach and member of the
Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™18
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1245 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on Victoria Alberty for the “Adoptable Pet of the Month”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™19
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1347 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to present a commendation to Visit Huntington Beach President & CEO Kelly
Miller and staff to recognize and celebrate the organization’s 30 years of destination brand
marketing and promotion of Surf City USA as a global destination
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™20
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1327 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to kick off her “Making a Difference in Huntington Beach” Awards Program by
giving her first award to the volunteers of the Secret Garden and the HB Tree Society
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1244 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on Dawn McCormick of Timeless Treasures Boutique who will present
donation to the Waggin’ Trails Rescue Foundation from money raised from their boutique
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™22
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1224 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Mayor Semeta to call on players and coaches from the Marina High School Varsity Football
Team to recognize them as CIF Champions
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™23
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1351 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Update on the Ascon Landfill Project
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™24
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1356 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Update on Councilmember Brenden and Peterson’s September 16, 2019 request that staff
return to Council with Ordinance(s) related to Sober Living Homes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™25
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1248 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk
PREPARED BY:Robin Estanislau, CMC, City Clerk
Subject:
Approve and Adopt Minutes
Statement of Issue:
The City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes and the special meetings of the
Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Successor Agency dated December 16, 2019 require review
and approval.
Financial Impact:
None.
Recommended Action:
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes and the
special meetings of the Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Successor Agency dated December
16, 2019, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve and/or request revision(s).
Analysis:
None.
Environmental Status:
Non-Applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. December 16, 2019 CC/PFA Regular Meeting Minutes and HA/PA/SA Special Meeting
Minutes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™26
File #:19-1248 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™27
Minutes
City Council/Public Financing Authority;
Housing Authority; Parking Authority; and,
Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency
City of Huntington Beach
Monday, December 16, 2019
4:00 PM - Council Chambers
6:00 PM - Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
A video recording of the 6:00 PM portion of this meeting
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at
www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/
4:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALLED TO ORDER — 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Delgleize, Hardy (arrived at 4:01 PM), Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: Posey
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-54, Councilmember Posey requested and was granted permission to
be absent.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
— None
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) — None
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — Motion by acclamation made at 4:01 PM.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
1. 19-1229 Mayor Semeta announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City
Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor
negotiators: Oliver Chi, City Manager and Peter Brown; also in attendance:
Travis Hopkins, Acting Assistant City Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police
regarding the following: Municipal Employees’ Association (MEA); Management
Employees’ Organization (MEO); Police Officers’ Association (POA), Police
Management Association (PMA); Marine Safety Management Association
(MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA), and Non-
Associated.
28
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 2 of 20
CLOSED SESSION
2. 19-1180 Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation.
Number of cases, three (3).
3. 19-1219 Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council recessed into Closed
Session to meet with its designated labor negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager
and Peter Brown; also in attendance: Travis Hopkins, Acting Assistant City
Manager and Robert Handy, Chief of Police, regarding the following: Municipal
Employees’ Association (MEA); Management Employees’ Organization (MEO);
Police Officers’ Association (POA); Police Management Association (PMA);
Marine Safety Management Association (MSMA) Surf City Lifeguard Employees’
Association (SCLEA) and Non-Associated.
4. 19-1220 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
Chavez-Perea (Blanca) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case No. 30-
2019-01082042.
5. 19-1221 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
Kilhullen (Barbara) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2019-
01091611.
6. 19-1228 Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into
Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit:
Turman (Kathy M.) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.: 30-2018-
01008686.
6:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING, AND CALLED TO
ORDER SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, PARKING AUTHORITY AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH — 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
Absent: Posey
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-54, Councilmember Posey requested and was granted permission to
be absent.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Delgleize
29
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 3 of 20
INVOCATION
In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or
belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of
invocation.
7. 19-1154 Marcy Tieger of University Synagogue, Irvine and member of the Greater
Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — Nothing to report from Closed Session. Chief
Deputy City Attorney Mike Vigliotta announced that due to illness City Attorney Gates would not be in
attendance at tonight's meeting.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
8. 19-1217 Mayor Semeta called on Victoria Alberty to present the "Adoptable Pet of the
Month"
Victoria Alberty of Waggin' Trails Rescue Foundation introduced Gisela Campagne, the Founder of
Waggin' Trails, and Hope, a 3-month old Chihuahua mix who was born with defective back legs. Ms.
Alberty explained that wheels for Hope have been ordered, and that more information on Hope can be
found at www.ozzieandfriendsrescue.org.
Ms. Alberty also announced the annual Waggin' Trails Rescue Foundation Holiday Party at the Paséa
from 6 - 9 PM, dogs welcome, on Tuesday, December 17, 2019.
9. 19-1218 Mayor Semeta called on the Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association who
presented a check to Operation Surf from its recent Annual Great Balls of Fire
Charity Golf Tournament.
Zach Rye, Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association, presented a donation of $35,000 to Danny
Nichols of Operation Surf as this year's recipient of the proceeds from the 20th Annual Great Balls of
Fire Charity Golf Tournament. Mr. Nichols thanked City leaders, all of the many firefighters and police
officers as well as local businesses and community members who have been instrumental in the
success of Operation Surf.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
Councilmember Reports
#10. 19-1183 K. C. Fockler support for Mayor Semeta's proposed appointments.
Consent Calendar
#11. 19-1179 Communication received from Robin Estanislau, City Clerk, recommending a
revision to the November 18, 2019 minutes.
#12. 19-1054 Communication received from Robin Estanislau, City Clerk, presenting a correction
(clean copy) of the Maddy Act Local Appointments List 2020.
#12. 19-1054 Email communication submitted by Pat Quintana.
30
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 4 of 20
Administrative Items
#34. 19-1214 PowerPoint communication submitted by Chris Slama, Community Services
Director, entitled “Bluff Top Park Improvements.”
Public Hearing
#36. 19-1227 Letter submitted by Maria Xanthakis, Seven Gables Real Estate, providing support
for Magnolia Tank Farm Development.
#36. 19-1227 Letter submitted by Steve Dodge, Huntington Executive Park, providing support for
Magnolia Tank Farm Development.
#36. 19-1227 Letter submitted by K. C. Fockler
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 16 Speakers
The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in
the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas.
Trina Bilich was called to speak and stated her concerns about off-site air monitoring for the Ascon
project, especially at Eader and Edison schools, and asked that real-time monitors be used for air
quality reporting. (00:16:12)
Tony Bisson, resident of Huntington Beach who lives across the street from LeBard Park, was called
to speak and shared several concerns about Consent Calendar Item No. 17 (19-1193) regarding the
LeBard Redevelopment Project. (00:19:26)
Claudia Perez, Senior Field Representative for Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris, was called to
speak and shared the Assemblywoman‘s support for Administrative Item No. 34 (19-1214) regarding
the Bluff Top Park Improvement Project. Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris is responsible for securing
access to $1.4M in State funding for this project. (00:22:45)
Nancy Buchoz was called to speak and stated her opposition to the Magnolia Tank Farm project and
asked for a halt to all development projects in the south east area until Ascon remediation is
completed and air quality readings are consistently safe. (00:23:47)
Mariya Sheldon was called to speak and shared her continued concerns regarding the high levels of
air pollution at Edison High School, and asked that further effort be put forth to determine the exact
source of this pollution. (00:26:59)
Robyn Sladek was called to speak and stated her opposition to the Magnolia Tank Farm
development, and asked City Council to step up and protect the children, the neighborhood, and
future generations. (00:30:09)
Ceason Baker was called to speak and shared her concerns about the continued pollution of the
southeast area of Huntington Beach. (00:31:24)
Shammy Dingus, a resident of Huntington Beach and former business owner, was called to speak
and shared her concerns regarding the Shop Off Agreement (00:33:43)
31
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 5 of 20
Amory Hanson, a Huntington Beach City Council Candidate in 2020 and member of the Huntington
Beach Historic Resources Board (HRB), was called to speak and stated support for Consent Calendar
Item No. 12 and posting a clean copy of the Maddy Act Local Appointments List 2020, and opposition
to Consent Calendar Item No. 22 regarding cancellation of the City Council/Public Financing Authority
regular meeting of January 6, 2020. (00:36:58)
Tara Barton was called to speak and stated she attended the Happy Hour hosted by Shop Off this
evening, and shared many reasons for her opposition to the Magnolia Tank Farm project. (00:37:28)
Cari Swan was called to speak and shared her reasons for opposing the Magnolia Tank Farm project,
and asked the City Council to keep health and safety issues in mind as they consider the Shop Off
plans. (00:40:39)
Brandt Stebbins was called to speak and stated his support for Consent Calendar Item No. 18 (19-
1225) regarding a Temporary Permit for Wagner Charters to conduct harbor tours, and expressed his
opinion that the permit should be permanent, not temporary. (00:43:28)
Robert Wagner, a lifetime resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated his support
for Consent Calendar Item No. 18 (19-1225) regarding a Temporary Permit for W agner Charters to
conduct harbor tours, and documented the training, certifications and licenses that Wagner Charters
has as well as their history of business in Huntington Harbour and surrounding areas. (00:46:53)
Bob Pace, a lifetime surfer, was called to speak and stated his support for keeping the Huntington
Beach International Surfing Museum managed locally. (00:49:46)
Ryan Reza Farsai, owner of a local AM/PM business, was called to speak and shared his opinions on
current national political issues. (00:52:55)
Amber, a 19-year Huntington Beach homeowner, was called to speak and expressed her appreciation
to Former Mayor Peterson and support for Mayor Semeta, and asked that City Council and residents
continue working together to protect the children and families of southeast Huntington Beach.
(00:56:05)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE – APPOINTMENTS – LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
Councilmember Delgleize reported attending two Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) meetings,
the Illumination Foundation & Orange County United Way Homelessness Consortium, a meeting with
many residents from the southeast part of Huntington Beach, and a Huntington Beach Chamber of
Commerce State of the County event.
Councilmember Brenden reported meeting with the Human Relations Task Force (HRTF), and
interviewing candidates for HRTF vacancies.
Councilmember Carr reported attending the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce State of the
County event, and having conversations with the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA)
and Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association.
Mayor Semeta announced her appointment of Casey McKeon, President of Acquisitions for Hesson
Holdings in Huntington Beach, to the Investment Advisory Board (IAB).
32
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 6 of 20
10. 19-1183 Approved Mayor Semeta’s 2020 Council Liaison List
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to as recommended by the City Council, Public
Financing Authority, Housing Authority, Parking Authority, and Successor Agency: approve the 2020
Council Liaison List that includes appointments to citizen boards, commissions, committees, and task
forces as presented by Mayor Semeta. (The City Clerk certifies that FPPC Form 806 "Agency Report
of Public Official Appointments" which is used to report additional compensation that officials receive
when appointing themselves to positions on committees, boards or commissions of a public agency,
special district and joint powers agency or authority was posted to the City's website according to law
prior to this vote.)
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Chi referred to Acting Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins who provided an update
on the Ascon Landfill Site, and the AES Huntington Beach Energy Project.
Councilmember Carr asked Acting Assistant City Manager Hopkins to address the neighborhood
concerns related to the fire hydrant installation on Magnolia near Hamilton where diesel trucks are
reported idling for over 30 minutes creating fume pollution. Acting Assistant City Manager Hopkins
said Public Works inspectors would be sent out the next day to visit the project site.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy pulled Item Nos. 13 & 17.
Councilmember Carr pulled Item Nos. 12 & 32.
Councilmember Brenden pulled Item Nos. 14 & 18.
11. 19-1179 Approved and Adopted Minutes
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and adopt the City Council/Public
Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated November 18, 2019, as amended by
Supplemental Communication, and December 2, 2019, as written and on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
12. 19-1054 Received and filed the Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2020 (terms on City
boards, commissions, and committees which expire in 2020) informing the
public of openings and vacancies based on 2020 expiration of current members’
terms
33
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 7 of 20
Councilmember Carr pulled this item as she is concerned about the commissions that are being
eliminated, and Mayor Semeta explained that the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) has
been meeting for over a year to determine how the City can be more efficient, however the IRC has
not yet reached conclusions. City Clerk Robin Estanislau explained that a clean list of appointments
(without comments) was presented through Supplemental Communication and that clean list is what
is being voted upon at this time.
A motion was made by Carr, second Delgleize to receive and file the Maddy Act Local Appointments
List - 2020 showing vacancies which will occur on City boards, commissions, and committees in the
year 2020, and direct the City Clerk to post the list at official posting locations (Civic Center,
Huntington Central Library, and Main Street Library). Copies of the Maddy Act Local Appointments
List - 2020 will also be posted at all branch libraries and on the City's website (clean copy submitted
via Supplemental Communications).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
13. 19-1206 Received and filed the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) process
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy pulled this item to commend the City Attorney's Office for doing what they can
to ensure that a fair Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number is determined for
Huntington Beach. Mayor Pro Tem Hardy shared examples of Huntington Beach housing projects
that unfortunately are not fully credited to RHNA requirements, and stated she would like to see
Housing and Community Development (HCD) approve some creative solutions such as accessory
dwelling units, or granny flats, as meeting RHNA requirements.
Mayor Semeta provided a brief overview of the unfair and arbitrary process at the last Southern
California Association of Government (SCAG) Regional meeting, and stated that the City Council will
continue to look at options for a reasonable and logical allocation number. She also encouraged
everyone to read the letter from the City Attorney's Office (which was part of this Agenda Item) for a
better understanding of the situation.
Councilmember Brenden stated he had attended a recent Southern California Association of
Government (SCAG) Economic Summit where various economic forecasts were presented for each
County. Councilmember Brenden stated that the State mandate, which is more affordable housing,
cannot realistically expect that coastal cities with higher property values (affordability is the lowest) be
required to provide an increased proportion of affordable housing units. He believes SCAG needs to
understand that affordable housing is best provided by areas with open land which can be developed,
and people will move to, which will then draw businesses because of the close and available
workforce.
A motion was made by Hardy, second Delgleize to receive and file the monthly Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update.
34
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 8 of 20
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
14. 19-1200 Approved Fiscal Year 2018/19 Year End Preliminary Unaudited General Fund
Balance Designations
Councilmember Brenden pulled this item to ask City Manager Chi to share, for the public's benefit,
how funds are being reallocated which Council will continue to direct. City Manager Chi stated the
funds of about $10.4M, available at the end of the last budget cycle, are being placed into one line-
item, or the City's savings account. None of the required set asides or General Fund contributions,
including General Fund Reserve accounts, are being adjusted.
A motion was made by Brenden, second Delgleize to approve the assignments of preliminary FY
2018/19 year-end General Fund Balance increase of $10.4 million and reallocation of fund balance
categories in the amounts and for the purposes indicated in Attachment 1.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
15. 19-1174 Accepted the lowest responsive and responsible bid and authorized execution of
a construction contract with Nobest, Inc. in the amount of $803,850 for the
Residential Curb Ramp Project, CC-1589
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to accept the lowest responsive and responsible
bid submitted by Nobest, Inc. in the amount of $803,850; and, appropriate an additional $82,000 from
the Measure "M" undesignated fund balance to Account 21390004.82300 and, authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
16. 19-1210 Approved the purchase of a replacement fire engine with South Coast Fire
Equipment, Inc. and an ambulance with Braun Northwest, Inc.; and, authorized
the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to lease finance the
purchase of the fire engine and ambulance
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve the purchase of the replacement fire
engine with South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc. and an ambulance with Braun Northwest, Inc.; and,
authorized the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to lease finance the purchase of the
fire engine and ambulance, at an interest rate not to exceed 2.5 percent.
35
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 9 of 20
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
17. 19-1193 Accepted Certain (Water Quality) Park Improvements and Accepted a Guarantee
and Warranty Bond for the LeBard Redevelopment Project (Tract 17801) at 20461
Craimer Lane
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy pulled this item regarding the improvements for the LeBard Redevelopment
Project to support the comments of Public Speaker Mr. Bisson that the results in some areas don't
seem to match the plans, and in her opinion it is unfortunate that the neighborhood community wasn't
provided opportunities to be more involved in the change decisions as they were made.
A motion was made by Hardy, second Brenden to accept certain park improvements (detention basin
and water quality swale) for the LeBard Redevelopment Project (Tract 17801) and instruct the City
Clerk to record the Acceptance of Public Park Improvements (Tract 17801) form (Attachment 2) with
the Orange County Recorder; and, accept Guarantee and Warranty Bond No.36K012696 (Attachment
3); the security furnished for guarantee and warranty of certain park improvements (detention basin
and water quality swale), and instruct the City Clerk to file the bond with the City Treasurer; and,
instruct the City Clerk to notify the developer, HB Homes Management, LLC, of this action, and the
City Treasurer to notify the Surety, the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, of this action.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
18. 19-1225 Approved the issuance of a Temporary Permit for Wagner Charters to conduct
harbor tours as recommended by the Harbor Commission
Councilmember Brenden pulled this item to explain that he sees the last sentence of the
Recommended Action as problematic because it appears to set up two different standards for Dock
access, and moved the Recommended Action as amended by striking the last sentence. The motion
failed to receive a second.
Councilmember Peterson shared his opinion that this issue should have been addressed
administratively as the Harbor Commission is close to having a recommendation for Council to
consider. Councilmember Peterson also stated support for having a policy, and believes the Harbor
Commission really understands all of the issues including navigation and safety requirements, made a
substitute motion to approve the Recommended Action as presented.
Councilmember Brenden further stated he would prefer to see the process proceed on a case-by-
case basis, rather than provide a situation for possible legal challenge. He stated he will not support
the substitute motion only because it doesn't strike the last sentence.
36
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 10 of 20
Mayor Semeta asked Chief Deputy City Attorney Mike Vigliotta to address the concerns, and he
stated that he did not expect the last sentence of the motion to be problematic.
The substitute motion made by Peterson, received a second by Semeta to approve the issuance of a
temporary Dock access permit to Wagner Charters for the operation of holiday harbor tours through
January 31, 2020, so long as they are able to meet the City's insurance requirements and ensure their
use of the Dock will not negatively impact any currently scheduled activities (including events at the
Huntington Harbor Yacht Club and the Harbor Cruise of Lights event). Additionally, should another
private commercial entity request a Dock access permit prior to a final decision by the City Council on
this matter, the City Council supports the staff recommendation that no other private commercial Dock
access permits should be issued until final regulations regarding commercial permits for the Dock are
adopted by the City Council.
The substitute motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Semeta, Hardy, Carr, Delgleize, and Peterson
NOES: Brenden
ABSENT: Posey
19. 19-1146 Adopted Resolution No. 2019-74 approving submittal of a grant application
associated with an improvement project on Bolsa Chica Street to the Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for funding under the Comprehensive
Transportation Funding Program (CTFP)
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-74, "A Resolution to
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Submittal of an Improvement Project to
the Orange County Transportation Authority for funding under the Comprehensive Transportation
Funding Program."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
20. 19-1155 Adopted Resolution Nos. 2019-80, 2019-81, 2019-82, 2019-83, 2019-84, 2019-85
and 2019-86 requesting authorization by the City of Huntington Beach and
approval from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for temporary
closure of streets for certain special events in 2020
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-80, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Closing of Main Street and 5th Street
to Vehicular Traffic for Certain Special Events;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-81, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Temporary Closure of 12th Street in
Sunset Beach for the Annual Sunset Beach Art Festival and Halloween Party;" and, adopt Resolution
No. 2019-82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting Caltrans
Approve the Closing of Pacific Coast Highway and Certain Ingress and Egress for the Surf City USA
Marathon Run;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-83, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Approving the Temporary Closure of Portions of Goldenwest Street, Garfield
37
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 11 of 20
Avenue, Huntington Street, Twin Dolphin Drive, Edwards Street, Ellis Avenue, Talbert Avenue,
Seapoint Street, Inlet Drive, Overlook Drive, Summit Drive, Varsity Drive, Main Street, Walnut
Avenue, and Central Park Drive for the Surf City USA 20 Marathon Run;" and, adopt Resolution No.
2019-84, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting Caltrans
Approve the Closing of Pacific Coast Highway and Certain Ingress and Egress Within the City of
Huntington Beach for the Annual Surf City 10 Sundown Run;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-85, "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting Caltrans Approve the
Closing of Pacific Coast Highway for the Huntington Beach Fourth of July Parade and Fireworks;"
and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-86, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Authorizing Street Closures for the Fourth of July."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
21. 19-1166 Adopted Resolution No. 2019-90 removing Jereva Circle from Residential Permit
Parking District "J"
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-90, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Removing Jereva Circle from Residential Permit
Parking District "J."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
22. 19-1184 Adopted Resolution No. 2019-91 authorizing cancellation of the City
Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting of January 6, 2020; and,
directed the City Clerk to provide notice of such cancellation
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-91, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Declaring the Cancellation of the City Council and
Public Financing Authority Regular Meeting of January 6, 2020; and Directing the City Clerk to
Provide Notice of Such Cancellation."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
23. 19-1188 Adopted Resolution No. 2019-94 extending the appointment of David Segura as
Interim Fire Chief and approving Amendment No. 1 to the Employment
Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and David Segura
38
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 12 of 20
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-94, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Extending the Appointment of David Segura as
Interim Fire Chief;" and, approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the "Amendment No. 1 to
Employment Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and David Segura."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
24. 19-1222 Adopted Resolution Nos. 2019-95, 2019-96, 2019-97, 2019-98 amending the
Alternate Dispute Resolution Agreement language in the Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU) with the Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association
(HBPOA), the Huntington Beach Police Management Association (HBPMA), the
Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association (HBFA), and the Huntington Beach
Fire Management Association (FMA)
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Resolution No. 2019-96, "A Resolution of
the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City and the Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA), by Adopting the Side
Letter of Agreement;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-98, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the
Huntington Beach Police Management Association (HBPMA), by Adopting the Side Letter of
Agreement;" and, adopt Resolution No. 2019-97, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the
Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement;" and,
adopt Resolution No. 2019-95 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Huntington Beach Fire
Management Association (FMA), by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement".
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
25. 19-1125 Approved and authorized execution of a contract amendment to Professional
Services Contracts with AESCO, Inc., Leighton Consulting, Inc., and Twining,
Inc., for On-Call Material Testing and Engineering Services
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and
AESCO, Inc. for On-Call Material Testing and Engineering Services" increasing the contract amount
by $350,000, from the original amount of $250,000 to an amended amount of $600,000; and, approve
and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the
City of Huntington Beach and Leighton Consulting, Inc." increasing the contract amount by $350,000,
from the original amount of $250,000 to an amended amount of $600,000; and, approve and
authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the City
39
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 13 of 20
of Huntington Beach and Twining, Inc." increasing the contract amount by $350,000, from the original
amount of $250,000 to an amended amount of $600,000.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
26. 19-1189 Approved and authorized execution of Amendment No. 1 to Professional
Services Contracts for As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services with
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., Group Delta Consultants, Inc.,
Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC Environmental Inc.), Huitt-
Zollars, Inc. and Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. (PACE), extending each
contract’s expiration date to February 6, 2021
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington
Beach and Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. for As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services;" and,
approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional
Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Tetra Tech, Inc. for As-Needed
Environmental Engineering Services;" and, approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach
and Group Delta Consultants, Inc. for As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services"; and, approve
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services
Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and EEC Environmental for As-Needed
Environmental Engineering Services;" and, approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach
and Huitt-Zollars, Inc. for As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services;" and, approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Contract
between the City of Huntington Beach and Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc. for As-Needed
Environmental Engineering Services."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
27. 19-1178 Approved and authorized execution of a five (5) year License Agreement with
Southern California Edison Company for public parkland located at Edison Park,
Contract No. 9.2473
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve the "License Agreement" with Southern
California Edison Company for the use of the 4.71 acres of property commonly known as Edison
Park, Contract No. 9.2473, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any and all documents
necessary to conclude this transaction.
The motion carried by the following vote:
40
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 14 of 20
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
28. 19-1199 Approved and authorized execution of a Mills Act Agreement between the City of
Huntington Beach and Daniel Adam Murphy and Alyssa Ann Murphy for the
purpose of providing property tax relief for owners of qualified properties who
wish to use the savings to preserve/restore their historic property located at 713
Hill Street
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute the "Historic Preservation Agreement Containing Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
Affecting Real Property by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Daniel Adam Murphy and
Alyssa Ann Murphy for the Real Property Located at 713 Hill Street within the City of Huntington
Beach (Mills Act Contract)."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
29. 19-1202 Approved and authorized execution of Vote Center Facility Use Agreements with
the County of Orange for use of the Huntington Beach Civic Center, Huntington
Beach Central Library, Main Street Branch Library, Edison Community Center
and Rodgers Senior Outreach Center as four or eleven-day Vote Centers for the
March 3, 2020, Presidential Primary Election
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the City Manager to
execute the Orange County Registrar of Voters "Vote Center Facility Use Agreements" approved as
to form by the City Attorney on the following sites: Huntington Beach Civic Center, Meeting Room B-
7, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach from Saturday, February 29, 2020, through Tuesday, March 3,
2020, (4-day Vote Center); and, Huntington Beach Central Library, Rooms C/D, 7111 Talbert
Avenue, Huntington Beach from Saturday, February 22, 2020, through Tuesday, March 3, 2020, (11-
day Vote Center); and, Main Street Branch Library, Blue Room, 525 Main Street, Huntington Beach
from Saturday, February 29, 2020, through Tuesday, March 3, 2020, (4-day Vote Center); and,
Edison Community Center, Studio, 21377 Magnolia Street, Huntington Beach from Saturday,
February 29, 2010, through Tuesday, March 3, 2020, (4-day Vote Center); and, Rodgers Senior
Outreach Center, Auditorium, 1706 Orange Avenue, Huntington Beach from Saturday, February 22,
2020, through Tuesday, March 3, 2020, (11-day Vote Center).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
41
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 15 of 20
30. 19-1204 Approved and authorized execution of three Professional Services Contracts
with Bureau Veritas North America, Inc., CSG Consultants, Inc. and 4Leaf, Inc.
for Fire Prevention Inspection and Plan Review Services
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Bureau Veritas
North America, Inc. for Fire Prevention and Plan Review Services;" and, approve and authorize the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington
Beach and CSG Consultants, Inc. for Fire Prevention and Plan Review Services;" and, approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Professional Services Contract Between the City of
Huntington Beach and 4Leaf, Inc. for Fire Prevention and Plan Review Services."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
31. 19-1196 Approved and authorized execution of a Fourth Amended Joint Powers
Agreement for Metro Cities Fire Authority
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to approve and authorize the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute the "Metro Cities Fire Authority Fourth Amended Joint Powers Agreement."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
32. 19-1226 Approved the appointment of Travis Hopkins to the position of Assistant City
Manager and authorized the City Manager to execute the associated Employment
Agreement
Councilmember Carr pulled this item to congratulate Mr. Hopkins, and thank him for his dedication to
the City.
Councilmember Brenden expressed his support for this item, and shared his observation that Mr.
Hopkins has always focused on his job and doing it to the best of his ability as Director of Public
Works, and he expects more of the same as he serves as Assistant City Manager.
Councilmember Delgleize congratulated Mr. Hopkins for this appointment, and stated she knows that
the residents of Huntington Beach will continue to benefit as he serves in this position.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy thanked Mr. Hopkins for his service and for always ensuring that any issue he
is made aware of is taken care of.
Mayor Semeta commended Mr. Hopkins for his calm and reassuring attitude in dealing with any
situation, and moved the item.
42
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 16 of 20
Councilmember Peterson joked about Mr. Hopkins’ head getting big after all of the accolades, and
explained how he wanted to move the item but Mayor Semeta beat him to it.
City Manager Chi stated appreciation to Mr. Hopkins for helping him transition into the organization,
and described Mr. Hopkins as a team player who performs with humility, integrity and passion.
A motion was made by Semeta, second Delgleize to approve the "Employment Agreement between
the City of Huntington Beach and Travis Hopkins," and authorize the City Manager to execute any and
all relevant and associated documents.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
33. 19-1185 Adopted Ordinance No. 4192, which establishes Municipal Code Section
10.40.265 prohibiting misuse of disabled person placards or license plates
Approved for introduction November 18, 2019, Vote: 7-0
A motion was made by Brenden, second Peterson to adopt Ordinance No. 4192, "An Ordinance of the
City of Huntington Beach adding Section 10.40.265 to Chapter 10.60 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Relating to Disabled Parking Placards and License Plates."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
34. 19-1214 Authorized staff to submit the design elements for the Bluff Top Park
Improvement Project to the State, including the Design Review Board approved
wood lodge pole guardrail system
City Manager Chi introduced Community Services Director Chris Slama who presented a PowerPoint
communication entitled Bluff Top Park Improvements with slides titled: Purpose, Overview (2), Current
Needs, Project Scope, Path Improvements (2), Current Conditions (3), Traffic Improvements, Extend
Sidewalk Adjacent to PCH, New Side Walk, Bluff Top Park Improvements (2), Railing Replacement,
Existing Railing - Installed in 2006, Current Conditions (2), Materials/Design Options Considered (5),
Materials Pros/Cons (3), Proposed Railing Design (2), Harriett Wieder (O. C. Parks), Bartlett Park,
Design Simulations, Existing Galvanized Steel Railing, Lodge Pole Railing Simulation, Existing
Galvanized Steel Railing, Sample Lodge Pole Railing, Bluff Top Park Improvements(2), and
Questions.
Councilmember Delgleize asked if wood lodge pole is currently used at Weider Park, and Director
Slama confirmed the wood is pressure treated for rot and insects. Councilmember Delgleize thanked
43
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 17 of 20
Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris for securing funding for this project, recommended painted lines
on the pathway to divide foot traffic, and suggested use of decomposed granite (DG) for pedestrians,
and asphalt for bikes.
Councilmember Brenden expressed appreciation for the wood railing price point, the durability factor,
flexibility for repairs, and overall esthetics.
Councilmember Delgleize and Director Slama discussed that it is yet to be determined whether
funding from the State can, or will be, used for landscaping.
Councilmember Carr and Acting Public Works Director Tom Herbel discussed that this area is where
people will be standing and leaning on the guardrail, and Director Herbel confirmed it was determined
the wood railing is the preferred product for longevity in those situations. Councilmember Carr
recommended that there always be adequate reserves for timely and proper repairs so this area is
never again allowed to deteriorate to current conditions.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy described a better comparison for similar treatment would be Bartlett Park
where kids haul their bikes over the fence, and so far it has held up well.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his opinion that Bluff Top Park will have a lot more traffic than
Bartlett Park, and stated he is not fond of wood poles, and is not confident it will hold up well.
Mayor Semeta stated she doesn't like this look at the beach, but prefers the post and cable product
and sees it as less obstructive to the view. Director Slama explained there was considerable
discussion on safety and maintenance issues, and knowing there will be people leaning on and trying
to climb over, it was determined this was the best option. He added that it is possible to specify a
smaller diameter wood lodge pole which might open up the view somewhat.
Councilmember Delgleize and Director Slama continued the discussion on the size of the lodge poles
to keep an open view, but for practicality and safety issues anything smaller than 5" would probably
not be appropriate.
Councilmember Brenden stated his support for the lodge pole as it is the cheapest product and will
help the funding go as far as possible.
Councilmember Peterson and Director Slama discussed some pros and cons for a bolt-on system of
installation vs the end-to-end which would create a more linear result.
City Manager Chi explained that this item provides Council the opportunity to weigh in on use of a
lodge pole design for the guardrail before submitting the project to the State for costing and final
approval. Once approved by the State, then a final design with costs will be brought back for
consideration by the Council.
A motion was made by Brenden, second Delgleize to accept the approved recommendation of the
Design Review Board to utilize a wood, lodge pole guardrail design as part of the Bluff Top
Improvement Project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
44
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 18 of 20
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
PUBLIC HEARING
35. 19-1170 Public Hearing CONTINUED OPEN to January 21, 2020 — Request to consider
Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance Update)
Mayor Semeta opened the Public Hearing.
City Clerk Estanislau reported no one had signed up to speak.
A motion was made by Hardy, second Brenden to open the public hearing and direct staff to continue
Zoning Text Amendment No. 10-002 to January 21, 2020.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Delgleize, Hardy, Semeta, Peterson, Carr, and Brenden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Posey
36. 19-1227 NO ACTION TAKEN — At the Applicant’s request, Environmental Impact Report
No. 17-001, General Plan Amendment No. 17-001, Zoning Map Amendment No.
17-001, Zoning Text Amendment No. 17-005, Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. 17-001, and Development Agreement No. 19-001 (Magnolia Tank Farm) was
continued to a date uncertain
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
37. 19-1230 ITEM SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMEMBER POSEY WITHDRAWN — Direct staff to
develop updates to the City’s Annual Beach Parking Pass Program to allow for
reduced-fee Disabled Passes
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
Councilmember Peterson reminded everyone of the Huntington Harbour Philharmonic Cruise of
Lights, which provides funding for local student music programs, and reported that as Night Captain
he can report from first-hand experience that there are many outstanding light displays.
Councilmember Delgleize reported attending the Homelessness Consortium and thanked Illumination
Foundation and Orange County United Way for sharing progress that is being made. Councilmember
Delgleize also invited everyone to the 100th Birthday Gala Fundraiser for American Legion Post 133
at Mile Square Banquet Center, Fountain Valley, from 5 - 9 PM on Wednesday, December 18, 2019.
Councilmember Brenden reported attending the Assistance League of Huntington Beach Operation
School Bell at Target, and the Kiwanis event for children at Walmart. He described how it was very
rewarding to observe the young faces with smiles of delight, and thanked the two organizations and
45
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 19 of 20
the stores for their generosity. Councilmember Brenden also reported attending the Disneyland
Candle Lighting event which included a choir, orchestra, trumpet players and a narrator to tell the
Christmas Story in a very moving way.
Mayor Pro Tem Hardy reported attending the Assistance League of Huntington Beach Operation
School Bell at Target and thanked the Assistance League for bringing smiles to so many children.
She also thanked Waymakers for the Christmas Parade and Light a Light of Love event. She
attended the International Celebration of Christmas Live Nativity Play at Old World Village where
different cultures from around Orange County demonstrate how they celebrate the Christmas Story.
Councilmember Carr reported attending the Academy for the Performing Arts (APA) Songs of the
Season outstanding performance, and she expressed gratitude for the many arts programs available
in Huntington Beach.
Mayor Semeta narrated a brief video of the Christmas Parade, Light a Light of Love, and Huntington
Harbour Philharmonic Boat Parade events, and thanked Councilmember Peterson for being a Boat
Parade Night Captain. Mayor Semeta also announced the Community Grand Marshall for the 4th of
July Parade is Diane Dwyer, a well-known and loved Huntington Beach volunteer.
Mayor Semeta reported participating in the Huntington Beach Operation School Bell at Target,
attending the Boys and Girls Club Board Dinner, and the Illumination Foundation & Orange County
United Way Homelessness Consortium. Upcoming events announced by Mayor Semeta include the
Waggin' Trails Rescue Foundation Fundraiser on December 17th at the Paséa, and Surf City Splash
on January 1st.
ADJOURNMENT — 8:25 PM
City Council/Public Financing Authority adjourned to a Special Meeting Study Session on Monday,
January 13, 2020, at 5:00 PM in Council Chambers, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, California
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority
is Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California.
INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF
REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov
46
Council/PFA Regular Meeting
Housing and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency Special Meeting
December 16, 2019
Page 20 of 20
______________________________________
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach
and Secretary of the Public Financing, Housing
and Parking Authorities, and Successor Agency
to the former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk-Secretary
______________________________________
Mayor-Chair
47
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1325 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
To:Honorable Mayor Pro Tem and City Councilmembers
From:Lyn Semeta, Mayor
Date:January 21, 2020
Subject:
Annual Review of the City Code of Ethics
Statement of Issue:
Resolution No. 2016-73 specifies that an annual review of the City Code of Ethics (Code) should
occur each year.
As stated in the Code, its purpose is “to set a standard of conduct for all elected officials, officers,
employees, and members of advisory boards, commissions, committees of the City of Huntington
Beach.” The Mayor, City Manager, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors are responsible for
accomplishing this annual review.
With this memorandum, I am formally presenting the Code of Ethics to the City Council, City
Manager, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors for their review and distribution as specified
by Resolution 2016-73. An explanation of the Code and link to Resolution No. 2016-73 can be found
on the City’s website under Transparency in Huntington Beach - HB Open.
Financial Impact:
None.
Recommended Action:
Direct the City Clerk to record in the official minutes that the City Code of Ethics was presented to the
City Council, City Manager, Chairpersons, and City Department Directors for their review and
distribution as required by Resolution No. 2016-73.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2016-73, including Exhibit “A”, City of Huntington Beach Code of Ethics
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™48
49
50
51
52
53
54
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1344 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Receive and file the monthly status update on the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs
Assessment process
Statement of Issue:
During the July 15, 2019, City Council Study Session, Community Development staff presented an
overview of the 6th Cycle RHNA process and related items of information as directed by the City
Council. At the end of the study session, the City Council requested monthly updates on the status of
the 6th Cycle RHNA process. This update provides a summary of what has occurred since the last
monthly update on December 16, 2019.
Financial Impact:
There is no fiscal impact.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the monthly Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process status update.
Alternative Action(s):
Provide alternative direction to staff.
Analysis:
On November 7, 2019, the SCAG Regional Council, made up of elected officials from the various
SCAG jurisdictions, considered the draft RHNA methodology. The Regional Council voted to approve
an alternative methodology, proposed by Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey, which would result in a
RHNA allocation of approximately 13,321 units to the City of Huntington Beach. Mayor Semeta,
representing the City of Huntington Beach on the Regional Council, voted no on the motion.
Following the November 7, 2019,Regional Council meeting, the City sent a letter to HCD and SCAG
formally objecting to the Regional Council’s action.
The approved methodology was forwarded to HCD for a 60-day review on November 14, 2019. It is
anticipated that HCD will respond to SCAG in mid-January. SCAG will then review HCD’s comments
and recommend a Final RHNA Allocation Methodology for adoption. The next step in the SCAG
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™55
File #:20-1344 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
and recommend a Final RHNA Allocation Methodology for adoption. The next step in the SCAG
adoption process is for the RHNA Subcommittee to consider the Final RHNA Allocation Methodology
for recommendation to the Community, Economic, and Human Development Committee (CEHD) and
the Regional Council at its next meeting on February 24, 2020. The RHNA Subcommittee will also
discuss and adopt RHNA appeal procedures at this meeting. The RHNA Subcommittee will then
forward its recommendation on the Final RHNA Allocation Methodology to the Regional Council. The
Regional Council is expected to consider the Final RHNA Allocation Methodology at its March 5,
2020,meeting. Once adopted, SCAG will allocate the RHNA units to its member jurisdictions
pursuant to the adopted Final RHNA Allocation Methodology. Jurisdictions will then have 45 days to
submit an appeal.
Environmental Status:
The filing of a status update on the 6
th Cycle RHNA process is not a project as defined by Section
15378 of the CEQA Guidelines and is not subject to CEQA.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
N/A
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™56
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1296 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Robert Handy, Chief of Police
Subject:
Approve appointments to the Huntington Beach Human Relations Task Force (HRTF) as
recommended by City Council liaisons Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy and Councilmember Patrick
Brenden
Statement of Issue:
The Huntington Beach Human Relations Task Force (HRTF) currently has six (6) vacancies on their
board to be filled by members of the Huntington Beach community.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the reappointments of Natalie Moser and Vashia Rhone for terms to expire December
31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Jill Hardy and Patrick Brenden; and,
B) Approve the appointments of Ashley Dos Santos, Antonio Benitez, and Hemesh Patel for terms
to expire December 31, 2021, as recommended by City Council liaisons Jill Hardy and Patrick
Brenden; and,
C) Approve the appointments of Rhonda Bolton, Teresa Carlisle and Timothy Stuart for terms to
expire December 31, 2023, as recommended by City Council liaisons Jill Hardy and Patrick Brenden.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve appointments to the Human Relations Task Force and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
The Human Relations Task Force (HRTF) was formed in April 1997, with a mission to “promote and
celebrate diversity in our community through education and understanding.” Currently there are six
available vacancies on the board due to unscheduled vacancies and term resignations. Two of the
members with expiring terms are eligible for and requesting reappointment: Natalie Moser and
Vashia Rhone. Each of these members has been an active participant of the HRTF. A brief
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™57
File #:19-1296 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
description of their contributions to the HRTF is provided below:
Natalie Moser: Ms. Moser was appointed to her first term on the HRTF on February 21, 2017. She
currently serves as Chair and has been active in a number of programs, including HB Listens,
Windows & Mirrors, and the Youth Voices Essay and Art Contest.
Vashia Rhone: Ms. Rhone was appointed to her first term on the HRTF on December 18, 2017. She
currently serves as Vice Chair and has been actively involved in the development and
implementation of programs to recognize and celebrate cultures throughout the year, including Black
History, Latin Heritage and Native American Heritage.
In addition to these two reappointments, City Council liaisons Hardy and Brenden are recommending
the following Huntington Beach residents for appointment to fill the six (6) vacancies. A brief
description of each candidate is included below.
Ashley Dos Santos: Ms. Dos Santos is the Founder and Executive Director of Mentor Me Learning, a
non-profit youth leadership program. She has a Bachelor of Science in Global Studies and Spanish
and a MAE in Educational Leadership and Change. She was raised in Huntington Beach and is a
graduate of Edison High School.
Antonio Benitez: Mr. Benitez worked as a staff member for Orange County Human Relations for
three years where he was involved in a number of HRTF projects. He also served as a Huntington
Beach Community Services Commission member representing Ocean View School District. He has
a Bachelor of Arts in Latin American Studies.
Hemesh Patel: Mr. Patel is a lifelong resident of Huntington Beach. He is a physician who operates
his practice in our City, as well. Mr. Patel graduated from UCLA with a Bachelor of Science in Biology
and obtained his Master of Science in Physiology and Biophysics from Georgetown University.
Rhonda Bolton: Ms. Bolton is an attorney and diversity and inclusion advisor. She obtained her
Bachelor of Science in Economics with a minor in Political Science from the University of Houston.
She attended William and Mary School of Law where she earned her Juris Doctorate degree. Ms.
Bolton was on the Community Partners Advisory Board with Orange County Human Relations and
currently serves on the boards of Girls Inc. of Orange County, Families Forward and the United
Negro College Fund.
Ms. Teresa Carlisle: Ms. Carlisle is currently a student at Fullerton College. She is a member of the
Huntington Beach Art Center and is the Immediate Past Chair of the Artist Council Steering
Committee. Ms. Carlisle has a strong volunteer background, and is involved as an advocate for a
very diverse population of children and adults.
Mr. Timothy Stuart: Mr. Stuart is an attorney who lives and works in Huntington Beach. He has a
Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Washington and a Juris Doctorate
degree from the University of San Diego, School of Law. Mr. Stuart volunteers his time as a coach
with the Special Olympics.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™58
File #:19-1296 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. HRTF membership roster.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™59
HUMAN RELATIONS TASK FORCE
Membership Roster
Effective December 16, 2019
MEMBERS WITH TERMS EXPIRING 12-31-2021
NAME Date of
Appointment
Partial
Term
Expiration
1st Term Expiration 2nd Term
Expiration**
1 Antonio Benitez* 1-21-20 12-31-21 12-31-25 12-31-29
2 Ashley Dos Santos* 1-21-20 12-31-21 12-31-25 12-31-29
3 Hemesh Patel* 1-21-20 12-31-21 12-31-25 12-31-29
4 Sunny Lee-Goodman 1-22-13 12-31-13 12-31-17 12-31-21
MEMBERS WITH TERMS EXPIRING 12-31-2023
NAME
Date of
Appointment
Partial Term
Expiration
1st Term
Expiration
2nd Term
Expiration**
5 Natalie Moser 2-21-17
12-31-19 12-31-23
6 Vashia Rhone 12-18-17 12-31-19 12-31-23
7 Rhonda Bolton* 1-21-20 12-31-23 12-31-27
8 Teresa Carlisle* 1-21-20 12-31-23 12-31-27
9 Timothy Stuart* 1-21-20 12-31-23 12-31-27
*Pending approval by City Council on 1/21/2020
**Pending reappointment after 1st Term
60
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1291 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject:
Authorize use of existing on-call construction management/inspection contracts with Wallace
and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek for City related
projects
Statement of Issue:
The City has existing on-call professional services contracts with Wallace and Associates,
Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek for on-call construction management
and inspection services. When initially awarded, these contracts were approved for use on projects
listed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Staff is requesting that Council authorize the use of
these contractors for any City related projects and activities.
Financial Impact:
No additional funds are requested at this time.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the use the existing on-call construction management/inspection contracts with Wallace
and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek for any City related
projects and activities including those in the approved CIP.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not provide this authorization
Analysis:
On November 5, 2018, Council approved new on-call professional services contracts with Wallace
and Associates, Consulting, Inc., Vali Cooper and Associates, Inc., and Dudek. At that time, the
approval for these contracts was limited to services to support staff for the construction of CIP
projects identified in the annual CIP. Staff is seeking authorization to use these contractors for
projects in the City including those identified in the CIP.
Environmental Status:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™61
File #:19-1291 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
None.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™62
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1321 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Dahle Bulosan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-08 to accept and approve the Development Impact Fee Report for
Fiscal Year 2018-19 and Make Government Code Section 66006 and 66001 Findings
Statement of Issue:
Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, (California Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009 the
City Council established certain Development Impact Fees (DIFs) that must be paid by developers of
property to help offset some (or all) the cost of public facilities related to the development project.
The DIFs are for Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities, Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, and Library;
additionally, there are three Public Works facilities improvement fees - Planned Local Drainage,
Sanitary Sewer Facilities, and Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation program. The Mitigation Fee Act
requires the City Council approve an annual report that provides information about the DIFs. These
fees are required to be deposited into their own separate accounts or funds. The law also requires
that certain findings be made in association with accumulated DIFs after the deposit into their
respective account or fund.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-08, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to
Accept and Approve the Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2019 and
to Make the Findings as required by Government Code Section 66006(b) and 66001(d).”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommendation and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare
annual reports of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year. The
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™63
File #:20-1321 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
reports must describe the fee, the amount of the fees collected, interest earned, and identification of
any expenditures from those funds. The code also specifies that reports must be reviewed by the
City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than 15 days following release to the public.
The FY 2018-19 Development Impact Fee Annual Report was released for public review on
December 23, 2019, (Attachment 1).
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Public Works (Planned Local
Drainage, Sanitary Sewer Facilities, and Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program), Parkland
Acquisition and Park, Police Facilities, and Fire Facilities and Library Development Impact Fees is
attached for your review and approval (Attachment 1). A summary of the fees collected and
expenditures incurred in FY 2018-19 are included in the Financial Summary Report section. As
these funds are collected and their corresponding fund grows, the restricted funds may be used on
projects identified in the City’s General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan, or City Council approved
development projects.
Use of the funds for the Traffic Impact, Sanitary Sewer and Planned Local Drainage fees is restricted
to making system improvements as outlined in the respective master plans for each of the funds.
Information contained in the reports conforms to the requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code regarding revenues and expenditures in each fund.
The Public Works Commission reviewed the report at the October 16, 2019 , commission meeting and
recommended approval by 6-0 vote (Commissioner Small-absent).
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, a resolution has been prepared to make the required findings
associated with any funds that may remain uncommitted. That resolution is attached to this Staff
Report and it is requested that the City Council consider adopting the resolution.
Environmental Status:
Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. Memo to City Council dated December 23, 2019
2. Resolution No. 2020-08 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to
Accept and Approve the Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
2019,and to Make the Findings as Required by Government Code Section 66006(b) and
66001(d)”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™64
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Interdepartmental Memo
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Oliver Chi, City Manager
DATE: December 23, 2019
SUBJECT: Release of Fiscal Year 2018-19 Development Impact Fee Annual Report for
Public Works (Planned Local Drainage, Sanitary Sewer Facilities, and Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Program), Library, Parkland Acquisition and
Park, Police, and Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare
an annual report of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.
Additionally, the Code requires that the report be available for public review not less than 15 days prior
to being reviewed at a public meeting of the City Council.
The Fiscal Year 2018-19 annual reports for Public Works (Planned Local Drainage, Sanitary Sewer
Facilities, and Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program), Library, Parkland Acquisition and
Park, Police and Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees are included in the attached Development
Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019 for your preliminary review. They will be
officially transmitted for approval at the January 21, 2020 City Council Meeting. By way of this
transmittal, I am releasing the reports for public review. Please contact Dahle Bulosan, Acting Chief
Financial officer at dahle.bulosan@surfcity-hb.org with any questions.
Cc: Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
Michael Gates, City Attorney
Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
Robert Handy, Police Chief
David Segura, Fire Chief
Tom Herbel, Acting Public Works Director
Chris Slama, Community Services Director
Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
Stephanie Beverage, Library Services Director
Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager
Debbie DeBow, Acting City Engineer
Kelly Rodriguez, Assistant Chief of Police
Tim Andre, Fire Division Chief
Ken Dills, Project Manager
Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst
Elaine Kuhnke, Senior Administrative Analyst
Mindy James, Senior Administrative Analyst
Debbie Gilbert, Senior Administrative Analyst
65
66
67
68
69
70
Development Impact
Fee Report
Fiscal Year End June 30, 2019
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA.
71
Intentionally
Left
Blank
72
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Report
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2019
Submitted by
Dahle Bulosan, Acting Chief Financial Officer
73
Intentionally
Left
Blank
74
Table of Contents
i
City Council Directory ................................................................................................ I
City Officials Directory ............................................................................................... III
Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................... 1
Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting ..................................... 3
Description of Development Impact Fees ................................................................... 5
Development Impact Fee Master Fee Schedule ......................................................... 9
Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary ....... 11
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee ............................ 13
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee .................................................................. 17
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee ...................................................................... 19
Library Development Impact Fee................................................................................ 21
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund ..................................................................... 23
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund ................................................................................... 25
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program ...................................................... 27
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
CIP ............................................................................................................................. 37
Council Action
Request for Council Action December 17, 2018 ......................................................... 41
Resolution 2018-85 Amending Development Impact Fee Schedule to Include ADU .. 46
Development Impact Fee on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) ................................... 56
Request for Council Action May 7, 2012 ..................................................................... 64
Resolution 2012.23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ............ 73
Ordinance 3942 – Police Facilities Development Impact Fee .....................................100
Ordinance 3943 – Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee ........................................ 111
Ordinance 3944 – Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program ......................... 122
Ordinance 3945 – Library Development Impact Fee .................................................. 138
Ordinance 3946 – Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee ... 148
Ordinance 3947 – General Provisions for Development Impact Fees ......................... 159
Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Development Impact Fees ............................... 167
Master Facilities Plan ................................................................................................... 171
Development Impact Fee Calculation & Nexus Report ............................................... 267
75
Intentionally
Left
Blank
ii
76
City Council Directory
Erik Peterson
Mayor
Patrick Brenden
Council Member
Kim Carr
Council Member
Jill Hardy
Council Member
Lyn Semeta
Mayor Pro Tem
Mike Posey
Council Member
Barbara Delgleize
Council Member
l 77
Intentionally
Left
Blank
ll 78
City Official Directory
lll
Elected Officials
City Attorney ............................................................................ Michael Gates
City Clerk ................................................................................. Robin Estanislau
City Treasurer .......................................................................... Alisa Backstrom
City Manager’s Office
City Manager ............................................................................ Oliver Chi
Assistant City Manager ............................................................ Travis Hopkins
Department Directors
Community Development ........................................................ Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Community Services ................................................................ Chris Slama
Finance .................................................................................... Dahle Bulosan, Acting
Fire ........................................................................................... David Segura, Interim
Information Services ................................................................ Behzad Zamanian
Library Services ....................................................................... Stephanie Beverage
Police ....................................................................................... Robert Handy
Public Works ............................................................................ Tom Herbel, Acting
79
Intentionally
Left
Blank
lV
80
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
January 21, 2020
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The City Council approved the establishment of Development Impact Fees through the enactment of
Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009. Four ordinances has been adopted establishing
Development Impact Fees for Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities, Police Facilities, Fire Facilities,
and Library. The law requires any local agency that imposes development impact fees to prepare an
annual report providing specific information about those fees. Additionally, three Public Works facilities
improvement fees – Planned Local Drainage, Sanitary Sewer Facilities, and Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation program – collected for development projects are also included in the annual compliance
report requirement.
In accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Section 66006 (b) and 66001 (d),
as amended by Assembly Bill (A) 518 and Senate Bill (SB) 1693, I hereby submit the Development
Impact Fee (DIF) Report for the City of Huntington Beach, California for the fiscal year (FY) ended
June 30, 2019.
DIFs are charged by local governmental agencies in connection with approval of development projects.
The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project. The legal requirements for enactment of a DIF program are set forth in
Government Code 66000-66025 (the “mitigation Fee Act”), the bulk of which was adopted as 1987’s
AB 1600 and thus commonly referred to as “AB 1600 requirements”.
DIFs are collected at the time a building permit is issued for mitigating the impacts caused by new
development on the City’s infrastructure. Fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and
improvement of public facilities needed because of this new development. A separate fund has been
established to account for the impact of new development on each of the following types of public
facilities.
State law requires the City prepare and make available to the public the DIF Report within 180 days after
the last day of each fiscal year. The City Council must review the annual report at a regular scheduled
public meeting not less than fifteen days after the information is made available to the public. This report
was filed with the City Clerk’s office and available for public review on December 23, 2019.
Sincerely,
Dahle Bulosan
Acting Chief Financial Officer
1 81
Intentionally
Left
Blank
2 82
Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting
California Government Code Section 66006 (b)
California Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local
agencies that impose AB 1600 DIFs on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established
for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days of the close of the
fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
b) The amount of the fee.
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
d) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned.
e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of
the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public
improvement that was funded with fees.
f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement
will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to
complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.
g) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the
public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case
of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the
account or fund will receive on the loan.
h) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.
California Government Code Section 66001 (d)
For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, California Government Code
Section 66001 (d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into
the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with
respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged.
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete
improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
d) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (c) is
expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
California Government Code Section 66002
The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that:
a) Any local agency, which levies a fee subject to Section 66001, may adopt a capital
improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and
estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.
3 83
Introduction
California Government Code Section 66002 (Continued)
b) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a
resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing. Notice
of the hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, mailed notice shall be
given to any city or county, which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan.
This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing
pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information
contained in the notice of public hearing and shall be given by first-class mail or personal
delivery.
c) “Facility” or “improvement,” as used in this section, means any of the following:
1) Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities
shall not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987–88 Regular Session is enacted and
becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988.
2) Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water.
3) Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage.
4) Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes.
5) Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and electricity.
6) Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets and supporting
improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related
facilities.
7) Parks and recreation facilities.
8) Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted pursuant to
Section 66002.
4 84
Introduction
Description of Development Impact Fees
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to
Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July
2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.75.090, the funds collected from the Police Facilities Development
Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing police services attributable to new residential
and nonresidential construction and shall include:
1) The costs of providing the acquisition, construction, furnishing of new buildings;
2) Purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles
3) Development of a Master Plan to identify capital facilities;
4) The cost of financing, projects identified in the City’s General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan
included in the Nexus Report, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved
development projects
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3946,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the
Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.76.090, the funds collected from Parkland Acquisition and Park
Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the “costs of providing the acquisition,
relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development, attributable to new residential
and nonresidential construction.” Therefore, the expenses included in this report represent all costs
associated with the planning, design, and construction stages of an eligible project, including staffing
and professional design consultant costs.
Specifically, the fees may be used as summarized below.
1) The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and community facilities
development;
2) The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities;
3) The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland and park
facilities and community use facilities development;
4) The cost of financing, projects identified in the City’s General Plan, the Master Facilities
Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, the adopted
annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and
development projects.
5 85
Introduction
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Since the City’s CIP generally includes projects and upgrades to existing facilities of $50,000 or more,
all eligible park improvements may not meet the minimum qualifications required to be included in the
City’s CIP. However, projects and improvement less than the $50,000 threshold are still eligible park
expenses as long as they are included in the documents referenced in item 4 above of the City’s
adopted annual budget. Examples of these types of expenditures include the City’s annual park license
fees with Southern California Edison. Since these expenses are included in the City’s budget, they are
eligible and included in this report.
Library Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3945,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.67 relating to
Library Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2,
2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.67.065, the funds collected from the Library Development Impact Fees
shall be used to fund the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection
items attributed to the new residential construction and shall include:
1) The acquisition of additional property for Library construction;
2) The construction of new facilities for Library services;
3) The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Library services;
4) The purchase of Library collections to expand collections;
5) The funding of master plan to identify capital facilities;
6) To serve new users and patrons;
7) The cost of financing, projects identified in the City’s General Plan, the Master Facilities
Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council
approved development projects.
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July
2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.74.090, the funds collected from the Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fees shall be used to fund the costs of providing additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and specialty equipment attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall
include:
1) The acquisition of additional property for Fire Department facilities;
2) The construction of new facilities for Fire Department services;
3) The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Fire Department services;
4) The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for Fire Department services;
5) The funding of a Master Plan to identify capital facilities to serve new Fire Department
development;
6 86
Introduction
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
6) The cost of financing projects identified in the City’s General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan
included in the Nexus Report, the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved
development projects.
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Fee Description: The Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program (Traffic Impact Fee) is intended
to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing revenue to ensure that the
adopted Level of Service standards for arterial roadways and signalized intersections are maintained
when new development is constructed within the City limits and that these developments pay their fair
share towards short and long term transportation improvements.
In accordance with Section 17.65.130 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public
Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Traffic Impact Fee for
the City Council. The process also provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review
revenues and expenditures under the program.
Uses of Traffic Impact Fee funds are restricted to roadway capacity projects or other projects that affect
the performance of the street system to offset the impacts of traffic generated by new development.
Often, these types of projects are quite expensive and can involve right-of-way acquisition and property
impacts. Staff has been developing projects to address some key roadway capacity areas in the City
that are also larger scale projects. With expenditures that can be millions of dollars, staff has
recommended that the Traffic Impact Fee fund accumulate a significant balance in order to make
pursuit of those projects financially possible in the future. However, it is important to develop a program
for fund expenditure to ensure the timely use of funds that are collected under this program.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
Fee Description: The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund (Sewer Fund) is a development fee that is
restricted to use for sewer capacity enhancements. The fee is unrelated to the monthly Sewer Service
Charge used for operations and maintenance of the existing sewer system. In accordance with Section
14.36.070 (d) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is
required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Sewer Fund for the City Council. The process
also provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures
under the program.
The Sewer Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Sewer Master Plan.
Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or
reimbursement for construction of sanitary sewer facilities.
7 87
Introduction
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
Fee Description: The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund (Drainage Fund) is a development fee
that is restricted to use for drainage system enhancement. In accordance with Section 14.48.050 (d)
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare
an annual report of the status of the Drainage Fund for the City Council. The process also provides an
opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures under the program.
The Drainage Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Drainage Master
Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or
reimbursement for construction of drainage facilities.
8 88
Introduction
Master Fee Schedule
Development Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 12/17/18 to include ADU DIF)
Notes: * See Schedule Rates of Traffic Impact Fees, amended 12/17/2018 to include Accessory Dwelling
Land Use
Law
Enforcement
Facilities
Fire
Suppression
Facilities
Circulation Systems
(Streets, Signals,
Bridges)
Public
Library
Facilities
Parkland/
Open Space &
Facilities
(No Tract Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)362.05$ 844.11$ 2,385.00$ 1,179.72$ 16,554.73$
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)746.48$ 349.85$ 1,597.00$ 866.48$ 12,732.84$
Accessory Dwelling Units (per Unit)183.50$ 86.00$ *213.00$ 3,130.00$
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)337.64$ 1,449.23$ 1,248.00$ 708.85$ 10,222.88$
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.041/SF $0.234/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.041/SF $0.234/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)0.953$ 0.301$ 4.175$ No Fee 0.897$
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)0.406$ 0.0275$ 1.716$ No Fee 0.730$
9 89
Introduction
Master Fee Schedule
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 12/17/18 to include ADU DIF)
Land Use Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end to
Trip
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominium/ Townhouse 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit
Accessory Dwelling $ 341.00 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,164.55 /Unit
Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market (avg)107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position
Service Station w/Car Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position
OTHER (as noted)
Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling
unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door)
INDUSTRIAL ( per 1,000 SF)
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF)
10 90
Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019*
Development Impact Fees
Description
Parkland
Acquisition
& Park
Facilities
Police
Facilities
Fire
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Drainage
Facilities
Fund
Sewer
Facilities
Fund
Traffic
Impact
Fees
REVENUES
Fees 4,026,144 278,513 156,211 313,292 429,294 215,496 588,763
Interest 495,707 48,848 25,418 40,351 53,429 257,329 150,937
Other Revenue (386) (2,214) (1,088)
Total Revenues 4,521,851 327,361 181,629 353,643 482,337 470,611 738,612
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 1,533,146 125,856 1,898,104 914,922
Total Expenditures 1,533,146 125,856 1,898,104 914,922
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 2,988,705 327,361 181,629 227,787 482,337 (1,427,493) (176,310)
Beginning Fund Balance 12,318,074 1,202,716 621,460 994,363 1,259,064 7,990,553 4,425,053
Ending Fund Balance 15,306,779 1,530,077 803,089 1,222,150 1,741,401 6,563,060 4,248,743
* Note: Unaudited actual
11 91
Intentionally
Left
Blank
12 92
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisitions and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee program is intended to implement the
goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plans by ensuring that the City’s
acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and community facilities development are maintained when
new development is constructed within the City limits (HBMC 17.76.020 (B).
Fiscal Status
This report presents the fund information based on the City’s preliminary audit for
Fiscal Year 2018/19. The balance for the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year was $12,318,074. During
FY 2018/19, the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund recognized
$4,026,144 in Impact Fees Paid, as well as $495,707 in interest and market adjustment for a total of
$4,521,851.
Expenditures from the fund totaled $1,533,146 for a wide range of projects, including a permanent parking lot
in support of Shipley Nature Center in Huntington Central Park ($438,840), LeBard Park Acquisition ($316,800)
as well as other various park and playground ADA equipment improvements. The fund balance at the end of
the fiscal year was $15,306,779.
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 438,207 887,995 537,612 3,150,305 7,941,094 4,026,144
Interest 18,397 36,152 21,807 14,479 (29,654) 495,707
Other Revenue 150
Total Revenues 456,604 924,147 559,569 3,164,784 7,911,439 4,521,851
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 437,269 543,172 627,281 901,073 758,321 1,533,146
Total Expenditures 437,269 543,172 627,281 901,073 758,321 1,533,146
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 19,335 390,638 (67,712) 2,263,711 7,153,168 2,988,705
Beginning Fund Balance 2,558,934 2,578,269 2,968,907 2,901,195 5,164,906 12,318,074
Ending Fund Balance 2,578,269 2,968,907 2,901,195 5,164,906 12,318,074 15,306,779
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period. An increase in revenue was due to the following development.
FY 14/15: Pacific City, Pasea Hotel, and New Senior Center.
FY 15/16: Pacific City, Waterfront Hilton Expansion, and New Beach Boulevard Medical Building.
FY 16/17 and 17/18: Pacific City and Monogram final building.
* Unaudited actual
13 93
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisitions and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Planned Park Projects, Studies, and Expenditures
The FY 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes funding for ADA Lake Park Clubhouse
Accessibility Improvements ($600,000) and Bartlett Park Loop Trail Improvements ($350,000). The CIP also
includes $2,420,000 in park development impact funding for building and ADA accessibility improvements at
both Murdy and Edison Community Centers (estimated completion date March 2021), ADA playground
equipment improvements ($580,000), LeBard Park acquisition ($316,800), as well as Murdy Park Sports Field
($1.5 million). The combined total of these planned projects is $5,816,800 million. It is anticipated that the
remaining projects will be completed by July 1, 2020.
Future Project and Fund Balance
Per HBMC 17.76.090 (A)(5), use of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Funds
are restricted to projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan
included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of
Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and development projects. Often, these
types of projects require multiple years to plan and construct due to changing City priorities, community
involvement, and the entitlement process. With expenditures totaling millions of dollars, staff recommends
that the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund accumulate a significant
balance in order to make pursuit of those projects financially possible in the future. However, it is important to
develop a program for fund expenditure to ensure the timely use of funds that are collected under this program.
Staff also uses Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee funds as a “matching fund”
when pursuing park enhancement projects. Three such examples include the recent submittal of park
development improvement projects for Schroeder, Carr, and Drew Parks. The combined requisite funding for
these projects totals $5.08 million. If awarded, the Park Fund will cover $508,000 of the total amount. It is
anticipated that these projects will be completed by July 2024.
Looking forward, other potential uses include Edison Park Improvements (estimated at $3 million) with
anticipated completion date of July 2024, Blufftop Trail Improvements (estimated at $2.3 million) with
anticipated completion date of January 2021, Rodgers’ Senior Center Redevelopment (estimated at $1.75
million) with anticipated completion date of July 2024, Harbour View Clubhouse Improvements (estimated at
$500,000) with anticipated completion date of July 2021. Continued Playground ADA Equipment
improvements as listed on the City Council approved Park Playground & Equipment Replacement Priority
List are also planned at an estimated cost of $2,420,000 with anticipated completion date of July 2024, as
well as an update of the City’s Parks & Recreation Master Plan ($50,000) with anticipated completion date of
March 2021. The combined total of all of these projects is $10,020,000.
14 94
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisitions and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund*
Beginning Balance 7/1/2018 $12,318,074
Revenue
Developer Fees (Residential) 3,908,021
Developer Fees (Commercial) 38,327
Others, Interest, & Adjustments 575,503
Total Revenue $4,521,851
Expenditures
Huntington Central Park Permanent Lot (165,528)
Oakview & Marina Park Improvements (54,993)
LeBard Park Acquisition (316,800)
Various Park Improvements/Monument Signs (24,925)
Park Leases (9,490)
Murdy Park Sports Fields (85,706)
Edison Park Playground (9,365)
Community Center Improvements (106,311)
Marina Park Improvements (29,975)
Irby Park Improvements (73,399)
Tarbox Park Improvements (97,187)
Huntington Central Park Trail Improvements (55,680)
Huntington Central Park Permanent Lot (273,312)
Baca and Wardlow Park Playground Improvements (53,057)
Personnel and Professional Services (177,417)
Total Expenditures $(1,533,146)
Beginning Balance 7/1/2019 $15,306,779
*Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives
The Park Development Impact Fee Program is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of
the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as stated in the Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Completion of
the planned projects is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Park Development Impact Fee
program.
The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past
the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project
Identification section of this annual compliance report.
15 95
Intentionally
Left
Blank
16 96
Financial Summary Report
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 214,736 110,689 137,073 253,771 461,454 278,513
Interest 312 3,652 3,475 2,333 (1,198) 48,848
Other Revenue
Total Revenues 215,048 114,341 140,548 256,104 460,256 327,361
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 215,048 114,341 140,548 256,104 460,256 327,361
Beginning Fund Balance 16,419 231,467 345,808 486,356 742,460 1,202,716
Ending Fund Balance 231,467 345,808 486,356 742,460 1,202,716 1,530,077
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
The Police Facilities Development Impact Fees of $278,513 and a $48,848 interest/bank adjustment were
posted in FY 2018/19. There were no expenditures during the Fiscal Year 2018/19 to the Police Facilities
Development Impact Facilities funds.
The Police Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first
deposit. These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this
annual compliance report.
17 97
Intentionally
Left
Blank
18 98
Financial Summary Report
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 91,293 116,622 67,705 104,346 225,915 156,211
Interest 185 2,056 2,100 1,314 (552) 25,418
Other Revenue
Total Revenues 91,478 118,678 69,805 105,660 225,363 181,629
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 91,478 118,678 69,805 105,660 225,363 181,629
Beginning Fund Balance 10,477 101,954 220,632 290,437 396,097 621,460
Ending Fund Balance 101,954 220,632 290,437 396,097 621,460 803,089
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees of $156,211 and a 25,418 interest/bank adjustment were posted
in FY 2018/19. There were no expenditures during the Fiscal Year 2018/19 to the Fire Facilities Development
Impact Facilities funds.
No Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees were loaned during this reporting period. No refunds were made
due to protests during this reporting period.
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit.
These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual
compliance report.
19 99
Intentionally
Left
Blank
20 100
Financial Summary Report
Library Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 120,154 233,382 64,147 208,080 532,513 313,292
Interest 604 3,943 2,827 1,651 (1,842) 40,351
Other Revenue
Total Revenues 120,758 237,325 66,974 209,731 530,671 353,643
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 92,824 92,672 53,806 50,313 125,856
Total Expenditures 92,824 92,672 53,806 50,313 125,856
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 120,758 144,501 (25,698) 155,925 480,358 227,787
Beginning Fund Balance 118,519 239,277 383,778 358,080 514,005 994,363
Ending Fund Balance 239,277 383,778 358,080 514,005 994,363 1,222,150
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
The Library Development Impact Fees of $313,292 and a $40,351 interest/bank adjustment were posted in
FY 2018/19. The expenditure incurred in FY 2018/19 of $125,856 include library collection such as books and
media items (DVDs, books on CD and music CDs).
The Library Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These
funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual compliance
report.
21 101
Intentionally
Left
Blank
22 102
Financial Summary Report
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 255,196 487,431 615,331 58,004 72,646 429,294
Interest 678 7,346 10,424 5,648 4,055 53,429
Other Revenue (386)
Total Revenues 255,874 494,777 625,755 63,652 76,701 482,337
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 63,795 236,119
Total Expenditures 63,795 236,119
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 255,874 494,777 625,755 (143) (159,418) 482,337
Beginning Fund Balance 42,219 298,093 792,870 1,418,625 1,418,482 1,259,064
Ending Fund Balance 298,093 792,870 1,418,625 1,418,482 1,259,064 1,741,401
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on October 16, 2019.
The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These
funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual compliance
report.
23 103
Intentionally
Left
Blank
24 104
Financial Summary Report
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 526,831 1,305,717 2,041,554 38,582 180,456 215,496
Interest 32,009 67,438 59,838 31,458 17,063 257,329
Other Revenue 176,310 238,535 12,310 45,058 (2,214)
Total Revenues 735,150 1,611,690 2,101,392 82,350 242,577 470,611
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 626,864 78,300 92,110 159,127 341,264 1,898,104
Total Expenditures 626,864 78,300 92,110 159,127 341,264 1,898,104
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 108,286 1,533,390 2,009,282 (76,777) (98,687) (1,427,493)
Beginning Fund Balance 4,515,059 4,623,345 6,156,735 8,166,017 8,089,240 7,990,553
Ending Fund Balance 4,623,345 6,156,735 8,166,017 8,089,240 7,990,553 6,563,060
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on October 16, 2019.
The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These funds
are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual compliance report.
25 105
Intentionally
Left
Blank
26 106
Financial Summary Report
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2019
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19*
REVENUES
Fees 1,547,636 1,097,012 84,900 436,630 713,994 588,763
Interest 12,303 43,311 28,726 15,788 6,049 150,937
Other Revenue 10,682 925 362,078 70 (1,088)
Total Revenues 1,570,621 1,140,323 114,551 814,496 720,113 738,612
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 11,441 163,821 563,921 610,801 90,191 914,922
Total Expenditures 11,441 163,821 563,921 610,801 90,191 914,922
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 1,559,181 976,502 (449,370) 203,695 629,922 (176,310)
Beginning Fund Balance 1,505,123 3,064,304 4,040,806 3,591,436 3,795,131 4,425,053
Ending Fund Balance 3,064,304 4,040,806 3,591,436 3,795,131 4,425,053 4,248,743
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on October 16, 2019.
The Fair Share Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit.
These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual
compliance report.
27 107
Intentionally
Left
Blank
28 108
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works
DATE: Oc tober 16, 2019
SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Reports for the Sanitary Sewer Facilities
Fund, Planned Local Drainage Fund and Traffic Impact Fee
Fund for Fiscal Year 2018/19
Statement of Issue: In accordance with Sections 14.36, 14.48 and 17.65.13 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is
required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities
Fund (Sanitary Sewer Fund), Planned Local Drainage Fund (Drainage Fund) and
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (TIF) respectively for the City Council. The process provides
an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review planned projects,
revenues and expenditures under the program.
Funding Source: No funding is required for these actions.
Impact on Future Maintenance Costs: Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
1.Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Annual
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2018/19.
2.Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Planned
Local Drainage Facility Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2018/19.
3.Motion to recommend approval of the 2018/19 Traffic Impact Fee Annual
Report to the City Council.
Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the reports.
29 109
Analysis:
Sanitary Sewer Fund
The Sanitary Sewer Fund is a development fee that is restricted to use for sewer
capacity enhancements. The fee is unrelated to the monthly Sewer Service
Charge used for operations and maintenance of the existing sewer system.
Section 14.36.070 (d) requires the City Council to review the status of compliance
with this Chapter, including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The
following information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding
revenues and expenditures of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Although this requirement
became effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in
July 2003, the Sewer Facilities Fund has existed since 1988. The following
information covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19.
Fiscal Status:
Revenues and expenditures are summarized below for the past fiscal year. The
fund balance as of July 1, 2018 was $7,990,553.
Not included in this figure are monies owed the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund by
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The original advance was
$131,000. With interest accrual, the debt amount for the fiscal year end was
$463,577.
On June 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB1X26, which dissolves
Redevelopment Agencies and designates Successor Agencies to “wind-down”
activities of the former Redevelopment Agencies under supervision of newly
created Oversight Boards. On January 31, 2012, the City’s Redevelopment
Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become
the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations;
however, no payments are scheduled to the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund within
the presented time frame.
Revenues:
Total revenue for FY 2018/19 was $470,611. Residential and commercial developer
fees contributed $118,167 and $97,329 respectively. The fund was credited
$255,115 in interest and adjustments. Budgeted revenue for FY 2018/19 was
$100,000.
Expenditures:
Fiscal Year 2018/19
Expenditures for the fund in FY 2018/19 consisted of $664 in staff and consultant
charges related to general planning and design. There were $1,894,590 in
construction charges related to the Edgewater Lift Station Project. In addition,
30 110
there were $2,850 in design consultant charges for the Saybrook Lift Station
Project. Total expenditures for the fiscal year were $1,898,104.
Fiscal Year 2019/20
Budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year include $2,300,000 for the
construction of the Saybrook Lift Station, $45,263 in encumbrance carry-forwards
related to construction of the Edgewater Lift Station, $200,000 for design of the
New Britain Lift Station, and $2,462,676 in Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
carry over funds for Slater Lift Station for a total of $5,004,939.
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives:
The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund is intended to implement the goals and
objectives of the current Sewer Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to
the fund may be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for
construction of sanitary sewer facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these
requirements.
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund*
Beginning Balance 7/1/2018 $7,990,553
Revenue
Developer Fees (Residential) 118,167
Developer Fees (Commercial) 97,329
Interest and Adjustments 255,115
Total Revenue $470,611
Expenditures
Salaries (664)
Consultant Services (2,850)
Edgewater Lift Station
Construction (1,894,590)
Total Expenditures $(1,898,104)
Beginning Balance 7/1/2019 $6,563,060
Budgeted Revenues 150,000
Budgeted Expenditures $(5,004,939)
Estimated Balance 7/1/2020 $1,708,121
*Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar
31 111
Rate Structure Fiscal Year 2018/19
CITY SEWER CONNECTION FEES Effective July 1, 2018
Single Family Dwelling Unit $2,317
Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $1,895
Non-Residential (based on water meter size relationship to Equivalent Dwelling Unit, EDU )
Meter Size & Type EDU’s Charge
3/4” 1 $2,663
1” 2 $5,267
1 ½” 3 $7,901
2” 5 $13,170
3” 11 $28,974
4” Compound 17 $44,776
4” Domestic & Turbine 33 $86,919
6” Compound 33 $86,919
6” Domestic & Turbine 67 $176,469
8” Domestic 117 $308,163
10” Domestic 183 $479,241
Drainage Fund
The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund (Drainage Fund) is a development fee
that is restricted to use for drainage system enhancements. Section 14.48.050 (d)
requires the City Council to review the status of compliance with this Chapter,
including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The following
information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding revenues and
expenditures of the Drainage Fund. Although the reporting requirement became
effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in September 2006, the
Drainage Fund has existed since 1975. The following information covers Fiscal Year
(FY) 2018/19.
Fiscal Status
The Drainage Fund advanced $250,000 to the Redevelopment Agency for
improvements in 1987. With interest accrual of $603,877, the debt amount is
currently $877,845. As a result, the Fund maintained a negative balance over a
period of ten years until FY 12/13, when the fund ended with a positive balance.
In FY 2018/19, the Drainage Fund ended the year with a balance of $1,741,401.
On June, 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB1X26, which dissolves
redevelopment agencies and designates Successor Agencies to “wind-down”
activities of the former redevelopment agencies under supervision of newly
created Oversight Boards. On January, 31, 2012, the City’s Redevelopment
32 112
Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become
the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations;
however, no payments are scheduled to the Drainage Fund within the presented
time frame.
Revenues
Revenue for FY 2018/19 from development was $429,294 and interest and market
adjustments to the fund were $53,043 for total revenue of $482,337. Budgeted
revenue for FY 2018/19 was $100,000.
Expenditures
No expenditures were budgeted or spent in FY 2018/19.
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives
The Drainage Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the
current Drainage Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may
be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of
drainage facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these requirements.
Beginning Balance 7/1/18 $1,259,064
Revenue
Developer fees 429,294
Interest earned 53,043
Total Revenue $482,337
Expenditures
Drainage Master Plan (0)
Total Expenditures 0)
Beginning Balance 7/1/19 $1,741,401
Projected revenues 110,000
Budgeted expenditures (0)
Estimated Balance 7/1/20 $1,851,401
Rate Schedule
The Drainage Fee for FY 2018/19 was $14,497 per acre.
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program is intended to implement the goals
and objectives of the General Plan by providing revenue to ensure that the
adopted Level of Service standards for arterial roadways and signalized
intersections are maintained when new development is constructed within the
City limits and that these developments pay their fair share towards short and long
term transportation improvements.
The following sections comprise the annual report.
33 113
Fiscal Status
This report presents the fund information based on the City’s preliminary audit for
Fiscal Year 2018/19. The balance for the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year
was $4,425,053. During FY 2018/19, the Traffic Impact Fee fund recognized,
$588,763 in Impact Fees Paid, and $149,849 in interest and market adjustment for
a total of $738,612.
Expenditures from the fund included $10,611 in salary charges and $895,418 in
capital improvement expenses for Atlanta Avenue Widening. In addition, there
were $8,893 in expenditures related to new signal installation at Main/Utica/17th.
Total expenditures were $914,922. The fund balance at the end of the fiscal year
was $4,248,742.
Planned Capital Projects, Studies and Expenditures
The City Council approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carry over
funding for Fiscal Year 2019/20 in the amount of $151,482 for the Atlanta Avenue
Widening project and $349,132 of grant match funds for signal installation as part
of a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant program. Encumbrance
carry over funds from FY 2018/19 totaled $2,183,382. The revised budgeted
expenditures against the fund total $2,683,996. Revenue for FY 2019/20 is
estimated at $575,000.
Future Project and Fund Balance
Uses of Traffic Impact Fee funds are restricted to roadway capacity projects or
other projects that affect the performance of the street system to offset the
impacts of traffic generated by new development. Often, these types of projects
are quite expensive and can involve right-of-way acquisition and property
impacts. Staff has been developing projects to address some key roadway
capacity areas in the City that are also larger scale projects. With expenditures
that can be millions of dollars, staff has been recommending that the Traffic
Impact Fee fund accumulate a significant balance in order to make pursuit of
those projects financially possible in the future. However, it is important to develop
a program for fund expenditure to ensure the timely use of funds that are
collected under this program.
Staff often uses Traffic Impact Fee funds as a “matching fund” when pursuing
capacity enhancing grant projects. Two such examples are improvements at the
intersections of Beach/Warner and Brookhurst/Adams. Both projects are key
locations where future use of Traffic Impact Fee funds are expected. Between
the 2 projects, more than $8 million in expenditures are anticipated. The City
hopes to leverage Traffic Impact Fees to obtain grant funds for a portion of these
costs. Other potential uses for funds include improvements to traffic operations
and signal coordination throughout the traffic signal system and potential long-
term improvements at the intersections of Beach Boulevard/Heil and Beach
Boulevard/Talbert. The City has also applied for grant funding for future
34 114
improvements along the Edinger and Warner corridors that will improve signal
operations and traffic flows. Traffic Impact Fee funds were designated for use as
matching funds. These projects are expected to occur in FY2020/21 and would
result in the use of $200,000 to $350,000 in Traffic Impact fees for our required
matching funds, out of the more than $1.7 million in improvements.
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Traffic Impact Fund*
Beginning Balance 7/1/18 $4,425,053
Revenue
Traffic Impact Fees 588,763
Interest, market adjustments 149,849
Total Revenue $ 738,612
Expenditures
Salaries (10,611)
Atlanta Avenue Widening (895,418)
Main/Utica/17th Signals (8,893)
Total Expenditures $ (914,922)
Beginning Balance 7/1/19 $4,248,742
Estimated Revenue 575,000
Budgeted Expenditures (2,683,996)
Estimated Balance 7/1/20 $2,139,746
*amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives
The Traffic Impact Fee Program is intended to implement the goals, objectives
and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as stated in the
Municipal Code Chapter 17.65. Completion of the planned projects implements
improvements identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and is in
conformance with the goals and objectives of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee
program.
Environmental Status: Not applicable
Attachments: PowerPoint Presentation – Fund Reports 18-19
35 115
Intentionally
Left
Blank
36 116
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
The City’s current, Adopted Budget 2019-2020, which includes the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) 2019/20 – 2023/24 can be found on the City’s website at:
https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/finance/FY-19-20-Adopted-Budget.pdf
Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2019/20 – FY 2023/24 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through
FY 2023/24. The CIP is updated annually to reflect the current City’s infrastructure needs. As a CIP is
identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents
and businesses versus new development.
Once the determination of use is made, the percentage of use attributed to new development is then funded
by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with
existing residents or businesses are funded from other appropriate sources. Estimated construction start
dates for projects are adjusted, as needed, to reflect the needs of the community.
CURRENT MAJOR CIP PROJECTS
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2019/20 includes the construction of various park projects as listed
below. Funds are also budgeted for park leases, professional services and personnel services.
FY 2019/20
Bartlett Park Improvements - $350,000
Final phase of improvements to include a loop trail to connect all sections of the park.
Lake Park Improvements - $600,000
Rehabilitation of the Clubhouse restrooms and picnic area is needed to improve accessibility and safety,
as well as to comply with ADA requirements.
Irby Park Improvements – $35,000
Complete construction of connecting ADA access pathways.
Playground Improvements - $580,000
Many play units in the City are coming to the end of their life expectancy and are in need of replacement.
In 2018, the City Council approved the City’s Park Playground Equipment Replacement Priority List. A total
of 27 park playground units have been identified as in need of replacement and rehabilitation at a projected
cost of $3.2 million.
Murdy & Edison Community Center Building Improvements – $2,000,000 (FY 2019/20, FY 2020/21)
Since Murdy and Edison Community Centers were constructed in the early 1970’s only limited interior
improvements have been made. The current project includes rehabilitation of the buildings’ interiors in order
to improve accessibility, safety and energy, as well as the addition of a ramp to comply with ADA
requirements.
FY 2020/21
Preliminary projects include continuation of playground equipment rehabilitation at various parks,
demolition of picnic shelter and reconfiguration of adjacent tot lot at Huntington Central Park, as well as
Harbour View Clubhouse Rehabilitation and Reconfiguration.
FY 2021/22
Preliminary projects include continuation of playground equipment rehabilitation at various parks.
37 117
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
Preliminary projects include the modernization and expansion of the main police station located at 2000
Main Street. The expansion includes additional male and female locker room spaces, a remodeled and
modernized Dispatch Center, a dedicated armory building and additional community meeting spaces. The
Police Facility project is currently in the design and cost estimation phase, which will be included in next
year’s compliance report.
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2019/20 includes the construction for reconfiguration and renovation
of Fires Station 5 – Lake dorm rooms, restrooms and kitchen and installation of ventilation and air
conditioning system. This project is needed for gender accommodation and ADA compliance,
The Fire Facilities Development Fees are eligible for expenditures related to providing additional Fire
suppression and medic facilities, vehicles and equipment associated with residential and nonresidential
construction. The Master Facilities Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, adopted in October 2011,
identifies the following eligible projects:
1.Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)
2.Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
3.Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia)
4.Acquire an Engine and Ambulance and for Station #4 (Magnolia)
5.Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1 (Gothard)
6.Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2 (Murdy)
These projects will be evaluated and considered for submission in the FY 2020/21 budget process.
Library Development Impact Fees
The Library Development Impact Fees are eligible for expenditures related to costs for expanded or new
library spaces and the number of collection items attributed to new residential construction. Future use of
funds include expenditures for additional library collection materials, such as books and media items
(DVD, books on CD and music CDs) and for a Library Facilities Master Plan, to direct future expansion
and/or replacement of library facilities and expanded library spaces.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2018/19 through FY 2022/23 includes the Sewer Lift Station
Reconstruction Project for an annual cost of $2.5 million. This will include the rehabilitation/upgrade of
Edgewater (ongoing), Slater, Saybrook and New Britain sewer lift stations.
Category 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23
Design/Environmental 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Construction 2,150,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 2,150,000
Project Management 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Supplementals 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
TOTAL 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Fiscal Year
38 118
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
No current year CIP project is scheduled. The Drainage Master Plan has been updated. Staff is currently
in the process of developing a five-year plan of future projects.
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Current year (FY 2018/19) includes $3,035,000 for the Atlanta Avenue Widening project.
The City plans on utilizing Traffic Impact funds for future improvements along the Edinger and Warner
corridors to improve signal operations and traffic flows. These projects are expected to occur in FY 2020/21
and will use Traffic Impact fees for our required matching funds, estimated to be $350,000 out of the more
than $1.7 million in improvements. Other projects identified for FY 2021/22 thru 2022/23 include
intersection improvements at Beach/Warner and Brookhurst/Adams, and signal improvements at
Beach/Heil and Beach/Talbert.
39 119
Intentionally
Left
Blank
40 120
41
121
42
122
43
123
44
124
45
125
46
126
47
127
48
128
49
129
50
130
Page 2 Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2018-85
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 12/17/18 to include ADU DIF)
Adjusted Average Trip -end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0. 5
Condominium/
5.36 7.9 0.5
Townhouse
Accessory Dwelling
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door)
Hotel 6.29 7.6
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6
Motel 4.34 7.6
INDUSTRIAL ( per 1,000 SF)
General Light Industrial
0.1/
Heavy Industrial 5.97
Manufacturing 2.73
Warehousing 4.39
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF)
Office Park 7.42
Research Park 5.01
Business Park 9.34
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store
Garden Center
Movie Theater
Church
Medical -Dental Office
General Office Building
Shopping Center
Hospital
Discount Center
High -Turnover
Restaurant
Convenience Market
Office Park
OTHER (as noted)
Cemetery
Service Station/Market
avg)
Service Station w/Car
0. 5
0.5
0. 5
0. 5
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0. 5
34.6 $ 64.34 $
24.3 $ 64.34 $
21.2 $ 64.34 $
18.1 $ 64.34 $
23.9 $ 64.34 $
14.3 $ 64. 34 $
16.5 $ 64.34 $
27.8 64. 34
26.9 64. 34
12.3 64.34
19.8 64. 34
8.8 0.51 32.6 64. 34 1 $
8.8 0.5 22.0 64. 34
8.8 0.51 41.1 64.34
4.31 0.5 63.11 $ 64. 34 1 $
23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 64. 34
2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 64.34
5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 64.34
22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 64.34
7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 64.34
30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 64.34
11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 64.34
62. 93 4.3 0.5 135.3 64.34
8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 64.34
43.571 4.31 0.5 93.7 64.34
13.971 4.31 0.51 30.0 64.34
3.07 4.3
107.69 4.3
99.35 4.3
2,226.16 /Unit
1,563.46 Unit
1,364.01 Unit
341.00 Unit
1,164.55 Unit
1,537.73 /Room
920.06 /Room
1,061.61 /Room
1,788.65 /1,000 sf
1,730.75 /1,000 sf
791.38 /1,000 sf
1,273.93 /1,000 sf
2,097.48 /1,000 sf
1,415.48 /1,000 sf
2,644.37 /1,000 sf
4.059.85 1 /1.000 sf
3,242.74 1,000 sf
341.00 1,000 sf
817.12 1,000 sf
6,286.02 1,000 sf
2,026.71 1,000 sf
4,175.67 1,000 sf
1,582.76 1,000 sf
8,705.20 1,000 sf
1,228.89 1,000 sf
6,028.66 1,000 sf
1.930.20 1.000 sf
0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre
Fuel
0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 Position
Fuel
0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 Position
51
131
52
132
53
133
54
134
55
135
56
136
57
137
58
138
59
139
60
140
61
141
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Calculation Report December, 2018
impact. Therefore, to be conservative, it is recommended that the City adopt an ADU fee that is
only 25% of the attached dwelling unit DIF. This action would recognize that an individual ADU
will have some impact on City services but would allow the City to recognize the State
Legislature's encouragement that cities and counties consider the spirit/intent of the new ADU
laws, that is to create additional smaller housing supply alternatives without overwhelming
financial barriers.
The fee has to be separated into the five individual impact fees identified in the 2012 report and
resolution. Table 1, following, demonstrates this.
Table 1- 1
Calculation of an Attached Dwelling Unit
Per Imposed Infrastructure -based Development Impact Fee
Infrastructure
Calculated
Development
Impact Fee
Percent
of DIF
Imposed
Adopted
Impact
Fee/Unit
City Staff
Recommended
Percentage
DIF Impact
Cost Per
ADU
Law Enforcement 815 90.1 % 734 25.0% 183.50
Fire Suppression 382 90.1 % 344 25.0% 86.00
Circulation System 1,657 96.4% 1,597 25.0% 399.25
Storm Drainage 397 0. 0% 0 25.0% 0.00
Library Facilities 908 93.8% 852 25.0% 213.00
Park Land et. al. 13,835 90.5% 12,520 25.0% 3,130.00
Total 17,994 89.2% 16,047 25.0% 4,011.75
The five required Government Code §66000 findings within each chapter would apply to the
imposition/collection of ADUs DIFs also. The fees collected would be used to finance the same
projects specifically identified in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2012 DIF
Calculation and Nexus Report.
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Infrastructure (about 4.6% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 3.1,
page 37 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 6 through 9 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan.
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
infrastructure (about 2.1% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 4.1,
page 51 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 12 through 17 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan.
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 7
833
62
142
63
143
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
ALAALOIL_d___ Deferred/Continued to: 6/4'/41,91, ,6hi://a)
U Approved 1:1 Conditionally Approved 0 Denied 0/LetPCity ler ignat f
Council Meeting Date: May 7, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 2012-007
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager
Revise the City's Existing Development Impact Fees by adopting
Resolution No. 2012-23 and Ordinance Nos. 3942 through 3947
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for City Council consideration are revisions to the City's existing Development
Impact Fees. With the assistance of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. staff has evaluated
the City's public services needs for the next twenty years and analyzed what the future
development opportunities were based on General Plan land use. From that Revenue & Cost
Specialists, L.L.C. compared the future City's needs with the potential build out and derived
these revised/new Development Impact Fees included in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report.
Financial Impact:
Adoption of the recommended impact fees (new and updates) will generate approximately
$154.8 million through General Plan Build-out. This represents an approximately $20 million
increase over the currently adopted impact fees.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012 - 23, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Adopting the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach, and Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees For All
Development Within the City;" and,
B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3942, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.75 Relating to
Development Impact Fees for Police Facilities;" and,
C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3943, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.74 Relating to
Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities;" and,
D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3944, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Traffic
Impact Fees;" and,
Item 9. - I
HB -136-
64
144
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
E) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3945, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Deleting Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Adding Chapter
17.67 Relating to Library Development Impact Fees;" and,
F) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3946, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.76 Relating to
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees;" and,
G) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3947, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.73 Relating to
the General Provisions for Development Impact Fees."
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motions:
1. Do not adopt Resolution #2012-23 and Ordinances #3942-3947, updating the proposed
development impact fees leaving fees at current levels.
2. Make changes to the recommended fees and adopt as amended.
3. Continue the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and direct staff
accordingly.
Analysis:
BACKGROUND
Development Impact fees are one-time charges applied to offset the additional public-service
costs of new development. Fees are proposed to be assessed at the time a building permit is
issued and rededicated to providing additional services, such as water and sewer systems,
roads, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities, made necessary by the increase in number
of new residents in the area. The funds cannot be used for operation, maintenance, repair or
replacement of existing capital facilities. The amount of the proposed fee is clearly linked to
the added service cost.
The development community has requested that the City of Huntington Beach make it easier
for potential developers to calculate all impact fees from the early design stage of their project
and to defer payment of the development impact fees to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy or Final Building Permit Approval.
The actions in this report address only Development Impact Fees. Fees charged under the
Subdivision Map Act will be addressed separately at a later date. These fees are Quimby and
Drainage fees.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The City of Huntington Beach is getting close to full build-out and development of the
remaining vacant parcels as well as renovation/construction of existing homes and businesses.
New development results in increased demand that must be absorbed by the existing
HB -137- Item 9. - 2
65
145
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
infrastructure. Currently the city collects development impact fees for traffic, library
development, and park land/open space. Working with staff, Revenue & Cost Specialist,
L.L.C. generated a Master Facilities Plan for theoretical General Plan build-out of the City. The
Master Facilities Plan indentifies all growth-related capital projects required to accommodate
new City development through General Plan build-out. Using information in the Master
Facilities Plan, a Development Impact Fee Calculation Report was generated. The purpose of
the report is to assure that the impacts created by new development pays a fair share of the
proportional costs required for expansion of all development within the City of Huntington
Beach.
On April 27, 2012 the Nexus report dated October 2011 was amended. Due to additional costs
associated with the accounting, collection and state mandated tracking Park Land/Open Space
Fee and the Public Meeting Facilities fee were collapsed into one fee, now called the Park
Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee. This was undertaken to provide the
City greater flexibility to address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time.
The Development Impact Report contemplates two new fees, police and fire, and updates the
existing traffic, library, and park land/open space impact fees (Attachment No. 1) based on the
City's changing requirement for public safety, streets and signals and other quality-of-life
facilities. Attachment No. 9 is a comparison of current impact fees and proposed impact fees.
The paragraphs to follow provide additional, detailed analysis of the changes sought to each
type of fee.
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Fee (New)
The purpose of the new Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Fee is to collect
proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional required law
enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment. New development can be expected to
generate additional law enforcement calls for service. Different types of development will
create proportional levels of calls for service that generate law enforcement response.
Additional sworn officers are necessary to respond to the increased demands for service and
these fees will offset the added costs of housing and equipping the additional required officers.
The proposed resolution establishes the actual amount of the new Law Enforcement
Development Impact Fee. The resolution also specifies that the proposed fees be used solely
for expanding or increasing capacity within the law enforcement facilities and to increase the
number of enforcement vehicles and specialty equipment.
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment Fee (New)
The purpose of this new fee is to provide proportional financial contributions as a result of new
development to pay for additional fire suppression/emergency medical response facilities,
vehicles and specialized equipment. In order to be able to continue to respond to an ever-
increasing number of expected emergency calls, fire department staff has determined the need
for the relocation of one fire station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and expanding one existing
fire station. Having the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the
City's policy makers to house firefighters, apparatus and equipment to provide for maximum
use of resources.
Item 9. - 3 HB -138-
66
146
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
The proposed resolution establishes the actual amount of the Fair Share Fire Department
Impact Fee. The resolution specifies that the proposed fees would be used solely to acquire
additional fire facilities, vehicles and specialized equipment required to respond to additional
calls for service (related to the new development) necessary to maintain the capability of
responding to calls to the existing community. Fees will be used to finance the construction or
acquisition of fire suppression/emergency medical facilities, vehicles and specialized
equipment identified in the Master Facilities Plan that are necessary to accommodate
anticipated and planned development in the community.
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Fee (Updated)
The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee collects proportional contributions from new development to
pay for additional circulation system capacity by creating more travel lanes or more efficient
street use to accommodate the additional trip-miles created by new development.
Improvements take the form of construction of new travel lanes including the widening of
streets, installation and modification of traffic signals to accommodate changes in traffic
patterns and improving the infrastructure of our traffic signal system to enable development of
better signal coordination. Improvements for pedestrians, bicycles and transit may also be
included in these improvements.
The current Traffic Impact Fee is $172 per net new trip generated by a proposed development.
The recommended update to the Traffic Impact Fee slightly modifies the methodology for
proportioning the cost to users, resulting in slightly increased fees for some uses and slightly
lower fees for others. In general, the recommended methodology shifts fees from commercial
uses to residential uses. The new methodology better reflects the actual impacts to the street
system by not only accounting for the number of trips generated by the land use, but also the
average length of the trip. This approach is based on the concept that a longer trip has greater
potential to impact multiple locations within the circulation system.
The proposed methodology is predicated on distributing the estimated $23,867,660 in
circulation system improvement costs needed to serve additional traffic generated by new
development. This process results in a "per unit" fee which can be assessed on new
development. The "per unit" fee is developed based on typical trip generation rates for specific
uses and also factors in the average length of a trip associated with that type of use. The "per
unit" fee reflects the prorated fair share costs of improvements based on the number of trip-
miles generated by the particular land use category. Rates recommended for adoption are
based on a daily trip-mile of $64.34. This represents 10% less than the amount recommended
in the Development Impact Fee Calculation Report due to the elimination of approximately
$2.7 million in maintenance facility and equipment costs previously included in the calculation.
The current Traffic Impact Fee was established using a fair share methodology based only on
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. The following example is presented to
generally describe the difference in methodology:
If a typical single family home generates 8.8 trips per day the Traffic Impact Fee under the
current program ($172 per trip) is $1,513.
If a medium sized shopping center generates 30 trips/1000 square feet of floor area the Traffic
Impact Fee under the current program is $5,160/1000 sf.
HB -139- Item 9. - 4
67
147
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
Under the current program, with a trip length factor included (3.95 miles/trip for residential and
2.15 miles per trip for shopping center) the rates change to $2,482/dwelling unit and
$4,655/1000 sf of floor area for the shopping center. While 1,000 square feet of floor area in a
shopping center generates more than 3 times the number of trips of one single family home,
the shopping center only generates approximately 85% more trip miles.
The resolution specifies that the proposed fees would be used solely for circulation system
capacity improvements. This information is generally identified in Use of the Fee section the
report.
The ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.65 so that the collection of
fees imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to
impose fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects.
Public Library Facilities and Collection Fee (Updated)
The current Library Development fee was initially adopted in 1998. A Library Facilities Impact
Fee imposed on residential development would allow the City to expand on existing facilities to
ensure the City's existing and new residents have adequate and sufficient access to enjoy the
library space and collections. The City of Huntington Beach, through its General Plan, and
Facility Master Plan has established its commitment to maintaining current standards of library
services. The Library Development Fee, along with other City revenue sources, will allow the
City to expand facilities and enhance collections to accommodate projected growth and
increased demand for service.
The development of any acreage zoned for residential use increases the demand on the finite
amount of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate a
higher number of residents will pay a proportionally higher amount. There is no information
available demonstrating a substantive link between library use and local businesses. Library
use is primarily by residents as opposed to business persons. Therefore, there are no fees
being collected for commercial or industrial construction.
The resolution specifies that the fees would be used solely for support of library services and
facilities. Funds collected from the Public Library Fee shall be used to cover the cost of
expansion of library space and collection items needed to meet the increased demands of
residential growth and development. Funds can be used to acquire additional property,
construct new facilities, furnish new buildings or facilities, purchase collection materials,
funding for master plans or other studies to identify capital needs and the cost of financing.
Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing
facilities.
Ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.66 so that the collection of fees
imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to impose
fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects.
Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee (Updated)
On December 16, 2002 The City Council adopted Resolution 2001-129 with findings that
stated, "the purpose of the fee is for the development and improvements of the City's parks
and recreational facilities in order to assure that the policies and standards for park, open
space and recreational facilities contained in the City's General Plan and described in the Park
Fee Study are met."
Item 9. - 5
HB -140-
68
148
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
The proposed fees presented herein do not change this approved purpose, but merely update
the methodology used in calculating the fee based on the latest land values, future population,
and build-out projections cited in the new "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report" completed by Revenue and Cost Specialists L.L.C. in October 2011.
As referenced in the October 2011 report, the City owns or has long-term control of 778.41
acres of traditional park land, with about 87.9% developed. It is anticipated that the City will
need to acquire 70.5 acres in park land to serve the additional projected 17,089 residents at
build-out. The challenge facing the City is to provide new facilities and park land to serve the
recreational needs of new residents.
The proposed fees are based on the estimated per acre acquisition and development costs as
presented in Schedule 9.1 factored by the City's existing park standards, and then multiplied
by the average number of persons per type of dwelling unit.
Currently this fee is $0.86 per square foot and applies to all new residential development (new
construction and additions) the fee is paid at the time of permit issuance for all new residential
development. The proposed fee will apply to new residential units only; it will no longer apply
to residential room additions or expansions. This will result in an elimination of the per square
foot fee for residential development, however a square foot fee will continue to be applied to all
non-residential development. In addition, it should be noted that currently Ordinance No. 3596
of Chapter 254 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance exempts mobile homes from Park
Impact fees. The proposed fees would require the payment of $11,169 per mobile home
dwelling unit. However, in an effort to implement the proposed fees in a timely manner and
since there no applications on file for approval of a mobile home park, staff is recommending
that the mobile home exemption be extended until such time that Ordinance No. 3596 can be
revised to reflect the new fees.
Projected population increases will also place additional demands on existing community
centers, and other community use facilities (such as the City's clubhouses, the Beach Public
Service Center, Shipley Nature Center, etc). The Park Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Fee will enable the City to meet the added demands created by the construction
of additional residential dwelling units to maintain the current standard of 0.620 square feet per
person for the Public Facility use space.
IMPLEMENTATION
In order to mitigate the impact of increasing Law Enforcement Facilities Fee, Fire Suppression
Facilities Fee, Circulation System Fee, and the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Fee, the proposed resolution is to have a "phased" implementation for the
detached, attached and mobile home residential unit fees. The Public Library Fee will not be
phased in. While the goal is to generate adequate funding to serve the increased demands of
development, the phased implementation would allow for a more gradual increase over a three
year period and not inhibit development in a difficult economy.
That is, the phased approach would increase the detached, attached and mobile home
residential unit to 70% of recommended fee in the first year beginning July 20, 2012, then
increasing to 80% effective July 20, 2013, reaching 90% on July 20, 2014, and remaining at
90% of the recommendation. Beginning in March 2016, a CPI adjustment factor would be used
to adjust those fees until a new study is funded. Using a Detached Dwelling as an example,
HB -141- Item 9. - 6
69
149
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
the total development impact fee 100% recovery amount of $22,829 would not be
implemented. Beginning July 20, 2012, the amount would be $16,331/unit. On July 20, 2013
the fee would increase to $18,499/unit. On July 20, 2014, the fee would be $20,655 and would
remain at the 90% level.
Currently, all fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. It is recommended that
the fees be collected at the time the impact is imposed on the system; therefore later in the
development process at final building permit approval or issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Regarding development projects that have already received zoning entitlement approval (i.e.,
CUP, SPR, Variances, etc), there is proposed to be a "grandfathering" of existing development
impact fees. Section 8, Fees Imposed, of the Fee Resolution (Attachment No. 1) describes the
criteria for being "grandfathered" which basically states that new development impact fees shall
not apply to those development projects that have received discretionary project entitlement
approval on or before May 7, 2012 and the following milestones are met:
1. Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days
after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013.
2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, no later than
July 20, 2013.
An exception to these milestones is when there is involvement by an outside third party
regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin
when the developer receives clearance from that agency. All other projects are subject to the
new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012
SUMMARY
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution and ordinances based on the
following reasons:
• The per unit fee established herein allows developers to easily calculate development
impact fees
• The fees established herein meet the City's changing requirement for public safety,
streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities
• Allows for payment of Developer Impact fees at the time the impact is imposed on the
system, therefore later in the development process.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve the City's infrastructure
Item 9. - 7 HB -142-
70
150
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
Attachment(s):
., esc:ption
1. Resolution No. 2012 - 23 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach adopting the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the
City of Huntington Beach, and establishing new and revised Development Impact
Fees."
2. Ordinance No. 3942 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to Development
Impact Fees for Police Facilities ."
3. Ordinance No. 3943 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to Development
Impact Fees for Fire Facilities."
4. Ordinance No. 3944 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending
Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to Traffic Impact
Fees."
5. Ordinance No. 3945 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach deleting Chapter
17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and adding Chapter 17.67 relating to
Library Development Impact Fees."
6. Ordinance No. 3946 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to Parkland
Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees."
7. Ordinance No. 3947 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.73 relating to the General
Provisions for Development Impact Fees."
8. Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Development Impact Fees
9. Master Facilities Plan, prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
October 2011, (Amended April 27, 2012)
10. Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, prepared by Revenue &
Cost Specialists, L.L.0 October 2011, (Amended April 27, 2012)
71
151
ATTACHMENT #1
72
152
RESOLUTION NO, 2012-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
FOR THE CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH, AND ESTABLISHING NEW AND REVISED
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new development
mitigate its share of the impacts to the natural and built environments and be fiscally neutral so
as to not result in a net economic loss for the City; and
Such General Plan policies include the maintenance of existing quality of life,
maintenance of existing service levels and funding of new facilities, the requirement of new
development to mitigate a fair share of its impacts, and calling for the use of impact fees to fund
needed improvements to serve new development, among other policies; and
In accordance with these General Plan policies, the City Council has directed staff in the
past to create development impact fees in accordance with State law. Said impact fees were
codified in Chapter 17.65 and Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as well as
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230.20. Pursuant to each
ordinance set forth above, the amount of the development impact fee is to be set and/or updated
by resolution of the City Council; and
Subsequently, and periodically, staff has conducted comprehensive reviews of the City's
development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of
public facilities related to new development; those fees are set forth in Resolutions 6164, 2006-
23, 2000-97, 2004-88, 99-60 and 96-71; 2002-129, 2004-88 and
The City contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to provide a updated
comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing development impact fees; and
Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October, 2011 as
amended April 27, 2012 (the "Nexus Report"), that provides an evaluation of existing
development impact fees, recommends an increase and change in methodology in certain
development impact fees, the creation of new impact fees and establishes the nexus between the
imposition of such impact fees and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for
which the fees are charged; and
The Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and
The Nexus Report substantiates the need for a modification to existing fees to change
certain methodology as well as creation of new impact fees; and
1
12-3209.006/79289
73
153
Resolution No. 2012-23
The City has collected development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new
development, including fees for transportation, park land acquisition and development, library
and other public facilities since the adoption of the respective ordinances and resolutions; and
The City Council desires to repeal certain resolutions, create and update other
development impact fee resolutions in accordance with the calculations and recommendations
contained in the Nexus Report; and
In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000
et seq., the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development
impact fees at its regular meeting on 2012, to solicit public input
on the proposed increases to development impact fees,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. Findings pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds
and determines that the Nexus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001,
and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on new development:
(a) Identifies the purpose of the fee;
(b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
(c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed;
(d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities
and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and
(e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
2. Fees for Uses Consistent with the Nexus Report. The City Council hereby
determines that the fees imposed, pursuant to this resolution shall be used solely to finance the
public facilities and/or equipment and park land acquisition described or identified in the
respective ordinances and Nexus Report.
3. Approval of Items in the Nexus Report. The City Council has considered the
specific public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the
Nexus Report and each ordinance thereto and hereby approves such public facilities, equipment
and park land acquisition cost and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as
a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing the development impact fees as set forth in the
Nexus Report.
2
12-3209.006/79289
74
154
Resolution No. 2012-23
4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities
equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances
and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those policies
that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and to be
fiscally neutral.
5. Differentiation among Public Facilities. The City Council finds that the public
facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development
impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public
facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected by the City. To the extent
that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific Plan fees are used to fund
the construction of the same public facilities identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus
Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees.
Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not be deemed to affect the imposition
or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code.
6. CEQA Finding. The adoption of the Nexus Report and the increase in
development impact fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government funding
mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a
significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA.
7. Adoption of Report. The Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including
Appendices, is hereby adopted.
8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not
apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before June
5, 2012 and the following milestones are met:
1. Project applicant has submitted an approved application for building permits
within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than February 18, 2013.
2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect.
An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party
regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin
when the developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the
authority, in his/her sole discretion, to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered"
projects. All other projects are subject to the fees then in effect. All existing Development
Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective
ordinances. In the event any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved
development impact fee shall automatically apply.
9. Timing of Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be
paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action is
3
12-3209.006/79289
75
155
Resolution No. 2012-23
taken by City Council adopting the ordinances or resolution referenced herein, resolutions 6164,
2006-23, 2000-97, 99-60, 2004-88 and 96-71 shall remain in effect.
10. Amount of Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Development
Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein as well as Nexus
Report Schedules 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.4. Exhibit A and the Nexus Report sets forth
the methodology and aggregate amount imposed as a development impact fee for both residential
and nonresidential land uses and also sets forth the breakdown of each development impact fee
by type of facility.
The amount of the development impact fees excluding traffic impact fees shall be
automatically modified annually pursuant to the the percentage of increase or decrease in the Los
Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor
for the Orange County area, from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months.
Traffic impact fees shall be increased using the Engineering News Record's
construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in March of each year.
The escalator indices provided herein shall not take effect until March of 2016.
11. Use of fee. The development impact fees shall be solely used for the purposes
described in the respective ordinances creating the fees and the Nexus Report.
Fees collected pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions shall be maintained
and used exclusively for those purposes and accounts for these fees shall remain in effect and
shall be maintained by the City Manager or his/her designee. Fees collected under any of the
categories listed in the Nexus Report may be used to finance the construction or implementation
of any public facility listed in those categories to the extent that use of the fees may not exceed
the percentage allocated to new development of all of the public facilities listed in the category,
or sub-category.
12. Fee Determination by Type of Use.
A. Residential Development. Development impact fees for residential
development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed. The development impact fee
categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the
land use element of the City's General Plan.
B. Nonresidential Land Uses. Development impact fees for nonresidential
land uses shall be based upon the square footage of the building or other measurement detailed in
the respective development impact fee ordinances. The development impact fee categories as
shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use
element of the City's General Plan.
C. Uses Not Specified. In the event that there are land uses not specified in
Exhibit A, the development impact fee for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or
4
12-3209.006/79289
76
156
Resolution No. 2012-23
his/her designee who shall determine such fee based on an analysis of the impacts of the
proposed use on public facilities, equipment and/or park land.
13. Prior Resolutions Superseded. As provided herein the development impact fees
approved and adopted by this resolution shall supersede and repeal any previously adopted
development impact fee resolutions concerning the same, including 6164, 96-71, 99-60, 2000-97,
2004-88 and 2006-23, 2002-129, 2004-88.
14. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
resolution, the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto, shall be held invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this resolution the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto or
fees levied by this resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or
application of fees. In the event any section of this resolution is held invalid the previously
adopted affected fees shall be automatically reinstate as if never repealed or modified herein.
15. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code section 66017(a),
the fees as identified in attached Exhibit "A" adopted by this resolution shall take effect sixty
(60) days following final action taken on the respective ordinances or amendments thereto by the
City Council.
16. Appeals. Appeals of any fees, including methodology, use, land valuation etc.
created pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted as set forth in Huntington Beach Municipal
Code Chapter 17.73.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 .
Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Manager
1NITTirop„Ldr a gOVED: j
4d1.
100
111t
Deputy City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C---1-6ty Attorne y
5
12-3209.006/79289
77
157
Resolution No. 2012-23
EXHIBIT A
78
158
Land Use
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Circulation
System
Law Fire (Streets,
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library
Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities
Park Land/
Open Space
& Facilities
(No Tract
Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$277
$571
$258
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$645
$267
$1,108
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$1,737
$1,220
$909
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$1,172
$908
$733
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$12,500
$9,685
$7,818
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
*Represents 70% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
Land Use
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
Circulation
System
Law Fire (Streets,
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library
Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities
Park Land/
Open Space
& Facilities
(No Tract
Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$317
$652
$295
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$738
$306
$1,266
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$1,986
$1,395
$1,039
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$1,172
$908
$733
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$14,286
$11,068
$8,935
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
*Represents 80% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
June 4 Consultant-Staff Recom Fee
Date Printed: 5/24/2012 79
159
Land Use
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Circulation
System
Law Fire (Streets,
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library
Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities
Park Land/
Open Space
& Facilities
(No Tract
Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$356
$734
$332
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$830
$344
$1,425
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$2,226
$1,563
$1,165
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$1,172
$908
$733
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$16,071
$12,452
$10,052
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
*Represents 90% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
June 4 Consultant-Staff Recom Fee
Date Printed: 5/24/2012 80
160
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Land Use
Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end to
Trip
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 50.22 $ 1,737.61 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit
Condominium/Townhou
se 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 50.22 $ 1,064.66 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 $ 908.98 /Unit
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door)
Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room
iNpusTRIAL41 per tow SF)
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
commp3ppw(por, 1;001§E)
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover
Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER(as noted)
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market
(avg) 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
Position
Service Station w/Car
Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Position
Page 3
81
161
6.151 7 .91 0.51 24.31 $ 57.39 1 $
5.361 7.91 0.51 21.21 $ 57.39 1 $
4.571 7.9 0.51 18.11$ 57.39 1$ 1,038.76 1/Unit
Apartment
Condominium/
Townhouse
Mobile Home Dwelling
1,394.58 /Unit
1,216.67 /Unit
0.5 4.3 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
/Fuel
Position 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02
23.45
2.47
5.92
22.21
7.16 8.8
30.2 4.3
11.42 4.3
62.93
8.9 4.3
43.57 4.3
13.97 4.3
3.07 4.3
107.69 4.3
99.35 4.3
4.3
Office Park
Research Park
Business Park
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store
Garden Center
Movie Theater
Church
Medical-Dental Office
General Office Building
Shopping Center
Hospital
Discount Center
High-Turnover
Restaurant
Convenience Market
Office Park
OTHER (as noted)
Cemetery
Service Station/Market
(avg)
Service Station w/Car
Wash
7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $
5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $
9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $
29.351 4.31 0.51 63.11$ 64.34 1$
4.3 $ 64.34 341.00 /1,000 sf 0.5 5.3
4.3 12.7 $ 64.34 817.12 /1,000 sf 0.5
97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf 8.8 0.5
2,097.48 /1,000 sf
1,415.48 /1,000 sf
2,644.37 /1,000 sf
4,059 85 /1,000 sf
64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
0.5
0.5
30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 1/Acre
/Fuel 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 1 Position
0.5
0.5
0.5
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
Detached Dwelling Unit
8.761 7 .9 1 0.51 34.61 $ 57.39 1 $
1,985.69 1/Unit
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door
Hotel
6.29
3.77
4.34
7.6
7.6
7.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
23.9
14.3
16.5
$ 64.34
$ 64.34
$ 64.34
$ 1,537.73 /Room
920.06 /Room
$ 1,061.61 /Room
All Suites Hotel
Motel
INDUSTRIAL ( per 1,000 SF)
General Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Manufacturing
Warehousing
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF)
6.17 9.0
5.97 9.0
2.73 9.0
4.39 9.0
27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf
12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Page 4 82
162
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Land Use
Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end to
Trip
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND::LISES:(Per'Unit):.
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominium/
Townhouse 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,164.55 /Unit
Rp:O.RT/TRVI:31.ST (per unit or gotit Door)
Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room
INpusTRim, (:pek1j0:00 SP):,
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 $F):::
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover
Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER (as noted.:
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market
Sag ) 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
Poon
Service Station w/Car
Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Position
Page 5
83
163
84
164
85
165
86
166
87
167
88
168
89
169
90
170
91
171
92
172
93
173
94
174
95
175
Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee SclifedtAntsi89.S°12-23
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Land Use
Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end
to Trip
,
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Recommended Cost per
1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit
or other unit (90% of
original)
30% Increase
Scenario Cost per
1000 sq. ft, dwelling
unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 50.22 1,737.61 /Unit 1,722.55 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit $ 1,209.50 /Unit
Condominium/Townhouse 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 50.22 $ 1,064.66 /Unit 1,054.55 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 $ 908.98 /Unit 899.59 /Unit
RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door
Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,218.63 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room 729.93 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 841.02 /Room
INDUSTRIAL ( per 1,000 SF)
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf $ 1,279.46 /1 ,000
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,238.01 c/f1,000
Manufacturing 2.'73 9.0 0.5 '12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf 566.11
,
/1,000
cf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf 910.74 /1,000
cf
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF)
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,522.61 000 /1,
sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1 ,027.85 /1,000
sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,917.85 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 /1,000
sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf $ 341.00 /1,000
sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 11,000 sf $ 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 4.559.89 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,470.08 /10 00 ' sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 /1,000
sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 /1,000
sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER (as noted)
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market
(avg) 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
Position $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
Position
Service Station w/Car
Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Position
Page 2 96
176
97
177
98
178
ATTACHMENT #2
99
179
ORDINANCE NO. 3942
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.75 RELATING TO
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR POLICE FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
Chapter 17.73, said chapter to read as follows:
Chapter 17.75
POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Sections
17.75.010 Legislative findings.
17.75.020 Intent and Purpose.
17.75.030 Definitions.
17.75.040 Police Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.75.050 Fund Established.
17.75.060 Fee imposed.
17.75.070 Calculation of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.75.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects
17.75.076 Fee Adjustments.
17.75.080 Payment of fee.
17.75.090 Use of funds.
17.75.100 Refund.
17.75.110 Exemptions and credits.
17.75.120 Appeals.
17.75.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site Related Improvements.
17.75.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account
17.75.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
17.75.160 Effect of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and
subdivision regulations.
17.75.170 Violation—Penalty.
17.75.180 Severability.
12-3209.001/78649
100
180
Ordinance No. 3942
17.75.010 - Legislative findings.
A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections
66001 through 66009 has authorized the City to enact Development Impact Fees.
B. The imposition of Development Impact Fees is a method of ensuring that new
development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other
costs necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to
promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare.
C. Increase in residential and nonresidential development in the City creates a need for
increased funds to pay for the cost of increased police services and facilities which
are needed to serve the increasing development in the City.
D. Pursuant to the "Development Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report for the City of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011,
as amended April 27, 2012, which incorporated herein by reference in these
findings as though set forth in full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are
derived from, based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing additional
police services attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential
development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically
identify capital facilities to serve new development; the acquisition of additional
property for police facilities; the construction of buildings for police services; the
furnishing of buildings or facilities for police services; and the purchasing of
equipment and vehicles for police services.
E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the police
facilities and equipment identified in herein in furtherance of the City's General
Plan, as well as the Nexus Report and its attached Master Facilities Plan and the
City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan.
F. Detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction
in the City, along with an analysis of the need for new police facilities and
equipment has been prepared. This study is included in the Nexus Report.
G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the
need for the police facilities and equipment set forth in this Chapter and the impacts
of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In
addition, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the
amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities and equipment or portion thereof
attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
2
12-3209.001/78649
101
181
Ordinance No. 3942
17.75.020 — Intent and Purpose.
A Police Facilities Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring
that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair
share of the proportional facility and equipment and vehicle costs required to support
needed police facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development.
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus
Report including the Master Facilities Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's police services are maintained when new
development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably
related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Police Department,
together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to
construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the
goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan, a part
of the Nexus Report.
It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be
supplementary to any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other
provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental
Quality Act, other state and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may
authorize the imposition of conditions on development.
17.75.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.75.040 - Police Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Police
Facilities Development Impact Fee on all new non-subdivided Residential and
Nonresidential development.
17.75.050 - Fund established. A Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is
established. The Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for
payment of the actual or estimated costs of police facilities and equipment as set forth in
the Nexus Report which includes the Master Facilities Plan, as well as the City of
Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential and nonresidential
construction.
17.75.060 - Fee imposed.
A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee
Ordinance, seeks to engage in non-subdivided Residential or Nonresidential
development including mobilehome development by obtaining a building permit or
other discretionary approval is required to pay a Police Facilities Development
Impact Fee in the manner and amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington
Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted.
3
12-3209.001/78649
102
182
Ordinance No. 3942
B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building
permit approval or construction approval for a mobilehome pad or pads, as
applicable, for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until
the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been
paid to the City.
17.75.070 - Calculation of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and
Building or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the
applicable Police Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current
fee resolution setting the amount of the fee.
B. The Director of Planning and Building shall calculate the amount of the applicable
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee due by:
1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential
development or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and
multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee
amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution
setting the amount of the fee;
2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying
the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential
number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and
location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential
use, and multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact
Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee resolution setting
the amount of the fee;
4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include
two (2) or more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by
the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the
current fee resolution. The gross square feet of floor area of any accessory
use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal use unless
the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is
related to another principal use.
17.75.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project
will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy
will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on
the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of
4
12-3209.001/78649
103
183
Ordinance No. 3942
the fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase
shall be equal to the percentage that that phase represents of the total development
project's development characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time
payment is due.
17.75.076 Fee Adjustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.75.080 - Payment of fee.
A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Police Facilities Development Impact
Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of
occupancy, final building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome
pad or pads, whichever occurs first.
B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall
be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Police Facilities
Development Impact Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this
Chapter.
17.75.090 - Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to
fund the costs of providing additional police services attributable to new residential
and nonresidential construction and shall include:
1. The acquisition of additional property for law enforcement facilities;
2. The construction of new facilities for law enforcement services;
3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for law enforcement services;
4. The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for law enforcement
services;
5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new police
department development;
6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the
Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City of Huntington
Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach
budget or City Council approved development projects.
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing buildings, and/or existing vehicles or equipment.
5
12-3209.001/78649
104
184
Ordinance No. 3942
C.Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth.
D.In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced
provision of capital facilities for which Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
may be expended, Development Impact Fees may be used to pay debt service on
such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are
of the type described in this Chapter.
E.Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.75.100 - Refund.
A.Any applicant who has paid a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee pursuant
to this Chapter may apply for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year
after collection of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee the fee has been
modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type
of dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an
exemption pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may
retain a sum up to twenty (20%) percent of the Development Impact Fee paid by
the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund
exceed the amount of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee actually paid.
B.Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected.
If the Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then
the applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73 Appeals. An
application for a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90)
days after the payment of the fees.
C.City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application
of the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit
them to a project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five
years from the date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of
this subsection, fees are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been
budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement,
studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by other
governmental agencies have been initiated, construction bidding has been initiated,
or improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the
City's average annual cost of funds will be made only upon an application filed
within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee payment.
17.74.110 Exemptions and credits.
A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of
application for a building permit or mobilehome construction approval. Any claim
of exemption must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to
6
12-3209.001/78649
105
185
Ordinance No. 3942
the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 17.73. The
following shall be exempted from payment of the Police Facilities Development
Impact Fee:
1. Residential Development
a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which
no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed and
where no additional police services will be provided over and above
those provided by the existing building;
b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed
building or structure with a new building or structure of the same
size and use, provided that no additional police services will be
required over and above those provided by the original use of the
land;
c. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or
uses which will not require additional police services over and
above those provided by the principal building or use of the land;
d. The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such
site when a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee for such
mobilehome site has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter,
or where a mobilehome legally existed on such site on or prior to the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter;
e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling
(one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement
of one (1) mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving
and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the
City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to
tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per
lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more
than one (1) dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased,
sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price
which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section
50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a
"lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code or "very low-income household" as defined in
Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. This exemption
shall require the applicant to execute an agreement to guarantee that the
units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income households
whether as units for rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall be in
7
12-3209.001/78649
106
186
Ordinance No. 3942
the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable
document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any
successor-in-interest to the real property being developed. The agreement
shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing
affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The
agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in-
interest shall be required to provide annually, or as requested, the names of
all tenants or purchasers, current rents and income certification to insure
compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing restriction or violation of the
restriction shall require the applicant or any successor-in-interest to pay the
then applicable Police Facilities Development Impact Fee at the time of
voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the unit in
violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable;
B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities
district (CFD) or, and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset
credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments
fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the
Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter.
17.75.120 Appeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications
for credit for construction of non-site-related improvements shall submit applicable
engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the
Director. The Director shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these
cost estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the
estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall
the amount of the credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or
other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would
otherwise apply.
No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued
until: (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable
maintenance and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design,
construction, inspection, testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict
compliance with City paving, drainage and other applicable requirements
17.75.140 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest
earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type
identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time
8
12-3209.001/78649
107
187
Ordinance No. 3942
to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the police services impacts of
new development.
17.75.150 - Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the
Police Chief of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in
implementation of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee program and shall
prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Code
Section 66006, incorporating among other things:
1. The police facilities and equipment commenced, purchased or completed
utilizing monies from this Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Police Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and
4. Recommended changes to the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee,
including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Police Facilities
Development Impact Fee chapter or the fee resolution.
B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant
and applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter
or the fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Police Facilities
Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee
resolution. Any change which increases the amount of the Police Facilities
Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City Council only after a noticed
public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council or limits its discretion to
amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution establishing
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as
may be deemed necessary.
17.75.160 - Effect of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and
subdivision regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use
of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and
public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or
construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning
regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City, which
shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all
residential and nonresidential development.
17.75.170 - Violation—Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the
same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be
punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal
9
12-3209.001/78649
108
188
Chief of Police
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ordinance No. 3942
prosecution, the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of
this Chapter.
17.75.180 - Severabilitv. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July , 20 12
10
12-3209.001/78649
109
189
ATTACHMENT #3
110
190
ORDINANCE NO. 3943
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.74 RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding
Chapter 17.74, said chapter to read as follows:
Chanter 17.74
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Sections
17.74.010 Legislative findings.
17.74.020 Intent and Purpose.
17.74.030 Definitions
17.74.040 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.74.050 Fund Established.
17.74.060 Fee imposed.
17.74.070 Calculation of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.74.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects
17.74.076 Fee Adjustments
17.74.080 Payment of fee.
17.74.090 Use of funds.
17.74.100 Refund.
17.74.110 Exemptions and credits.
17.74.120 Appeals
17.74.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site Related Improvements.
17.74.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account
17.74.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
17.74.160 Effect of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision
regulations.
17.74.170 Violation—Penalty.
17.74.180 Severability.
1
12-3209.001/78650
111
191
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.010 - Legislative findings.
A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001
through 66009 has authorized the City to enact Development Impact Fees.
B. The imposition of Development Impact Fees is a method of ensuring that new
development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs
necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
C. Increase in residential and nonresidential development in the City creates a need for
increased funds to pay for the cost of increased fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and specialty equipment which are needed to serve the increasing development in the
City.
D. Pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012,
which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the
fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed
the costs of providing additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This
study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify capital facilities
to serve new development; the acquisition, relocation and expansion of fire stations; the
construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment, and increase the number of emergency response vehicles.
E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition,
relocation and expansion of fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire
suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the number
of emergency response vehicles identified herein in furtherance of the City General Plan,
the Nexus Report and its attached Master Facilities Plan, and the City of Huntington
Beach Master Improvement Plan.
F. A detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in the
City, along with an analysis of the need for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of
fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and specialty equipment, and increase the number of emergency response vehicles has
been prepared. This study is included in the Nexus Report.
G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for
the acquisition, relocation and expansion of fire stations; the construction or acquisition
of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the
number of emergency response vehicles set forth in this Chapter and the impacts of the
types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the
fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
2
12-3209.001/78650
112
192
Ordinance No. 3943
the facilities and equipment or portion thereof attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed.
17.74.020 — Intent and Purpose.
A Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the
impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the
proportional facility and equipment and vehicle costs required to support needed acquisition,
relocation and expansion of fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire
suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the number of
emergency response vehicles and related costs necessary to accommodate such development.
This Chapter is intended to implement goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington
Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus Report including
the Master Facilities Plan, which is a part of the Nexus Report, and the City of Huntington Beach
Capital Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's acquisition, relocation and expansion of
fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and
specialty equipment, and the increase in the number of emergency response vehicles are
maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that
is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Fire Department,
together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to
construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the
goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan, the Nexus Report and its attached
Master Facilities Plan.
It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be supplementary to
any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the
Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, other state
and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of
conditions on development.
17.74.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.040 - Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Fire Facilities
Development Impact Fee on all non-subdivided, new Residential and Nonresidential
development.
17.74.050 - Fund established. A Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is established.
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the
actual or estimated costs of Fire facilities and equipment as set forth the Nexus Report which
includes the Master Facilities Plan, as well as the City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan related to new Residential and Nonresidential construction
3
12-3209.001178650
113
193
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.060 - Fee imposed.
A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee, seeks
to engage in non-subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development including
mobilehome development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval
is required to pay a Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and amount as
set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted.
B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building permit
approval or construction approval for a mobilehome pad or pads, as applicable, for the
activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the Fire Facilities
Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City.
17.74.070 - Calculation of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building peimit, the Director of Planning and Building
or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Fire
Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting
the amount of the fee.
B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Fire Facilities Development
Impact Fee due by:
1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development
or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and multiplying the same by
the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type
of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by
the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current
fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number
of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location, in a
structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying
the same by the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee amount for each use as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type
of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include two (2) or
more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Fire Facilities
Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The
gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same
rate as the predominant principal use unless the Director finds that the accessory
use is related to another principal use.
4
12-3209.001/78650
114
194
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project will be
constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued
for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the
development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may be
made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the
percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development
characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due.
17.74.076 Fee Adjustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.080 Payment of fee.
A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final
building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome pad or pads,
whichever occurs first.
B. Except for any administrative allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be properly
identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter.
17.74.090 Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund
the costs of providing additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall
include:
1. The acquisition of additional property for fire department facilities;
2. The construction of new facilities for fire department services;
3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for fire department services;
4. The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for fire department
services;
5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new Fire
Department development;
6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master
Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City of Huntington Beach
Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or
City Council approved development projects.
5
12-3209.001/78650
115
195
Ordinance No. 3943
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing buildings, and/or existing vehicles or equipment.
C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth.
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of
capital facilities for which Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees may be expended,
Development Impact Fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt
instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this
Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.74.100 Refund.
A. Any applicant who has paid a Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee pursuant to this
Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1)
year after collection of the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee the fee has been
modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of
dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption
pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to
twenty (20%) percent of the Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the
administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Fire
Facilities Development Impact Fee actually paid.
B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the
Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the
applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73 Appeals. An application for
a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90) days after the payment
of the fees.
C. City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of
the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a
project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the
date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees
are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise
encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any
necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been initiated,
construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under construction. Eligible
refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds, will be made only upon
an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee
payment.
6
12-3209.001/78650
116
196
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.110 Exemptions and credits.
A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application
for a building permit or mobilehome construction approval. Any claim of exemption
must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same procedure
as for a fee adjustment as provided in this Chapter 17.73. The following shall be
exempted from payment of the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee:
1. Residential Development
a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no
additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed and where no
additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment will be provided over and above those provided by the existing
building;
b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure
with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no
additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment will be required over and above those provided by the original
use of the land;
c. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses
which will not require additional Fire suppression/medic facilities,
vehicles and specialty equipment over and above those provided by the
principal building or use of the land;
d. The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such site
when a Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee for such mobilehome site
has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter, or where a mobilehome
legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this Chapter;
e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one
(1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement of one (1)
mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving and relocation
of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot
within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to
the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement
of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold,
conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does
not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household"
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or "very
7
12-3209.001/78650
117
197
Ordinance No. 3943
low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and
Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement
to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income
households whether as units for rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall
be in the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable
document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any
successor-in-interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall
subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable
housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be
recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in-interest shall be required to provide
annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and
income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing
restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any
successor-in-interest to pay the then applicable Fire Facilities Development
Impact Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of
violation on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of
enforcement, if applicable;
B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities
district (CFD) or, and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit
towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund
improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the Development
Impact Fees established by this Chapter.
17.74.120 Appeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications for
credit for construction of non-fire-related improvements shall submit applicable engineering
drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the Director. The Director
shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these cost estimates or alternative
estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates submitted by the applicant are
either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed the
improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall
the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply.
No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until:
(1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and
warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection,
testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage
and other applicable requirements
17.74.140 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest
earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on projects of the nature or type identified in
the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the
8
12-3209.001/78650
118
198
Ordinance No. 3943
reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and
specialty equipment impacts of new development.
17.74.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Fire Chief
of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Fire
Facilities Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council
in accordance with Government Code Section 66006, incorporating among other things:
1. The Fire facilities and equipment commenced, purchased or completed utilizing
monies from the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and
4. Recommended changes to the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee, including,
but not necessarily limited to changes in this Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee chapter or the fee resolution.
B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and
applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee
resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which
increases the amount of the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by
the City Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City
Council or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee
resolution establishing Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such
other times as may be deemed necessary.
17.74.160 Effect of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision
regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property,
density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement
requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which
may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or
other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and
effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development.
17.74.170 Violation—Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same
manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable
according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the City shall
have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
17.74.180 Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall
9
12-3209.001/78650
119
199
ATTEST:
City Clerk
?,PROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 3943
be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 .
Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Manager
10
12-3209.001/78650
120
200
ATTACHMENT #4
121
201
ORDINANCE NO. 3944
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.65 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 17.65.015 is hereby added to Chapter 17.65, said section to read as
follows:
17.65.015 - Legislative findings.
A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001
through 66009 has authorized the City to enact development impact fees.
B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new
development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs
necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
C. Increase in residential and nonresidential development in the City creates a need for
increased funds to pay for the cost of street, traffic signal and bridge improvements which
are needed to serve the increasing development in the City.
D. Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012,
which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the
fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed
the costs of providing additional street, traffic signal and bridge improvements
attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This study is
based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify existing circulation
system elements.
E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the possible
acquisition and expansion of circulation systems identified herein in furtherance of the
City's General Plan, as well as the Master Facilities Plan which is part of the Nexus Plan
and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan.
F. Detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in the
City, along with an analysis of the need for the potential acquisition and expansion of
circulation systems has been prepared. This study is included in the Nexus Report.
12-3209.004/76802
1
122
202
Ordinance No. 3944
G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for
the potential acquisition and expansion of existing circulation system elements and
increase the number of vehicles set forth in this Chapter and the impacts of the types of
development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the
fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the system or portion thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
SECTION 2. Sections 17.65.050, 17.64.070, 17.65.090, 17.65.100, and 17.65.120 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.65.050 Establishment of a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee. A Fair Share
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee is hereby established. Any person who, 60 days after the effective
date of this Chapter, seeks to develop land, or modify the use of land within the City, by
applying for a building permit or other entitlement for use, or an extension of a building permit
or other entitlement for use previously granted, for a development project that will generate net
additional vehicle trips on City streets, is hereby required to pay a Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fee in the manner and amount specified in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee
Resolution separately adopted.
The City Council shall, by resolution, set the specific amount of the fee, applicability of the fee,
a formula for adjusting the fee to account for annual inflation in transportation improvement
construction costs, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is
imposed, list the specific public improvements to be constructed, and describe the estimated cost
of these facilities.
This fee shall be adjusted as provided in the resolution setting the specific amount of the Fee.
17.65.070 Calculation and Payment of the Traffic Impact Fee
(a) Fee Calculation. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for calculating the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee required by this Chapter, in accordance with the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
The applicable amount of the fee shall be estimated at least 60 days prior to the first
public hearing for any discretionary planning approvals required by City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance. The estimated fee shall identify the use category, the vehicle
trip-miles for the use and the total estimated for fee based upon the proposed size of the
developments. The fee estimated shall be recalculated as needed at the time a building
permit is issued, based on the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the final
development plan for which the building permit is issued.
(b) Payment Procedure for Commercial or Industrial Development Projects. Fees
required by this Chapter from a New Commercial or Industrial Development Project shall
be paid at the time that the City issues a building permit for the Project. (
(c) Payment Procedure for Residential Development Projects. The fee required by this
Chapter from a New Residential Development Project shall be paid before final inspection
of the dwelling unit on which the fee was imposed. However, the Planning Director may
adopt procedures to advance the time the fee is due on Residential Development Projects
consistent with Government Code Section 66007, as amended.
12-3209.004/76802
2
123
203
Ordinance No. 3944
(d) Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project will be
constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be
issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the
basis of the vehicle trip characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the
fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase
shall be equal to the percentage that the vehicle trips for that phase represent of the total
development project's vehicle trips. The fee per vehicle trip shall be the fee in effect at
the time payment is due. (3827-4/09, 3879-6/10)
(e) Deposit of Fees. All Traffic Impact Fees collected shall be transferred for deposit into a
separate reserve account, as specified in this Chapter, and used solely for the purposes
specified in this Chapter. (3827-4/09, 3879-6/10)
17.65.090 Fee Refunds. Upon application, fees collected by the City pursuant to this Chapter
shall be refunded only under the following circumstances:
(a) Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that they were erroneously or illegally
collected, or if the City is compelled to do so pursuant to a final judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section shall be filed
within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees pursuant to Section 17.65.070.
(b) City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), fees
will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a surface transportation improvement
project of the nature or type identified in the Master Facilities Plan, which is part of the
Nexus Report, within five years from the date that the fees were collected from the
applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees are deemed to have been "committed" if
they have been budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible
improvement, studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by
other governmental agencies have been initiated, construction bidding has been initiated,
or improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's
average annual cost of funds, will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days
of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee payment.
17.65.100 Fee Credits for Construction of Citywide Surface Transportation Improvements
(a) An applicant for a New Development project shall be entitled to a credit against the
amount of the Master Facilities Plan otherwise required by this Chapter, if the applicant
agrees to dedicate right-of-way needed for, or construct a traffic improvement listed in the
Master Facilities Plan. No credit shall be given for site-related improvements or site-
related right-of-way dedications.
(b) Application. A separate application shall be filed for each adjustment request made
pursuant to this Section. Such application shall be filed with the Public Works Director
on a form provided by the Director, not later than:
(1) Thirty (30) days prior to the first public hearing on an applicable discretionary
permit application for the development project, pursuant to the City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance; or
(2) If no such discretionary permit is required, at the time of application for a
building permit for the development project. Each application shall provide the
documentation and assurances specified below.
12-3209.004/76802
3
124
204
125
205
Director- of Beblic Works
City Manager
Ordinance No. 3944
requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds. City administrative
costs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the Reserve Account balance in any fiscal year.
(e) No Reserve Account funds shall be used to pay for capital improvements that are
associated with existing arterial street segment or signalized intersection Level of Service
deficiencies, except to the extent that new development contributes to the further
degradation of operations, nor shall Reserve Account funds be used for periodic surface
transportation system maintenance.
SECTION 3. Sections 17.65.030, 17.65.040, and 17.65.080 are hereby deleted in
entirety from this chapter.
SECTION 4. Section 17.65.050 is hereby added to this chapter, said section to read as
follows:
17.65.150 Severabilitv. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall
be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 5. All other sections of Chapter 17.65 not modified by this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20_.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
12-3209.004/76802
5
126
206
127
207
128
208
129
209
130
210
131
211
132
212
133
213
134
214
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double underline
DELETIONS Strikethrough
the Transportation System Needs Analysis Master Facilities Plan, or such other report as may be
prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the
traffic impacts of new development. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
(a) Reimbursement for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct surface
transportation improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including the cost of land and right-
of-way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction and
equipment.
Reimburse the City for the construction of surface transportation projects of the nature or
type identified in the Transportation System Needs Analysis Master Facilities Plan, or such
other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of
the costs to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development constructed by the City with
local funds from other sources.
(c) Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments
issued to fund surface transportation improvements identified in the Transportation System
Needs Analysis Master Facilities Plan.
(d) Reimbursement for administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining
the Reserve Account required by this Chapter, including the cost of studies to establish the
requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds. City administrative
costs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the Reserve Account balance in any fiscal year.
(e) No Reserve Account funds shall be used to pay for capital improvements that are
associated with existing arterial street segment or signalized intersection Level of Service
deficiencies, except to the extent that new development contributes to the further
degradation of operations, nor shall Reserve Account funds be used for periodic surface
transportation system maintenance.
17.65.130 Annual Program Review and Periodic Adjustment of the Fee
Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the City Council shall review the status of
compliance with this Chapter, including the amount of fees collected, expenditures from the
Reserve Account, and the degree to which the fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are
assisting the City to mitigate the surface transportation impacts of new development. At least
every five (5) years after the effective date of the Ordinance enacting this Chapter, the Public
Works Director shall prepare, and the City Council shall consider, the fee formula established to
implement this Chapter, whether any adjustment in the fee foiinula or use of fee proceeds is
warranted, or any other changes are needed to the procedures established by this Chapter, to
fulfill the goals, objectives or policies of the City's General Plan. Each year between periodic
reviews of the fee formula, the fee shall be increased by a factor to account for inflation in
surface transportation construction costs, as provided in the City Council resolution setting the
fee amount. (3617-10/03)
17.65.140 Preparation of Implementation Guidelines
Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the Ordinance enacting this Chapter, the
Director of Public Works shall prepare administrative guidelines to implement the provisions of
this Chapter. The guidelines shall include administrative procedures, example fee calculations,
application forms and such other information that will assist City staff, decision makers,
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 9 of 11
6/2/10
12-3209.004/78740
(b)
135
215
136
216
ATTACHMENT #5
137
217
138
218
Ordinance No. 3945
17.67.010 Intent and Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a Library
Development Impact Fee upon future Development Projects, an equitable share of the cost of
mitigating future Library Facility needs created by such projects.
A Library Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts
created by new developments in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the
proportional costs required for expansion of library facilities and collections.
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following recommendations in the Master Facilities
Plan, a part of the Nexus Report (as described below), and the City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's expansion of library facilities and collections are
maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that
is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Library Services,
together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to
construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the
goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the
Nexus Repor6.
It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be supplementary to
any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the
Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, other state
and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of
conditions on development.
17.67.015 Legislative Findings.
A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001
through 66009 has authorized the City to enact development impact fees.
B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new
development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs
necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and
protect the public health, safety and welfare.
C. Increase in residential development in the City increases the demand on the amount of
library space and collection items.
D. Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012,
which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the
fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed
the costs of providing additional library services attributable to applicable new residential
development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically
identify capital facilities to serve new development; the expansion of the amount of
library facilities space and the number of collection items in the systems.
12-3209.005/77615
2
139
219
140
220
Ordinance No. 3945
must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same procedure
as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 17.73. The following shall be exempted
from payment of the Library Development Impact Fee:
1. Residential development.
a.Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no
additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed and where no
additional library services will be provided over and above those provided
by the existing building;
b.The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure
with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no
additional library services will be required over and above those provided
by the original use of the land;
c.The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses
which will not require additional library services over and above those
provided by the principal building or use of the land;
d.The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such site
when a Library Development Impact Fee for such mobilehome site has
previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter, or where a mobilehome
legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this Chapter;
e.Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one
(1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement of one (1)
mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving and relocation
of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot
within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to
the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement
of a single-family dwelling with more than one (I) dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold,
conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does
not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household"
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or "very
low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and
Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement
to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income
households whether as units for rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall
be in the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable
document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any
successor-in-interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall
12-3209.005/77615 4
141
221
Ordinance No. 3945
subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable
housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be
recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in-interest shall be required to provide
annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and
income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing
restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any
successor-in-interest to pay the then applicable Library Development Impact Fee
at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the
unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable;
B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities
district (CFD) or, and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit
towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund
improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the Development
Impact Fees established by this Chapter.
17.67.045 Calculation of Required Fees.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building
or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library
Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount
of the fee.
B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library Development Impact
Fee due by:
1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development
or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and multiplying the same by
the Library Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type
of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by
the Library Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee
resolution setting the amount of the fee;
3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number
of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location in a
structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying
the same by the Library Development Impact Fee amount for each use as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type
of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include two (2) or
more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Library
Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The
12-3209.005/77615
5
142
222
Ordinance No. 3945
gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same
rate as the predominant principal use unless the Department of Planning and
Building finds that the accessory use is related to another principal use.
17.67.050 Payment of Fees.
A The City shall collect from the applicant the Library Development Impact Fee prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, final building
permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome pad or pads, whichever occurs
first.
B Except for any adjustment charge allocated to the City all funds collected shall be properly
identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the library facilities impact fee fund and
used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter.
17.67.055 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project will be
constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued
for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the
development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may be
made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the
percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development
characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due.
17.67.060 - Refund.
A. Any applicant who has paid a Library Development Impact Fee pursuant to this Chapter
may apply to the Director for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year after
collection of the Library Development Impact Fee the fee has been modified as follows:
reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a
reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this Chapter.
In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20%) percent of
the Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of
refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Library Development Impact
Fee actually paid.
B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the
Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the
applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73 Appeals. An application for
a refund pursuant to this Section MUST be filed within ninety (90) days after the
payment of the fees.
C. City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of
the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a
project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the
date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees
12-3209.005/77615 6
143
223
Ordinance No. 3945
are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise
encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any
necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been initiated,
construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under construction. Eligible
refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds will be made only upon
an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee
payment.
17.67.065 Use of Funds
A. Funds collected from the Library Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs
of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection items in the
Library's collection attributable to new residential construction and shall include:
1. The acquisition of additional property for Library expansion;
2. The construction of new facilities for Library Services;
3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Library Services;
4. The purchase of Library collections to expand the collections;
5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new users and
patrons;
6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master
Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City
Council approved development projects.
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing buildings.
C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth.
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of
capital facilities for which Library Development Impact Fees may be expended, impact
fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the
extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.67.070 Fee Adjustments Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code
12-3209.005/77615
7
144
224
Ordinance No. 3945
17.67.072 Appeals Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code
17.67.075 Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications for
credit for construction of non-site-related improvements shall include acceptable engineering
drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates submitted to the Director. The Director
shall determine the amount of the credit for improvement construction based on either these cost
estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates
submitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the
credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for
the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply.
No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until:
(1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and
warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection,
testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage
and other applicable requirements.
17.67.080 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest
earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type
identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to
document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the impact of new development on the
expansion of Library Services and collections.
17.67.090 Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Director
of Library Services of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in
implementation of the Library Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report
thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 66006,
incorporating among other things:
1. The expansion of Library Services and collections commenced, purchased or
completed utilizing monies from the Library Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Library Development Impact Fees in the fund; and
Recommended changes to the Library Development Impact Fee, including, but
not necessarily limited to changes in this Library Development Impact Fee
chapter or fee resolution.
B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and
applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee
resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Library Development Impact Fee
rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which
12-3209.005/77615 8
145
225
INITIATED AND V_ED:
.25-7;---
Dire&o(Of Efbrary Services C.)
Ordinance No. 3945
increases the amount of the Library Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City
Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council or
limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution
establishing Library Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as
may be deemed necessary.
17.67.100 Effect of Library Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision
regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property,
density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement
requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which
may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or
other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and
effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development.
17.67.110 Violation—Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same
manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable
according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the City shall
have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
17.67.120 Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall
be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
12-3209.005/77615
9
146
226
ATTACHMENT #6
147
227
ORDINANCE NO. 3946
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.76 RELATING TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION
AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
Chapter 17.76, said chapter to read as follows:
Chapter 17.76
PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Sections
17.76.010 Legislative findings.
17.76.020 Intent and Purpose.
17.76.030 Definitions.
17.76.040 Parkland Acquisition, and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.76.050 Fund Established.
17.76.060 Fee imposed.
17.76.070 Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee.
17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects
17.76.076 Fee Adjustments.
17.76.080 Payment of fee.
17.76.090 Use of funds.
17.76.100 Refund.
17.76.110 Exemptions and credits.
17.76.120 Appeals.
17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site Related Improvements.
17.76.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account
17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on
zoning and subdivision regulations.
17.76.170 Violation—Penalty.
17.76.180 Severability.
1
12-3209.002/79301
148
228
Ordinance No. 3946
17.76.010 - Legislative findings.
A.The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001
through 66009 has authorized the City to enact development impact fees.
B.The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new
development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs
necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote
and protect the public health, safety and welfare.
C.A well-planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered
is an important amenity to residents of the City. The City considers a mixture of
passive and active park space uses optimal. Future residential development that does
not require subdivision, will impact the City's existing park system by creating
additional park users thus necessitating additional space for athletic fields, community
facilities "tot lots," and other active uses and passive uses as well as passive space for
businesses to enjoy.
D.Funds to pay for the cost of acquisition and development of additional parkland and
development of currently owned but underutilized parkland as well as development of
facilities will be needed to serve the increasing users caused by development in the
City. Without additional parks, parks development and community facilities, the
City's current parks and community facilities will become overcrowded and overused.
E.Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City
of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27,
2012, which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in
full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do
not exceed the costs of parkland acquisition, park development and community
facilities attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development.
This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify capital
facilities to serve new development; the acquisition, relocation and expansion of
parkland and park development and community facilities.
F.The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition,
relocation and expansion of parkland, park development, and community facilities in
furtherance of the City General Plan, as well as identified in the Nexus Report, and the
attached City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Development Plan, and the City
of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan.
F. A detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in
the City, along with an analysis of the need for the acquisition, relocation and
expansion of parkland and park facilities development is set forth in the Nexus Report.
G.As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need
for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development,
2
12-3209.002/79301
149
229
Ordinance No. 3946
community facilities, and the impacts of the types of development for which the
corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a reasonable relationship between
the fee's use and the type of development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion
thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
17.76.020 — Intent and Purpose.
A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact fee is being created for the
purpose of assuring that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington
Beach pay a fair share of the proportional costs for the acquisition, relocation and expansion
of parkland, park development and community use facilities and related costs necessary to
accommodate such development. This fee was once identified as a development impact fee in
Resolution 2002-129 created pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance section 230.20.
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus
Report including the Master Facilities Plan and the City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's acquisition, relocation and expansion of
parkland and conu -nunity facilities development are maintained when new development is
constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably related to the burdens
created by new development on the City's parklands, together with funding available from
other City revenue sources, the City will be able to purchase land and construct the required
capital improvements to accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and
policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the Nexus Report.
It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be supplementary
to any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the
Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, other
state and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of
conditions on development.
17.76.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.76.040 - Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is
imposed a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on all non-
subdivided new residential and nonresidential development.
17.76.050 - Fund established. A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee fund is established. The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the actual or estimated costs of
parldand acquisition and community facilities development as set forth in Chapter 8 of the
Nexus Report which includes the City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan, as well as
the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential and
nonresidential construction.
3
12-3209.002/79301
150
230
Ordinance No. 3946
17.76.060 - Fee imposed.
A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee,
seeks to engage in non-subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development by
obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and
amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately
adopted.
B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or building permit
approval for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this
Chapter has been paid to the City.
17.76.070 - Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and
Building or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in
the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee.
B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due by:
1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential
development and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park
Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the
same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee
amount as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the
fee;
3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential
number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and
location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use,
and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee
resolution setting the amount of the fee;
4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include
4
12-3209.002/79301
151
231
Ordinance No. 3946
two (2) or more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as
established by the current fee resolution. The gross square feet of floor area of
any accessory use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal
use unless the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory
use is related to another principal use.
17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project will
be constructed in phases, and separate building pelinits and certificates of occupancy will be
issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of
the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may
be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to
the percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development
characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due.
17.76.076 Fee Adjustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.76.080 Payment of fee.
A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary
certificate of occupancy, or final building permit approval.
B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be
properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Parkland Acquisition
and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund and used solely for the- purposes
specified in this Chapter.
17.76.090 Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing the acquisition, relocation and
expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new residential
and nonresidential construction and shall include:
1. The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and
community facilities development;
2. The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities
(except for non-residential as set forth in the Nexus report) and;
3. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland
and park facilities and community use facilities development;
4. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
5
12-3209.002/79301
152
232
Ordinance No. 3946
5. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master
Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City
Council approved park acquisition and development projects.
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing parkland or park facilities or community facilities.
C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth.
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision
of capital facilities for which Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such
bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the
type described in this Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.76.100 Refund.
A. Any applicant who has paid a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee(s) pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial
refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Parkland Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development Impact Fee the Fee has been modified as follows:
reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a
reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this
Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20%)
percent of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee paid
by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund
exceed the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee actually paid.
B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the
Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the
applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73.030 Appeals. An
application for a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90) days
after the payment of the fees.
C. City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of
the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a
project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the
date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection,
fees are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise
encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any
necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been
6
12-3209.002/79301
153
233
Ordinance No. 3946
initiated, construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under
construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds,
will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the
fifth anniversary of the fee payment.
17.76.110 Exemptions and credits.
A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of
application for a building permit or construction approval. Any claim of exemption
must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same
procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in this Chapter 17.73. The following
shall be exempted from payment of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Impact Fee:
1. Residential Development
a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no
additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed, and where
no additional relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities
development will be provided over and above those provided by the
existing building;
b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or
structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use,
provided that no additional relocation or expansion of parkland and
park facilities development will be required over and above those
provided by the original use of the land;
c. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses
which will not require additional acquisition, relocation or expansion of
parkland and park facilities development over and above those
provided by the principal building or use of the land;
d. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling
(one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the moving and
relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to
another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract
development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor
to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1)
dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold,
conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which
does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income
household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety
7
12-3209.002/79301
154
234
Ordinance No. 3946
Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the
California Health and Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant
to execute an agreement to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for
lower and very low-income households whether as units for rent or for sale or
transfer. The agreement shall be in the form of a deed restriction or other
legally binding and enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and
shall bind the owner and any successor-in-interest to the real property being
developed. The agreement shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal
program providing affordable housing to lower and very low-income
households. The agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County
Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any
successor-in-interest shall be required to provide annually, or as requested, the
names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and income certification to
insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing restriction or violation of
the restriction shall require the applicant or any successor-in-interest to pay the
then applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation
on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if
applicable;
B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities
district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset
credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments
fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the
development impact fees established by this Chapter.
17.76.120 Appeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications for
credit for construction of non-site-related improvements shall submit applicable engineering
drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the Director. The
Director shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these cost estimates or
alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates submitted by the
applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed
the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor
shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply.
No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued
until: (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance
and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction,
inspection, testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City
paving, drainage and other applicable requirements.
17.76.140 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest
earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type
identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to
8
12-3209.002/79301
155
235
Ordinance No. 3946
document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the acquisition, relocation and
expansion of parkland and park facilities development impacts of new development.
17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Deputy
City Manager of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in
implementation of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with
Government Code Section 66006, incorporating among other things:
1. Any parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities
development commenced, purchased or completed utilizing monies from the
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fees in the fund; and
4. Any recommended changes to the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Impact Fee, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in
this Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee chapter
or fee resolution.
B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and
applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the
fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Parkland Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending
the fee resolution. Any change which increases the amount of the Parkland
Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City
Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council
or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee
resolution establishing Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee rates or schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary.
17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Impact Fee
on zoning and subdivision regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the
permissible use of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement
standards and public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of
land or construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's
zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City,
which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to
all residential and nonresidential development.
9
12-3209.002/79301
156
236
City Attorney 5,
Ordinance No. 3946
17.76.170 Violation—Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same
manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be
punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution,
the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter.
17.76.180 Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions
shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
INITI lig AN bac ROVED:
141111,74S" AW
Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
10
12-3209.002/79301
157
237
ATTACHMENT #7
158
238
159
239
Ordinance No. 3947
(g) "City Manager" means the City Manager or his/her designee of the City of Huntington
Beach.
(h) "Collect" or "collection" means the point in time at which the development impact fee(s)
are paid by the applicant. Collection will occur on the date of final inspection or the date
a certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first,
or in the case of a mobilehome pad or pads, collection will occur at or on the date of
construction approval is issued.
"Collections" shall mean books, magazines, DVDs, compact disks, computer programs,
digital resources and other reference and circulation materials.
(j) "Commercial or Industrial Development Project" shall mean the construction of new
Floor Area on a lot in any of the Non-Residential Zoning Districts of the City.
(k) "Community Use Facilities" shall mean facilities dedicated for community use for social,
community and educational groups.
(1) "Detached Dwelling Unit" shall mean a detached building or buildings designed
primarily for use as a dwelling, with one or more habitable rooms with only one kitchen,
and designed for occupancy as a unit by one or more persons living as a household unit
with common access to all living, kitchen and bathroom areas, no portion of which is
rented as a separate unit.
(m)
"Development" means the addition of new dwelling units and/or new nonresidential
square footage to an undeveloped, partially developed or redeveloped site and involving
the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy for such construction,
reconstruction or use. Development may also include expanded uses that create additional
impacts on City facilities, infrastructure or park land. Development also includes the
approval and construction of new mobilehome pads in existing or new mobilehome parks
or sites, but not including the following so long as no additional dwelling units or gross
floor area is added:
1. A permit to operate;
2. A permit for the internal alteration, remodeling, rehabilitation, or other
improvements or modifications to an existing structure;
3. The rebuilding of a structure destroyed by an act of God or the rehabilitation or
replacement of a building in order to comply with the City's seismic safety
requirements;
4. Parking facilities; or
5. The rehabilitation or replacement of a building destroyed by imminent public
hazard, acts of terrorism, sabotage, vandalism, warfare or civil disturbance except
where said destruction was caused or in any manner accomplished, instigated,
12-3209.003/78647
2
160
240
Ordinance No. 3947
motivated, prompted, incited, induced, influenced, or participated in by any
persons or their agents having any interest in the real or personal property at the
location.
(n) "Development Project" means any residential, commercial or industrial Development
Project. shall mean any construction, addition, alteration or other change of use of a
• building or land that requires the City to issue a grading, building, plumbing, mechanical,
or electrical permit, or any other form of entitlement.
(o) "Director" may mean the Director of Community Services; Director of Library Services;
Director of Planning and Building, or Director of Public Works.
"Dwelling unit" or "DU" is as defined in Section 203.06 of the Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance ("ZSO").
(q) "Fee resolution" means and refers to the City resolution specifying the development
impact fee(s) per dwelling unit or mobilehome pad for residential development and per
gross square foot of floor area for nonresidential development, by type and by location.
(r) "Fees Calculation Report" shall mean the report prepared for the City entitled
"Development Impact Fee(s) Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington
Beach" dated October, 2011.
(s) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the ZSO.
(t) "Government or Public Facilities" shall mean publicly owned buildings and structures
used for the purposes of conducting City, County, State of Federal Government business.
Such facilities shall include, but not be limited to, city halls, police and fire stations,
offices, equipment yards, sanitation facilities, schools, recreation centers, and similar
facilities. Private commercial Development Projects leasing publicly owned land shall
not be considered Government or Public Facilities.
(u) "Gross square feet" or "gsf" means the area of a nonresidential development measured
from the exterior building lines of each floor with respect to enclosed spaces but
excluding parking spaces whether or not enclosed. For purposes of this Chapter, the term
"enclosed spaces" specifically includes, but is not limited to, an area available to and
customarily used by the general public and all areas of business establishments generally
accessible to the public such as fenced, or partially fenced in areas of garden centers
attached to and serving the primary structure.
(v) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that have been listed in the
fair share implementation resolution authorized pursuant to Section 17.65.050, and used
to provide the basis for future development impact projections.
(w) "Library Facilities" shall mean library building space and library materials, which are
owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach.
12-3209.003/78647
3
161
241
Ordinance No. 3947
(x) "Library Materials" shall mean books, magazines, DVDs, compact disks, computer
programs, digital resources and other reference and circulation materials.
(y) "Master Facilities Plan" shall mean the report prepared for the City entitled Development
Impact Fee Master Facilities Plan, prepared by Revenue & Costs Specialists, LLC, dated
October 2011.
(z) "Mobilehome" shall mean a structure transportable in sections which is a minimum of 8
feet in width and 40 feet in length, built on a permanent chassis, and designed to be a
dwelling with or without a permanent foundation.
(an) "Nonresidential development" means a development undertaken for the purpose of
creating gross floor area, excluding dwelling units, but which includes, and is not limited
to commercial, industrial, retail, office, hotel/motel, and warehouse uses involving the
issuance of a building permit for such construction, reconstruction or use.
(bb) "Planning and Building Director" shall mean the Planning and Building Director of The
City of Huntington Beach or his/her designee.
(cc) "Planning Department" shall mean the Planning Department of the City of Huntington
Beach.
(dd) "Police Department" means the Police Department of the City of Huntington Beach.
(ee) "Residential development" means a development undertaken for the purpose of creating a
new dwelling unit or units and involving the issuance of a building permit and certificate
of occupancy for such construction, reconstruction or use, or the construction approval
for a mobilehome pad or pads.
(ff)
"Residential Development Project" shall mean the construction of a dwelling unit on a lot
in any of the residential zoning districts of the City. For purposes of this Chapter, the
addition of Floor Area shall be considered construction of a Residential Development
project if the additional Floor Area exceeds fifty (50) percent of the existing Floor Area,
as determined by the Director of Planning and Building.
(gg) "Site-Related Right-of-Way or Improvement Construction" shall mean right-of-way or
traffic improvements that must be constructed on the site of a new development project in
order to comply with applicable City development regulations and standards.
(hh) "Surface Transportation System" shall mean the City's system of streets, roads and
intersections traversed by automobiles and other vehicles.
(ii) "Trip-Miles" shall mean the number of Vehicle Trips multiplied by the average trip
length for a specified use as identified in the "Fee Calculation Report".
"Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses of land,
as specified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation, and at the discretion of the Public Works Director when the reference
12-3209.003/78647
4
162
242
Ordinance No. 3947
document does not provide a reasonable representation of vehicle trips for a specific use,
special studies or alternative reference documents may be used.
17.73.020 Fee Adjustments
(a) An applicant for a New Development Project subject to a fee required by Title 17 of this
Code may apply to the City for a refund, reduction, adjustment or waiver of the fee.
(b) Circumstances That May Justify a Fee Adjustment. Examples of circumstances that may
justify a fee adjustment include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
(1) The Development Project includes an existing building that is proposed to be
demolished, provided the building proposed to be demolished was capable of being
used at the time of the Development Project application, and sufficient information
about its prior use is available. Any such adjustment is limited to the amount of the
fee that would otherwise be due for the New Development Project.
(2) The physical or operating characteristics (e.g., hours of operation) of the New
Development Project are substantially different from the land use on which the fee
calculation is based.
(3) The New Development Project includes multiple land uses that are complementary.
(4) Property values are worth less than the City's estimated value in the methodology.
Likewise, the City may present evidence in the form of an appraisal and the value is
in excess of that used in the methodology.
(c) An application for a fee adjustment shall be made and decided as follows:
(1) Application. A separate application shall be filed for each adjustment request made
pursuant to this Section. Such application shall be made on a form provided by the
Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee and shall be filed with the
Director of Planning and Building not later than:
(A) thirty (30) days prior to the first public hearing on an applicable discretionary
permit application for the Development Project, pursuant to the City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance; or
(B) if no such discretionary permit is required, at the time of application for a
building permit for the Development Project.
(d) Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested fee reduction,
adjustment or waiver. The Director of Planning and Building shall determine if the
application is complete, and if not, may cause the public hearing to be continued until the
application is determined to be complete. The Director shall act within 10 days after
receipt of the completed application to approve or deny the application.
12-3209.003/78647 5
163
243
Ordinance No. 3947
17.73.030 Appeals.
(a) An applicant may appeal, by protest, any imposition of the development impact fee(s) by
filing a notice of appeal with the City Manager or his/her designee or his/her designee
within ninety (90) days after the applicant pays the required development impact fee(s).
(b) A valid appeal by protest of the imposition of the development impact fee(s) shall meet
all of the following requirements:
1. Tendering in advance of the appeal any required payment in full or providing
assurance of payment satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee;
2. Serving written notice on the City Manager or his/her designee including:
(A) A statement that the required payment has been tendered under protest or
that required conditions have been satisfied;
(B) A statement informing the City Manager or his/her designee of the factual
elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis of the
protest;
(C) The name and address of the applicant;
(D) The name and address of the property owner;
(E) A description and location of the property;
(F) The number of residential units or nonresidential gross square footage
proposed, by land use or dwelling unit type, as appropriate; and
(G) The date of issuance of the building permit.
(c)
The City Manager or his/her designee shall schedule a hearing and render a final decision
on the applicant's appeal within sixty (60) days after the date the applicant files a valid
appeal.
(d) The hearing shall be administrative. Evidence shall be submitted by the City Manager or
his/her designee and by the applicant and testimony shall be taken under oath.
(e) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the applicant is not subject
to the imposition of the development impact fee(s) pursuant to the applicable
development impact fee ordinance and applicable state law.
(f)
If the development impact fee(s) has been paid in full or if the notice of appeal is
accompanied by a cash deposit, letter of credit, bond or other surety acceptable to the
City Manager or his/her designee in an amount equal to the development impact fee(s)
calculated to be due, the application for the building permit or mobilehome construction
approval shall be processed. The filing of a notice of appeal shall not stay the imposition
or the collection of the development impact fee(s) calculated by the City to be due unless
sufficient and acceptable surety has been provided.
(g)
Any petition for judicial review of the City Manager's final decision shall be made in
accordance with applicable state law and after the administrative remedies proscribed
herein have been exhausted.
12-3209.003/78647
6
164
244
INITIATED AND ATP/ROVED:
—Deputy City Manager
AS TO FORM:
Cl
7
Ordinance No. 3947
1. Hearing. The City Manager or his/her designee shall consider the fee(s)
adjustment application prior to the public hearing as the application for a
discretionary development permit for the Development Project, or, if no such
permit is required, the City Manager or his/her designee shall consider the
application at a separate hearing within (sixty) 60 days after the fee(s) adjustment
application is deemed complete by the City Manager or his/her designee.
2. Appeal. Any person may appeal the decision of the City Manager or his/her
designee to the City Council, by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within
ten (10) days of the City Manager or his/her designee's decision.
17.73.040 Judicial review.
(a) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the
development impact fee ordinance, or any provision thereof, or resolution, or amendment
thereto, shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the
ordinance, resolution, or any amendment thereto.
(b) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside or annul the imposition or
collection of a development impact fee(s) on a development shall be preceded by a valid
appeal by protest pursuant to Section 17.73.030 hereof and a final decision of the City
Manager or his/her designee pursuant thereto and shall be filed and service of process
effected within ninety (90) days after the hearing on appeal regarding the imposition of
development impact fee(s) upon the development.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
City Manager
12-3209.003/78647
165
245
ATTACHMENT #8
166
246
167
247
168
248
Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (Tract Map/Quimby)
Current Fee
Effective
7/20/12
Effective
7/20/13
Effective
7/20/14
Based on
Land
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)Appraisal $12,500 $14,286 $16,071
Based on
Land
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)Appraisal $9,685 $11,068 $12,452
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)N/A N/A N/A N/A
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)N/A N/A N/A N/A
3 of 3
Item 9. - 91
HB -226-
169
249
ATTACH ENT #9
170
250
Master Facilities Plan
for the City of
Huntington Beach, California
October, 2011
(Amended April 27, 2012)
Copyright, 2009, 2010 & 2011 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon
may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic,
electronic, mechanical, including any photocopying, recording, taping or
taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission
of:
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C
Fullerton, CA 92831
(714) 992-9020
HB -228-
171
251
172
252
Page Two, October 17, 2011 (amended 04/27/12) 141FP Letter to the City of Huntington Beach
• A section containing all of the Park Land Acquisition and Development of
Recreation Facilities including Community Use Facilities projects.
In addition to the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager in coordinating the flow of
information, the following staff were instrumental in identifying the required projects:
M. Todd Broussard, P.E.- Principal Civil Engineer (Storm Drainage)
David C. Dominguez - Facilities Development and Concessions Manager
Eric G. Enberg - Division Chief/Fire Operations
Jim B. Engle Community Services Director
Kevin Justen,- Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire
Tung M. Kao - Info Systems Specialist
Darrin Maresh, Fire Development Specialist
Tony Olmos - City Engineer
Jerry Thompson - General Services Manager
Bill Reardon - Fire Marshall/Division Chief
Dan Richards - Customer Support/GIS Manager
Bob Stachelski - Transportation Manager
Chuck Thomas - Police Captain
Jerry Thompson - General Services Manager
Bob Wingenroth - Director of Finance
RCS appreciates the efforts of the listed staff and any others whose efforts RCS may have been
unaware of for their assistance in generating the information provided within this Master Facilities
Plan, and we look forward to meeting with the City Council in order to implement and achieve
maximum use this comprehensive report.
Sincerely,
SCOTT THORPE
Vice President
Item 9. - 95 HB -230-
173
253
174
254
175
255
City of Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
PK-018 Lamb Park Design and Development
76
PK-019 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room 77
PK-020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites)
78
CF-001 Central Park Senior Center 79
CF-002 Edison Community Center Gymnasium 80
CF-003 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium 81
CF-004 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion 82
HB -233- Item 9. - 98
176
256
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
GUIDE TO THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
The Master Facilities Plan is a compilation of projects identified by City staff as being needed for
the City of Huntington Beach through theoretical General Plan build-out of the City. The Plan is
based on input from City staff, recommended projects contained in the City's several Master Plans
for infrastructure and an occasional recommendation from RCS staff.
The Master Facilities Plan generally provides for three major types of projects. The first group
of projects provides for the maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of the City's varied
infrastructure, including its streets, storm drains and other public facilities. These projects
represent a very small portion of the needed replacement of the City's fixed assets identified at
more than $1.435 million of depreciable fixed assets which are being consumed, conservatively,
at an annual rate of just over $19.1 million, (assuming a conservative 75 year infrastructure
lifetime). The $1.435 billion figure excludes significant amounts of owned park land, not subject
to depreciation, at approximately $678.2 million. The following table indicates the replacement
costs of the various infrastructure owned by the City.
Table MFP-1
Replacement Value of Existing Infrastructure
Infrastructure Replacement Value
Law Enforcement $71,246,699
Fire Suppression/Medic $61,234,227
Circulation System (0 $533,539,375
Storm Drainage System (1) $203,631,313
Library Space/Collection $76,593,112
Park Improvements $488,783,370
Total $1,435,028,096
(1) Does not include millions of dollars owned in land right-of-way and
Excludes "local" facilities, those limited to neighborhood facilities.
The second group of projects are needed to serve future development and include such projects
as widening of streets, creation of additional parkland or construction of a new fire station. These
projects are proposed to be funded through the development impact fees recommended in the
companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for City
of Huntington Beach.
Item 9. - 99
1-1B -234-
177
257
178
258
179
259
180
260
Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan
Table MFP-2
Cost of Future Infrastructure
Infrastructure Project Totals
Law Enforcement Facilities, et. al. $10,100,895
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities et. al. $11,941,972
Circulation (Streets/Bridges/Signals) $28,537,800
Storm Drainage Collection System $207,494,050
Library Facilities/Collection $7,841,369
Park Land Acquisition & Improvements $137,483,000
Total $403,399,086
Fairness and reason (as well as the more important State and Federal statutes and court decisions)
dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for development impact fee funding (i.e. some
projects are replacements or service level increasing, etc.). If the City adopts the development
impact fees that represent the General Plan Build-out need-based impact fees (Schedule 2.1 in the
companion Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report), 42.6% of the required
funding (or $172.1 million) would be raised with development impact fees. Existing Development
Impact Fee Fund balances of $3.6 million will provide 0.9% of the total project funding and other
sources (inter-governmental support) will finance 5.7% ($23.0 million) This leaves 50.8%, or
$204.8 million of the total project costs as unfunded, to be financed by other sources such as fees,
rates, existing taxes or voter approved additional taxes, inter-governmental transfers and the rare
occasional grant.
Relationship to Development Impact Fee Report. The Master Facilities Plan was prepared in
conjunction with the City's Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, also prepared
by RCS, LLC. Projects listed in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
correspond to projects found in this document and contain the same numbering sequence as the
Master Facilities Plan. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report is also
contains eight chapters specific to each one of these infrastructure sections according to the same
category of projects described on the previous page.
Thus, a reader who wants to find more information on Law Enforcement Project No.1 (Additional
Law Enforcement Facility Space found on Schedule 3.1 of the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report may turn to Project No. LE-001 of the Master Facilities Plan. For
readers of the Master Facilities Plan who wish to understand the determination of development
Item 9. - 103 HB -238-
181
261
Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan
impact fee financing more fully, refer to the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report, Chapter One.
vi
HB -239- Item 9. - 104
182
262
183
263
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Master Project List
•
L0018 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue
LGO17 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue
Looia Ward Street And Garfieid Avenue
LGO19 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue
LGD20 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection Improvements
1.0.021 Public Works Maintenance Building
LG022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles
SI001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region *1 )
30002 Coastal And Boise Chloe Wetlands Region (SD Region #2)
80003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region *3)
80004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)
30005 Boise Chice Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region 45)
S0006 Public Works Maintenance Building
Pi:001 Expand Banning Branch Library
PL-002 Expand Main Street Branch Library
PL-003 Expand Library Collection Items
PK001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR
PK002 Irby Park Phase II
PK003 Central Park Former Gun Range SIR, RAP And Development
P14004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan
P14005 Blufilop Park Trail Improvements
P14005 Edinger Dock Development
P14007 VVardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction
PK008 City -Wide Parks Master Plan
PRO9 Central Park Habitat Plan
Total Thru
D.P. QuilcK)ut
$500,000
$264,000
$8,800
$10,000000
$5,000,000
$2,820,000
$65,000
$23,728,000
$21,527,000
$34,236,000
$28,749,000
$98,549,000
$705,050
$5,258,470
$1,651,375
$921,524
$5,400,000
$500,000
$4,325,000
$1,450,000
$1,000,000
$700,000
$1,000,000
$350,000
$250,000
2
V: 1.33.0 Date: 5/02/2012
Time: 10:55 AM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Pape; 2
HB -241- Item 9. -106
184
264
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Master Project List
Total Thru
GP. Build-Out
PK010 Central Park Acquisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots $1,020,000
PK011 Central Park Development Of Remaining $6 Acres $20,000,000
P14012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities $800,000
P14013 General Youth Sports Facilities Grants $4,500,000
PK014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase II $2,500,000
P14015 Beach Playground $350,000
P14016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area $3,000,000
PK017 Warner Dock Renovation And Expansion $800,000
P1018 Lamb Park Design And Development $1,100,000
P14019 Central Park Sports Complex Teem Room $100,000
P14020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites)$59,588,000
P14021 Central Park Senior Center $22,000,000
P14022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000
P14023 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000
P14024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion $800,000
Total All Projects s4039p,0s5
V: 1.33,0 Data: 5102/2012
Tim: 11;01 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 3
Item 9. - 107 HB -242-
185
265
City of Huntington Beach
Law Enforcement Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
4
HB -243- Item 9. -108
186
266
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
- 13 2013 - 14 2014-15
2015 - 16
Through
Build Out
Project Build
Out Total
$0 $0 $0 $7,597,165 $7,597,185
$0 $0 $0 $1,751,040 $1,751,040
$0 $0 so $327,690 $327,690
$0 $0 $0 $425,000 $425,000
$0 $0 $0 $10,100,895 $10,100,895
2011 - 12 2012
LE -001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $0
LE -002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $0
LE -003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment $0
LE -004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $0
TOTALS $0
Notes:
1) If project timing Is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Our amount
Lri
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:09 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1187267
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/Title LE 001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire land (or replacement land is placed at City Hall) for and construct12,041 square feet of law enforcement space. The department will
need to hire an additional 33 sworn officers at General Ran build-out to accommodate the additional 146% (8,697) in calls-for-service
demand overthe current 59,479 annual calls-for-service. Roughly 249 of these would be to the beach area. The additional space could be in
the main station or could be located elsewhere in the City. The space would be necessary to expand, patrol, investigation, traffic control or any
of the many specialty support services such as communications or records,
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The City annually currently experiences roughly approximately 61285 calls-for-sevice, 97.05% of which are from privately-held properties
within the City's limits. The land-use database indicates the addition of 7,065 residential dwellings, 1,353 commercial lodging rooms and 7.3
million square feet of additional business (commercial, office and industrial) space which will generate, on average, an additional 8,418
annual calls-for-service, or a 146% increase. While the existing station is adequate to meet the current needs, the addition of 34 sworn officers
will generate the need for a proportionally greater amount of space.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The project primarily addresses additional calls-for-service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05% to new General
Plan development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 97.05%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project timing would be dependent upon both the rate of development and collection of Development Impact Fees.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012-13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 - 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 - 15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015- 16
through Build-out
568,524.00
1,033,801.00
5,173,493.00
309,604.00
511,743.00
7,597,165.00
Total all Years
568,524.00
1,033,801.00
5,173,493.00
309,604.00
611,743.00
7,597,165.00
6
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:09 PM HB -245- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 110
188
268
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/Title LE 002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire thirty-two additional response or specialty vehicles at an average cost of $54,720 each in order to maintain the eAsting ratio of 0.98
vehicles per officer. Approximately 97,05% of these vehicles are required to serve private sector development
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The Department currently has 231 law enforcement vehicles that are used by the 235 sworn officers creating an existing standard of 0.98
vehicles per sworn officer. With that the addition of 33 officers needed to respond to the annual calls-for-service likelyyo be generated by
future General Plan development the Citywill need to acquire and additional 32 vehicles in order to maintain the 0.98 ratio of vehicle per sworn
officer. Failure to maintain the current ratio of vehciets per officer could reduce the City's ability to maintain beat strength and would certainly
accelerate vehilce turnover.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The acquisition addresses only the future additional calls-for-service from General Plan new development and thus is allocated 97.05 percent
to new development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 97.05%
Reference Document
' Project Timing:
The project timing would be dependent upon both the rate of development and collection of Development Impact Fees.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 - 13
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013- 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 - 15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 - 16
through Build-out
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,751,040.00
1,751,040.00
Total all Years
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,751,040.00
1,751,040.00
7
Item 9. - 111 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:09 PM MB -246- Huntington Beach October. 2011
189
269
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/ Title LE 003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire additional equipment assigned to the additional 33 sworn officers necessary to accommodate General Plan development. The
capitalized list of equipment includes (but is not limited to): a protective vest handgun, baton, compliment of leathers, handcuffs, uniforms,
helmet raincoat and heavy duty flashlight The costs, at $9,930 includes a nominal background chack, medical/physical check and
polygraph exam for the sucessful candidates.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The equipment is necessary for an officer to function in the field. The list is mostly safely equipment but also includes the costs absorbed by
the City in the necessary for identifying an appropriate candidate. Roughly 97.05% of the required new officers would be required to serve
new General Plan development
Relationship to General Plan Development
The project primarily addresses additional calls-for-service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05% to new General
Plan development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 97.05%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project timing would be dependent upon both development and collection of development impactfees.
2015 - 16- 15 through Build-out Total all Years
0.00 0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 327,690.00 327,690.00
0.00 327,690.00 327,690.00
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12
2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014
1.Design I Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00
8
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:09 PM HB -247- Huntington Beach I I t em 9 . - 112
190
270
2015 - 16
through Build-out
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
425,000.00
425,000.00
Total all Years
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
425,000.00
426,000.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/ Title LE 004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire specialty equipment to support the additional 33 officers needed to accommodate new development Approximately 97% of that
figure are needed to accommodate new development of private property.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The amount and type of crime is ever increasing. The City will need to acquire additional information-sharing computer capacity as well as
specialty equipment such as bikes, dogs, hand-held radios, etc.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The project primarily addresses additional cells-for-service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05% to new General
Plan development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
97.05%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project timing would be dependent upon both development and collection of development impact fees.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012 - 13 2013 - 14
2034 - 15
1. Design / Engineering / Aclministratic 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3. Construction
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4. Contingency
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5. Equipment / Other 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
Item 9. - 113 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:09 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 HB -248-
191
271
192
272
S I I - .6 u-I31-I Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
2015- 16
Through Project Build
2011 - 12 2012-13
2013 - 14 2014 - 15 Build Out Out Total
FS -001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)
FS -002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
FS -003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia)
FS -004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station #4 (Magnolia)
FS -005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #1 (Gothard)
FS -006 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #2 (Murdy)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 $0 $7,169,470
$0 $0 $1,716,044
$0 $0 $1,266,458
$0 $0 $740,000
$0 $0 $525,000
$0 $0 $525,000
$7,169,470
$1,718,044
$1,286,458
$740,000
$525,000
$525,000
TOTALS
$0
$0
$0 $0 $11,941,972 $11,941,972
Notes:
1) if project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Our amount
V:1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1 193273
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
532,561.00
1,026,097.00
4,963,827.00
285,204.00
361,781.00
7,169,470.00
532,561.00
1,026,097.00
4,963,827.00
285,204.00
361,781.00
7,169,470.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/Title FS 001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Relocate Station #8 from its current location on Heil Avenue just west of Spring ale Street to a more northerly area near Graham Street just
north of Edinger Street The proposed 11,350 square foot facility would be a be a five vehicle configuration and would require roughly 1.25
acres. The facility would be capable of housing up to three companies and battalion chief. The facility would provide 3,550 square feet of
vehicle bay space. 1,290 square feet of mechanical/technical space, 6,150 square feet of living quarters consisting of (a maximum of 24)
bunks, lockers, restrooms/showers, a physical training room, kitchen, dining and a dayroom.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The forty-five year-old station, once state-of-the-art has numerous limitations in addition to mere aging. In addition to asbestos removal
needs, the station design does not allow for mixed gender accommodation or the assignment of an aerial response truck. Since the station
needs to be reconstructed, relocation more northerly, about 1.25 miles, would improve the first-in engine, truck and paramedic ALS response
capacityto that area of the City. Redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridorwill likely result in a greater number of calls-for-service
changing the response dynamic of the existing eight stations. ff the station were not relocated, the area in question would receive longer
response times.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
Relocating Station #8 (Heil) is consistent with the City's General Plan Public Safety response time commitments and would improve the
average engine, aerial truck and ALS paramedic response time through-out the City, in particular the Edinger/Beach corridor area_
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
50.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridor would likely be the trigger pointfor the need orf this relocation. The station age and
limitations are also an issue end could trigger the construction timing.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratk
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
12
Time:12:13 PM FI B -251- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 116 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
194
274
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/ Title FS 002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Construct a 1620 square foot reserve apparatus storage facility upon relocation of the extisting Station #6 (Heil) to its proposed future location.
The facility would consist of a 2,660 square foot two bays wide by two vehicle deep storage building for up to four reserve response vehicles.
There would also be a contiguous 960 square foot basic storage room. The facility would be constructed on the rear portion of the parcel
near the hose tower and hose storage building.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The proposed storage building is necessary for proper storage of the reserve vehicles and other specialty equipment not used on a routine
basis, but important none-the-less. The existing vehicle storage facility cannot store all of the reservse vehciels thatwill be needed at General
Plan build-out
Relationship to General Plan Development
The additional storage sapce is necessary, in part to new deveopment and also because of the limited capaciaty of the single existing
reserve vehicle storage facility.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
25.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The facility would likely be constructed at the same time as the proposed relocation of station *8 (Heil), however, the construction could be
completed eta different time.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012 - 13
2013 -14
2014- 15
through Bad-out Total tgl Years
1. Design 1 Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120,415.00
327,286.00
1,122,703.00
84,210.00
81,450.00
1,716,044.00
120,415.00
327,266.00
1,122,703.00
64,210.00
81,450,00
1,716,044.00
13
Item 9. - 117 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:13 PM HB -252- Huntington Beech October, 2011
195
275
2015- 16
2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
109,650.00
0.00
1,020,000.00
60,306.00
76,500.00
1,266,458.00
109,650,00
0.00
1,020,000.00
60,308.00
76,500.00
1,268,458,90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles An d Equipment
Project Number/ Title FS 003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station *4 (Magnolia)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Construct a 2,400 square foot addition to Station *4 (Magnolia). The plans consist of an additional bay and sufficient living
quarters/training/storage space to the existing two-bay Station *4 (Magnolia). The additional 1,400 square foot vehicle bay would allowfor
two additonal response vehicles, in this case an engine and an ambulance. The 1,000 square foot living quarters expansion would increase
storage/locker space by approximately 200 square feet and living/training space by approximately 800 square feet
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-servce demands from the planned density-inceasing
redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor. Increased
call-load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Flan emergency
response goals. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebtwith the Downtown Specific Plan
and the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicle demands
to other parts of the City.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
50.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact tee receipts and other revenues become available.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 -13 2013- 14
1. Design / Engineering / Administrate 0.00
0.00
0.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00
0.00
0.00
3. Construction
0.00
0.00
0.00
4. Contingency 0.00
0.00
0.00
5. Equipment / Other 0.00
0.00
0,00
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
14
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012
Time: 12:13 PM HB -253- Huntington each It em 9. - 118
196
276
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/Title FS 004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station PI (Magnolia)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Add an engine company and an ambulance to Station #4 (Magnolia). Project FD-003 details the proposed 2,400 square loot expansion
required to house the new enine and paramedic vehicle and staff.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
Increased call-toad must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan
emergency response goals. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. The
expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-servce demands from the planned density-inceasing
redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebt with the Downtown Specific Plan
and the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicle demands to other parts of the City.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012-13
2013 -14
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
0,00
0.00
0.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
0,00
0.00
0.00
3. Construction
0.00
0.00
0.00
4. Contingency
0.00
0,00
0.00
5. Equipment / Other
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 - 16
2014 - 35
through Buad•out
Total all Years
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
740,000.00
740,000.00
0.00
740,000.00
740,000.00
15
Item 9. - 119 Date: 412712012
Time:12:13 PM HB -254- Huntington Beach October, 21111
197
277
2015 - 16
2014 - 15 through Build-out Total aS Years
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
525,000.00
525,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
525,000.00
525,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number./Title FS 005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #1 (Gothard)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Ad a standard engine company at Station #1 (Gothard). The engine would be fully stocked with and appropriate and sufficient amount of
hose, appurtenances end other safety/rescue equipment.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The expanded fadlity will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-seivce demands from the planned density-inceasing
redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor. Increased call-load must be balanced
by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan emergency response goals. Without the
additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistel3t with the Downtown Specific Plan
and the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicles response to other parts of the City.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 50.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00
0.00
0.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00
0.00
0.00
3. Construction
0.00
0.00
0.00
4. Contingency
0.00
0.00
0.00
5. Equipment! Other
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00
0.00
0.00
16
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM
HB -255-
Huntington Beach Item 9. - 120
198
278
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number/ Title FS 006 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #2 (Murdy)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Add a standard engine comperry at Station #2 (Murdy). The engine would be fully stocked with an appropriate and sufficient emiouint of hose,
appurtenances and other safety/rescue equipment
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The expended facility will be needed to arrommodate the additional calls-for-servce demands from the planned density-inceasing
redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach Specifc Plan corridor. Increased call-load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters
and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan emergency response goals. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will
be unachievable with the greater demands.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities along Edison/Beach Specific Plan and multiple response vehicles
demands to other parts of the City.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact fee receipts end other revenues become available.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 .12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
525,000.00
525,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
525,000,00
525,000.00
17
Item 9. - 121 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:13 PM HB -256- Huntington Beach October, 2011
199
279
City of Huntington Beach
Circulation (Streets, Signals
And Bridges) System
18
HB -257- Item 9. -122
200
280
$0
$0
$O
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 EZI - .6 moll Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
2011 - 12 2012 - 15
2013 - 14 2014-15
2015 - 16
Through Project Build
Build Out Out Total
LC -001
LC -002
LC -003
LC -004
LC -005
LC -006
LC -007
LC -008
LC -009
LC -010
LC -011
LC -012
LC -013
LC -014
LC -015
LC -018
LC -017
LC -018
LC -019
LC -020
LC -021
LC -022
Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue
Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue
Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue
Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwest Street
Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street
Goldenwest Street And Boise Avenue
Goldenwest Street And Slater Street
Newland Street And Talbert Avenue
Newland Street And Warner Avenue
Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue
Gothard Street And Slater Avenue
Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue
Ward Street And Garfield Avenue
Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue
Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection improvements
Public Works Maintenance Building
Public Works Maintenance Vehicles
$0 $600,000
$0 $1,000,000
$0 $400,000
$0 $500,000
50 $1,000,000
$0 $1,000,000
$0 $500,000
$0 $2,000,000
$0 $750,000
$0 $750,000
$0 $500,000
$0 $50,000
$0 $500,000
$0 $30,000
$0 $300,000
$0 $500,000
$0 $264,000
$0 $8,800
$0 $10,000,000
$0 $5,000,000
$0 $2,820,000
$0 $65,000
$600,000
$1,000,000
$400,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
$750,000
$750,000
$500,000
$50,000
$500,000
$30,000
$300,000
$500,000
$264,000
$8,800
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$2,820,000
$65,000
:8
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:14 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1 201281
Huntin In Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
TOTALS
Notes:
1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "That Build Out" amount
2015 - 16
Through Project Build
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 Build Out Out Total
$0 $0 $0 $0 $28,537,800 $28,537,800 17ZI - .6 11131I V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:14 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 2 202282
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/ Tile LC (101 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed: 1) Add elth northbound through lane, and 2) Add a 3rd westbound through lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State
Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the
entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Seivice (or LOS) traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level SE" is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", 'Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or 'P. Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,512 additional daily trip-miles.
This is al4.6% increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
75.00%
Reference Document
ProjectTiming:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / AdminIstratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 - 12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 -13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 - 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 - 15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 - 16
through Build-out
0.00
0.00
600,000.00
0.00
0.00
600,000.00
Total alt Years
0.00
0.00
600,00000
0.00
0.00
600,000.00
21
Item 9. - 125 Date: 4/2712012
Time: 12:14 PM HB -260- Huntington Beach October, 2011
203
283
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
0.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/Title LC 002 Beech Boulevard And Heil Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed: 1) Add 2nd northbound left-fium lane. An alternative would be to construct: 1)A de-facto westbound right turn lane,
and 2) add a de-facto southbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project.
Since the projectwould not be managed bythe City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs
into engineering and contingency components.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity Wnere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "Eu by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow." and is identified as along queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", "Forced Flow' creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or "F'. Development entidpated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City's existing demand of 3,107.224 daily trip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added deity tip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles att.* twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
22
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:14 PM HB -261- Huntington Beach It em 9. - 126
204
284
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/ Title LC 003 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the follcrwing improvements to the
intersection are proposed:1) Add a separate westbound right turn lane. An alternative would be to construct the following: 1) A de-facto
westbound right turn lane, and 2) add a separate northbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a
C.ALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but
does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow." and is identified as 'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E', "Forced Flow' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement".
Relationship to General Plan Development:
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like "D°, "E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454542 additional dailytrip-miles.
This is a 14.6% increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,22.1 daily hip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561367 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 65.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
2014 - 15
through Build-out Total all Years
t Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment I Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
400.000.00
0.00
0,00
400,000.00
0.00
0.00
400,000.00
0.00
0.00
400,000.00
23
Item 9. - 127 Date: 412712012
Time: 12:14 PM HB -262- Huntington Beach October, 2011
205
285
206
286
207
287
208
288
209
289
210
290
211
291
212
292
213
293
214
294
215
295
216
296
217
297
218
298
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Loce1 Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/ Title LC 017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed: 1) Add a 2nd southbound left turn lane. An alternative to that improvement would be: 1) Convert a separate
eastbound right turn to a 2nd eastbound through lane. This would be a City-managed project.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is °Unstable Flow." and is identified as 'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level E. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement".
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or "F. Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6% increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles atthe twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities end as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012-13
2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment! Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
240,000.00
24,000.00
0.00
264,000.00
0.00
240,000.00
24,000.00
0.00
264,004.00
37
Item 9. - 14 1 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 21111 HB -276-
219
299
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets. Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/ Title LC 018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed: 1) Add a 2nd eastbound left turn lane, and 2) remove a separate eastbound right turn lane. This would be a
City-managed project.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E", 'Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement".
Relationship to General Plan Development:
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like ND", "E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6% increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
2014 - 15
through Build-out Total all Years
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,000.00
800.00
0.00
8,800.00
0.00
8,000.00
800.00
0.00
8,800.00
38
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time:12:14 PM HB -277- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 142
220
300
221
301
222
302
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number/Title LC 021 Public Works Maintenance Building
Submitting Departments: Public Works -Engineering
Project Description:
Construct a 10,000 square foot split-face block, general-use circulation system maintenance building. The facility would have full utilities and
a number of roll-up doors. Approximately 80% of the cost of the additional space would benefit circulation system maintenance. The
remaining 20% would be required for the growing storm drainage collection system maintenance needs and would thus be financed with
Strom Drainage System Development Impact Fee proceeds. The cot below represents 80% of the proposed facility costs.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The additional space needs is required tro support the roughly $40.0 million in additional equipment and supply space needs resulting from
the addition of major circulation and strom drainage improvements as well as an untold amount of local street miles and local strom drainage
lines.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The facility expansion is limited to the demand created by the new infrastructure required to support new development
Allocation To Genera/ Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
ProjectTiming:
The project would be constructed based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient DIF revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Tom! all Years
1, Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265,000.00 265,000.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 am 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 rim 0.00 2,410,000.00 2,410,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.5,000.00 145,000.00
5. Equipment! Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST:0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,820,00E1.00 2,820,000.00
41
Item 9. - 145 Date: 4/2712012
Time: 12:14 PM HB -280- Huntington Beach October, 2011
223
303
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure:
Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
Project Number./ Title LC 022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles
Submitting Departments: Public Works -Maintenance
Project Description:
Acquire an additional maintenance utility truck and a traffic signal lift truck.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The additional maintenance vehicle would be required to support the additional demands from the roughly $40.0 million in additional
circulation system improvements.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The circulation system maintenance fleet expansion is limited to the demands created by new infrastructure required to support new
development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The proposed afleet additions would be acquired based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient or revenues are
collected.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
05,000.00
65,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
55,000.00
65,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
42
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:14 PM HB -281- Huntington Beech It em 9. - 146
224
304
225
305
Huntin, in Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Storm Drainage Collection System
2015- 16
Through Project Build
2011-12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014-15 Build Out Out Total
SD -001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $23,728,000 $23,728,000
SD -002 Coastal And Balsa Chios Wetlands Region (SO Region #2)
SD -003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3)
SD -004 VVintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)
SD -005 Balsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5)
SD -006 Public Works Maintenance Building
$0 $0 $0 $0 $21,527,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $34,236,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $28,749,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $98,549,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $705,050
$21,527,000
$34,236,000
$28,749,000
$96,549,000
$705,050
TOTALS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $207494,050 $207494,050
Notes:
1) If project timing is not a component of this effort then all projects default to their ''Thru Build Out" amount 8171 - .6 moll V: 1.12.0 Date: 4127/2012
Time: 12:15 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1 226306
2015-16
2011 -12 2012 -13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build-out Total all Years
2,847,360.00
0.00
18,982,400.00
1,1398,240.00
0.00
23,728,000.00
2,847,360.00
0.00
18,982,400.00
1,898,240.00
0.00
23,728,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number? Title SD 001 Santa Ana River 8, Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1)
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
The 788 individual projects within Area lare required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas
and safely conveying it to the proper outlet. Sub-drainage region #1 drains the lower central to east and southerly areas of the City. It is
generally bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River Channel, on the southwest by the Pacific Coast Highway and the Pacific Ocean, on the
west mainly by Alabama and Main Streets, and on the north by Garfield and Ellis Avenues. It encompasses the Santa Ana River and the
Talbert Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 20-2729-32, 40, and 41.
Justification! Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the
potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehide response by the City's
Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system. is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
7.52%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
45
Item 9. - 149 1 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:16 PM HB -284- Huntington Beech October, 2011
227
307
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number/Title SD 002 Coastal And Eloise Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2)
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
The 235 projects within Area #2 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
convey it to the proper outlet Sub-drainage region #2 drains the central southwest area of the City. and is generally bordered by Lake and
Main Streets on the east Pacific Coast Highway on the south and west Seapoint Avenue and Edwards Street on the west and Ellis Avenue
on the north. Sub-drainage 2 also includes the community surrounding the Springdale/Talbert intersection. It encompasses the Boise. ChiCa.
Wetlands and the Coastal Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 15-19.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the
potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City's
Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
7.52%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015 - 15
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14
2014 - 15 Omagh Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition! Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2,583,240.00
0.00
17,221,600.00
1,722,160.00
0.00
21,527,000.00
2,583,240.00
0.00
17,221,600.00
1,722,160.00
0.00
21,527,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM HE -285- Huntington Beach Item 9 _150
228
308
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number/Title SD 003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region *3)
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
The 270 projects within Area #3 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
convey it to the proper outlet Sub-drainage region 3 drains the central section of the City, including a portion of the City of Fountain Valley, and
is generally bordered by Newland and Magnolia Avenues on the east Ellis. Taylor and Talbert Avenues on the south. Graham and Balsa
Chloe Streets on the west and Warner Avenue on the north. Sub-drainage 3 consists of the Slater Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is
represented in watershed Drainage Maps 10-15.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. if not completed, there would be the
potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City's
Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
7.52%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities end as adequate end sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 - 13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 - 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 - 15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 - 16
through Build-out
4,108,320.00
0.00
27,388,800.00
2,738,880.00
0.00
34,236,000.00
Total all Years
4,108,320.00
0_00
27,388,800.00
2,738,880.00
0.00
34,236,000.00
47
Item 9. - 151 1 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:16 PM HB -286-
Huntington Beach October, 2011
229
309
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012 • 13 2013- 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
3,449,880.00
0.00
22,999,200.00
2,299,920.00
0.00
28,749,000.00
3,449,880.00
0.00
22,999,200.00
2,299,920.00
0.00
28,749,000.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number/ Title SD 004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region *4)
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
The 220 projects within Area #4 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
convey it to the proper outlet.Sub-drainage region 4 includes the northern end northeastern parts of the City. and is generally bordered by
Newland Street on the east Heil and Warner Avenues on the south, Springdale Street on the west and McFadden Avenue on the north.
Sub-drainage 4 corresponds to the Wintersburg Water Quality Channel Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 6-9.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of imperious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.530 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the
potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City's
Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
7.52%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment! Other
TOTAL COST:
48
V: 1.05.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:16 PM HB -287- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 152
230
310
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number/ Title SD 005 Boise Chica Channel a Harbour Region (SD Region #5)
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
The 279 projects within Area #5 are required to remove storm drainage water from the aty's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
convey ill° the proper outlet Sub-drainage region 5 covers the northwestern section of the City, including a portion of the City of Westminster.
Bub-drainage 5 corresponds to the Harbor Water Quality Planning Area and the Boise Chico. Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is
represented in watershed Drainage Maps 1-5.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water wi II increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the
potential forflooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City's
Police. Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 7.52%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate end sufficient revenues are collected.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 - 13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 -14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 -15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 - 16
through Build-out
11,825,880.00
0.00
78,839,200.00
7,883,920.00
0.00
98,549,000.00
Total all Years
11,825,880.00
0.00
78,839,200.00
7,883,920.00
0.00
98,549,000.00
49
Item 9. - 153 , Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:16 PM HB -288- Huntington Beach October, 2011
231
311
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number/ Title SD 006 Public Works Maintenance Building
Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering
Project Description:
.Construct a 10,000 split-face block general use, maintenance building. The facility would be have lull utilities and a number of roll-up doors.
Approdmately 20% of the cost of an additional 10,000 square foot building in support of General Fund Public Works maintenance from Storm
Drainage System Development Impact Fees. The remaining 00% would be financed with Circuation System Development Impact Fees.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The additional space needs would be required to supportthe additional demands from the construction of $ }c>>0.0‹ in circulation and storm
drainage infrastructure improvements.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The facility expansion is limited to the demands created by the new infrastructure required to support new development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
100.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012-13
2013 -14
2014 - 15
through Berld-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratit
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
66,250.00
0.00
602,500.00
36,300.00
0,00
705,050.00
66,250,00
0.00
602,500.00
36,300.00
0.00
705,050.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
50
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012
Time: 12:16 PM FIB -289- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 154
232
312
City of Huntington Beach
Public Library Facilities
And Collection
51
HB -290-
233
313
Huntin )n Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Public Library Facilities And Collection
2015 - 16
Through Project Build
2011 - 12 2012 - 13
2013 - 14 2014 - 15
Build Out Out Total
PL -001
Expand Banning Branch Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,288,470 $5,268,470
PL -002 Expand Main Street Branch Library $0
$0
$9 $0 $1,651,375 $1,551,375
PL -003
Expand Library Collection System $0
$0
$0
$0
$921,524
$921,524
TOTALS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $7,841,369 $7,841,369
Notes:
1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Out" amount 9C I - .6 uml-I tr,
t\.)
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:16 PM
Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1 234314
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection
Project Number/Title PL 001 Expand Banning Branch Library
Submitting Departments: Library Services
Project Description:
Expand the Banning Branch Library facilities by 10,100 square feet from the current 2,400 square feet to 12,500 square feet to assit in maintain
the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of service to the 17,089 new residents expected to be added through General
Plan build-out.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The current defacto library standard of space is 0.669 square feet per resident Added 17,089 residents from new General Plan development
will create additional demands upon the existing level of service provided by the library. Without increasing library space, the existing
standard would decrease to about 0.614 square feet per resident.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The proposed improvements are required to meet the demands of an increasing residential population.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
100.08%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 - 13
2013 -14
2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design f Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
535,260.00
808,000.00
3,568,370.00
356,840.00
0.00
5,268,470.00
535,260.00
808,000.00
3,568,370.00
356,840.00
0.00
5,268,470.00
53
Item 9. - 157 1 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:17 PM HB -292- Huntington Beach October, 2011
235
315
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012-13 2013- 14 2014-15 through Build-out Total all Years
158,165.00
0.00
1,321,100.00
132,110.00
0.00
1,651,375.00
198,165.00
0.00
1,321,100.00
132,110.00
0.00
1,651,375.00
0.00
0,90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection
Project Number/Title PL 002 Expand Main Street Branch Library
Submitting Departments: Library Services
Project Description:
Expand the Main Street Branch Library facilities by 4,804 square feet from the current 4,500 square feet to 9,304 square feet to assist in the
maintenance of the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of service to the 17,089 new residents expected to be added
through General Plan build-out The project consists taking 4,804 square feet of the current building that house the branch library currently
used by a non-City tenant and turning it into library space. There is no current effort to oust the current tenant however, ultimately the
non-library space could easily be converted as librray space.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The current defacto library standard of space is 0.669 square feet per resident Added 17,089 residents from new General Plan development
will create additional demands upon the existing level of service provided by the library. Without increasing library space, the existing
standard would decrease to about 0.614 square feet per resident
Relationship to General Plan Development
The proposed improvements are required to meet the demands of en increasing residential population.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment! Other
TOTAL COST:
54
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:17 PM HB hluntington Beach It em 9. - 158
236
316
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection
Project Number/Title PL 003 Expand Library Collection System
Submitting Departments: Library Services
Project Description:
Expand the public library collection items inventory by roughly 36,861 items to maintain the existing 2.157 collection items per resident currently
offered bythe City's library system.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
Added population from new residential construction will increase the City's residential population by approximately 17,089 additional
residents. Without expanding the library collection items inventory, that standard would drop to approximately 1.979 items per resident.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The proposed improvements are required to meet the demands of an increasing residential population.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012-13
2013 - 14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering /Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3, Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
921,524.00
921,524.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
921,024.00
921,024,00
55
Item 9. - 159 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 12:17 PM HB -294- Huntington Beach October, 2011
237
317
City of Huntington Beach
Park Land Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development
56
HB -295- Item 9.- 160
238
318
I9T - '6 moll • Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
2015- 16
TihrOUgil Project El uitd
2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - IS ROM Out Cut Tote/
PK 4301
PK -002
PK -003
PM -004
PK -005
PK -0013
'K-007
PK -008
PM -000
PK -014
PK-011
PM -012
PK -013
PM -014
PK-015
PK -016
PK -017
Pt(-t118
PK-010
PM -020
PK -Mt
PM -622
Ballelt Park Conceptual Plan And EIR
Irby Park Phasell
Central Part Farmer Gun Range EIR, RAPAnd Development
Le Bard Perk Expansion Master Plan And Development plan
iltufttop Park Trail Improvements
Edinger Occir Development
Wardlcnv Field Reamfiguraticn Deaign/Construction
City-Wide Parks Master Plan
Central Parkl-raoltat Plan
Central Park Acquisitcn Of Encyclopedia Lots
Central Perk Development Of Remaining 86 Acres
Cant-al Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Fealltles
General Youth Sports Facilities Grants
Mundy Youth Sports Complex Phase II
Beach Playground
Cenlral park Development 01FG-floor Gun Range Area
Warner DocK Renovation And Expansion
Lau* Park Design And Development
Cenlrai Park Sports Complex Team Room
Future Parks Acquisition [Possible Closed School Sites)
Central Park SentorCenter
Etimon Community Canter Gymnasium
5400.0410
$325,000
$250,000
$0
SO
$120,0110
$6
SO
$0
$0
SO
$150,000
SO
50
SO
so
$0
so
$O
$0
SO
so
$O
$0
SO
$0
$O
$0
$0
SO
$150,000
$D
SO
$0
$43
SO "
$o
SO
-$0
$0 $5,000,000
30 5500,000
$G $4,000. ON
$0 $1200,001J
50 $1,000,050
$0 5786,000
50 5800,000
SO 5350,000
$0 41250.000
$0 $1,020,000
526,000,000
30 $800,000
so,oaa 53,500,000
$0 $2;500,000
SO 3350,000
$3,000•000
$0 $800,000
$O 51,100,11011
$0 5100,000
30 559,588,000
$0 $22,000,000
$0 $2.975,000
$5,400,000
$550,000
$4,325,000
$1,450,000
S1,000,000
$700,000
51,000.000
$350,000
5250.000
51.020,000
520,000,000
5800,000
$4,500,006
32,300,000
$350,000
$3,600,000
$800.000
51,100.000
S100,000
$50.5138,000
522,000,000
$2,975,000
$o
SO
$0
$o
SO
50
$0
so
$O
$0
$D
SO
$0
$0
10
V: 1.12.0 Date: 510212012
Time: 11:02 AM
iluntington Dead; October, 2011 Page: 1 239319
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
2015- 16
Through Project Buird
2011 - 12 2012-13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 J3uird Out Out Total
PK-023 Ittordy Community Canter Gymnasium $0 So $0 30 $2,975,600 $2.075,000
PK -024 Oak View Recreation Cerrteu - Expansion $1
$0
$0 $600,000 $800,000
TOTALS
Notes:
1) IT project timing is not a 0Oreponent of ibis etfOrt, thee an projects default to their -111nu Buitd Our amount
$1,245,000 $150,000 5150,1100 $150,000 5135783,000 $137483,003 Z91 - .6 u1Ol-1 Lrz
Do
V:1.12,0 Date: 5/02/2012 11rne: 11:02 Mel 11Unlington Beach October, 2011 Page: 2 240320
2015 - 16
2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
500,000.00
0.00
4,000,000.00
500,000.00
0.00
5,000,000.00
900,000.00
0.00
4,000,000.00
500,000.00
0.00
5,400,000.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/ Tile PK 001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
The project consists of the environmental assessment and conceptual plan for the remaining 28 acre Bartlett Park largely an Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The preliminary plans include a natural-passive use consisting of trails. trailhead kiosks, and limited, natural
parking.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The park improvements are needed for protection of the currently open or vacant parcel. Roughly BO% of the park would remain untouched
with improvements designed to protect that 90%.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Utile direct relationship, but the improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
0.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The design and environment assessment component is planned for 2009 to 2010. The first construction component is planned for between
2010 and 2020.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
400,090.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
400,000.00
59
Item 9. - 163 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -298- Huntington Beach October, 2011
241
321
2015 - 16
2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014-15 through Build-out Total all Years
50,000.00
0.100
400,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
500,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
400,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
500,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 002 Irby Park Phase II
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
The project consists of the development of the remaining eight acres. Construct bio-filter and water retention area. In addition, construct trails,
passive pocket areas, interpretive signs and a small area of neighborhood park improvements (climbing apparatus, benches, picnic tables)
adjacent to the neighborhood area. The more active portion would be designed in a fashion to protect the more natural areas.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The park needs a combination of passive/active improvements to create a balance of active uses with protection of the water retention
needs, The water retention needs would receive appropriations from storm drainage sources. a State Public Works Grant.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Binh:lout
0.00%
Reference Document
ProjectTiming:
Based upon receipt of State (Public Works) Grant The project is in conjunction with a PW State Grant- matching funds.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design 1 Engineering / Administratir
2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
60
V: 1,08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -299- Huntington Beach It em 9. - 164
242
322
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR RAP And Development
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
The project consists of an Environmental Impact Review, Remedial Action Plan and ultimately a development plan. The gun range has been
inactive for overten years and the accumulated lead in the soil and use of creosote wood presents an environmental problem and must be
remediated before re-use. Phase I consists of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Remedial Action Plan. Phase II ($2.0
million) is an estimate of the range remediation. Phase Ill (also $2.0 million) is the actual site improvements to turn it into an active park use,
proposed at this time to be a skate park
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The roughly five acre gun range area is part of the City's major regional park and needs to be used to its maximum potential in a yet to be
determined manner.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship. but the improvements are consistent witn the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The study/report site remediation and site improvements are planned for a period between 2010 and 2020.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013-14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering! Administratic 325, 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 325,000.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4000,000.00 4,000,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST:325,000.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 4,000,000.00 4,325,000.00
61
Item 9. - 165 Date: 4/2712012
Time:11:36 AM HB -300- Huntington Beach October, 2011
243
323
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number] Title PK 004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Undertake the Park Master Plan and construction documents necessary to expand the turf area end park amenities on the two remaining
undeveloped acres. The improvements will be completed in a single phase. Improvements also include the elimination of drainage
problems and construction of a ramp to the Santa Ana River Trail.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The park improvements are necessary to complete the park and maximize the roughly five acres available atthis park
Relationship to General Plan Development:
Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout OM%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
As park-related revenues become available.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 250,000.00
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00
3. Construction 0.00
4. Contingency 0.0o
5. Equipment / Other 0.00
TOTAL COST: 250,000.00
2015-16
through Build-out
0.00
0.00
1,200,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,200,000.00
Total all Years
250,000.00
0.00
1,200,000.00
0.00
0.00
1,450,090.00
2012 - 13
2013 -14
2014 - 16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62
V: 1.08.0 Date: 412712012
Time: 11:35 AM HB -301- Huntington Beach I It em 9. - 166
244
324
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title Pi< 005 Blufftop Park Trail Improvements
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct improvements to the existing two and a half-mile long asphalt trail, including a split trail system for pedestrian and wheeled traffic.
The project includes 15% for citizen input, project design/engineering, soils and materials testing, project plan check and construction
inspection. The project also includes a standard 10% for project contingency.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The project is necessary to reduce the rate of erosion of the very important blufftop area.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
None directly, the improvements are primarily necessary to maintain an existing asset
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As revenues permit.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment ! Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 - 13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013 - 14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014 - 15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2015 -16
through Build-out
120,000.00
0,00
800,000.00
80,000.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
Total all Years
120,000.00
0.00
800,000.00
80,000.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
63
Item 9. - 167 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 11:35 AM HB -302- Huntington Beach October, 2011
245
325
2015 - 16
2011 -12
2012 - 13
2013 -14
2014 - 15
through Build-out Total all Years
50,000.00
0,00
0.00
600,000.00
50,000.00
700,000.00
50,000.00
0,00
0.00
600,000.00
50,000.00
700,000,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 1106 Edinger Dock Development
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a new dock and boat launch.
Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance:
The improvements need to be made to meet the recreational boating needs of the community.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
0.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Within priority and as Park Fund revenues become available.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition! Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
64
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -303- Huntington Beach It em 9. - 168
246
326
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/ Title PK 007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construdion
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Reconfigure the park to accommodate a youth sports field and plan for additional parking. Construction costs for the little league field and
parking lot are included at $380,000.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The parks earlier configuration is inefficient in terms of space.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
0.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
2010.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12
2012 - 13
2013 - 14
2014 - 15
through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
120,000.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120,000.00
0.00
0.00
800,000.00
80,000.00
0.00
880,000.00
120,000.00
0.00
800,000.00
80,000.00
0.00
1,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.90 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
65 65
Item 9. - 169 Date: 4/27/2012 Huntington Beach October, 2011 Time: 11:36 AlVI HB -304- 304 -
247
327
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012 - 13
2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years
350,000.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
350,000.00
350,000.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
360,000.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/ Title PK 008 City-Wide Parks Master Plan
Submitting Departments: Community SenAces
Project Description:
The project consists solely of the preparation of a Perks Master Plan.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
A Master Plan of Parks is needed to insure the continued rational programmed development of the City parks system.
Relationship to General Plan Development
A Park Master Plan for the continued development of the City's Park system is directly related to General Plan development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00%
Reference DOCUment
Project Timing:
The project is scheduled for the period of 2010 to 2020.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
66
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -305- Huntington Beach' Item 9. - 170
248
328
249
329
250
330
251
331
252
332
253
333
254
334
255
335
256
336
257
337
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number./ Title PK 018 Lamb Park Design And Development
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Design, engineer and construct park improvements on the 2.4 acre Lamb Park site. The improvements would include lighted sports facilities
(ballfield and sportslield) and other neighborhood fixtures such as benches, sidewalks, drinking fountains and a play apparatus on the parcel,
a closed school site.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The park improvements, mostly sports oriented, are necessary to complete the park and maximize the roughly 2.4 acres available at this
park.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering I Administrate
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment! Other
TOTAL COST:
2011 -12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2012 - 13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2013-14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
2014 -15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
2015 - 16
through Build-out
132,000.00
0.00
880,000.00
88,000.00
0.00
1,100,000.00
Total all Years
152,000.00
0.00
880.000.00
88,000.00
0.00
1,100,000.00
76
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -315- Huntington Beach I tem 9 . - 180
258
338
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number:/ Title PK 010 Central Park Sports Complex Teem Room
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a team-room at the sports complex. The facility would be used by teams for during game breaks. The fa.cility would have electrical
service and possibly a drinking fountain but would not include shower/locker facilities.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The facility will provide sports teams with a location for team discussions, changing and personal effects security.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship, but the improvements axe consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout
0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020.
2015 - 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014-15 through Build-out Total all Years
1. Design / Engineering / Administratic
2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
0.00
0.00
100,000.00
77
Item 9. - 18 1 Date: 412712012
Time: 11:36 AM HB -316- Huntington Beach October, 2011
259
339
260
340
261
341
262
342
263
343
2015 - 16
2011 -12 2012 -13 20-13 -14 2014 -15 through Build-out Total ail Years
80,000.00
0.00
640,000.00
64,000.00
16,000.00
800,000.00
80,000.00
0.00
640,000.00
64,000.00
16,000.00
800,000.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 02.1 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a roughly 2,000 square foot expansion to the existing 10,000 square foot Oak View Recreation Community Center. The facility would
consist of a game room, multi-purpose room and a restroom.
Justification / Consequences of Avoidance:
The facility is necessary (or planned) to maximize the fairly small facility.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The proposed land-use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likely result in roughly 17,089 additional residents
requiring at least 10,595 square feet of public use space in order to maintain the existing level of service (LOS)
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES
1. Design / Engineering/ Administratic
2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way
3. Construction
4. Contingency
5. Equipment / Other
TOTAL COST:
82
Huntington Beach I tem 9. - 186 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 5:26 PM HB -32 1-
82
-
264
344
End of Plan
Item 9. - 187 11B -322-
265
345
ATTACHMENT #10
266
346
267
347
evenue
ost
pecialists, LLC
Serving Local Governments Since 1975
October 17, 2011 (amended April 27, 2012)
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Manager
City of Huntington Beach - City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: 2011 -12 Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee (DIF) Calculation
Honorable Mayor, Council and City Manager Wilson:
The City is experiencing private development of remaining vacant parcels and the on-going
redevelopment of existing homes and businesses. This continuous development results in
increased demand that must be absorbed (and accommodated) by the City's existing infrastructure
and the Levels of Service (LOS) offered by that existing infrastructure. Revenue & Cost
Specialists, L.L.C., was contracted to undertake a comprehensive identification of the capital
projects and capital acquisitions necessary to accommodate all such new demands for municipal
service. Such a study is necessary to preserve the existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently
offered to and enjoyed by (after having been paid for by) the existing community from the
diminution of those existing LOS due to the addition of new residential and business development
in Huntington Beach and calculate the development impact fees (DIFs) necessary to fund those
required projects.
Council and City staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential
and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the impact fees is a direct function
of the nearly $403.4 million cost of the capital projects identified in the Master Facilities Plan as
needed or required to accommodate new development. Regardless, anyone in the position of the
Council members may find themselves reluctant to adopt the impact fees merely because they
appear "too high". It is incumbent upon this Report and RCS Staff to convince the City Council
of the justification and importance of the proposed impact fees
The following Report calculates some new and a few updated impact fees for the City of
Huntington Beach based on the aforementioned changes and the City's changing requirements for
public safety, streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities. The adoption
of the updated DIFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Councils, to continue to
ensure that the City will be able to meet the basic infrastructure needs of new growth, without
unduly burdening the existing population and business community for these development-generated
capital costs.
Voice . 714 . 992. 9920 Fax 734 '9C Item 9. - 190
Internet ww revenuecot corn
1519:E.chapm Ave HB -325 FuJ1eitb CA 92831
268
348
$71,246,699
$61,234,227
$533,539,375
$203,631,313
$76,593,112
$1,166,934,162
$2,113,178,888
Page 2 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff
Adoption of the recommended impact fees contained herein and imposition upon the numerous
development opportunities in the City of Huntington Beach, would generate approximately $172.1
million in a combination of public improvement dedications and DIF revenues limited for use on
the many capital expansion projects deemed as development generated.
Existing Impact Fee Fund balances ($3.5 million) and other revenues sources ($23.0 million)
make up a significant amount of the difference between the capital total and the total revenue
sources. This leaves a shortfall of $204.8 million (95% of which is $194.4 million in unfunded
storm drainage projects). The identification of $403.4 million in capital needs mostly generated
by new development, is not to be taken lightly, but must be examined in perspective to the cost
of existing infrastructure, facilities, vehicles and equipment that a new development will share in
the use and enjoyment of upon City review, approval, construction and finally, occupancy.
To offer such a perspective, a major element in this Report is a proportional analysis, or
comparison of what is being asked of future residents, in the form of dedicated public
improvements or an in-lieu (impact fee) payment, with the cost of the City's existing infrastructure
(land, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community.
The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over
numerous decades of development have generated just over $2.1 billion (at current replacement
costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements to the City of Huntington Beach. The following
table identifies those existing asset commitments (or equity if you will), by infrastructure.
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Circulation (Street, Signals and Bridges) System
Storm Drainage Collection System
Public Library Facilities and Collection
Park Land and Park Facilities Development
Total Existing Infrastructure Replacement Investment
Item 9. - 191 HB -326-
269
349
Page 3 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff
It is not intended for the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule to address all of the
City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per California
Government Code 66000 et. seq. and common fairness, development impact fees cannot address
current capital deficiencies. The proposed fees will recognize and meet the needs of the City's
growing population and business community. However, with the adoption of development impact
fees, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated
needs for expanded services and facilities will now be available for those accumulating
replacement and rehabilitation projects.
The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the
Huntington Beach staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been
impossible to complete. The following management and support personnel were instrumental in
working with RCS staff to gather or generate the information and technical data so critically
necessary for the legal support of impact fees through the Master Facilities Plan and/or the
Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. They are:
Stephanie Beverage, Director of Library Services
M. Todd Broussard, P.E, Principal Engineer (Storm Drainage)
David Brunetta, Police Captain
Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst - Community Services
David C. Dominguez, Facilities Development/Concessions Manager
Debbie Dove, - Police Specialist
Eric C. Enberg - Fire Division Chief- Operations
Jim B. Engle, Community Services Director
Scott Hess, Director of Planning
Mindy James - Police Budget Manager
Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire
Tung M. Kao, - Information System/Network Specialist - Police
Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire Marshall/Programs
Darin Maresh, Fire Department Specialist
Mike McClanahan, Deputy Fire Marshall/Training
Shirley McNamee. Police Personnel Analyst
Tony Olmos, City Engineer
Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner
Bill Reardon, Fire Marshall/Division Chief
Dan Richards, Information System GIS Manager
Bob Stachelski. Transportation Manager
Chuck Thomas, Police Captain
Jerry Thompson, General Services Manager
Ashley Wallace, Graduate Management Intern
Darren Witt, Fire Engineer
HB -327- Item 9. - 192
270
350
Page 4 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff
The revisions are limited to merging what had been Chapter 8 (Community Use Facilities) and
Chapter 9 (Park Land and Park Facilities Development into one Chapter) merging both the
calculation and proposed capital projects. The companion Master Facilities Nan does the same by
merging the four Community Use Facilities projects into the Park Land Acquisition and Park
Facilities Development section. This was undertaken to provide the City greater flexibility to
address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time. The resulting impact fees did not
change beyond the reduction of a single dollar reduction for Attached Dwellings (due to rounding of
whole dollars). Schedule 2.1 the proposed Development Impact Fees will demonstrate this.
Without their hard work and willingness to provide the best data available, this Report could not
have been completed to the degree of accuracy and completeness that it has. I would like to
highlight the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager for his efforts in generating timely responses
to RCS's many requests for critical information. The quality of information and resulting calculation
were directly improved by all of the participating staff member's efforts.
The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan
appendix are now submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in
increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's
revenue structure.
Sincerely,
Scott Thorpe,
Vice President
Item 9. - 193
HB -328-
271
351
CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
and
MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Chapter 1 - Background and Introduction 1
Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings 16
Schedule 2.1 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule 26
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 27
Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 40
Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System 54
Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System 70
Chapter 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection 82
Chapter 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 89
Appendix A - Expanded Land-use Database 108
Appendix B - Summary of Recommendations 111
Appendix C - Master Facilities Plan 114
HB -329- Item 9. - 194
272
352
Chapter 1
Background and Introduction
The City of Huntington Beach has retained Revenue Sz. Cost Specialists, L.L. C. to recalculate
some of the City's existing Development Impact Fee (henceforth occasionally referred to as DIFs)
schedules calculated at various points in time. Since that time, the City has experienced continued
development of vacant land within the City. There is no reason to believe that the remaining
undeveloped parcels will not also develop and underutilized parcels will redevelop, the current
temporary economic building climate not-with-standing. The periodic review and adjustment of
the Development Impact Fees that the City has committed to, are appropriate and warranted. Such
updates are necessary to insure that the City collects sufficient DIF revenues to construct or
acquire the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents and businesses
developing in the City.
This DIF calculation effort that staff has undertaken results in a complete list of projects to be
financed by the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule.' The information contained in
the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the accompanying Master
Facilities Plan (MFP) will allow the City Council to make more informed policy decisions. The
DIF/MFP also combine to provide greater understanding or the need by the development
community. It also provides an. easier project tracking (and updating) system for the staff.
Proportional Analysis. For perspective on the total amount of the calculated DIFs this Report
includes a proportional analysis, or a comparison of the infrastructure identified as required to
accommodate continued development through General Plan build-out with that of the City's
existing infrastructure. This proportional analysis is intended to reconcile any difference between
the City's desired level-of-service (LOS) required of new development, per statements in the
various General Plan elements, with that of the de-facto or actual level of service currently
provided to the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in making many difficult
policy decisions regarding the required additions of new development and will also recognize
inter-generational equity along with common sense fairness.
Development Impact Fee Structure. The City's General Plan provides a range of potential
densities for residential development. The DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per
dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the average impacts for a specific development. For
example, a parcel zoned for development as detached dwelling units may contain from three to six
units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per
acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Development impact
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
Item 9. - 195 HB -330-
273
353
Chapter One Background and Introduction
fees for business uses are calculated on a square footage basis for commercial, office and industrial
properties to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for this type of development. This
structure addresses the issue of building expansion or intensification of commercial, office and
industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of commercial, office or industrial property
proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed
expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures.
A fee calculated on a building square footage basis will simplify this calculation.
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of
these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now
codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This section of State
Code became effective January 1, 1989.
AB1600 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to
their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to
a project of "direct benefit" to the development which paid the fees. Many states have such
controlling statutes.
Specifically, AB1600 requires the following:
1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the (development impact) fee.
2. Determination of the USE of the (development impact) fee.
3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the public facilities and the
type of development paying the (development impact) fee.
4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of
development project.
5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the
portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project.
This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above
requirements of AB1600. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of impact
fees for the City and are listed following:
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 2
HB -331- Item 9. - 196
274
354
Chapter One Background and Introduction
1. Review the City's land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses
and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth
and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data
when planning an infrastructure required to support General Plan build-out.
This all-important inventory is summarized in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and
detailed in Appendix A.
2. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each
project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain
statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable
level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for
instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to
"F" developed by transportation engineers. In some cases the identified
level of service required of development may exceed that of what the City
is currently providing. If so the reason must be explained and a
methodology identified for raising the existing community's level of service
without requiring new development to finance this increase.
3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory
necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then,
determine the cost of those additions.
4. Identify a level of responsibility of General Plan development, identifying
the relative need for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate
additional growth as defined, and as opposed to current needs.
5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis
of land use demand. Costs are distributed between each land use based on
their relative use, nexus or demand on that particular capital infrastructure
system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use
based on their trip generation characteristics (frequency and distance
creating daily trip-miles).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 3
Item 9. -197 HB -332-
275
355
Chapter One Background and Introduction
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other
important assumptions of this study include the following:
Land Costs. Cost estimates for land acquisition were developed after discussions with City
officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made. However, the Report contains land
costs (per acre) which are estimated to be the most appropriate figures for purposes of this study.
PROPORTIONALITY TEST
A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to identify
and achieve community inter-generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the infrastructure
investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents
and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In short, previous generations
of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City's existing
infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing
a like amount (but no more than) toward completing the various infrastructure systems. Mere
replacements or the elimination of an existing deficiency cannot be required of new development.
It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is
an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet
the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are replacements of the existing
infrastructure while others are capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they
may also be further classified into two categories;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether
there is additional development or not. An example' would be a traffic intersection
currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal,
but is unfunded. However, some portion of that signal may be appropriate for impact fee
financing. Another example would be the replacement of an existing but aged facility that
creates no more capacity, but is merely the replacement of that same capacity.
2. Projects that are required as a result of development. An example of this would be a signal
that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in
the near and "downstream" areas, will ultimately need to be signalized.
All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Government Code §66000 (also referred to as
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 4
HB -333- Item 9. - 198
276
356
Chapter One Background and Introduction
AB1600) takes only two pages of text to describe the findings that development impact fees must
adequately make, but does not explain specifically how to do so. Most DIP calculations will
identify the desired or needed capital projects, ostensibly required as a result of the new
development. Therefore, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and
businesses in a city to construct, via payment of impact fees, a new Police Station when the current
station is merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a community already has all of the
water utility system they will need at build-out, are they precluded from imposing an impact fee
to recoup some of that expenses incurred in the construction of the maximum needed water utility
improvements prior to need for the maximum demand? These are difficult questions that may be
made clearer and easier by reviewing the following examples.
Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with Existing Infrastructure. The answer to these difficult
questions may best be answered by comparing various infrastructure scenarios. This can be
accomplished by looking closely at our friends in the planned community of Happy Valley 3 for a
few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur regarding the agency's current
infrastructure and the demand upon them. We will use the provision of fire protection, a service
that most of us as nonprofessional fire fighters can somewhat understand. These three
"conditions" include that the fire suppression system infrastructure construction has:
1. been On -target.
2. been Deficient. Or;
3. created Excess Service Capacity.
Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a
standard two-bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost about $3,000,000)
can meet the needs of roughly 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these
standards were adopted as Happy Valley's public safety element of the City's General Plan, they
would be known as the demure or stated (or desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community
would like to meet). This fee would be referred to as the General Plan Build-out Need -based
Development Impact Fee. The inductive development impact fees (or cost per proportional unit
served) for this de jure standard would then be:
Table 1-1
Calculation of NFPA Impact Cost
andlise ta.tion÷e- _ st, 'nits -Served-- Impact Fe
Residential Dwellings $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per home
Business Square Feet $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 per S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 5
Item 9. - 199 HB -334-
277
357
10,000 Residential Dwellings
Umber
f
nits'servecl -by.
0 tie_ StatiO
Residential Dwellings 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations
Units serve
ne Station
Chapter One Background and Introduction
Service Base - Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that at General Plan build-out there will be
10,000 residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/office/industrial space
creating a need for four stations at build-out. The station calculation is as follows:
Table 1-2
Determination of Required Number of Stations
5,000 2 Stations
Business Square Feet 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations
Required Stations at General Plan Build-out 4 Stations
The infrastructure is "On -target" - The need for four stations appears simple and the Happy
Valley Council need only impose the impact fees identified in Table 1-1. Currently, Happy Valley
has 6,250 residential units and 7,500,000 square feet of commercial/industrial building pad and
is half "built-out" (in terms of fire calls for service). In this example, existing development within
Happy Valley is generating half of the ultimate (General Plan build-out) fire calls-for-service.
This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 following:
Table 1-3
Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target"
Business Square Feet 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations
Total Number of Stations Required Currently 2.00 Stations
Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms of calls-for-service)
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
6
1-IB -335- Item 9. - 200
278
358
nits served by
Ine Station -
Residential Dwellings 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000
Chapter One Background and Introduction
yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of
business floor space, and when constructed would generate the following capital needs identified
on Table 1-4 following:
Table 1-4
Remaining Development and Station Requirement
Residential Dwellings
Business Square Feet
3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations
12,500,000 I 10,000,000 1.25 Stations
2.00 Stations # of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed
If the earlier calculated impact fees ($600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot of business pad)
were adopted and imposed, Happy Valley would collect (by General Plan build-out) enough capital
revenues to construct the remaining two stations and proportionality between existing and future
residents and businesses would be evident. Table 1-5 following demonstrates this:
Table 1-5
Remaining DIE Collection
Business Square Feet 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000
Amount Collected in Development Impact Fees $6,000,000
Cost of a_Single New Station
$3,000,000
Stations to be Built with Development Impact Fees 2.00
And everyone in the community of Happy Valley is adequately served by the four stations having
been financed generally fairly by the total community.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 7
Item 9. -201
MB -336-
279
359
Cost of One New Station $3,000,000
Residential Units 3,750 $300.00 $1,125,000
Business S.F.12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000
Amount Contributed by Existing Community $3,000,000
Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00
Chapter One Background and Introduction
The infrastructure is in Deficient Condition - Consider, however, the implications if the current
Happy Valley residents and businesses had shown the earlier limited commitment to contribute
only enough financing to construct one station when, based upon their own adopted standards and
level of development, they should have two stations? Clearly three more stations would be needed
on the path to General Plan "build-out." The possibility of requiring the remaining future home
and business owners to finance all three remaining stations would be completely inequitable. But
would it be fair and equitable to charge new residents the $600 per home and new businesses the
$0.30 per business square foot in order to acquire the remaining two stations required to meet the
NFPA standards required of the new development?
The simple and direct answer is probably not. With only one station constructed at half build-out,
the Happy Valley community has not demonstrated to a proportional commitment to meeting the
NFPA standards, and as a result would not have a strong case to assert that others who build later
need to contribute toward the construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher service rate
by including the "missing" second station. The problem is in trying to identify a municipal
revenue source imposed only on the existing development. Simply, there is none. Soon as a
business pays its impact fees, constructs, that business becomes part of the existing community.
The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or"in fact")
standard service level. In short, it is difficult (but possible) to claim that a higher level of service
is required of new development when the City is somehow getting by with a lower level of service.
With one station, the contributed equity to build the single station would be half of the impact fee
proposed in Table 1-1, or $300/residential unit and $0.15/square foot of business space
respectively (See Table 1-6, following).
Table 1-6
Development Impact Fee
at Deficient Condition
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 8
HB -337- Item 9. - 202
280
360
Chapter One Background and Introduction
If Happy Valley has only built one station at half General Plan build-out, we would be forced to
conclude that the City is currently deficient by one station (or 50% of the amount required). If
the future residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $600/$0.30 rates)
the City would have three stations at General Plan build-out, one financed and built by the first
half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of the community.
Considering that the fire department will respond to all calls-for-service within the entire
community from one of the three completed fire stations, the first half of the community would,
in effect "inherit" one half of a station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley would fail
the proportionality test. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community decides to
build the final "missing" last (fourth) station from a Citywide assessment or from annual General
Fund receipts, paid for by the entire community, including those who just paid for the two new
stations via the adopted fire impact fees.
The only equitable option is for the City to adopt impact fees at the $300/residence and
$0.15/square foot rates. Adoption of this fee would be referred to as the Current Community
Financial Commitment or Investment -based Impact Fees. Admittedly, the City will go further
into a deficit position in terms of the number of required stations, from being deficient by one
station at half General Plan build-out to a deficiency of two stations at General Plan build-out, but
the deficiency (or proportionality) would remain a constant 50% of the stations needed at either
point in time. The community, if they are truly serious about meeting the NFPA recommended
Level of Service (or standard), would then need to assess the entire community to raise the needed
money in some fashion for financing the remaining two stations either in the form of an assessment
or dedication of general receipts of the City.
The Infrastructure has "Excess Capacity" - One final but important scenario remains and must
be considered. In this scenario the existing residents of Happy Valley were the industrious sort
and (at half General Plan build-out) had constructed three stations when they were at the point
when they only needed two stations. Clearly there is excess capacity in each of the three existing
stations. In this case, the Happy Valley's current de facto standard would be well above the de-
jure or target standard. Statistically, each of the three stations would have 1/3 excess capacity (for
providing services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee
be limited only to the marginal $300 per residence and $0.15 per square foot for business space
required to construct the one remaining required station or should the City be able to recover the
costs for the existing capacity in the three stations through a recoupment impact fee? If so, the
future residents receive a gift of the extra (third) station. If the excess capacity was recognized
at the time the facilities were constructed and the excess capacity was identified for future use,
there will be tough decisions ahead to be made by the Happy Valley City Council.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 9
Item 9. - 203
HB -338-
281
361
Chapter One Background and Introduction
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Fees or Recoupment Fee? The Happy
Valley City Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot
business space rates to insure that the fourth station would be built. Again, referred to as the
General Plan Build-out Needs -based impact fees. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the
new residents a free ride on the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station.
Or in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $3,000,000 used to build the third station
was a loan from the existing community's General Fund receipts, and should be repaid by the
future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire protection the day they receive their
occupancy permit'', through the imposition and collection of impact fees.' In this case, the
$600/residence and $0.30/square foot of business space impact fees should be adopted, imposed
and collected. The impact fee would accumulate $6,000,000 through build-out, with $3,000,000
required to repay the General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3) and $3,000,000 necessary
to construct the fourth station. This would be referred to as a Recoupment -based Fee at General
Plan build-out. More important, long term equity at General Plan built-out would be achieved as
each home and business would have contributed the same $600 per residence and $0.30 per square
foot. This situation is usually fairly limited and should be supported by the appropriate element
of General Plan.
Exceptions to Proportionality Test. The previous discussion applies particularly well to above
ground or capacity-based services such as community use centers, pools, police and fire stations,
civic centers, maintenance yards or other fixed location and finite capacity facilities that serve the
entire population. However, it does not necessarily work well on ground level or below system
infrastructures such as streets, utilities, and storm drainage, where the continuation of a deficient
system into the future is not at all possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete
inability to approve any further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a
specific area. As an example, if the agency's storm drainage system is currently deficient and
creates some period flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able
to approve and allow any more future development unless the storm drainage runoff created by
the new development, is properly collected and released at a river or flood control channel.
Additionally, a currently deficient water system, i.e., one with only the most minimal of
distribution pipes, may not be able to serve any more future development without a substantial
increase in the capacity of the water distribution system. However, a water utility with users rates
can increase existing user fees to eliminate any existing deficiencies.
Specific Plan or Benefit to a Specific Area. An additional exception occurs when the need or
benefit from a specific facility is generated by a finite or easily defined area such as a specific plan
or a new area of the agency that is significantly outside of the existing agency's urban in-fill
service area or the specific plan is primarily the sole beneficiary of the infrastructure to be
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 10
HB -339- Item 9. -204
282
362
Chapter One Background and Introduction
constructed. An example may be a small area of the City, proposed for say 2,000 homes, but
separate from the rest of the City in such a way that, to meet the General Plan's stated fire
suppression standard level of service of a five minute response time, it requires a separate fire
station but serving less than any of the other stations, which on average serve 5,000 homes. There
is little argument as to why the remaining residents and businesses should not need to finance that
higher cost per home served. This is common in an area geographically separated from the
major, or urban part of the community. An example would be a small area separated by a river
or up on a hillside or in a canyon. These areas may need facilities specific to that area that are of
little or no benefit to the rest of the community, such a bridge across a river that only benefits
those live or work across the river.
Density may also be a factor. Fire infrastructure system improvements to date may be spread over
a more compact density (say 4-5 homes per acre) than the remaining development in town (say 2-3
homes per acre). The fire system infrastructure costs per residential dwelling for a lower density
area will likely be higher than a more compact area with a higher dwelling density.
Public Utilities. The treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility's
operating and capital funds do not receive any General Fund financial support and they do not
typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has
been supported only by what are called utility user fees (payments by the utility's customers). Or
stated in another way, it is user-financed. In many cases the utility may have significant extra
capacity because most infrastructures cannot be expanded in small defined portions that exactly
match the pace of new development. An example would water reservoirs which are generally
expanded on LO million gallon portions, not 1,000 gallons at a time. To an individual user who
has been contributing to the existing system over a period of time, it would appear quite fair for
this excess capacity to be "purchased" for by new users that connect to the system who will benefit
from the excess capacity has been constructed and identified. This holds particularly true for the
purchase of water shares required for future water users.
A water distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to reach homes
and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently worked with a city where the existing water
users, currently representing some 55% of the water use demand at General Plan build-out, had
already constructed nearly 70% of the General Plan build-out water system. The 15% difference
amounted to just more than $7.0 million. Should any excess capacity paid for by existing users
be a gift to the future users? Government Code §66000 et. seq. appears to prevent the city from
trying to recoup the costs of the excess capacity purchased by the current users that will be the
direct benefit of future users. Some excess capacity can and should be identified wherever
possible, and recovered, providing that was identified as necessary for future development at the
time it is created.6 The excess capacity must be identified in terms of "existing project segment"
and how it will benefit the future users must be identified.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 11
Item 9. - 205 HB -340-
283
363
Chapter One . Background and Introduction
Such equity is the attempt of this Report. Excess capacity is often difficult to identify and even
more difficult to convince others of. The City is probably much like Happy Valley, with excess
or overcapacity in some areas of the infrastructure, and perhaps slightly deficient' in others, as you
will see in the remainder of the Report.
OTHER ISSUES
Some members of the building industry have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly
creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency
adopts a development impact fee of $20,000 to $25,000 per detached dwelling home, then the
price for an existing home is artificially increased by that same amount. We will use the example
of detached dwelling at a construction cost of $200,000 to complete to a point that the occupancy
permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $200,000 represents only the above ground cost's
construction. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling unit consists of the cost of acquiring the
parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service
on the above, on-site' public improvements, and
The hidden cost of extending public services 9 to that home.
The costs of extending public services includes (but is not limited to):
• The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police
station and response vehicles
• Additional fire stations and response vehicles.
• Widening of arterial and collector roads.
• Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes.
• Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and
delivery.
• Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment and disposal.
• Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and
maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure.
• Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social
purposes.
Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling may be
$325,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of $20,000 to $30,000 per
detached dwelling or in the area of 6% to 9% % of the above ground cost.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 12
FIB -341- Item 9. -206
284
364
Chapter One Background and Introduction
As an example, imagine a 2,800 square foot home, costing $325,000 to construct the above
ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no
public safety response, no flood control and no recreational facilities. What is the market value
of this home? Probably not even the $325,000 that it cost to construct the structure. The $25,000
development impact fee for all the infrastructures needed to support that one home, now seems like
a relative bargain.
Thus, the true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling is the cost of building the structure
and the cost of extending the municipal services to the home regardless of who pays for the actual
costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infrastructure costs have
been recognized. The only question remaining is, who should for pay the required improvements,
existing or new residents?
Affect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative $25,000 impact fee imposed upon
new detached dwelling construction increases the market price of an existing detached dwelling.
This additional amount is the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those
physical links to the municipal services and thus has that value. A slightly different way of
looking at this argument is that each existing detached dwelling has a "share" in a municipal
corporation m and that share is valued at the cost of the connections to the various municipal
utilities, circulation system, flood protection and public safety.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Chapters three through six will have three fee cost/fee tables. These four chapters include:
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation - This schedule identifies the various projects that
the infrastructure manager has identified as required prior to General Plan build-out. These
projects may be necessary in part or fully to accommodate new development. This schedule will
identify the cost of the project and the portion of the project identified as resulting from new
development.
General Plan Build-out Needs -based Development Impact Fee - This table will identify the set
of impact fees that would need to be adopted to meet the basic, or marginal needs, capital needs
identified in the Report. Adoption of this level of impact fees would allow City officials to claim
that new development is being approved and constructed without any additional cost to the
existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, claim that new development is paying
its "fair share."
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 13
Item 9. -207
HB -342-
285
365
Chapter One Background and Introduction
Existing Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees - This table will
identify the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land,
physical improvements and capital equipment. This is the average amount "invested" by the
existing community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of the cost
to construct or acquire the assets at current costs.
If the average "equity" (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Table is greater then the
average cost on the previous General Plan Build-out Needs -based impact fee Table, the
infrastructure system is "front-ended" or has excess capacity. Stated slightly differently, the
existing community has put more of the system into place than would be required of the remaining
unbuilt portions of the community, (as they build). In effect, the existing community has advanced
money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and
businesses not yet there! A good example of a front -ended system is the scenario where the City
of Happy Valley had already built three fire stations while it only had the current actual demands
for two stations.
If the Existing Commitment -based impact fees are less than the General Plan Build-out Needs-
based impact fee, we must conclude that existing community may not have contributed the amount
of equity that they have needed to and that the construction of a needed infrastructure to support
that municipal service has been lagging and is deficient. When this occurs, the Existing
Community Financial Commitment or Investment -based development impact fees may• act as a
ceiling or upper limit of the development impact fees.
A good example of a deficient system is the scenario where the City of Happy Valley had only
built one fire station while it had current actual demands for two stations. In short, if the existing
community has not been inclined to construct an infrastructure system proportionally as the
community developed, what basis does the community have to require those future residents to
invest more, thus by eliminating to some degree, the deficiencies created by the existing
community? The answer is, there can be no such rational argument. To adopt the General Plan
Build -out Needs -based impact fees, under these circumstances, would be an unfair attempt to
eliminate the existing deficiency on the back of new development. Adoption of the Existing
Commitment -based impact fees, under these circumstances, would allow City officials to claim that
new development is not being required to pay to eliminate existing deficiencies.
[This space left vacant to place the following Chapter endnotes on a single page].
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 14
HB -343- Item 9. -208
286
366
Chapter One Background and Introduction
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Facilities Plan in Appendix C.
2. Examples using other infrastructure will be used from time to time in this report, even though the City may not
provide that service.
3. "Happy Valley" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes of DIF example for about nine years. Clearly
no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no
inflation and the value of a dollar remains nominal.
4. Actually, the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed.
5. This example assumes that each of the existing three stations is debt-free and owned out-right.
6. This action would be more supportable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets.
7. Not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger, just below the standard being asked of the future residents.
8. On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, street lights,
storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the Department's building
requirements on the privately held property, hence the "on-site" reference. "Off-site" improvements are increased capacity
need that occur "down-stream" from the private property. The on-site public improvements generally become a city asset
upon acceptance of the on-site public improvements made by the developer while the property upon Athich the on-site
improvements, is still privately owned.
9. This Report does not address all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point about the types of public
services typically required to support a residential dwelling.
10. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as I.B.M. or A.T. & T.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 15
Item 9. - 209 HB -344-
287
367
Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped (and under-developed) land
within the City. The City, surprisingly, still possesses areas of vacant land zoned for residential
and business uses.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report contains an inventory of developed land and land with remaining development
opportunities within Huntington Beach boundaries. The undeveloped land inventory columns form
the base for distribution of the estimated infrastructure costs required to extend the existing levels
of service to the new development. The developed land inventory also forms the base for
distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de-facto identification
of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructures. Table 2-1
below, summarizes the inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City limits.
They are based upon General Plan data, Orange County projections, City records and a staff
analysis of only privately held parcels.' Some of the vacant parcels have vested rights and would
have the existing impact fees imposed. The acreage and unit data are detailed in Appendix A.
Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use Inventory
City of Huntington Beach
T.Otal .::LanatiSe::-Database. :::Acres
otal
of Units..Acres it of Units 4tPP.: 1:tit:Units
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
6,436.0 38,616
295.00
1,749 6,731.00
40,365
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4
36,108 111.20
5,307 1,916.60
41,415
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
204.6
2,865
1.00
9 205.60
2,874
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
33.4
1,070 18.60
818
52.00
1,888
Resort Lodging Units
20.2
809
9.30
535 29.50
1,344
Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000
39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000
Total - City Limits 10,271.8
661.90
10,933.70
Private Residences
8,446.0 77,589
407.2
7,065 8,853.2
84,654
Commercial Lodging Rooms 53,6
1,879
27.9
1,353
81.5
3,232
Business Square Feet
1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152,000
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
16
Item 9. - 210 HB -345-
288
368
289
369
290
370
291
371
292
372
293
373
294
374
295
375
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each
infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee
revenue, the capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g., fire).
Given the magnitude of the City's project list, vis-a-vis the proposed list of projects, and the lack
of previous findings regarding any excess capacity, there is no potential for recoupment of the
costs of previous development-generated capital projects (excess capacity) as was described in
Chapter One. Additionally, the detail of the existing value of the various systems, does not
approach the level of accuracy required to adopt a recoupment style impact fee. The recommended
Development Impact Fees are those indicated following in Schedule 2.1.
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this Report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation
of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained
in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the nine sets of DLF cost schedules, listed below
and three appendices.
CHAPTER 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
CHAPTER 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
CHAPTER 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
CHAPTER 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System
CHAPTER 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection
CHAPTER 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
APPENDIX A - Expanded Land-use Database
APPENDIX B - Summary of Recommendations
APPENDIX C - Master Facilities Plan
NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a
computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when
included in text and supporting textual tables, has been rounded to no more than two decimals
for clarity and thus may be not replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet
schedules at the end of each chapter. Should there be any difference between tables within a
chapter and the schedules at the end of the same chapter, the schedules will prevail.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 24
HB -353- Item 9. -218
296
376
297
377
298378
299
379
300
380
38,616 Detached Dwelling Units
36,108 Attached Dwelling Units
2,865 Mobile Home Dwelling Units
420 1,070 Hotel/Motel Units
809 Resort Lodging Units
12,836,000 Commercial Uses (in KSF)
20,261,000 Industrial Uses (in KSF)
Beach Area
0.341/Unit
0.702/Unit
0.318/Unit
0.393/Unit
0.459/Unit
0.897/KSF
0.381/KSF
371
11,514
7,729
1,806
13,185
25,350
910
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 3-1
Law Enforcement Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use (2009)
The table above representing the 59,479 annual police calls-for-service to privately-held developed
parcels within the City's limits (for a recent twelve months reporting periods), identifies the
differing demand caused by the differing land uses. As an example, there were approximately
13,185 calls-for-service requiring a response to one of the 38,616 existing detached dwellings in
the City (during the twelve month sample). The result indicates that each residential detached
dwelling unit will statistically generate just slightly more than one third of a call-for-service per
year,2 on average. The same analysis was undertaken for the other seven land uses. Obviously
there are calls to incidents on publicly owned roads and right-of-way, in parks and other publicly
held parcels, these calls represent approximately 3% of the annual calls-for-service. Calls-for-
service to resort lodging facilities, typically larger than hotel/motel facilities (defined as three
stories or more) have been separated in order to generate a more relevant calls-for-service rate for
each of the two differing types of temporary lodging. Resort facilities have been shown to
generate more calls-for-service, most likely due to their convention and banquet facilities.
However, any such resorts constructed in the future would also have such amenities.
The annual calls-for-service was responded to by one of the City's existing 235 sworn officers
establishing an average of about 260.79 calls-for-service per sworn officer annually.3
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 29
Item 9. - 223 HB -358-
301
381
302
382
Proportional Beach Increase 248.96 Calls
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 3-2
Additional Law Enforcement Calls (rounded)
Generated by New Development, by Land Use
Detached Dwelling Units 1,749 0.341/Unit 597.18 Calls
Attached Dwelling Units
5,307 0.702/Unit 3,725.83Calls
Mobile Home Units (1)
0.318/Unit 2.86 Calls
Hotel/Motel Units 818 0.393/Unit 321.08 Calls
Resort Lodging Units 535 0.459/Unit 245.35 Calls
Commercial Uses (net in KSF) 2,417,000 0.897/KSF 1,268.07 Calls
Industrial Uses (KSF)
3,638,000
0.381/KSF 1,387.80 Calls
NOTES: (1) Development of these types of units is not anticipated. One acre of units is included for calculation purposes..
Cumulatively, an additional (rounded) calls-for-service would be expected at General Plan build-
out. It is important to note that the additional of the thirty-three officers (8,695 annual calls-for-
service 260.79 calls/sworn officer) by General Plan build-out would merely maintain the
existing levels of service, and would not increase the existing levels of service because of the
additional 8,697 annual calls-for-service, or the 8,448 calls-for-service to the privately-held land-
uses.
No judgement is made, regarded or offered about the existing standards-of-service (LOS) or the
current ratio of officers to calls-for-service, or that it is the City's desired level-of-service or that
it is optimum, it merely is the existing, or defacto, level-of-service (LOS).
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new
development to pay for additionally required law enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment.
Specifically, additional law enforcement calls-for-service can be expected, and the cost of adding
sworn officers necessary to respond to these anticipated calls, and thus maintain the existing
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 31
Item 9. - 225
HB -360-
303
383
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
levels-of-service afforded the existing residential and business community, can also be determined.
The additional costs can be proportionally determined and translated to a fee, or an amount,
necessary to offset the added costs of the required additional law enforcement staffing. Those
impact costs include housing and equipping the additional required officers. Providing that the
impact cost is adopted and imposed as a fee, new development will finance the capital costs of
expansion of the City's Police Department. The annual operations cost of the annual salary and
benefits for those additional officers, will need to come from the increases in the base amounts of
property, sales and transient occupancy general tax increases generated by the new residences and
businesses and their occupants.
The Use of the Fee. The fees collected will be used to fund the law enforcement facilities and
equipment (identified in the Master Facilities Plan) that are necessary to accommodate the
anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-1. The revenues raised for a
properly calculated and legally-supported Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee would be
limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand or increase
capacity within the law enforcement facilities, increase the number of response and investigator's
vehicles, and specialty equipment. Conversely, the General Plan Build-out Needs-based Law
Enforcement Development Impact Fee receipts cannot be used repair the existing building, replace
existing vehicles, or re-outfit a new officer (due to normal vacancies of the existing 235 officers).
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The
fees collected from new development will be used to pay the proportional facility expansion costs
generated by new development. As the development occurs, the impact (in the form of new or
additional demands for service) is generated in differing amounts by differing land-uses and the
development impact fees would be collected as the various types of development occurs (at a time
in the development review and approval process determined by the City). The collected fee would
be put to use to acquire law enforcement space, vehicles and equipment for the new (and
additional) officers necessary to respond to those additional calls generated by that same new
development, without reducing the capability of responding to calls for the existing community.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the law
enforcement facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To meet that
need, Police Department calls-for-service records were used to verify that differing land uses
generate differing amounts of calls-for-service. Anecdotally we can all recognize that a retail store
would be more likely to suffer shoplifting incidents, whereas a residence is more likely to
experience a domestic disturbance or break-in and thus would have differing demands. The data
in this Chapter demonstrates those expected differences using data specific to the City of
Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees would be used to acquire additional building space,
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 32
HB -361- Item 9. - 226
304
384
305
385
306
386
Detached Dwelling Units $15,793,603
$409/Unit
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 3-4
Existing Financial Commitment or "Equity-based"
Law Enforcement Impact Fees
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
$30,365,403
$1,090,040
$503,096
$444,401
$13,792,002
$9,258,164
$841/Unit
$380/Unit
$470Unit
$549/Unit
$1.074/S.F.
$0.4751S.F.
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The General Plan Build-out Needs-based impact fees, identified in Table 3-3, are slightly less than
the Financial Commitment or Investment-based fees identified in Table 3-4 indicating that the
existing commitment has kept relative pace with law enforcement asset expansion. In order to
ensure that proportionality, and its underlying fairness, be maintained the development impact fee
schedule identified in Table 3-3, (General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees)
are the most reasonable for both additional new development and the existing community. The
adoption of Table 3-3, and detailed in Schedule 3.2 at the end of the Chapter, would also generate
sufficient capital, about 97% of the full amount identified in the Master Facilities Plan, to
construct most of the law enforcement facilities and capital equipment needed to absorb the new
demands generated by the City's continued new development while maintaining proportionality
with the commitment demonstrated by the existing community. The remaining 3% would need
to come from other sources.
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 35
Item 9. -229
HB -364-
307
387
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
* Adopt Schedule 3.2, General Plan Build-out Needs-based development Impact Fees for the
seven basic new land-uses.
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. The twelve month period spanning 2009.
2. Stated slightly differently, we could expect that any randomly selected thirty homes would generate about ten
calls in a given year.
3. Again, this is not intended to imply that each officers annul work effort is limited to only 260.79 calls-for-
service. Patrol officers respond to a far greater number of calls-for-service. Investigators may spend an entire
year on only a few cases, while officers involved in management of the Department do not necessarily respond to
any. The 260.79 calls-for-service is only an average and represent the composite calls-for-service workload
distributed between the entire 235 sworn officers.
4. This is almost the same as the average of 365.0 square foot per officer of six cities (with greater than 85
officers) where RCS has conducted similar analyses. Those six municipalities include Huntington Beach,
Anaheim, Ontario, Riverside, Chino and Corona. The average for twenty cities (of all sizes) is 353.6 square feet
per sworn officer.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 36
HB -365- Item 9. - 230
308
388
ifi0•00.1.41160tod.:-
te:diie.i.1;00•0 • • -
:NO•wpeilekiliiii6m:::
• Amdant Alloca
.16 Eliminate'
97.05% $7,373,049
97.05% $1,699,384
97.05% $318,023
97.05% $412,463
97.05% $9,802,919
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
97.05% $9,802,919
...F0.14i.d:ta'Sqh.0.0.14'..
..iVe d:•
:!1050.1.1.ioned •
6.tiltatr. gas! ,
. :
LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165
LE-002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040
LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Office issued Equipment
$327,690
LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment
$425,000
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS I $10,100,895
2:..195% $224,116
$51,656
$9,667
$12,538
$297,976
LESS: Existing Law Enforcement Impact Fee Fund Balance $0 0.00WTr $0
SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS
$0 -076i*
$0
Total - Law Enforcement Capital Project Needs $10,100,895 :2A5% $297,976
Estimated
Cos
Percent
Need
AlopottiOne&
E Schedule 3.1
City of Huntington Beach tn.)
(..,) 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
NOTES:
1. Costs distribution based upon a 10% sampling of Police Department "Calls-for-Service" statistics.
Revenu )st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831 309389
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
111.2 5,307
1.0
9
18.6 818
9.3 535
39.8 2,417,000
Net Increased Units
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 295.0 1,749
Acres Llnits Generation
RatP.
P6it.04000.0
of Additional • . .:.. • • • •••• e.ri&O'grokl:
. . . ::-AffePetien6
Expons.19a . 000000.:
Pr Acre
tr000ff0000io.iitz::
Schedule 3.2
City of Huntington Beach
2010-11 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees)
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.0 3,638,000
0.341 597.18 7.07% $692,944
$2,349 5.93 $396 per Unit
0.702 3,725.83 44.10% $4,323,304 $38,879 47.72
$815 per Unit
0.318 2.86 0.03% $3,319
$3,319
9.00
$369 per Unit
0.393 321.08 3.80% $372,568 $20,031 43.98
$455 per Unit
0.459 245.35 2.90% $284,694 $30,612 57.53
$532 per Unit
0.897 2,168.07 25.66% $2,515,742 $63,210 60,729 $1.041 per S.F.
0.381 1,387.80 16,43%1 $1,610,348 $8,611 19,455 $0.443 per S.F.
10-0,004 $9.802:919 in Total Law Enforcement Capital Needs to C omplete**(0] ZEZ - .6 mon 00
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 310390
311391
Chapter
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure. The Fire Department responds to calls for
service from eight existing stations and trains at a facility consisting of a training (and drying)
tower, classrooms, offices and support areas with specialty situation training mock-up implements.
There is also a storage facility for reserve vehicles. The fire facilities are detailed as follows:
Fire Station #1 (Gothard) is a 10,200 square foot facility on parcel that is just under an acre
(42,166 square feet) and is located at 18311 Gothard Street.
Fire Station #2 (Murdy) is a 11,500 square foot three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility
also on a 42,166 square foot parcel at 16221 Gothard Street.
Fire Station #3 (Bushard) is a one-bay wide by one-vehicle deep, 5,700 square foot facility
located on a 12,980 square foot parcel located at 19711 Bushard Street.
Fire Station #4 (Magnolia) is a 5,702 square foot, one-bay wide by one-vehicle deep facility
located on a 21,780 square foot parcel located at 21441 Magnolia Street.
Fire Station #5 (Lake) is a 11,508 square foot, three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility on
a 14,200 square foot parcel located at 530 Lake Street.
Fire Station #6 (Edwards) is a 13,000 square foot, three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility
located on a 208,478 square foot parcel located at 18591 Edwards Street.
Fire Station #7 (Warner) is an 8,750 square foot, two-bays wide by one-vehicle deep facility
located on a 53,273 square foot parcel at 3831 Warner Avenue.
Fire Station #8 (Heil) is a 5,712 square foot, two-bays wide by one-vehicle deep station on a
10,280 square foot parcel located at 5891 Heil Avenue.
The Training Facility is also located at 18301 Gothard next to Station #1 on a 77,580 square foot
portion of a City parcel and consists of 7,081 square feet of classrooms and offices. The site also
has numerous training exercise implements and a drafting pool.
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 40
HB -369- Item 9. - 234
312
392
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
Reserve Vehicle Storage Building - The facility is 2,525 square foot storage building and is
located behind Fire Station #1 (Gothard).
The land and replacement construction cost of the existing stations and training facilities is
approximately $52,999,718. Not surprisingly, the City also has a sizable fleet of City-owned
response and prevention units (and equipment) consisting of:
• Four front line and three reserve ambulances;
• Two front line ladder trucks, one aerial platform and a large tiller ladder truck and one
reserve tiller ladder truck;
• Eight front-line and four reserve engines;
• Two Battalion Chief incident command vehicles;
• Seven utility pick-up trucks of varying sizes (utility and specialty support);
• Three specialty vehicles, a decontamination vehicle, a HazMat vehicle and Light/Air
support vehicle; and,
• Twenty-two administrative, inspection and investigation sedans.
The total investment in the Department's vehicle compliment is about $9,237,000. The City's
investment in assigned fire fighter equipment is approximately $1,010,202 at $7,595.50 for each
of the 133 sworn fire fighters. The City has also acquired approximately $537,780 in
computers/Electronic equipment. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicle
and Equipment Impact Fee Fund thus no current year-end fund balance.
The current equity of the stations, parcels, specialty equipment and the response fleet is estimated
to be $63,784,700. The sale of Station #8 (Heil), to allow it to be relocated, decreases this figure
by a net $2,550,473 to $61,234,227. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the
existing eight station (along with the reserve vehicle and training facilities) response capability at
current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and facility construction costs. The relevance of this
figure will be established later in this Chapter.
Demand U a on Infrastructure Created b the Develo a ment of Under or Undevelo • ed Parcels.
While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number of and
location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new (net)
private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire,
medic, and emergency calls-for-service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold.
Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls-for-
service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for-service.
Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale
development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the
existing engine companies out-of-service for greater lengths of time.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 41
Item 9. - 235 HB -370-
313
393
The capacity of any fire station to respond to calls-for-service is finite and will ultimately reach
practical limits (through a combination of call-frequency and total time on that call). When that
station's capacity is exceeded, the level-of-service afforded to existing development will be greatly
diminished. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire
stations (additional capacity), the existing station will be overwhelmed (new demand), making a
timely response for emergency service less likely. That is to say, the existing engine companies
may not be available to respond to your needs as they may be out-of-service on a call in a different
part of the community.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional financial contributions
from new development to pay for additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and
specialty equipment. In order to be able to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing
number of expected calls, the Fire Department staff has determined the need for the relocation of
one new station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and an expansion of one existing station. Having
the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the City's policy makers
to house fire fighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of resources.
Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible, for inadequate fire response capacity.
Adverse effects are felt by the City's fire staff, the council, and indeed by the existing taxpayers.
With poor response capacity response times, (via distance or out-of-service due to a previous call),
can become excessive and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized.
Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first-in unit. This can be a grave error.
More correctly, response time must consider the time necessary to assemble all of the fire
resources necessary to place the incident under control. If the first unit arrives within five minutes
but cannot provide the necessary water flow, undertake entry, or perform the needed functions due
to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus an
increase in the number and type of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the
needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to
meet the demands of additional calls-for-service and can thus accommodate new development.
The Use of the Fee. The development impact fee would be collected as the development occurs
at some point of the development review process determined by the City. As the development
occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fees would be put to use to acquire the additional
fire-fighters' facilities necessary to respond to additional calls-for-service, necessary to avoid
reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community. These fees will be used
to finance the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment (identified in the companion Master Facilities Plan) that have been identified as
necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-1.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 42
HB -37 1- Item 9. - 236
314
394
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Chapter 4
The proposed fire suppression/medic facilities and equipment that are necessary to accommodate
the anticipated (and planned for) in Table 2-1 are identified in the companion document the Master
Facilities Plan. It is important to note that the fees would be used to acquire additional stations or
expand existing stations (to increase the response capacity of that station) and increase the number
of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles,
and Equipment Impact Fee receipts could not be used to simply repair any existing fire station or
replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facility capacity is planned to come
on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the existing capability
(frequency and distance) of the existing stations. The six capital projects expansions proposed by
the City's fire staff will cost a net $11,241,972. They are described briefly:
FS-001 - Relocate Station #8 (Heil) - The proposed project involves the relocation of the existing
station from it's current location on Heil Street just west of Springdale to a more northerly area
near Graham Street, north of Edinger Street. The relocation is largely needed to meet the shifting
and increasing demands resulting from the redevelopment/up-sizing of both the Downtown
Specific Plan and the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor. The proposed building would be a
three-bay wide by two-vehicle deep facility. The project would need approximately an acre and
a quarter.
FS-002 - Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility - The reserve vehicle storage
facility behind the existing Station #1 would need to be supplemented with a storage facility behind
Station #8 as part of the above project but is not fully needed as result of the redevelopment of the
two large specific plans. It is partly needed to accommodate existing reserve vehicles.
FS-003 - Construct a Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia) - The project will add
2,400 square feet to the station. The additional space would consist of an additional 1,600 two
vehicle deep bay to house and additional engine company and an ambulance.
FS-004 - Acquire an Additional Engine and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia) - This
project consists of the response vehicles in support of the Station #4 expansion.
FS-005 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1 - This additional engine would be needed
to assist in handling the additional call volume resulting from the development in both the
Downtown Specific Plan and the southerly portion of the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor.
FS-006 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2- This additional engine would be needed
to assist in accommodating additional call-for-service volume resulting from the development in
the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 43
Item 9. - 237 HB -372-
315
395
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and are detailed in the Master
Facilities Plan. The total cost of completing the fire infrastructure system is $11,941,972, which
is mitigated by the $700,000 offset anticipated by the sale of the Station #8, Heil for a net total of
$11,241,972. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Development Impact Fee fund thus
no fund balance.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to finance the
required expansion to the fire suppression/paramedic facilities et. al. needed to support the
development anticipated and identified in Table 2-1. Fire suppression/medic response standards
extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the
City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will
be a deterioration in the level-of-service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens
and businesses within the City. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to
contribute additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and equipment.
To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the
current impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs
of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following
section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the fire
suppression/paramedic facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To
meet that need, actual Fire Department calls-for-service records' were used to verify that differing
land uses generate differing numbers of calls. The data in this Chapter demonstrates those
expected differences using data specific to City of Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees
would be used to acquire equipment for additional fire fighters, vehicles and additional building
space necessary to respond to the calls-for-service generated by private residential dwelling and
business space.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility
Attributed to the Development Project. Each new development would finance a proportional
amount of the expansion of the fire station/company response capacity, vehicle response fleet and
specialty response/paramedic equipment and thus a proportional share of the costs. It is unlikely
that any specific development will generate the need to construct the additional fire station, but
each one will pay for their proportional demands on that expansion.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 44
HB -373- Item 9. - 238
316
396
38,616 4,762 0.123/Unit Detached Dwelling Units
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
While the majority of these requests for service were made by residents of Huntington Beach from
their homes, a large percentage of requests were generated from existing commercial/office and
industrial uses within the City. A survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for
calls-for-service was conducted to determine existing service ratios and thus be able to project the
impact of future development on fire services. This survey was undertaken similarly to the
process used to determine law enforcement demand as described in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement.
Only requests for fire and medic services to privately held property were counted. Calls-for-
service to public property such as City parks and public right-of-way or intersections were not
included which, in effect, distributes these calls pro-rata through the calls-for-service from
privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held
land in some manner.
Table 4-1, following, identifies the number of requests for service received by the Fire Department
during the period of July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, by land use (detached dwelling, attached
dwelling, mobile home, resort hotel/motel, commercial/office, and industrial). The number of
calls-for-service received by the Fire Department for each of the major land-uses during the year
was then divided by either the existing number of dwelling units (for residential uses) or the
developed acres (for commercial, office and industrial uses) to determine the number of requests
generated per dwelling unit or commercial or an industrial acre.
Table 4-1
Average Annual Existing Responses Per Unit Or Acre
Attached Dwelling Units 36,108 1,846 0.051/Unit
Mobile Home Units 2,865
607 0.212/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units 1,070 51 0.048/Unit
Resort Lodging Units 809 86 0.106/Unit
Commercial & Office KSF 12,836,000 565 0.044/KSF
Industrial KSF
20,261,000 82 0.004/KSF
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 45
Item 9. -239
HB -374-
317
397
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
The beach/City right-of-way areas generated 195 calls for service. Of residential land uses, the
occupants of an attached dwelling unit are less likely, by less than half as much, to require an
emergency fire service response at 0.051 annual responses per unit, than the occupants of a
detached dwelling unit at 0.123 annual responses per unit. Commercial/Office development is
shown to generate 0.044 responses per 1,000 square feet of building pad, while industrial
development generates a minimal response demand of 0.004 calls per 1,000 square feet of building
pad. The lower demand by industrial uses over commercial/office uses should be expected given
the greater density of employees and patrons in a commercial or office establishment when
compared to an industrial business of similar building size. However, it should be noted that
while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant specialty training is required to be
prepared for industrial responses, (i.e., confined space and hazardous materials training).
Table 4-2 indicates that, given the high density of rooms and accompanying facilities, an acre of
resort development, creates the highest demand for fire services, thus the development impact fee
for that land use is the highest, on an average acreage basis.
Table 4-2
Calls-for-service by Land-use
an Acre Basis
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses (per KSF)
0.123 6 0.74
0.051 20 1.02
0.212 14 2.97
0.048 32 1.53
0.106
40 4.25
0.044 15,246 0.67
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (KSF) 0.004 21,779 0.09
Based on the existing rate of responses by land use, the increased number of fire
suppression/medic service responses generated by future residential, commercial/office and office
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 46
Item 9. - 240 HB -375-
318
398
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
development was extrapolated. This was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per
unit or 1,000 square feet (KSF), established in Table 4-1, by the number of anticipated dwelling
units, commercial rooms or business KSF. Table 4-3, following, indicates the number of
additional calls-for-service that could be anticipated from the development of currently vacant land
within the City's planning area.
Table 4-3
Additional Annual Fire Suppression/Medic Responses
Generated by Future Anticipated Development
Detached Dwelling Units 0.123/unit 1,749 units 215.68 calls
Attached Dwelling Units
0.051/unit 5,307 units 271.32 calls
Mobile Home (in parks)
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
Total
0.212/unit 9 units 1.91 calls
0.048/unit 818 units 38.99 calls
0.106/unit 535 units 56.87 calls
0.044/KSF 2,417 KSF 106.39 calls
0.040/KSF 3,638 KSF 14.72 calls
705.88 calls
Proposed Capital Expenses. The total cost of the required improvements to the City's investment
of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment was previously estimated to
be $11,941,972 with an offset of $700,000 from the proceeds of sale of the to-be vacated Heil
Station #8. Roughly 46.4% has been identified as required to serve the net new calls-for-service
resulting from development or up-sizing due to redevelopment. Projects FS-001 through FS-006
are capacity-increasing and have been determined by City staff to be necessary to accommodate
the anticipated additional calls-for-service from new development or for a more appropriate aerial
unit. When this cost is distributed the various land-uses and the demands created by each, a
proportional cost is determined, by development unit. Table 4-4, summarized from Schedule 4.2,
indicates the proportional cost by land-use unit.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 47
Item 9. -241
HB -376-
319
399
Detached Dwelling Units $968/Unit
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
Table 4-4
General Plan Build-out Needs Fire Facilities, Vehicles
and Equipment Development Impact Fees
$1,693,338
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units (in parks)
$2,130,176
$14,996
$401/Unit
$1,666/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units $306,117
$374/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $446,495
$835/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $835,285
$0346/S.F.
Industrial Uses $115,569 $0.032/S.F.
Existing City Financial Commitment. The replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure
(parcel and station, response fleet and related safety/specialty equipment) at a net $61,234,227
(includes the potential sale of the Heil Station) was referenced earlier in this Chapter. This
represents the current investment or financial commitment by the existing community toward fire
suppression/medic capability/capacity. When this figure is distributed over the existing
development in the same manner as were the future costs, by the land use demands, an average
investment, or financial commitment (or equity for that matter) per unit is determined, The results
are summarized in Table 4-5 (from Schedule 4.3). As an example, each detached dwelling unit
has "invested" over the lifetime of the City, about $922 (as identified in Table 4-5 following) into
fire suppression/medic capital, an amount that is about 95 % of the General Plan Build-out Needs-
based Development Impact Fee schedule identified in the previous Table 4-4 and detailed in
Schedule 4.3.
The current community's commitment has established the eight response station capacities and was
paid for through years of General Fund receipts. To allow future residents to benefit by use of
all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets, could endanger the existing residents
and businesses. Table 4-5, following, summarizes the distribution of the $ in replacement costs
to the existing community, (Schedule 4.3 indicates this in greater detail).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 48
HB -377- Item 9. - 242
320
400
Detached Dwelling Units $922/Unit
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
Table 4-5
Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Existing
Community Financial Commitment
$35,586,696
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units (in parks)
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
$13,795,263
$4,536,145
$381,126
$642,683
$4,222,277
$612,791
$382/Unit
$1,583/Unit
$356/Unit
$792/Unit
$0.3291S.F.
$0.030/S.F.
Other (beach area) $1,457,246 NA
Of importance is the fact that the Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based costs on
Table 4-5 are just slightly higher, at roughly 105%, than the proposed General Plan Build-out-
based impact fees as demonstrated in Table 4-4. This indicates that the City is just slightly behind
in its cumulative and proportional investment in needed fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and equipment.
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Since the equity position of the existing community is slightly less than the General Plan Build-out
Needs-based development impact fees necessary for expansion, the current Community Financial
Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test-based Development Impact Fees, as identified
in Table 4-5 and Schedule 4.3, would be the most equitable fee schedule to adopt.
Resulting Development Impact Cost Distribution. The collection of the proposed development
impact fee, through build-out would allow the City to provide a great deal (44.7%) of the proposed
expansions and most of the equipment, but not all of it. It would fall about $6.0 million short of
financing all of the required improvements attributed to new development.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 49
Item 9. -243
HB -378-
321
401
chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES
1. The City will need to monitor the approval of conditional uses within industrial zoned
development where newly constructed industrial developments. These land uses are initially have
the lower industrial use development impact fees imposed when constructed as "spec" buildings
but end up being used, with a CUP, for commercial/office uses. These commercial/office uses
generate far greater demand than the industrial uses. If left unchecked, the Fire Department, as
well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from the actual
commercial/office uses but will be left only with the collection of the far lower industrial use
development impact fee rates. To avoid this under collection, the City should impose an impact
fee representing the difference between the commercial/office development impact fee and the
previously paid industrial land-use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement
plans are submitted indicating a commercial or office use.
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION/MEDIC FACILITIES, VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT t'EES.
• Adopt Schedule 4.3 General Plan Build-out Needs-based for the seven basic land-uses.
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. The response data is generated from Department response incident data used to complete the annual National
Fire Incident Report (NFIR's).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 50
HB -379- Item 9. - 244
322
402
COnstruction Needs
Sopportecl by
•Ottiet Resoutaas...
Opi.:10rot.oci.Ok Ne .W. . .
Development
cp
Schedule 4.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
0it :: l'OpottlOr? pct.. ferOen APpOttiO00::
.iv.0.4.1 .•:iii:-.Obiiat .,:i.o..ei:iii:, :i0oiiaidia..t:
FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil)
FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia)
FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia)
FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #1 (Gothard)
FS-006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy)
$1,716,044 75.00% $1,287,033 25.00 0/01 $429,011
$1,266,458 50,00% $633,229 50.00°M $633,229
$740,000 50.00% $370,000 50.00% $370,000
$525,000 50:00% $262,500 50.00%1 $262,500
$525,000 50:00 6/c $262,500 50.00% $262,500
$3,584,735 50.00% $3,584,735 $7,169,470 5O00%
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS J $11,941,972 53.5.9%, $6,399,997 46.41%1 $5,541,975
LESS: Existing Fire Suppression Impact Fee Fund Balance 1 $0 . 100..009 $0
Sale of Property (Heil Station) ($700,000) 100.:0 -0.0
0:00%
($700,000)
($700,000) SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS I ($700,000)
0.00%
$0
0.00%
$0
0.00%
$0
Total Fire Suppression/Medic Capital Project Needsj $11,241,972 .50:70% $5,699,997 49.3004 $5,541,975
orward to Schedule •?_
NOTES:
1. The cost distribution is based upon annual Fire Department "Calls-for-Services statistics (NFIRs).
Revenu n .)st Specialists, L.L.C. Fulle A 92831 323403
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
295.00 1,749
0.123
Attached Dwelling Units 11t20 5,307
0.051
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9
0.212
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60
818
0.048
Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.106
Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000
0.044
Industrial/Manufacturing U$el 187.00 3,638,000
0.004
TOTAL '1 .90
00
ej..-00.$00 Land Us e .
ected
New Calls
oi- Service
215.68
271.32
1.91
38.99
56.87
106.39
14.72
Percentage
of Additioflal
Service Calls
411.00000 Of
Expansion
Costs
P-0100000
iolao
Ave
or
30.55% $1,693,338
$5,740
38.44% $2,130,176 $19,156
0.27% $14,996 $14,996
5.52% $306,117 $16,458
8.06% $446,495 $48,010
15.07% $835,285 $20,987
2.09% $115,569
$618
41001.00#10it
Impact Fee per Uni
..............
oar& ,00
$968 per Unit
$401 per Unit
5.93
47.72
9.00 $1,666 per Unit
43.98
$374 per Unit
57.53
$835 per Unit
Schedule 4.2
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees)
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
60,729 $0.346 per S.F.
19,455 $0.032 per S.F.
.705.88 00:0()% 505414175 in Total Fire Suppression capital NeedSto.Finfsh .SYSterri •
age
CD
-P. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 324404
Allocation of
fnfrastruOtute
flEquity"
Oianit•OtiOn
Of TOogy :::
PO: e Acre
Average Units
or square
Feet/Acre
Current Final-rola!
.Commitment per Unit
or Square rogt..
of Existing
4,762.0
1,846.0
607.0
51.0
86.0
565.0
82.0
195.0
58.12% $35,586,696
22.53%1 $13,795,263
7.41 0/61 $4,536,145
0.62% $381,126
$642,683
$4,222,277
$612,791
$1,457,246
6.00 $922 per Unit
20.00 $382 per Unit
14.00 $1,583 per Unit
32.04 $356 per Unit
$794 per Unit
$0.329 per S.F.
21,779
$0.030 per S.F.
1.05 0/
6.90 0/
1.00%
2.38%
40.05
15,246
$61,234,
• • •• • •• • .•••• • ••• • •••:. •• • • • • • •• ..,•:•••••••••••••• • • •••• —•••• •:
........
... .$52,999,718 in .. . .. . . .Suppression .... .. . . • , . . , •• • . . . . . . . ...
($3,250,473) Less Hell Station #8 (to .t*f.§0000.4
$700,000 Proceeds of Sale of Fleil Station #8 , . . . .
03;*37;0.00. .,A14:00.** Fire Suppression Vnhcles.
$1,010,202 in Existing Fire-fighter Assigned Equipment.
. . . . ... ...........
-:•:•:. ..... . •:•::•:•:•
04$0.66•00$0.0010.010000tr.04 .:0.i.40.0.4,00
0 1 00.00%
$5,529
$7,641
$22,171
$11,411
$31,816
CD
Schedule 4.3
t,..) City of Huntington Beach
4. 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
:Developed
.AC(4S I• Units . •
Cali
Gnrziot
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.00 38,616
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.40 36,108 I
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.60 2,865 I
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.40 1,070
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 930.30 120,261,000
Beach Area
yoticV .............
Revenu .)st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831
CZ
oc
1n")
20.20 I 809 I
841.90 112,836,000 1
I 0.123
0.051
0.212
0.048
0.106
0.044
0.004 325405
Chapter 5
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
The following Chapter will identify the street, traffic signal and bridge improvements (henceforth
referred to as the Circulation System) planned for the City through General Plan Build-out of the
existing City limits as identified in the Land-use Database Table in Chapter 2.
RCS recommends the continuation of the City's comprehensive Circulation System Development
Impact Fee, i.e., a fee that combines the required street, signal and bridge expansions, all of which
are related to the movement of primarily vehicles. The reasons are practical in that combining
these three components will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is
essentially a singular circulation issue with a common nexus, traffic or as stated in trip-mile
generation. It is fairly common that a single circulation system capital improvement project will
involve both a street improvement (or intersection) and signal improvement.
The Existing Circulation System. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of
roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational,
recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of City of Huntington
Beach are classified as one of four types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. Roadways
are defined in part (in the City's General Plan Circulation Element)2 as:
•Freeway - Very high mobility with limited access to arterial streets and no access to adjacent
land use. [The City is not responsible for the construction of freeways but will likely have to
financially assist CALT.RANS with any alteration to an existing access/egress ramps].
•Arterial - High mobility with access to collectors, some access to local streets and major
traffic generators.
•Collector - Limited mobility connecting local streets with arterials; also provides good access
to adjacent land uses.
•Local -Limited mobility but provides very good access to adjacent land uses and collector
streets.
Typically, locals would be constructed upon the developer's private property and generally only
benefits those new residential or business buildings. Assuming that the design criterion has been
met and that the right-of-way improvements meet inspection requirements, the City then accepts
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 54
HB -383- Item 9. -248
326
406
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, SingrLls, and Bridges) System
the local street improvements along with the responsibility to maintain the improvement in
perpetuity. In short, local streets are of little benefit to the City-wide circulation system, and these
costs are not shared by other developers, as the collector and arterial system improvements are.
For these reasons, the cost of all local streets is excluded from the Circulation System
Development Impact Fee calculation.
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped
parcels create few trip-ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes or
to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip-ends are on a routine
basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable number of trip-ends,
depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant
parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e. , residential or business, will generate more traffic
than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the parcel may also increase the
number of daily trip-ends. A good example would be the demolition of a low trip-generating
insurance office which is reconstructed as a new high trip-generating fast-food restaurant.
All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and
mitigate on a project-by-project, basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative
impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing
lane miles (and freeway crossings) include, (as measured by trip-miles defined later in Chapter
text) the following:
• An increase in the City's full-time population through the construction of about 7,065
additional dwelling units contributing approximately 183,270 new trip-miles daily or
just more than 49.4% of the newly expected daily trip-miles.
• The construction of 1,353 commercial lodging units (resort and hotel/motel) will
generate 26,882 daily trip-miles, not quite 7.3% of the total new trip-miles annually.
• The construction of private commercial and office uses on the (net) 40 acres currently
identified as undeveloped commercial or office uses will generate 78,553 new daily trip-
miles, or about 21.2% of the total new trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out.
This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses
constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued.
• The addition of 187 acres of industrial development (and Institutional Uses) generating
the potential for an additional 82,219 daily trip-miles, just under a quarter of the total
new trip-miles at 22.1 %. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial
uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. There
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 55
Item 9. - 249 HB -384-
327
407
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System
are likely many existing industrial buildings contiguous to the City's many arterials and
collectors that have become commercial uses.
When all (or most) of the available vacant land is developed, the City can expect an additional
370,924 daily trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 3,135,213
daily trip-miles from the existing residences and businesses. The 370,924 anticipated trip-miles
represents an approximate 11.8% increase over the existing 3,135,213 daily trip-miles.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new
development to pay for additional circulation system capacity and by creating more lane miles or
more efficient lane miles with which to accommodate the additional trip-miles created by and
anticipated from new development. Additionally there are circulation projects required to alter
existing arterials, collectors or intersections that currently exist, but due to additional trip-miles
are becoming ineffective at moving vehicles. An example would be the intersection of Beach
Boulevard and Edinger Avenue (ST-001). This project is required because additional citizens and
business-owners will use the existing intersections along with the current users rendering it, again,
ineffective at moving traffic at a reasonable pace, primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour
of traffic. Acceptable traffic paces can be maintained with a combination of road widening,
freeway access/egress, proper signalization and turn lane channelization. The simple answer to
increasing demand for lane miles is to construct additional lane miles. Unfortunately there are
little if any opportunities to construct additional lane miles of arterials or collectors within the
City's limits without the impractical and acquisition of very expensive right-of-way.
Thus, given the size of City of Huntington Beach and the magnitude of growth projected in this
Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of technologically improved traffic
signals will be the primary methodology employed by the City to avoid congestion and gridlock
in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the critical constraint in a typical roadway
network is usually not the roadway itself but the many intersections of arterial and collector
roadways. While the street capacity may be theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at
build-out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersections of the
arterial/collector. While the City will likely undertake, some street widening projects where
possible, the installation of traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the
City is perhaps a more important component of traffic circulation.
The importance of traffic signals is twofold. First, the City can build only so many major
collector streets and there are limits as to how wide they can be, indeed there are no more practical
opportunities for additional lane-miles. Second, a north-south arterial/collector, by definition, will
intersect with an east-west arterial/collector assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a
stop sign or a traffic signal, adding time to their tasks. The traffic carrying capacity of each
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 56
HB -385- Item 9. - 250
328
408
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System
collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by efficient signalization of
those intersecting arterial/collector roadways.
None of this is intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the
full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required
of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve
the reimbursement capability.
The City's Master Facilities Plan Circulation System section identifies fifteen circulation projects
costing a net $28,539,780. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 5.1 at the
end of the Chapter and detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. A total of $26,608,410 has been
identified by staff as capacity increasing, leaving $1,929,390 to be supported by other financial
resources such as assessment districts, State (CALTRANS) assistance, General Funds, etc. There
is an existing Circulation System Development Impact Fee Fund balance of $200,000 leaving some
$1,469,370 with unidentified revenue sources.
The Use of the Fee. The continued collection of the Circulation System Development Impact Fee
would be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 5.1 at the
conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees will be used to create additional lane miles
with which to accommodate the additional 370,924 additional daily trip-miles that will be
generated by the scope of development identified in Table 2-1. Nineteen specific signal
modification/intersection modification improvement projects have been included in the list of
proposed projects. They include:
Beach Boulevard - Seven signal modification/intersection improvement projects would be
constructed along Beach Boulevard at the intersections with Edinger, Heil, Warner, Slater,
Talbert, Garfield, and Yorktown Avenues.
Pacific Coast Highway - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects would
improve traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue, Goldenwest and Brookhurst
Streets.
Newland Street - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects along Newland
Street include the intersections with Talbert, Warner and Yorktown Avenues.
Goldenwest Street - There are two such projects planned at the intersections of Goldwest Street
with Bolsa and Slater Avenues.
Gothard Street - There are also two signal/intersection improvement projects planned at the
intersection of Gothard Street with Slater and Talbert.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 57
Item 9. - 251 HB -386-
329
409
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System
There are two more signal improvement projects, one at the intersection of Ward Street and
Garfield Avenue and one at Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue as well as a few minor
intersection improvements that will be identified as development projects arise. There is a minor
amount for a facility addition at the City yard to store replacement signal equipment.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. There
is a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are
imposed. The fees will be used to provide for a fair share contribution for transportation system
improvements, including various street, signal and bridge project improvements needed to
accommodate additional development of residential units and business square feet. The
development impact fee to be imposed and collected will be based on the ratio of projected number
of trip-miles the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 370,924 additional
projected trip-miles at General Plan build-out. Any amount imposed as a Circulation System
Development Impact Fee will continue to be placed in a separate fund as the current City practice
(collecting interest) and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 5.1 as
development-related.
From time to time the City may require an applicant of a private project to construct a street or
signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of
this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the
applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit representing the cost of those required
improvements, against their mathematically calculated impact fee, for any money expended on this
required improvement against any circulation projects. Should one not exist, a portion of the
ordinance addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to the City of Huntington
Beach Municipal Code.
The following table identifies some of the key system attributes of the Circulation System. The
attributes identify that approximately 89.4% of the total trip-miles at "build-out" are represented
by the existing community who have contributed a similar, but larger amount (96.2%) of the cost
of the entire system. The traffic system yet to be built represents about 3.9% of the total trip-mile
supporting system when the City is fully developed. Since there is a finite amount of room for
additional major roads, traffic signals must be constructed at the intersection of major arterials.
All of this generally indicates that the City is "on target" in terms of the construction of a
circulation infrastructure. Or another way to state it is that the current drivers will generate
89.4% of the ultimate "build-out" trip-miles, have constructed about 96.2 % , (in terms of cost) of
the required infrastructure. It would be appropriate to assume that the remaining 10.6% of the
traffic trip-mile generators contribute the remaining 3.9% of the infrastructure.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 58
HB -387- Item 9. -252
330
410
331
411
332
412
333
413
334
414
335
415
336
416
337
417
338
418
339419
340420
341421
342
422
343
423
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
use) and the varying amounts are referred to as the runoff coefficients. Approximately 0.775 (or
77.5%) of rainfall that falls on a parcel developed with detached dwelling residences, exits that
developed parcel. The rate for attached dwelling residences runoff is little much higher at 0.810
(81.0%). Most business uses such as a hotel/motel, resort, retail/office and industrial have a
runoff coefficient of between 0.875 and 87.5% with industrial acres to 0.950 or 95 %. Clearly,
water runoff increases when a vacant property is developed with impervious roof-top, sidewalks
and driveways/parking lots. The cumulative effects of additional runoff must be managed with
the appropriate capital facilities to move the water and, in some cases such as during heavy
downpours, detain the storm water prior to releasing it slowly into the downstream storm drain.
The costs of the new storm drainage will be distributed by the coefficients of drainage, i.e., the
percentage of property that will end up with impervious coverage such as asphalt or cement-based
concrete drives or parking lots, rooftop, pools and any other hard surface that do not allow any
absorption into the soil.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the development impact fee is to collect fair share
contributions from the various land-uses to finance the proportional acquisition of additional storm
drainage system improvements needed to collect that additional storm water runoff from the that
same proposed development. The cost of extending the same level of storm drainage protection
to the newly developing homes and businesses as is provided to the existing community, (that has
largely paid for the existing system), can be calculated, an impact fee imposed and collected. The
impact fee revenues can then be used to expand the storm drainage facilities necessary to extend
the existing level-of-services. The City's Storm Drainage Plan identifies a total of $207,494,225
in storm drainage collection system capacity-increasing projects required to fully complete the
City's General Plan build-out network of pipes, small channels and detention ponds. This cost
cannot be mitigated by Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fee fund balance.
The Use of the Fee. The construction of storm drainage collection facilities in the City of
Huntington Beach is essential to the preservation of private property, and the millions of dollars
invested in public streets, curbs, parks and other public facilities. The building of new residences
and businesses on presently undeveloped (or underdeveloped) land will require the installation of
additional storm drainage collection lines and inlets to handle the ever increasing runoff from this
same new development. This Chapter reviews the costs of expanding the storm drainage
collection system facilities needed to accommodate the drainage generated by future development.
The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Storm Drainage Collection System
Development Impact Fee would be limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees
would be used to construct additional or parallel storm drainage lines (to increase the drainage
capacity of the system). Conversely, the Storm Drainage Impact Fee receipts would not be used
to repair, replace or rehabilitate any existing storm drainage lines with adequate capacity.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 72
HB -401- Item 9. -266
344
424
0.775
Storm Drainage Collection System Chapter 6
The Relationship Between the Need for The Public Facilities and the Type of Development
Project. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types
of developments on which the fees are imposed. New residents and businesses utilize and impact
the community's existing storm drainage system which requires various storm drainage
improvements. Upon the identification of the costs of storm drainage facilities, generated by future
development, costs must be further distributed for each of the land uses (i.e., commercial and
residential uses) based on their estimated storm runoff. Detached and attached residential dwelling
development provides the most landscape percentage per parcel and thus the greatest percolation
and conversely the least runoff of storm-water. As such, these land uses should not bear the same
cost as Commercial/Office or Industrial use developments, both of which generally will have
lesser landscape area (or stated another way, have a higher percentage of impervious area) and
therefore generate a higher amount of storm water runoff.
Schedule 6.1 contains the list of storm water projects identified 4 as necessary to control the storm
water runoff resulting from the creation of an impervious surface by future development and also
continue to protect the existing developed community. The list consists of hundreds of small
projects in six storm drainage zones estimated to cost $207,494,050. For this Report, costs were
distributed between land uses on established runoff coefficients. Table 6-1 is the listing of these
runoff coefficients employed in this Report.5
Table 6-1
Storm Drainage Runoff Coefficients
(@ a 2"/hour rainfall)
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
0.810
0.800
0.900
0.875
0.900
0.950
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 73
Item 9. - 267 HB -402-
345
425
346
426
Detached Dwelling Units
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
fmance the remaining 50.5% of the total General Plan cost of the system at a guaranteed
preventive (and assuredly illegal) development impact fee of about $370,000 per acre. This
clearly indicates that the City's storm drainage collection system has not been constructed
proportionally and ratably with the amount of storm runoff generated by the development in the
City to date. Stated slightly differently, with 92.7% of the City's acreage developed, the storm
drainage system should also be close to 92.7 %developed. However, such is not the case. Such
a statement can be said of virtually all of Southern California's cities. The most likely reason is
that the storm drainage system, without an exclusive revenue source, must compete with other far
more needed (or desired) capital projects within the City's limited General Fund. As an example,
a $1.0 million dollar signal modification that eliminates significant traffic delays daily, would
more likely be funded as compared to a $1.0 million storm drainage project that benefits the
community during a few hours of the few rainiest days of the year.
A fair cost allocation would be to recognize that future additional drainage represents
approximately 6.3 % of the total at General Plan build-out thus should be allocated roughly 6.3 %
of the total cost of the remaining projects. Table 6-3, following, indicates the impact fee amounts
that would need to be imposed to pay for the cost of completing the portion of the system's
collection pipes and channels identified by staff to be financed with impact fees. It would be
reasonable to expect future development to finance its proportional share of the identified storm
drainage needs without violating the proportionality rule as has been done with other development
impact fees in this report.
Table 6-3
General Plan Build-out Needs Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fees
$5,354,096 $18,149 $3,061/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $2,109,274 $18,968 $397/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $18,735 $18,735 $2,082/Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $392,020 $18,149 $479/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $190,624 $20,497 $356/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $838,839 $21,076 $0.3471S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $4,160,238 $22,247 $1.144/S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 75
Item 9. - 269 HB -404-
347
427
348
428
349
429
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED STORM DRAINAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.
•Adopt Schedule 6.2. for the seven basic new land-uses, and;
•Adopt the Schedule 6.2, "Cost per Acre" column for construction of parking lots and other
private construction causing additional runoff but few other impacts.
CHAPTER ENDNOTFS
1.Storm drainage pipe below the size of 21" is almost exclusively used for "local" or tract storm water collection
and is thus not included in the equity calculation. In Huntington Beach this amounts to an additional 80,100 linear
foot of reinforced concrete pipe that is 18" to 21" and considered to be "local" in nature and thus not included in
this calculation.
2.Roughly assumes inlet boxes constructed at 425 linear foot intervals, combination boxes at 750 foot intervals and
junction boxes at 300 linear foot intervals.
3.Projects of major importance generally involving the control of large quantities of flood water (over 500 C.F.S.)
through numerous cities and unincorporated areas.
4.The projects individual scope and cost estimates have been provided by the City's contractual engineering firm
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Engineers and Scientists, Irvine, CA 92612-1311.
5.San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, Williamson and Schmidt, Civil Engineers, Irvine, California,
August, 1986, Runoff Index Number 56.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 78
HB -407- Item 9. - 272
350
430
Other Revenue Sources $0
Total - Storm Drainage Collection System Capital Project Needs I $207,494,050
Schedule 6.1
1,.) City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Storm Drainage Collection System
$22,234,085
$20,171,660
$32,080,501
$26,938,963
$92,344,355
$660,660
93.'70% $194,430,225
$0
$0
$0
6.30%$1,493,915
6.30%$1,355,340
6.30%$2,155,499
6.30%$1,810,037
6.30%$6,204,645
6.30%$44,390
6.300/4 $13,063,825
0.00%$0
0.00%$0
0.00% $0
6.30%$13,063,825
°ward to Schedule
SD-002 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2)
SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1)
SD-005 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5)
SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building
SD-003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3)
SD-004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)
LESS: Existing Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund Balance
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $207,494,050
$34,236,000
$28,749,000
$23,728,000
$21,527,000
$98,549,000
$705,050
$0
$0
o.cook
0)30%
6.80%
Percerlt
eeef
Apportioned
•Dollar cat
SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS I
9a,n0/
93•70%
Percent • 00040.
voirar:obii
$194,430,225
onstrtiction*
Other Regources
.01#00,11/6/.00:
pbriirasq. .
nfraStr00,04.0g capv.oe,.
0-1
CD
NOTES:
There are no notes.
Revent. ost Specialists, L.L.C. Full CA 92831351431
Detached Dwelling Units (1)295.00 1,749 0.775 228.63 40.98%$5,354,096 $18,149 5.93 $3,061 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 111.20 5,307 0.810 90.07 16.15%$2,109,274 $18,968 47.72 $397 per Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9 0.800 0.80 0.14%$18,735 $18,735 9.00 $2,082 per Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.900 16.74 3.00%$392,020 $21,076 43.98 $479 per Unit
Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.875 8.14 1.46%$190,624 $20,497 57.53 $356 per Unit
Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000 0.900 35.82 6.42%$838,839 $21,076 60,729 80.347 per S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.00 3,638,000 0.950 177.65 31.85%$4,160,238 $22,247 19,455 $1.144 per S.F.
TOTAL1 557.85 •Total Storm Drainage itat ,.Ne 0 Finish
e101eiji#00:t
Impact Fee per Urn
vare Foot
erceetage
Of Additional
ServiCet Calls
Average Units
ua
Peet/Acre
waived
Use
Coefficient
of Drainage
. .Prolleseci land
Schedule 6.2
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees)
Storm Drainage Collection System
00
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831352432
'MO*r.Oe'rita.
of Existing,iotatinage:
went HPand
Commitment per Unit
or Square root
-Eystip0.00:
Of 'EqwtY
perAcre
Allocalion:of
InfrastructUre
:Tgqi.ty!prOpOsed Lang' 4.10.
$3,168 per Unit
$993 per Unit
$1,401 per Unit
$689 per Unit
$536 per Unit
$1.448 per S.F.
$1.070 per S.F.
0.775 4,987.90 60.07% $122,325,402 $19,006 6.00
20.00
14.00
32.04
40.05
15,246
21,779
0.810 $19,8651,462.37
0.800
6,436.00
1,805.40
204.60 163.68
38,616
36,108
2,865 $19,617
17.61% $35,863,547
1.97% $4,013,573
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
0.36%30.06 $22,0700.900
0.21%17.680.875 $21,472
$737,145
$433,735
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses 9.13%757.710.900 $22,073
10.64%883.780.950 $23,298
$18,583,394
$21,674,517industrial/Manufacturing Use
CD
Schedule 6.3
City of Huntington Beacht\.)
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees
Storm Drainage Collection System
OTAL. 10,2/1.m
91100 0/4 4203;631;318 In ibta)...'0.iuit.iiCije.iii*jaw.tiiki4iiiii4fit.W.4§eti:::
$158;631;313-:.In Equity in Storm Drainage Collection System FacilitIes.
:$15;000,090 :-,i n Equity in Storm Drainage Basins.
itl :Eki$tingStorm .OrAinage .iblpact FP e f und.:B *Oc a-
00
Revenu )st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831353433
Chapter 7
Public Library Facilities and Collection
The Existing System. The City's library system consists of five library facilities providing a total
of 127,400 square feet. When the 127,400 square feet of the library building space is divided by
the City's residential population of 190,377 1 , a space standard of 0.669 square feet/resident is
established, (127,400 square feet of library space ÷ 190,377 residents). The City's library
operations also house an extensive inventory of 410,594 collection items contained within the five
libraries. When the 410,594 collection items are divided by the City's residential service
population of 190,377 2 , a collection item standard of 2.157 library collection items/resident is
established, (410,594 collection item's 4- 190,377 residents).
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped
Parcels. Stated simply, the 127,400 square feet of library facilities utilized by the City will
accommodate only a finite number of collection items and residents/patrons. Additional residential
development will increase the demand on the existing square feet of library pad and the existing
collection items.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to enable the City to collect a fee that would
allow the City to construct additional square feet that would ensure that the City's existing and new
residents would have adequate and sufficient access to and enjoyment of the library space and
collection. The calculation in Table 7-1, following, establishes the City's existing de-facto library
standards.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 82
HB -411- Item 9. -276
354
434
Chapter 7 Public Libraiy Facilities and Collection
Table 7-1
Calculation of Existing City
Library Facilities/Collection Items Standard
Library
Facility S.F.
Collection
Items
Banning Library 2,400 27,637
Central Library 115,000 314,921
Graham Library 1,200 14,920
Main Street Library 4,500 30,429
Oak View Library 4,300 22,687
Total Library Resources 127,400 410,594
Current Residential Population 190,377 190,377
Existing Standard/Resident 0.669 2.157
Table 7-2, following, indicates that the remaining residential dwelling development and typical
number of residents per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for 11,443 additional
square feet in order to maintain the existing library facility standard of 0.669 square feet per
person.
Table 7-2
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Facility Standard
Residential
Land-Use
Number
of Units
Persons per
Dwelling
= Resident
Yield
Detached Dwellings Units 1,749 3.053 5,095
Attached Dwellings Units 5,307 2.257 11,978
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 9 1.660 16
Additional Residential Population to be Served 17,089
Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0.669
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 11,433
Huntington Beach 2011 -12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 83
Item 9. -277
HB -412-
355
435
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
The library system also has a collection of 410,594 collection items 3 generating a collection
standard of 2.157 collection items per resident within the system (410,594 collection item's
+190,377 persons). Table 6-3, following, indicates the additional number of residents to be
served and the number of collection items required to maintain the existing standard. The City will
need to acquire roughly 36,861 collection items to maintain the existing 2.028 collection items per
person in light of the additional 17,089 additional Huntington Beach residents expected at General
Plan build-out.
Table 7-3
Collection items Required to Maintain Existing Standard
Residential
L and-Use
Number
of Units
Persons per ,
Dwelling .
Resident
Yield
Detached Dwellings 1,749 2.913 5,095
Attached Dwellings 7,207 2.257 11,978
Mobile Home Dwellings 9 1.822 16
Additional City Population to be Served 17,089
Collection Items per Person Existing Standard 2.157
Collection Items Required to Maintain Existing Standard 36,861
The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and, as needed (and
desired), expended on expansion of the amount of library facility space in the two libraries and
the number of collection items in the system's collection. The library staff has indicated that the
proceeds of any Library development impact fee would be used to expand the Banning Library
from its 2,400 square feet to approximately 12,500 square feet and expansion of the existing 4,500
square feet Main Street Branch Libraries into the remaining 4,804 square feet (for a total of 9,304
square feet) in the same building after the current tenant chooses to move elsewhere. Collection
items would be expanded in proportion with the population increase, most likely into the additional
proposed library space.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. The
development of any acreage zoned for residential uses, increases the demand on the finite amount
of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher
numbers of residents (i.e. , detached dwelling) will be charged a proportionally higher amount.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
84
HB -413- Item 9. -278
356
436
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
There is no information available demonstrating a substantive link between library use and local
businesses. Library use is primarily by residents as opposed to business persons.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee.
Additional square feet will be constructed with the DIFs collected from residential development
and additional collection items will be added to the existing collection. If not adopted and used
to expand the City's existing Library standards' the level of service will decrease by about 8.3%
to 0.620 square feet and 1.98 collection items per resident at General Plan build-out. The Library
DIFs, if adopted, imposed and collected, cannot be used for any other purpose than their stated
use of maintaining the existing library standards.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility
Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space
and construction is about $520.63 per square foot'', (per Schedule 6.1). The 127,400 square feet
of library space, when divided by the 190,377 existing potential patrons create a standard of 0.669
square feet of library space per City resident. The standard of 0.669 square foot standard
multiplied by the $520.63 per square foot of pad cost of library construction results in a charge
of $348.30 per additional City resident. Table 7-4 following, demonstrates this.
Table 7-4
Establishment of the Library Facilities Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Facilities Owned Square Feet 127,400
Current City Service Population 190,377
Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669
Cost of Library Building Construction per Square Foot $520.63
Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669
Cost per Additional Resident $348.30
The cost of acquiring additional collection items, called the accession process 5 , (per Schedule 6.1)
is estimated by the Library staff to cost roughly $25.00 per collection item. The 410,594
collection items, when divided by the City's 190,377 population create a standard of 2.028
collection items per City resident. The standard of 2.157 collection item standard multiplied by
the $25.00 per collection item results in a cost of $53.93 per additional City resident, in order to
maintain the existing standard. Table 7-5 following, demonstrates this.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 85
Item 9. -279 HB -414-
357
437
Public Library Facilities and CollectionChapter 7
Table 7-5
Establishment of the Library Collection Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Collection Items 410,594
Current City Service Population 190,377
Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157
_
Cost of Library Collection per Collection item $25 MO
Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157
Cost per Additional Resident $53.93
Resulting,_Impact Costs. The combined cost per new resident is $402.23, consisting of $348.30
for 0.669 square feet of library space and $53.93 for 2.157 additional collection items. Table 7-6,
following, indicates the amount required for pro-rata expansion of the library space per Schedule
7.1. If adopted and imposed on the remaining development, it would collect enough to acquire
land for and construct an additional 11,432 square feet of public library space and an additional
36,861 collection items.
Table 7-6
Summary of Library Space and Collection Impact Costs
--Cost per
_Resident
Residents_ _ pact o
an r :76 g _.- -Per _ --
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $402.23 $1,172/Dwelling
Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $402.23 $908/Dwelling
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 $402.23 $733/Dwelling
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 86
HB -415- Item 9. -280
358
438
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
•Adopt Schedule 7.1 which contains the recommended City Library Facilities and Collection
(item) Development Impact Fees and is summarized in Table7-6.
•Establish a General Plan square foot standard for Library Facilities square feet per resident and
a standard for Collection Items per resident.
Chapter Endnotes
1.Based upon the 2011 State of California Department of Finance City population estimate of 190,377.
2.The current population of 190,377 establishes the existing standard.
3.A collection item is generally a book but can also be a CD, magazine subscription, video tape or some other
like item with a similar cost and accession cost.
4.Based upon the construction cost of a 30,000 square foot library constructed in Highland, CA at a cost of
$11,500,000 and increased by the Engineering News Record construction cost index increase of 14.95% over the
01106 construction date (or $441.63 per square foot) and land acquisition at a cost of $20 per square foot of land
with a FAR (floor area ratio) of 0.20 requiring five square feet of land per square foot of building pad. 06/2010
ENR- CCI = 8805 divided by the 01/06 ENR - CCI of 7660 = 14.95 percent increase.
5.The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and
actual placement on the shelves.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 87
Item 9. - 281 HB -416-
359
439
Land Acquisition at $20.00/S.F. and 0.25 FAR.
Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot
Cost per Collection Item
$80.00
$520.63
$25.00
Cost per Square Foot or Collection Item
Existing City Library Standard(s)
Cost of Space per Resident
Cost of Collection Item per Resident
$520.63 $25.00
0.669 2.157
$348.30 EREIRMSEE
$53.93
Schedule 7.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Public Library Facilities and Collection
Library
Space
Library
Collection
Banning Library 2,400 27,637
Central Library 115,000 314,921
Graham Library 1,200 14,920
Main Street Library 4,500 30,429
Oak View Library 4,300 22,687
Existing Square Feet of Library Space 127,400 .:Mliciiiigainn
Existing Library Collection Items 410,594
Calculation of Existing Standards:
Current Population (Residents)
S.F. of Library Space/Resident
Collection Items/Resident
190,377 190,377
0,669
Library Construction/Square Foot 06/2010 $440.63 INDEVEREN
Type of
Residential
Dwelling Unit
Density
per Dwelling
Unit
Detached Dwelling Unit 2.913
Attached Dwelling Unit 2.257.
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 1.822
Library
Space
Component
Library
Collection
Component
Total
Library
Impact Fee
$1,015 $157 $1,172
$786 $122 $908
$635 $98 $733
88
Fullertc - --
Item 9. - 282Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB -417-
360
440
Chapter 8
Park Land Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development (including Open Space)
This Chapter summarizes the City's existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of park land
(and park facilities improvements) per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§66477 of the
Government Code) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB1600
(§66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land
The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for
future residential development.
EXISTING PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEM
Open space notwithstanding, intensive parks and recreational facilities constitute one of the City
of City of Huntington Beach's greatest needs both with respect to facilities for current residents
and future citizens. The provision of a well-planned park system, with a variation in the size and
nature of facilities offered, is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of City of
Huntington Beach included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs
which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users are considered optimal in most
urban cities. The City currently has at its disposal (and within general control) some 999.09 acres
of park, beach and specialty uses for use by the City's many residents. However, not all of these
acres are owned by the City, many are leased or owned by other agencies made available to the
City via a joint use agreements with the various school districts or are S. C. E. right-of-way.
The current acres dedicated to park use (and owned or under long-term control by the City) can
reasonably well serve the City's current needs. However if the number of owned park acres
remains static at 778.41 acres, the City may not be able to continue to meet recreational demands
in light the probable 9.0% increase in the City's population. At an attempt to achieve a high level
of fairness, the City's owned park acreage will be used as the standard for calculating the park
standard and the development impact fee schedule. The figure is a Government Code statute-based
calculation and thus does not include other park opportunities in the area such as Harriet Weider
Regional Park, which while clearly serving the City residents, are not City-facilities and thus
cannot be programmed by the City. The City has a General Plan standard target of 5.0 acres per
1,000 acres per residents and the calculation of target does include the park acres of other agencies
(i.e. the regional park and state-owned beach land) within the calculation of that General Plan
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 89
Item 9. - 283 HB -418-
361
441
Neighborhood Parks 183.79 129.74
Community/Sports Parks 546.82 470.81
Other (beaches, etc)268.48 177.86
Total Acres (Owned)999.09 778.41
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
target. That is completely acceptable for General Plan issues, and the City does meet that General
Plan standard.
Future residential development, by increasing the City's population, will impact the City's park
system by requiring additional athletic fields, adequate space for various athletic activities and
community center space. Given the magnitude of growth projected in this and other reports, the
challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational
needs of these new residents. Without additional park land acquisition and development of
currently owned but underutilized park land during the remaining period of private residential
development, the City's parks will become overcrowded and overused, with the ultimate result
becoming a negative experience for park users.
Existing Park Land and Open Space Land. Currently, the City owns (or has long-tern control of)
approximately 778.41 acres of traditional park land, about 87.9 %(683.9 acres) of it, developed.
The entire list of parks and their acreage is identified on Schedule 8.1 at the conclusion of this
Chapter with a summary by type in Table 8-1. Central Park is the largest developed park,
representing just under a half of the park system acreage and provides the greatest variety of sports
and passive uses.
Table 8-1
Current Park Total Inventory
City Park Standard. Table 8-2, following, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of
Huntington Beach's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total
standard of 5.248 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (999.09 park acres [190,377 resident's
1,000], rounded). However as stated previously, the owned acreage will be used to calculate
the standard and resulting impact fee. The City presently owns 778.41 acres and thus possesses
an owned standard of 4.089 acres of owned park land per 1,000 residents, (778.41 owned park
acre's 4- [190,377 resident's -:- 1,000], rounded). This is above the benchmark of 3.0 acres per
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 90
HB -419- Item 9. - 284
362
442
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
1,000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to
dedication of parks.
Table 8-2
Calculation of Actual City-owned and Developed Park Acres Standard
_
Park .,
Acrs.
Owned P ar k
_
Current Park Acres 999.09 778.41
Current City Population 190,377 190,377
Population Stated in Thousands 190.377 190.377
Park Acres per 1,000 Population 5.248 4.089
The Quimby Act, to be discussed later, allows a minimum standard of 3.0 acres per thousand
resident's even if the City has not attained that standard. However, the park acres owned standard
for the City of Huntington Beach, at 4.089 acres per 1,000 resident's, exceeds that minimum
standard and thus the Quimby allowable minimum standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents
is irrelevant and the 4.089 acres/1,000 resident's standard will be used for Park Land Acquisition
and Park Facilities Development. Though not particularly relevant 2 to the City of Huntington
Beach, the Quimby Act has a cap on land dedications required as a part of the subdivision of land
of 5.0 acres per thousand (Government Code §66447 (a)(2).
Planned Improvements. In addition to the ongoing improvement of the remaining 115.85 acres3
available for increased residential development, the City will need to acquire 70.5 additional park
acres, per Table 8-3, and develop these new parks to serve the additional 17,089 residents
anticipated to live in City of Huntington Beach at General Plan build-out.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 91
Item 9. -285 HB -420-
363
443
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Table 8-3
Calculation of Required
Park Acres per Allowable Standard
Future Added Population 17,089
Population Stated in Thousands 17.089
Allowable City of Huntington Beach Park Standard 4.128
Parks Acres Required to Maintain Standard 70.5
The 70.5 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations:
Mini or "Pocket" Parks - This type is the smallest of the park type designations, usually an acre
or less. Mini parks are generally not planned due to higher maintenance costs. They are usually
the result of the acquisition of an unusual parcel oftentimes with historical or community
significance. Tarbox, Booster, Trinidad or Daily Parks are good examples of this category.
Local or Neighborhood Parks - These parks are generally 3.0 to six acres and serve local (walk-
in distance) users. Not surprisingly, the City has a number of these parks, roughly forty-nine at
an average of about 3.5 acres in size. Neighborhood Parks, per the category title, are intended to
serve walk-in populations nearby the park and typically are not highly programmed with City-run
activities.
Community - These parks, to be functional, are usually closer to ten acres or larger and are
designed to meet the needs of the entire community. These needs include youth and adult sports
organizations, clubs or associations and large scale community events such as 4 th of July
celebrations or festivals. Langenbeck, Baca, Bartlett, Carr and Gisler Parks are good examples
of a broad-based use community park.
Sport Parks - These park, again as titled, are highly infrastructure-developed to meet the active
sports needs of both youth and adults. Edison and Greer Parks are good examples of the City's
sports parks.
The proposed park improvements that could be contained within the roughly 65 needed acres and
the existing standard (Table 8-2) are consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Element of the
General Plan. The City's 3.785 acres per 1,000 population standard speaks reasonably well for
the City as a three-acre per 1,000 population standard is the common minimum, but frequently
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 92
HB -421- Item 9. -286
364
444
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
unmet, target of municipalities and recreation and park special districts throughout California. City
staff has plans and has identified parcels that would assist help reach the 5.0 acres per 1,000
standard at General Plan build-out.
CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD
Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains
specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood
parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known
commonly as the "Quimby Act," establishes criteria for charging new development for park
facilities based on specific park stawbrds. This Report will recommend the adoption of Quimby-
style park fees over an AB 1600-style development impact fee for developments requiring the
subdivision of land and an AB 1600 fee for non subdivided land.
Allowable Park Standard As stated earlier, under Section 66477 of the Government Code, the
City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000
population if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 for the existing
population. The Government Code also enables a city to charge development based on a standard
higher than 3.0 acres (to a maximum of 5.0 acres) if the City currently exceeds the minimum
benchmark ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons. Schedule 8.1 indicates that the City exceeds that
minimum standard (with 3.785 acres/1,000 residents) and may then impose a fee in order to
maintain that standard.
The law states that "if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds
the [3 acres of park area per 1,000 person] limit the legislative body may adopt the calculated
amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons."' Park fees may be required
by the City provided that the City meets certain conditions including:
•The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a
reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
•The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the
park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards
contained therein.
•The city ... shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land
or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities ... Any fees collected under the
ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees.
Once a per capita standard for parks is determined, the cost of residential development's impact
on the City's park system can then be computed as follows:
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 93
Item 9. - 287 HB -422-
365
445
366
446
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
The $310,168/acre is then increased by 15% to $356,693 to account for the park architectural
costs and 24% to $442,299/acre to account for project administration, plan check, engineering,
inspection and materials testing costs. Lastly, the $422,299 per acre figure is increased by 15%
to $508,644 for a typical park project contingency. Schedule 8.2 shows this in numeric detail.
Schedule 8.3 details the average park construction cost by type of park.
The Existing Park Community Center Inventory. The City has a number of facilities dedicated
for use as public uses facilities (as opposed to staff facilities). The existing 118,020 square feet
of Community Use Facilities are identified in Table 8-5, following.
Table 8-5
Inventory of Existing Park Community Use Facilities
Community-Use Facility .--Square Feet 7
Beach Public Service Center 2,561
City Gymnasium and Pool Facility 23,600
Edison Community Center 11,065
Harbor View Clubhouse 2,203
Huntington Beach Municipal Art Center 11,092
Huntington Beach Youth Shelter 5,600
Junior Lifeguard Headquarters 5,922
Lake Park Clubhouse 3,000
Lake View Clubhouse 2,000
LeBard Clubhouse 1,000
Murdy Community Center 11,000
Newland Barn 6,000
Newland House Museum 2,750
Oak View Community Center 10,000
Rodgers Senior Center 14,000
Seniors Outreach Center 2,700
Shipley Nature Center Interpretive Building 1,863
_ Terry Park Community Center 1,664
Total Community Use Facilities Square Feet 118,020
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 95
Item 9. -289
HB -424-
367
447
368
448
369
449
370
450
Schedule 8.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub-divided Parcel, and;
AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Lake Park
Lake View Park
Lamb Park
Lambert Park
Langenbeck Park
Lark View Park
LeBard Park
Manning Park
Marina Park
Marine View Park
McCallen Park
Meadowlark Golf Course
Moffett Park
Murdy Park
Newland Park
Oak View Center Park
Weider Regional (County-owned)
Pattinson Park
Perry Park
Pleasant View Park
Prince Park
Robinwood Park
Rodgers Senior Center Site
Schroeder Park
Seabridge Park
Seeley Park
Sowers Park
Sun View Park
Talbert Park
Tarbox Park
Terry Park
Triangle Park
Trinidad Park
Wardlow Park
Wieder Park
Worthy Community Park
Total Acres (Owned/Developed)
Current Population
Population/1,000
Current Standard
•Par k
S ize.
4.75
2.16
2.60
3.50
17.02
3.65
4.99
2.46
9.34
2.96
5.84
98.00
2.38
16.04
2.94
1.31
45.01
3.51
1.88
2.17
0.22
1.41
2.01
2.37
3.91
3.37
2.65
2.45
5.44
0.44
4.81
1.11
0.75
8.36
4.80
7.00
999.09
190,377
190.38
5.248
C ity Owned
:Parkland
0.00
2.16
2.60
3.50
9.24
0.00
3.01
2.46
9.34
0.00
5.84
98.00
2.38
16.04
2.94
0.00
0.00
3.51
1.88
0.00
0.22
0.00
2.01
0.00
3.91
3.37
2.65
0.00
5.44
0.44
4.81
1.11
0.75
8.36
4.80
7.00
778.41
190,377
190.38
4.089
Developed
P arklan d
4.75
2.16
0.00
3.50
17.02
3.65
4.99
2.46
9.34
2.96
5.84
98.00
2.38
16.04
2.94
1.31
23.01
3.51
1.88
2.17
0.22
1.41
2.01
2.37
3.91
3.37
2.65
2.45
5.44
0.44
4.81
1.11
0.75
8.36
4.80
7.00
849.58
190,377
190.38
4.463
99
Item 9. - 293s, cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -428- Fullerton, 92831 CA
371
451
5.248 4.089 4.463
5.000
4.089
4.463
$871,200
$508,644
$66,680
$871,200 $575,324
$8,040
$5,795
$13,835
$6,491
$4,678
$11,169
$3,562,337 $2,567,671
1,000.0
1,000.0
$3,562.34
$2,567.67
$10,377 $7,480 $17,857
IvetOpment.
$6,130.01
Schedule 8.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub-divided Parcel, and;
AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Acres/1,000 Population Standard
Quimby Maximum Allowable
Acquisition Cost per Acre (1)
Construction Cost per Acre (2)
Community Center Construction
Total Component Cost
Cost X Standard
Population Served by Standard
Cost per Resident
. . . O ccupants! ,
WOW'.
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913
Attached Dwelling Units 2.257
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822
1. Current estimate of $20.00 per acre acquisition cost for land consistent with park use.
2. See Schedule 9.3 for typical park amenity construction cost details.
100
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -429- Fullert Item 9. - 294
372
452
Schedule 8.2
City of Huntington Beach
Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost
Residential Park Development Impact Fee
Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost
It em 9 . - 295& Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -430 -
Fullerton, 92831 CA
Prince Park
French Park
Tarbox Park
Davenport Beach
Humbolt Beach Park
City Gym/Pool Site
Finley Park
Bailey Park
Trinidad Park
Booster Park
Triangle Park
Banning/Magnolia Park
Oak View Center Park
Robinwood Park
Franklin Park
Perry Park
Rodgers Senior Center Site
Helme Park
Bauer Park
Lake View Park
Pleasant View Park
Drew Park
Circle View Park
Schroeder Park
Bushard Park
Moffett Park
Sun View Park
Manning Park
Burke Park
Arevelos Park
Lamb Park
Sowers Park
Eader Park
Hawes Park
Bolsa View Park
College View Park
Conrad Park
Clegg-Stacey Park
Golden View Park
Newland Park
Haven View Park
Marine View Park
Glen View Park
Seeley Park
Lambert Park
AVerage0*::
Or Acre
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$49,157
$73,736
$98,314
$102,783
$107,252
$11 1,7 21
$125,127
$131,830
$167,581
$189,925
$248,020
$0
$292,708
$315,052
$339,631
$420,070
$449,117
$451,351
$455,820
$482,633
$484,868
$509,446
$516,149
$529,556
$531,790
$531,790
$547,431
$549,665
$558,603
$576,478
$0
$592,119
$598,823
$598,823
$603,291
$603,291
$605,526
$625,636
$627,870
$656,917
$659,152
$661,386
$674,793
$752,997
$782,044 101
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.56
0.59
0.75
0.85
1.11
0.00
1.31
1.41
1.52
1.88
2.01
2.02
2.04
2.16
2.17
2.28
2.31
2.37
2.38
2.38
2.45
2.46
2.50
2.58
0.00
2.65
2.68
2.68
2.70
2.70
2.71
2.80
2.81
2.94
2.95
2.96
3.02
3.37
3.50
l?atki
Size
373
453
Schedule 8.2
City of Huntington Beach
Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost
Residential Park Development Impact Fee
Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost
Park
Size
vera ogt
per Ac re J
ota ..o
F Paric
Pattinson Park 3.51 $223,441 $784,279
Farquhar Park 3.52 $223,441 $786,513
Hope View Park 3.61 $223,441 $806,623
Lark View Park 3.65 $223,441 $815,561
Seabridge Park 3.91 $223,441 $873,655
Harbour View Park 4.02 $223,441 $898,234
$902,703 Green Park 4.04 $223,441
$1,061,346 Lake Park 4.75 $223,441
Wieder Park 4.80 $223,441 $1,072,518
Terry Park 4.81 $223,441 $1,074,752
LeBard Park 4.99 $223,441 $1,114,972
Talbert Park 5.44 $223,441 $1,215,520
McCallen Park 5.84 $223,441 $1,304,897
Discovery Well Park 6.60 $223,441 $1,474,712
Gibbs Park 6.83 $223,441 $1,526,104
Wardlow Park 8.36 $223,441 $1,867,969
Marina Park 9.34 $223,441 $2,086,941
Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 $223,441 $21,897,243
Carr Park 10.72 $289,296 $3,101,256
Irby Park 2.91 $289,296 $841,852
Gisler Park 11.67 $289,296 $3,376,088
Baca Park 14.35 $289,296 $4,151,402
Langenbeck Park 17.02 $289,296 $4,923,823
Bluff Top Park 19.66 $289,296 $5,687,565
Bartlett Park 2.00 $289,296 $578,593
Beach, City-leased 90.62 $289,296 $26,216,029
Beach, City-owned 60.20 $289,296 $17,415,636
Worthy Park 7.00 $394,884 $2,764,185
Greer park 10.44 $394,884 $4,122,584
Murdy Park 16.04 $394,884 $6,333,932
Edison Park 47.18 $394,884 $18,630,607
Huntington Central Park 253.24 $394,884 $100,000,314
Total $258,698,680 834.06 N..4., ' '' ''' .,:r'ie r
Total Park Acres 834.06
Average Construction Cost/Acre $310,168
Community Input, Design, Engineering 115.00%
Sub-total Park Construction Cost $356,693
Project Administation, Soils<Materials Testing, etc. 124.00%
Sub-total Park Construction Cost $442,299
115.00% Contingency
Total Park Construction Cost $508,644
102
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -431 -
RIIlert Item 9. - 296
374
454
375
455
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
-rk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
:Unit.cOst;::10taIJOd::::
Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each
Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each
Water Facilities
3" metered service $4,125 Each
Backf low device $4,125 Each
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot
Water fountains $1,155 Each
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each
Individual grills $825 Each
Benches, cement pads $908 Each
Bleachers $5,775 Each
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each
Game Courts
lasketball Courts $66,000 Each
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each
Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each
Ballfield Lighting $412,500 Per two fields
Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot
Miscellaneous Fiatwork $6.20 Linear Foot
Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot
Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $825,000 Each
Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each
Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each
Total Cost
Total Acres
Average Cost per Acre
5Atit NOighborhpcid .:.
1 $4,950
3 $7,425
3 $4,704
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
1,320 $26,136
1 $1,155
200 $3,960
4 $9,900
2 $1,650
4 $3,632
0 $0
0 $0
1 $24,750
0 $0
1 $2,063
$0
1.0 $66,000
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
$0
1 $24,750
500 $11,140
100 $2,888
100 $3,713
500 $3,100
1 $4,538
0 $0
1 $2,890
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1,117,206
- 5
intaggia $223,441
20Acre COrnrrilmj ' '
6 $29,700
20 $49,500
12 $18,816
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
120 $2,376
8 $9,240
1,000 $19,800
60 $148,500
30 $24,750
30 $27,240
0 $0
2 $247,500
10 $247,500
1 $16,500
6 $12,378
$0
1 $66,000
0 $0
2 $198,000
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
6 $148,500
2,000 $44,560
500 $14,440
500 $18,565
8,500 $52,700
0 $0
1 $24,750
6 $17,340
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1 $247,500
,,,.,....:,..,.,,..,„
,;::::::::::::::,::,::::0:ing: $4,339,444
15
, ,, $289,296
104
Fullerton, -- Item 9. -298 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB -433 -
376
456
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
..
Unit Cost, Installed
Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot
Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $37,500 Acre
Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42,750 Acre
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each
Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $290 Each
Shrubs-10, five gallon $30 Each
Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each
Play apparatus
Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot
Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot
Play equipment - large $123,750 Lot
Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot
Play equipment - small $67,500 Lot
Sand/Other Surfacing $5,775 Lot
Buildings:
Restroom - Small $132,000 Each
Restroom - Large $181,500 Each
Equipment storage facility $99,000 Each
Combined Restroom/Concession $297,000 Each
Parking Lot
4" A.G. W/6 11 Rock base $8.30 Square foot
V-gutter $13.20 Linear Foot
Drain Inlet $990 Each
Drain Inlet connector $330 Each
Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot
Drive approach $2,970 Each
Perimeter curbing $16.50 Linear Foot
Striping $0.50 Linear Foot
Lighting $2,970 Each
Lot signage $330 Lot
Entrance $4,950 Lot
Curb and Gutter $15.27 Linear Foot
Storm Drainage Facilities
Inlets $1,320 Each
Connections $2,145 Each
Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot
Sewer Facilities
Connection to arterial $4,125 Lot
Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot
Line in park $24.80 Linear Foot
2,704 $540,800
20 $750,000
0 $0
150 $22,350
50 $14,500
100 $3,000
300 $2,400
450 $18,585
225 $9,293
0 $0
1 $99,000
2 $135,000
3 $17,325
1 $132,000
1 $181,500
1 $99,000
2 $594,000
40,000 $332,000
800 $10,560
2 $1,980
2 $660
200 $3,960
4 $11,880
800 $13,200
1,300 $650
18 $53,460
a $990
3 $14,850
1,664 $25,409
4 $5,280
4 $8,580
80 $6,600
1 $4,125
80 $8,584
1,500 .$37,200
105
Item 9. - 299 -. Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB -434 -
Fullerton, CA 92831
377
457
- 20 .-Acre SpOrtp.:Patk
1 $4,950
20 $49,500
5 $7,840
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
120 $2,376
8 $9,240
1,000 $19,800
30 $74,250
10 $8,250
15 $13,620
8 $46,200
$0
4 $99,000
1 $16,500
4 $8,252
$0
3 $198,000
8 $462,000
8 $792,000
8 $462,000
8 $660,000
4 $1,650,000
0 $0
1,000 $22,280
250 $7,220
250 $9,283
4,000 $24,800
0 $0
1 $24,750
$17,340
0 $0
1 $41,250
0 $0
0 $0
$7 ,89 7,671
20.00
$394,884
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB -435 -
Fullerton, r"
Item 9. - 300
Pt A. 11, A J
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
r'qrk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
Unit. - st, Installed
Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each
Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each
Water Facilities
3" metered service $4,125 Each
Backflow device $4,125 Each
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot
Water fountains $1,156 Each
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each
Individual grills $825 Each
Benches, cement pads $908 Each
Bleachers $5,775 Each
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each
Game Courts
3asketball Courts $66,000 Each
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each
Tennis Court Lighting $57,760 Each
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each
Ballfield Lighting $412,600 Per two fields
Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot
Miscellaneous Flatwork $6.20 Linear Foot
Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot
Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $825,000 Each
Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each
Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each
Total Cost
Total Acres
Average Cost per Acre
106
378
458
Schedule 8.4
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Open Space Land Acquisition for Business Uses
Land Acquisition Development Impact Fee Calculation
Total City-owned Park/Open Space Acres
Current City-wide Privately Developed Acres
Current Open Space Standard per Developed Acre
Acres/Developed Acre Standard
Acquisition Cost per Acre
Cost X Open Space Standard
Open Space Land Value
Adjusted Land Cost
778.4
10,271.8
0.0758
0.0758
$871,200
$66,037
25.00%
$16,509.24
Commercial Lodging Keyed Units 36
$459 per Keyed Unit
Resort Lodging Keyed Units 46
$359 per Keyed Unit
Commercial Acres (in Square Feet) 17,300 $0.954 per Square Foot
Industrial Uses (in Square Feet) 21,390 $0.772 per Square Foot
107
Item 9. - 301Dvenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CA HB -436 -
379
459
APPENDIX A
Expanded Land-use Database
108
HB -437- Item 9. - 302
380
460
DevelOpe City of Huntington Beach
Total:.;-.Lanci•USepatabaee Acres # of units Acres of Units
40,365 I
41,415
2,8
1,749 6,731.00 38,616 295.00 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.0
5,307 1,916.60 36,108 111.20 1,805.4 Attached Dwelling Units
9 205.60 1.00 2,865 204.6 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
818 52.00 1,888 18.60 1,070 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4
1,344 29.50 535 9.30 20.2 809 Resort Lodging Units
39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000 841.9 12,836,000 Commercial/Office Uses
930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
10,933.70 661.90 Total - City Limits 10,271.8
84,654 7,065 8,853.2 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 Pnvate Residences
81.5 3,232 1,353 27.9 1,879 Commercial Lodging Rooms 53.6
1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152,000 Business Square Feet
.-Develpped. To Be Develo
ikoivs of Units Acres # of Uni
Existing Community
as urreentlDeVeioged ores
183 6,470.00 38,799 34.0 6,436.0 38,616 Detached Dwelling Units (1)
36,267 159 1,820.40 15.0 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108
9 205.60 2,874 1.0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 2,865 204.6
1,070 0 33.40 0.0 1,070 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4
300 23.60 1,109 3.4 Resort Lodging Units 809 20.2
69,200 846.40 12,905,200 4.5 841.9 12,836,000 Commercial/Office Uses
958,320 974.30 21,219,320 44.0 930.3 20,261,000 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
10,373.70 101.90 Existing Community 10,271.8
interisffiect/RecteveloPed Additional Units from
-....Intensification of Existing Uses.:
Developed
Acres Acres • *of Units:. # of Units
1,566 261.00 261.0 1,566 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0 0.0
0.00 0 0 0.0 Attached Dwelling Units 0 0.0
0 0.00 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0.0 0 0.0
468 14.60 14.6 468 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0 0.0
0.00 0 0 0.0 Resort Lodging Units 0 0.0
106.2 2,313,817 106.20 2,313,817 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0
0 143.0 2,679,680 143.00 2,679,680 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0
524.80 524.80 Redeveloped 0.0
ilfitensifietilRe tleVelOi* SpedificPlan.A . .
each and ,Edinger
Developed
Acres # of Units Acres Units !fl
0 0 0.00 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 0.0
4,500 80.00 Attached Dwelling Units 80.0 4,500 0.0 0
0.00 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0 0.0 0.0 0
4.0 350 4.00 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0 0.0 350
0.00 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0
37.0 850,400 37.00 109850, Commercial/Office Uses 0 0.0
0 0.0 0.00 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0
121.00 121.00 Sub-total Specific Plan A 0.0
Item 9. -303 HB -438-
381
461
eveloped
ores # Of Units
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.0
Devel'oped .
#...pf. Volts
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
35.20
Intensified/Redeveloped
0.00
0
35.20
ores Units
flu
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
(121.0) (1,215,000) (121.00) (1,215,000)
0.0
0
0.00
0
(121.00)
(121.00)
IritiftiSifted/Redevdid
tita
0.0
0
0.00
0
16.2
648 16.20
648
0.0
0
0.00
0
0.0
0
0.00
0
5.9
235
5.90
235
13.1 398,583 13.10 398,583
Downtown
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
ached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
Sub-total Specific Plan B
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
Sub-total Specific Plan A
TES:
j. Only 34 of the 295 acres are vacant lots. The remaining 261 acres represents acres for the addition of 1,666 detached dwelling units
In areas already developed such as a lot split of a larger parcel parcel with an existing detached dwelling units.
(2). The inclusion of one acre of Mobile (or modular) Home Dwelling Units (in parks) is to establish such a fee and does not imply that
that the City anticipates such a private proposal.
(3). The 35.2 acres is not intended to suggest there Is 35.2 acres of vacant acres in the downtown area. The 35.2 acres is the result
of anticipating 648 additional units at roughly 40 units per acre.
110 110
Item 9. - 304 HB -439- Item 9. - 304 HB -439-
382
462
383
463
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities and Equipment
• Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 38, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development
Impact Fees.
Chapter 4 - Fire Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
• Adopt Schedule 4.3, page 53, Community Financial Commitment-based Development
Impact Fees.
Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
• Adopt Schedule 5.2, page 68, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development
Impact Fees along with the per Trip-mile rate for application to Table 5-4 (page 64)
or for staff calculation per the Table on the bottom of Schedule 5.2.
Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System
• Adopt Schedule 6.2, page 80, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development
Impact Fees for the seven specific land uses and the "per acre" cost for unusual uses
not involving a structure.
Chapter 7- Public Library and Collection
• Adopt Schedule 7.1, page 88.
• Formalize a General Plan square foot and collection item per resident standard.
Chapter 8 - Park (and Open Space) Land Acquisition and Park Land Development
• Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1).
• Adopt Schedule 8.1, pages 99-100, for residential uses requiring the subdivision of
land for Quimby Act application.
• Create AB1600 Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee
Fund, Note (1)
• Adopt Schedule 8.1 pages 99-100, for residential uses not requiring the subdivision of
land for AB1600 application.
• Adopt Schedule 8.4 Mitigation Fee Act Open Space Development Impact Fees, page 107,
for application to the development of business uses.
• Adopt alternative process for residential developments with significantly varying land
values from the standard or default calculation embodied in Schedule 8.1 and 8.4.
(1). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for
rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas theAB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures.
112
HB -441- Item 9. -306
384
464
APPENDIX C
Master Facilities Plan
(See Separate Document)
113
HB -442-
385
465
End of Document
HB -443- Item 9. -308
386
466
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Chamber of Commerce
March 16, 2012
Mayor Don Hansen & Members of City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Mayor& Council Members:
On behalf of our members and in the interest of promoting greater economic growth in the City of Huntington
Beach, the Chamber of Commerce wishes to weigh in on the proposed park, fire, and police impact fee increases
that staff is scheduled to present to Council on April 2, 2012.
It is our position that the budding economic growth the city is experiencing is fragile and must be encouraged if it
is to flourish. We supported the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan adoption and are excited to see it taking
shape. To that end, a large and unexpected fee increase is something that may slow and potentially even stall the
redevelopment that staff and council envisioned and desired in the first place. This is something we want to avoid.
First, it is our understanding that the proposed impact fee increases are quite large. We recommend that the
nexus study be thoroughly reviewed to make sure that whatever fee amounts are ultimately presented to council
be as accurate and as low as possible so our city remains an attractive place for development. A large fee increase
could prove to be an onerous burden for projects in the planning stages and can negatively affect land valuations
on all potential apartment sites throughout the city. As a Chamber we want the investment of hundreds of
millions of dollars to be made here in Huntington Beach, bringing high quality development to our community.
Second, we recommend that the city be fair in providing a reasonable period and perhaps a phasing in of any fee
increases. We feel that landowners and developers alike should be given ample notice to allow them time to
adjust and prepare for the "impact" of the increased fees. We ask that grandfathering provisions be broad so that
projects that have financial commitments may continue unaffected. We would likewise recommend that
allowances be made for projects that have had financing delays, environmental delays, or other delays which are
beyond the developer's control. Any tax or fee increase should be broadcast loud and clear months ahead of time
so stakeholders aren't taken by surprise. A stakeholder meeting 3 weeks prior to council hearing is an extremely
compressed time frame given the magnitude of the proposed increase.
Finally, we want to stress that these developments are going to bring diverse and energetic growth to the city.
These residential units will be filled with students, young professionals, empty nesters, and families. They will
serve as workforce housing and provide for the sensible and smart growth our local economy needs in order to
thrive and stay competitive. These are consumers who will support our existing businesses and patronize the new
commercial and retail being proposed, developed, and constructed today. Please do not hastily implement a
massive new fee increase without fully considering the necessity, appropriateness, timeliness, and economic
consequences.
We would highly recommend that a presentation to Council be delayed until such time as the developer
community has time to work with staff to resolve the above concerns.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Wheeler, Sr. IOM
President/CEO
2134 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P: (714) 536-8888 F: (714) 960-7654
387
467
?tz/366/7'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 7, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the following :
ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES RESOLUTION AND ADOPTION
OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING CHAPTERS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE (HBMC) REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(Traffic, Drainage, Library, Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, Meeting
Facilities, Parkland and General Provisions): The City Council will consider the
adoption of a fee resolution modifying the Fair Share Traffic Impact fee (HBMC
17.65), the Drainage fee (HBMC 17.78), the Library Development fee (HBMC
17.67) and the adoption of the nexus report and a comprehensive Master Facilities
Plan. In addition, the City Council will consider the adoption of ordinances
establishing HBMC chapters; Library Development Fee (HBMC 17.67), General
Provisions for Development Impact Fees (HBMC 17.73), Fire Suppression Facilities
Fee (HBMC 17.74), Law Enforcement Facilities Fee (HBMC 17.75), Park
Land/Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee (HBMC 17.76), Public Meeting Facilities
Fee (HBMC 17.77), and Drainage (HBMC 17.78). The proposed ordinances will
repeal existing HBMC Chapters 14.48 (Drainage) and 17.66 (Library Development
Fee). The proposed revisions to the existing fees and establishment of new fees
are supported by the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialist, L.L.C. dated October 2011. The nexus
report includes a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan of capital needs and
acquisitions based upon the growth anticipated under the City's adopted General
Plan.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request and supporting materials is on file in the
Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California
92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, May 3, 2012.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the
City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any
further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271
and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2"c l Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
714-536-5227
http://huntinqtonbeachca.00v/HBPublicComments/
388
468
•=7,1`,„1
.Prtnted by: 0602 patricia Gamlno
Salesperson:
Apr 19,,2012. 11:32 am.
Ad #34959143
cc4UP..,
Phbrie #: (714) 536-5227
Name: City Of Huntington Beach (Parent)
Address:, PO Box 784
' Huntington Beac, CA 92648
CC
City Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's 0
Patty Esparza
(714) 374-1557
CU00070479
Siart date
Stop date
Inaertidili 2
. Pete ;00001, &Legal Huntington Beach
Taken by 0602 Patricia Gamino
Class:, 13000 - Legal Notices
Pubs'; TCN HBI
04-26-12
05-03-12
tintormatiolf
rnt Due::
Hät:AñioUht Ouè Isü
changfi -dUe to' dig604.05;
noiisloa4,-pr athstchctioces
$ 213.50
$ 213.50
6213.50
Ad Copy:
Nona OF PUBLIC HEARING
.BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that on Monday,
May 7, 2012, at 6:00
p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington
Beach, the City Council
will hold a public hearing
on the following :
ADOPTION OF DEVEL-
OPMENT IMPACT FEES
RESOLUTION AND
ADOPTION OF ORDI-
NANCES ESTABLISHING
CHAPTERS OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
(HBMC) REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES (Traffic, Drainage,
Library, Law Enforce-
ment, Fire Suppression,
Meeting Facilities,
Parkland( and General
Provisions); The City
Council will consider the
adoption of a fee reso-
lution modifying the Fair
Share Traffic Impact fee
(HBMC 17.65), the
Drainage fee (HBMC
17.78), the Library
Development fee (HBMC
17.67) and the adoption
of the nexus report and
a comprehensive Master
Facilities Plan. In addi-
tion, the city Council will
consider the adoption of
ordinances establishing
HBMC chapters; Library
Development Fee (HBMC
17.67), General Provi-
sions for Development
Impact Fees (HBAAC
17.73), Fire Suppression
Facilities Fee (HESIV1C
17.74), Law Enforce-
ment Facilities Fee
(HBMC 17.75), Park
Land/Open Space Ac-
quisition Impact Fee
(HBMC 17.76), Public
Meeting Facilities Fee
-- ad proof pg. 1 ---
389
469
Printed by: 9602 Patricia GamInc:
Salesperson:
Phone:
Apr 19,2012, 11:32am
Ad #34959143
(HBMC 17.77), and
Drainage (HBMC 17.78).
The proposed ordinances
will repeal existing
HBMC Chapters 14.48
(Drainage) and 17.66
(Library Development
Fee). The proposed
revisions to the existing
fees and establishment
of new fees are sup-
ported by the Develop-
ment Impact Fee Cal-
culation and Nexus
Report prepared by
Revenue & Cost Spe-
cialist, L.L.C. dated
October 2011. The nexus
report includes a com-
prehensive Master Fa-
cilities Plan of capital
needs and acquisitions
based upon the growth
anticipated under the
City's adopted General
Plan.
ON FILE: A copy of the
proposed request and
supporting materials is
on file in the Planning
and Building Depart-
ment, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia 92648, for in-
spection by the public.
A copy of the staff
report will be available
to interested parties at
the City Clerk's Office
on Thursday, May 3,
2012.
ALL INTERESTED PER-
SONS are invited to
attend said hearing and
express opinions or
submit evidence for or
against the application
as outlined above. If you
challenge the City
Council's action in court,
you may be limited to
raising only those issues
you or someone else
raised at the public
hearing described in this
notice, or in written
correspondence deliv-
ered to the City at, or
prior to, the public
hearing. If there are any
further questions please
call the Planning and
Building Department at
(714) 536-5271 and
refer to the above items.
Direct your written
communications to the
City Clerk
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2nd
Floor
Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia 92648
714-536-5227
http://huntingtonbeach
ca.gov/HBPublicComme n
H.B. Indepen-
dent April 26, 2012
--- ad proof pg. 2 ---
390
470
DCO Beach Walk LLC
1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
Jim Ivory
Sares-Regis Group
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
091.8/091-5 ® AA/1V 09AE olopedwoo wiu zg x ww glculloi. op olleribq
092/09 AIGAV wim oicipEdwoo „9/9 z x His 'aqui
Pat Helgeson
Province Group
1601 Dove Street, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jerry Moffatt
Rainbow Environmental Services
17121 Nichols Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Brian Starr
Building Industry Assoc. of So. Calif.
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170
Irvine, CA 92614
Josie McKinley ,
Poseidon Resources
17011 Beach Blvd, #900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Dave Stefanides
Orange County Assoc. of Realtors
25552 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92553
Jerry Wheeler
HB Chamber of Commerce
2134 Main Street, Suite 100
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
President
Huntington Beach Tomorrow
PO Box 865
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc. David J. Nagel
Thomas E. Schiff
15149 Camarillo Street
Decron Properties , Decron Properties
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
6222 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
6222 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Ryan Mordahl
Global Premier Development, Inc.
2010 Main Street, Suite 1250
Irvine, CA 92614
Thomas G. Grable
Tri Point Homes, LLC
20201 SW Birch St., Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jeff Bergsma
Team Design
221 Main Street, Suite S
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Janette T. Ditkowsky
Freeway Industrial Park
2032 La Colina Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Becky Sullivan
DJM Development Partners
922 Laguna Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Morrie Golcheh
Progressive Real Estate
10537 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Jeff Rulon
Christopher Homes
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Reid
7572 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Huntington beach No. 1
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3040
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Mark Faulkner
Grey Star Development
2139 Meriweather Court
Walnut Creek, CA 9496
Steve Sheldon
Sheldon Group Consulting
901 Dove Street, Suite 140
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Raymond Dorame
Master Craft Homes Group
1401 Quail Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Michael Adams
Michael Adams Associates
21190 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Chaim Elkoby
Crescent Heights
2200 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33137
Alex Wong
Red Oak Investments
2101 Business Center Drive, Suite 230
Irvine, CA 92612
Sarah Klaustermeier Bijan Sassounian
John Trommald
Archstone Beach Promenade
Bayview HB, LLC
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 600
21190 Beach Boulevard
13912 Seal Beach Boulevard
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
gt Mhz__ , label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160
Etiouette de format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible avec Avery ®5160/8160
36 391339189
471
091-8/091.90 AJonv oaa alupdwoo ww zg x ww g awol op allenbil]
091-8/091.9 ® Alonv,glim elqpdwoo „g/g x „ oz!sjoriPI
Joe Diachendt
300 Pacific Coast Highway, #119
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Todd Schmieder
701 N. Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Milad Queijan
8031 Main Street, Unit B
Stanton, CA 96680
Martin Potts
MPA, Inc.
4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 375
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Shawn Millbern
8951 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
David Oddo
815 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Rick Polhamus
Rick Hill
19802 Sea Canyon Circle
Urban Infill Properties, Inc.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
345 University Drive, Suite E-3
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
John Vander Velde
Holly Fred ensburg
Shea Homes
16072 Gothard St
1250 Corona Pointe Ct., Suite 600
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Corona, CA 92879
Dave Oddo
815 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bruce Roeland
1720 Pacific Coast Highway #201
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Maddox Const
Maddox Const
14736 Beach Blvd
Westminster, CA 92683
'Robert Corona
2204 Pacific Coast Highway
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Scott Goodman
Goodman Development
17032 Palmdale Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
D'Ambra
D'Ambra Inc.
7752 Warner Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Van Herk
3194 Haiti Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Myles Const
9569 Albacore Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Kevin Kelter
1616 Pacific Coast Highway
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bob Reed , Marty Sunday
Johnson Bros
RW Reed
16402 Gothard St #B
730 14th Street
419 Main Street #289
Huntington Beach, CA,92647
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bill Teffon
2233 Ca lie Leon
West Covina, CA 91792
Dick Harlow
1742 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RJ Murphy
6781 Defiance Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 6 5160/8160
Etimiette CiP, format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 65160/8160
392
390
472
Development Impact Fee Study
and Nexus Report
City Council Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2012
Background
• This process began in 2009 as a result of various
presentations to City Council regarding the increasing
need for Capital Improvements to respond to
development in Huntington Beach.
• Staff was given direction to identify funding sources to
move Heil Fire Station, address other public safety needs
and make park improvements to accommodate projected
development.
• There were numerous complaints by developers regarding
perceived excessive park fees for Condos and Single
Family Homes.
• This report prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists
addresses those issues.
SUPPLEMENTAI
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: I-Ch
Agenda Item No.
1
393
473
Chronology
Background
• Development Impact fees are one-time charges applied
to offset additional public-service costs of new
development
• The amount of the proposed fee must be clearly linked
to the added service cost (required by the Mitigation Fee
Act):
• Need demonstrated by Master Facilities Plan
(October 2011, amended April 2012)
• Nexus established by Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report (October 2011,
amended April 2012)
• Received October 2011 report - November 2011
• Distributed reports to Council — December 2011
• Initial meeting with BIA and Chamber of Commerce — December 2011
• Study Session —January 17, 2012
• Notice on City counters, posted reports to website, mailed notices to
stakeholders — February 2012
• Stakeholder meeting with Developers — March 13, 2012
• Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee — March 28, 2012
• Follow up meetings, letters to stakeholders — March and April 2012
• Public hearing notice distributed — April 19, 2012
• Received April 2012 revised report—April 27, 2012
• Agendized for Council Meeting May 7, 2012
2
394
474
Report Content
The Development Impact Fee Report contemplates 2 new
fees:
• Police
• Fire
• Update of existing fees:
• Traffic
• Library
• Park Land/Open Space
• Fees collected under the Subdivision Map Act will be
addressed separately at a later date:
• Quimby (Park Land/Open Space with Tract Map)
• Storm Drainage
Amended Report
• April 27, 2012: Nexus report (October 2011) amended to
consolidate Park Land Open Space Fee (Chapter 8) and
Public Meeting Facilities Fee (Chapter 9)
• Due to additional costs associated with the accounting,
collection and state mandated tracking
• Additionally, a calculation error in the Master Facilities Plan
was corrected on pages 1-3, 57, 58, 71, and 78
3
395
475
396
476
397
477
398
478
Development Impact Fees
(Effective 7/20/2014)
Circulation
System
Park Land/
Open Space
Land Use
Law Fire
Enforcement Suppression
Facilities* Facilities*
(Streets,
Signals,
Bridges)*
Public
Library
Facilities
& Facilities
(No Tract
Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)$356 $830 $2,226 $1,172 $16,071
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)$734 $344 $1,563 $908 $12,452
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per
Unit)$332 $1,425 $1,165 $733 $10,052
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per
Unit)$455 $356 $1,062 No Fee $459
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)$532 $794 $1,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)$1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per
sq. ft.)$0443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
*Represents 90% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development
Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
X :
n 9"t\L -, ILand Use
Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end to
Trip
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
dwelling unit or other unit
E IDENTIAL'LAND USES r unto
Detached Dwelling
Unit 976 79 0.5 346$6434 /Uni
oartment 6 1 79 05 24 $ 64 34 $ 1 583 46 /Unit
ndominium/
ownhouse ase 7.9 0.5 21 2 $ 6434 1364.01 /Unit
obile Home Dwelling 4.57 79 0.5 181 5 64.34 $ 1,164.55 lUSt
SORT/TOURIST (per or Enby
Hotel 529 76 as 239$ 6434 $ 1,537.73 /Room
Su es Hotel 377 7 6 0.5 143$ 6434 920.06 /Room
otel 434 05 16586434 $ 1,061.81 /Room
NDUSTRIAL ( per.1,000 SF)
eneral Light
ndustnal 6.17 9.0 0.5 270$ 64.39 $ 1,788.65 1/1 ,09261
Heavy InduMria 597 9,0 as 26.9 64 $ 1,730 75 /1,000 sf
enoftoturrng 273 90 05 12 3 $ 64.34 5 791.38 /1,000 sf
arehou mg 439 9.0 as 1 9886434 $ 1,273.93 / ,000 sf
• ERCIAL ( 1,000 SF):
• ce Perk 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6$ 64.34 $ 2,097.46 sf/1.00061
esearch Port,501 6.8 05 22.0$ 64.34 1,415.48 /1,000 of
Boolneno Park 934 8.5 05 41 6434 /1500 of
Bldg Materials/Lumber
tore 2935 4.3 as 63.1 $ 6434 $ 4,059.85 /1,00061
rden Center 23.40 43 0.5 50 $ 64 $ 3,242.74 /1 000 sf
ov e Theater 2.47 43 as 5.3$ 84.34 34 .00 /1,000 of
harOh 592 43 0.5 12.7 $ 8434 $ 8 7 12 1,000 of
edicatOental Office 22.21 8.8 05 97.7$ 64.34 $ 8,286.02 ,000 of
Buildi
emung
is! 0 ce 7.16 8.8 05 31.5 $ 84.34 $ 2.026.71 /1,00006
hopping Center 30.2 4.3 5.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,17567 /1,000 sf
Hospital 1142 43 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.78 lt.000 Of
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 130.3$ 64.34 $ 8.705.20 /1500 of
Hig&Tumover
Restaurant 8.9 43 0.5 19.1 $ 69.34 $ 1,22869 /1,000 of
onvenience Ma et 43.57 43 937564.34 $ 6,028.86 1 ,000
effi,o Park 97 43 05 30 0 $ 64,34 $ 1,93020 /1,000 of
• ER (as noted)
rnetery 307 43 6.6$ 6434 42464 /A
ervice Station/Market
avtg 107.65 4.3 55 231.5$ 6434 $ 14,894.71 pil'!,on
ervi. Station w/Car
sh 99.35 43 0.5 2136 9 6434 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel.Position
7
399
479
400
480
401
481
402
482
403
483
Project # 1
200 Unit Apartment Complex
Current: City of 70%
Huntington RCS Nexus Report: (effective
Beach (100%) 7/20/2012)
80%
(effective
7/20/2013)
90%
(effective
7/20/2014)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee $ 163,000 $ 114,200 $ 130,400 $ 146,800
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee $ 76,400 $ 53,400 $ 61,200 $ 68,800
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)$ 211,600 $ 331,400 $ 244,070 $ 278,916 $ 312,692
Public Library Facilities $ 81,840 $ 181,600 $ 181,600 $ 181,600 $ 181,600
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 159,960 $ 2,767,000 $ 1,937,000 $ 2,213,600 $ 2,490,400
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project*$ 453,400 $ 3,519,400 $ 2,530,270 $ 2,865,716 $ 3,200,292
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to
Project # 2
50 Single Family Detached
Current: City of 70%
Huntington RCS Nexus Report (effective
Beach (100%) 7/20/2012)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee $ 19,800 $ 13,860
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee $ 46,100 $ 32,270
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)$ 75,350 $ 124,100 $ 86,850
Public Library Facilities $ 70,800 $ 58,600 $ 58,600
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 1,340,000 $ 892,850 $ 625,000
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 1,486,150 $ 1,141,450 $ 816,580
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to
80% 90%
(effective (effective
7/20/2013) 7/20/2014)
$ 15,850 '$ 17,800
$ 36,900 $ 41,500
$ 99,300 $ 111,300
$ 58,600 $ 58,600
$ 714,300 $ 803,550
$ 924,950 $ 1,032,750
12
404
484
Project # 3
150 Room Hotel (200,000 SF)
Current: City of Proposed: City of
Huntington Huntington Beach
Beach (100%)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)
$ 111,900
Public Library Facilities
$ 8,000
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 46,000
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 165,900
$ 68,250
$ 53,400
$ 159,300
No Fee
$ 68,850
$ 349,800
Project # 4
40,000 SF Commercial (Shopping Center)
Current: City of Proposed: City of
Huntington Huntington Beach
Beach (100%)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee
$ 41,640
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee
$ 13,160
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)
$ 207,760
$ 167,000
Public Library Facilities
$ 1,600
No Fee
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 9,200
$38,160
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 218,560
$259,960
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer
may be subject to
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer
may be subject to
13
405
485
Summary
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution
and ordinances based upon the following reasons:
• The phased-in residential per unit fee established herein
allows developers to easily calculate development
impact fees
• The fees established herein meet the City's changing
requirement for public safety, streets and signals, and
other quality of life facilities
• Allows for payment of Development Impact Fees at the
time the impact is imposed on the system, therefore
later in the development process.
14
406
486
407
405
487
408
406
488
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
BOB HALL, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager
CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager
Joan Flynn, City Clerk
DATE: May 7, 2012
SUBJECT: Supplemental Communication: #9 Public Hearing regarding Development
Impact Fees
Staff is recommending the following amendment to Resolution 2012-23:
This change would allow for a project having received discretionary approvals to be
grandfathered under the current fee structure. The staff report calls for that date to be
May 7, 2012. Staff is recommending this date be changed to June 4, 2012.
Attached is a copy of the revised page (pg. 3) of the Fee Resolution located under
Attachment #1 of the Development Fee Impact Agenda Item. This can also be found on
page HB-147 of your agenda packet.
Current language: "Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this
resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement
approval on or before May 7, 2012, and the following milestones are met..."
Proposed language: "Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this
resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement
approval on or before June 4, 2012, and the following milestones are met..."
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: ..117 //47
Agenda Item No.
409
489
12-3209.006/79289
3
Resolution No. 2012-23
4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities
equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances
and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those polieie
that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and4 be
fiscally neutral.
5. Differentiation among Public Facilities. The City Council findythat the public
facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development
impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public
facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected byfthe City. To the extent
that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific/Plan fees, are used to fund
the construction of the same public facilities identified in the resp /ective ordinances and Nexus
Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees.
Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not/be deemed to affect the imposition
or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code.
6. CEQA Finding. The adoption of/the Nexus Report and the increase in
development impact fees are not subject to the/California Environmental Quality Act in that
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(3) (4), the creation of government funding
mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a
significant effect on the environment, is no/defined as a "project" under CEQA.
7. Adoption of Report. T,he Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including
Appendices, is hereby adopted.
8. Fee Imposed. Theinew Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not
apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before May
7, 2012 and the following milestones are met:
1. Project has/Submitted an approved application for building permits within 180
days aftethe fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013.
2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, no later
than July 20, 2013.
An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party
regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin
when the/developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the
authority' to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects in his sole discretion.
All ot/her projects are subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012. All existing
Dev/elopment Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and
respective ordinances. In the event any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously
approved development impact fee shall automatically apply.
410
490
411
491
May 4, 2012
Mayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No.
Re: Public Hearing Agenda Item 9— Development Impact Fee Revisions
Mayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council:
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Building Industry Association of Southern
California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) to address the proposed revisions to the
City's development impact fees. As a key stakeholder on issues related to housing and
community development, BIA/OC has been closely engaged on this issue. Our members
appreciate the opportunity to offer our perspectives to the proposals being considered by
your city council.
We begin by acknowledging the hard work of the City's fine professional staff. BIA/OC is
grateful for transparent and thoughtful manner in which staff has approached this issue.
Our members are especially appreciative of the time and consideration city staff has
afforded our comments and concerns. The end result, while not a panacea, allows more
flexibility in implementation of the new fee structure.
Certainly a fee increase of this magnitude is troubling to the building industry. The
potential harm to our industry is exacerbated by the prolonged malaise of housing in this
harsh economic climate. Certainly government is not immune to the economic challenges
we all face. The health of the private sector, especially the building industry, has a direct
correlation to the fiscal health of governments. For this reason, all levels of government are
looking for ways to encourage growth. Dozens of local governments have slashed
development fees and regulation in an attempt to spark recovery. The timing of this
particular fee increase seems to illustrate a notable disconnect between how the public
sector and private sector view our economic relationship.
Aside from the philosophical and economic issues associated with this fee increase, BIA/OC
has identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the associated nexus study. As a
result, BIA/OC has engaged staff in an attempt to find a middle ground on the timing and
implementation of the fees. Thankfully, staff has been open to many of our members'
Orange County
Chapter
Building Industry Association
of Southern Ca Hernia
17744 Sky Park Circle
Suite 170
Irvine, California 92614
949.553.9500
fax 949.553.9507
www.biaoc.com
www.newhomesmatch.coni
Your industry's comprehensive online 11 1
to new homes
PRESIDENT
BILL WATT
BAYWOOD DEVELOPMENT
VICE PRESIDENT
MICHAEL MoCANN
CALMAR DEVELOPMENT
VICE PRESIDENT
CHRIS HAINES
PULTE GROUP
TREASURER / SECRETARY
DAVE BULLOCH
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
IMMEDIATE PAST PRES1IDENT
DAVE BARTLETT
BROOKFIELD HOMES
TRADE CON1RACTOR COUNCIL VP.
TOM RHODES
TWF1 ENTERPRISES
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
MARK HIMMELSTE1N
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
RICHARD DOUGLASS
RYLAND HOMES
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
MIKE WINTER
SARES-REGIS GROUP
BRYAN STARR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
412
492
ideas. While we acknowledge that the City's exposure caused by the nexus study may not
be fully mitigated by our collaboration, BIA/OC feels that the current staff proposal reflects
a good degree of compromise. BIA/OC supports the staff proposal to "grandfather"
projects in the development pipeline. We are also very supportive of the plan to phase
in development impact fees over a number of years.
While we remain concerned about the pressure that development fee increases place on our
industry, we are also grateful for the collaboration efforts of city staff. We look forward to
continued dialogue on this important issue and remain a resource to the city on matters
related to housing and community development. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration.
Sincerely,
71
Bry. tarr
Chief Executive Officer
Cc: Fred Wilson, City Manager
Bob Hall, Assistant City Manager
413
493
MAY 07 BIZ
Huntington Beech
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
(VI r( 3
ORANGE COUNTY
BUSINESS COUNCIL 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 I Irvine, California 92614-5904
phone: 949.79422421 fax: 949.476.04431 www.ocbc.org
May 7, 2012
The Honorable Don Hansen, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
Re: Agenda Item 9: Revise the City's Existing Development Impact Fees - OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Hansen, Mayor Pro Tern Dwyer and Council Members:
Based in America's sixth largest county, Orange County Business Council represents the largest, most
diverse businesses, with over 2,000,000 employees worldwide. We advance Orange County's economic
prosperity while protecting a high quality of life.
Despite signs that Orange County is beginning to emerge from the lingering recession, ongoing fiscal
challenges at the state and local level persist. Although most cities have focused their efforts on economic
growth by finding innovative incentives to encourage business investment and development, we can
understand the city's need to update its fee program. Regardless, the business community believes it is
critical that the city use sound data and realistic assumptions in order to generate fees that accurately
calculate the "fair share" for new development.
Most surprising about the proposed new and increased fees is the change in the City's vision from just one
year ago. In March of 2011, the City released its Ten Point Plan for making it easier to do business in
Huntington Beach. OCBC even honored the city with its inaugural "Red Tape into Red Carpet" awards for
its efforts to proactively cut through the red tape and open the door for business. The Ten Point Plan was
heralded as a means to help "produce more new jobs, expand the local tax base, and increase the
satisfaction of the business community in receiving the important services they need to remain successful."
Unfortunately, the process the city has followed in its Development Impact Fee update and its reliance on a
fatally flawed Nexus Report pulls the "welcome" mat out from under business.
OCBC does commend the city for its recent modifications that allow for a phasing of the proposed new fees
and some grandfathering of projects already in the development process to use the exiting fee structure.
However, the fact that the City actually had to modify its position to not increase fees on projects already
under development highlights the many problems with the current fee plan.
We would respectfully ask the City to review the proposed impact fee plan for consistency with its own Ten
Point Plan. The lack of a streamlined development process along with increased costs seems contradictory
to the City's stated commitment to "assist businesses in order for them to grow and prosper."
Please consider a modest delay of 30 to 60 days to examine the financial feasibility of a longer fee phase -
in period and to allow further analysis on the Nexus Report to ensure its compliance with appropriate
'technical studies and an accurate fee calculation that reflects sound assumptions and calculations.
Sincerely,
Kate Klimow
Vice President, Government Affairs
CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager
SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
meeting Date:
Aginda nem
z a6ed
917: i.i. zi.oz Lo Aew
414
412
494
415
495
RUTAN TUCKER LLP
RUTAN
RUTAF,L & TUCKER, LLP
Fax;714-546-9035 May 7 2012 03:33pm P002/003
John A. Ramirez
Direct Dial; (714)662-4610
E-mail; jramire arutaiLcom
May 7, 2012
VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
c/o City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fred Wilson
City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Adoption of Development Impact Fees Resolution (Resolution No. 2012-23) and
Ordinances Amending and/or Adding Chapters of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Regarding Police, Fire, Traffic Impact, Library, and Parkland
Acquisition/Park Facilities Development Impact Fees, and General Provisions
Relating Thereto (Ordinances Nos_ 3942-3947, respectively)
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Mx. Wilson:
This letter is written on behalf of DCO Beachwalk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Developer"). Developer is the owner of real property located at 19891 and 19895
Beach Boulevard, in the City of Huntington Beach ("City"). On March 22, 2012, the City issued
a Notice of Action approving Site Plan Review No. 11-005 (Beach.walk Apartments) consisting
of approximately 173 apartment units located at the above-referenced property.
The purpose of this letter is to confirm Our understanding of the "grandfathering"
provision in Section 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2012-23 ("Fee Resolution"). It is our
understanding that, pursuant to the Fee Resolution, the following new and revised Development
Impact Fees will be imposed on development projects in the City:
• Police Facilities Fees, a new development impact fee authorized by the adoption
of Ordinance No. 3942, and which will be codified at Huntington Beach
Municipal Code ("HBMC") Chapter 17.75;
• Fire Facilities Fees, a new development impact fee authorized by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 3943, and which will be codified at HBMC Chapter 17.74;
• Traffic Impact Fees, a pre-existing development impact fee that has been
updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3944, which
amends HBMC Chapter 17.65 to reflect such revisions;
611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400. Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 I 714.641.5100 I Fax 714.546.9035
1032/026565-0004
Orange County I Palo Alto I www,rutan.com
33233521 a05107/12 416
496
RUTAN TUCKER LLP
Fax:714-546-9035 May 7 2012 03:33pm P003/003
RUTAN
RL1TAN rlICKER. LLP
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
Fred Wilson
May 7,2012
Page 2
• Library Development Fees, a pre-existing development impact fee that has been
updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3945, and which
will be codified at HBMC Chapter 17.67; and
• Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Fees, a pre-existing development
impact fee that has been updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 3946, which amends HBMC Chapter 17.76 to reflect such
revisions.
It is our further understanding that the above-referenced Development Impact Fees do not
apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before May
7, 2012, and that satisfy the following: (a) submit an approved application for a building permit
within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013 (subject to
extension by City Manager in his/her sole discretion); (b) make continued progress toward
satisfying Plan Check comments after initial building permit application; and (c) building
permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, but not later than July 20, 2013
(subject to extension by the City Manager in his/her sole discretion).
If our understanding is correct, because the Beachwalk Apartments received a Site
Development Permit on or about March 22, 2012, the new and revised Development Impact Fees
set by the Fee Resolution shall not apply to the Beachwalk Apartments, so long as the
Beachwalk Apartments comply with the requirements set forth in items (a) though (c), above.
We respectfully request that City staff confirm our understanding of the Fee Resolution
and accompanying ordinances during the Public Hearing Item on the matter.
Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing.
Sincerely,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
A. Ramirez
JAR:lr
1032/026565-0004
3323352.1 a05/07/1.2
417
497
RECEIVED FROM
AS PUBLIC RECORD
OF MEW toFICE
JOAN L FLYNN, cgs( CLERK
ARCHSTONE
000
Memorandum
Date: May 7, 2012
To: Huntington Beach City Council
From: Kenneth Keefe
kL
Group Vice President
Subject: Proposed Development Fee Impact Increase
Thank you for the opportunity to convey our concerns with respect to the proposed development
impact fee increase.
Archstone and two land owners, Pedigo Products, Inc. and the George W. Psaros Trust, are involved in a
development project at the southwest corner of Edinger & Gothard consisting of 510 luxury multi-family
units (see attached site plan). Archstone first learned on February 1, 2012, more than 6 months after we
began our process, that the city is proposing to increase the development impact fees. The project is at-
risk of not moving forward due to financial infeasibility if the proposed increase in fees passes and does
not include a grandfathering provision that would enable the project to remain at the current fee level.
Please find below a summary of facts as well as the progress made to date:
• Archstone and the two land owners have standing in the city. Archstone is the owner of a 152
unit multi-family project at 8945 Riverbend Drive in the city and will break ground on a 384 unit
luxury multi-family project later this year at the corner of Gothard and Center Avenue. Pedigo
Products has owned their portion of the proposed site for over 40 years and ran their
manufacturing business for more than 30 years of that time. The Psaros's have owned their
portion of the site for more than 25 years.
• Due to the sites strategic location in the specific plan area, the city approached Rick Pedigo
several years ago and asked for him to work together with the Psaros's to attract a developer
who would redevelop the site consistent with the city's vision. The land owners have done
precisely what the city requested.
• Archstone and the two land owners have invested significant time and effort since July 2011
working to assemble the two parcels at the SW corner of Edinger & Gothard streets to develop a
luxury multi-family project consistent with the city's vision and the specific plan.
• The two land owners have structured their tenant leases to position the property for sale
resulting in the loss of tenants and reduced revenue.
• Archstone and the two land owners have incurred approximately $400,000 in out-of-pocket
costs to develop the project.
• Archstone has met with the city many times (6 +/-) over the pasts six months working towards a
site plan acceptable to city staff.
• Archstone submitted a site plan application to the city on April 4, 2012 and received first round
comments from the city staff last week.
• Archstone and the two land owners are committed to creating a first-class development that is
consistent with the specific plan.
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 600 I Santa Ana, CA 92707
T: 714.689.7000 F: 714.689.7101 I ArchstoneApartments.com
418
498
Please find attached a summary of public benefits offered by the proposed project.
The phasing-in of the fees does not solve our problem since Archstone would likely pull a building permit
sometime between December 2013 and May 2014, resulting in a fee increase of approximately $6.1
million (based on the proposed fee schedule effective as of July 20, 2013) rendering the project
infeasible.
Therefore, in order for us to keep the deal alive and for the city to realize the project benefits, Archstone
requests that the grandfathering provision be adjusted. Please find attached a copy of the current draft
proposal which I have redlined in a manner consistent with what would help allow this project to
proceed. Archstone will work diligently with the city to clear staff's comments, obtain the entitlements,
design the project, obtain the building permit, and construct and operate the project in an expeditious
manner.
Archstone is committed to this luxury multi-family project and hope that the city will grant us the
flexibility requested.
Thank you.
419
499
-•••• • • EDINGERAVE. ......_..... „„,..„............... ,.... .. _
, Zoning Conformance Matrix
..____ ............_ .... . . . , 2.1.6 TOWN CE NTER BOULEVARD. SEGMENT
' _ . ..... ........_
- - ,.. COM f EDT 1EN ' FRODIRDO _ fACPOSTD .
4-U-41t.-.*1 , giL.-..:4_ ,„,'-----7-„„ ADDDqN•NAI
.
••
I
•
. . -
.... " , .. ...-.D-..• ' .,!All
\
f :,•
I
- 1/ ' - .
i / ' '
NTRo NAOITf
",TR•fiv'm
eanDr.,TVA : I 1
fT ,'T'Tf."..•-• RN ., ^N. AD.,. fem.: Nom now. ..D. z,Nry ma..
iliiiiDt::
031
I
.....:..
''''-'7--'"'. 1. i-...: i. _hi ,-.• Tr,. .
. Ft
„
IA"R.,,fmmuN
.
.. AS.1-11,113 . ,•,, , .
4, 'f.
1, n
D...., ...
1211, .,
it4V. i .113
',Riff ......, : E ,
eNN'ff.stoz.,, , a : aft NA.
flEr7 1 ----;11
.0 - ID Nut.LA ...... -WA/
... , • ,
.
.
, , 41.1i•I•
..... , 4121r--
vcrT T,CT.49a1 5 1 ou,
ctoe111.7.1X.mre.1
:ft mn.
A3 • ' `11s3 ' L.- ,
22,22 224
111 :.:-
..,
44.7-47:1
..,,,,,..,.......: .34:0,.x•walsavs.
,,,,,..,
m=n sn 4,,
A
t . e
l q
.1. ' • .....
......
d.,..
V I
.'ll
.16 if
./TsyNsacf : T,s ,
.
ort.
P
'
. 1
foon.nr.cavarvo is AI
,
''''''
3
....--... n
_••••
_,
I .
,,'
•so tar
'......
L11
...,
_ ---
[....ne.....1,....
1..5,1eqt.,-ansan-.
,,„
+*—
A3 (1.4 • ,‘.
2
. .' `,„,"1:111L54.;., Zr • .E,NI: : • .
.2' ta - U•I
.
.
.
,
I1
•' V
i
1
a
m
—•
., <
n i'.' :0
f .,....• s......:„.., „:„„r..,.... _ , ....
.
,,
' ffr4 -f a_ t . .
',7.
.
.4. &
:.-
..
i.'
,
M
r.
,-
,
r
`
,
;,:1
!
1
. ' :, -1
.
ta
.
r.
. z
..
.
,
..
,
,
Z
.
.
,i
,
re
.
nn
. .
rI
..
tn,
r
,
..
.
'
.4.
...i. i'''',
* , 101 2 .1 ilia .
Obit
it,
"... g',:;-'• :..,no...:.:4:ow:
.;
• "
.-
" •
3 ,,,,.,, t. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2.*IUi t.Srp.a,,,,CE:tc.r.v.0.0c,t .
m.o. a c z.,.n foT.,... .
44 1.11 9
" . .e '!-; :;°.;irt '
.41111 it • ide
"1:7+ •
.Q
1 • .
To. ptrY., IDA.: prcwIA,
_ ... ..
in 1 ''''•
, ,,,,
1=-4
''''' '
„
LEGAL DESGR1P1,014
Dsom r t
L t.
ME WEB Is MATED IN THE STATE ce o.,onN.coUhrTY Of ORANGE ANO IS DESCRIBTO AS
ROLLOS,
LOTS ti AND 7 Of TRACT NO.406, ASPER MAP FILET. IN BOOX 1, P A f
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. IN T. Off nCE Of TIRE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORA.NDE COUNTY •
,s,,, ! PARCEL 1, AS SNOWN ON p MAP FILED RA BOOK 2. PAGE il OF PAR,a I. MAPS,IN TY,E OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER Of ORANDECOUNTY.
PARCELS I AND 2, A, ii-10:,NN ON A AAAP FRED. BOON S. PACE 36 OF PARCEL MAPS. IN THE OFF nCe OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER Of ORMODE COUNTY.
OWNER/APPLICANT
, : or , "PO ei 7-
4P1211_ IP 1 ' •••=r-.•;..,,:.: : . I
. ---' iir' . 11'
" ' ''',1 .- I ' ,
,
i
'
WE
' i -'
• .'.
i ii• l • "
Ai s 4,10 ' ' ; 3110t...0 ". 41,7s.gi• ' ..,•40—' , ' NE
' ''. ., . It,. :'..,1, —
ii11-4-21 1 - f
'a PlitiliAliA'
'......-....
•„I
- -.
N• • • - EAST • WEST CONNECTION STREET:L..7H .:
,-
, „.
• _ . ___-• _- _
•
• . . • •" • . • • LP. 14°8111
• __ — ,
L l•
, ,
,
.,..c.,:! ..: 1 '• . , :. 1 •L':-
Archstone New Development Holdings, ,
, .....:...:.„...-, 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 600 0' 40' 80' 120'
Santa Ana, California 92707
(714)689-7057 Attn: Sarah Klaustermeier SCALE. 1" = 40'
, .. [ : • , 12-033 March 28, 1011 SITE
PLAN A2 1 v SITE PLAN -
.
— EDINGER APARTMENTS . HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
is) EM DATE
ef
D
"E4
n ,
23
t
00 02.12
ARCHS TONE ARCHITECTS ORANGE o MI. 2 A.M. Otave
3 MacArthur Place, SUITE 600 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, 92707 714-689-7057 144 NORTH ORANGE Si, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714)639-9860 CASE FILE NUMBERS: X X 420500
• Increase in Annual •':
2011,Tak Bill Takitevenue • .• „ ExiMting Parcels
Archstone Huntington Beach at Edinger Project Benefits
• Description - 510 unit multifamily apartment development on the southwest corner of Edinger
Avenue and Gothard Street.
• Status — Project is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan and Archstone
has submitted a site plan review application to the city.
• Job Creation — Project is expected to create 1,000 jobs for construction workers and consultants
throughout project planning and construction.
• Permits and Fees — Project is estimated to net the city $8,729,753 before the proposed increase
to permits and fees being voted on by city council May 7, 2012.
• Increased Property Taxes —
Property Tax Revenue
142-321-01
142-321-02
142-321-10
142-321-12
142-321-13
Total
$10,500
$13,570
$18,901
$8,576
$32,205
$83,752
_
Projected Takes During Construction and Lease up 2013-2017
Average Tax Per Year
$809,008
$725,257
Stabilized Ann'Ual Taxes • 2617
Total Tax
$1,714,170
$1,630;418
• Increased Sales Tax Revenue — 510 units will net between 750 and 1,100 new residents to
Huntington Beach who will be shopping in the city and paying sales tax.
• High Quality Residents — Project aims to house residents who meet Archstone's background
check, credit standards, and income levels necessary to pay rent in accordance with The Fair
Housing Act.
• Affordable Housing - Project will contain 51 affordable housing units at moderate and low
income levels.
421
501
Archstone Edinger & Gothard
Estimated Schedule through Construction Start
Agresssive Conservative
Staff Approval (in months)
Planning Commission (in months)
City Council (in months)
Total Entitlement Period (in months)
6 Time Period per Staff
3 Time Period per Staff (preliminary feedback from staff indicates that the project will require Planning Commission approval)
3 Time Period per Staff (my understanding is that most projects that require Planning Commission approval ultimately require City Council approval)
12 Sum of Pieces Above
4
2
2
8
Design Period 'til Construction Start (in Months)
Total Entitlement & Design Period (in Months)
Today's Date
Range of Construction Start Dates
12 12 Typically a 12 month process including design development, preparation of construction documents, and "plan check" by the city staff
24 Sum of Pieces Above
May-12
Apr-14
20
May-12
Dec-13 422502
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
I Resolution No. 2012-23 — Paragraph 8 — Archstone's Proposed edits
8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to
projects that have submitted a site plan review application* received discretionary project entitlement
ap-prova-l-on or before May 7, 2012 and the following milestones are met:
1. The site plan application has been deemed complete and the Project has received
discretionary project entitlement approval on or before 360 days after the new fees go
into effect or no later than June 20, 2013.
1,2,Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 270480 days
after receipt of discretionary project entitlement approval the fcc going into effect or no
later than MarchJanuary 20, 2014-3.
2,3. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
4. Building Permits are issued within twenty-five months360 days after the new fees go
into effect, no later than July 20, 20143.
An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party regulatory
agency. In such cases the 270-1-80 days to make building permit application will begin when the
developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the authority to extend
milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects in his sole discretion. All other projects are
subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012. All existing Development Impact Fees
remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective ordinances. In the event any
portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved development impact fee shall
automatically apply.
423
503
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed (Dwyer)
,C)400--049)e2J7 RECEIVED FROM
AS PUBLIC RECORD FO,
OF
CITY CLERK OFFICE
JOAN L FLYNN, CITY CLERK
Law Enforcement Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective 1
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
25% 50%
75%
100%
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$396
$815
$369
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$277
$571
$258
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$317
$652
$295
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$356 $99
$734 $204
$332 $92
$455 $114
$532 $133
$1.041 $0.260
$0.443 $0.111
$198
$408
$185
$228
$266
$0.521
$0.222
$297
$611
$277
$341
$399
$0.781
$0.332
$396
$815
$369
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
Fire Suppression Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
25% 50% 75% 100%
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$922
$382
$1,583
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$645
$267
$1,108
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$738
$306
$1,266
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$830 $231
$344 L.c,4 $96
$1,4251 $396
$356 $89
$794! $199
$0.3291' $0.082
$0.0301 - $0.008
1
$461
$191
$792
$178
$397
$0.165
$0.015
$692
$287
$1,187
$267
$596
$0.247
$0.023
$922
$382
$1,583
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
1 of 3 424504
Circulation System Fee
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% 100%
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$1,507
$1,058
$786
$746
$1,081
$5.194
$1.061
$2,482
$1,657
$1,299
$1,105
$1,915
$4.175
$1.789
$1,737
$1,220
$909
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$1,986
$1,395
$1,039
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$2,226 $1,751
$1,563 $1,208
$1,165.:
$1,062 - $836
$1,538' $1,290
$4.175 $4.939
$1.789 $1.243
$1,995
$1,358
$1,043
$926
$1,498
$4.685
$1.425
$2,238
$1,507
$1,171
$1,015
$1,707
$4.430
$1.607
$2,482
$1,657
$1,299
$1,105
$1,915
$4.175
$1.789
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed
Public Library Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% 100%
$0.44/SF
$0.44/SF
$0.44/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$1,172 $1,172 $1,172 $1,172 t $1,085 $1,114
$908 $908 $908 $908 $491 $630
$733 $733 $733 $733 $460 $551
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
$1,143 $1,172
$769 $908
$642 $733
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
2 of 3 425505
Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map)
Consultant Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13
Effective
7/20/14 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 100.00%
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$0.86/SF
$0.86/SF
No Fee
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$17,857
$13,835
$11,169
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$12,500
$9,685
$7,818
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$14,286
$11,068
$8,935
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$16,071 E $ 4,697
$12,452[1 $ 2,880
$10,052 $ 1,862
$459 $ 153
$359 $ 144
$0.954k $ 0.351
$0.772 $ 0.320
$ 12,593
$ 9,453
$ 7,446
$ 337
$ 273
$ 0.713
$ 0.591
$ 15,224
$ 11,643
$ 9,307
$ 398
$ 316
$ 0.795
$ 0.643
$ 17,857
$ 13,835
$ 11,169
$ 459
$ 359
$ 0.954
$ 0.772
7,328
9,961
5,070
7,262
3,723
5,585
214
276
187
230
0.471
0.592
0.411
0.501
NOTE: The fees below fall under the Subdivision Map Act and will be addressed at a later date
3 of 3 426506
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1277 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of two Landscape Maintenance Agreements with the State
of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for Pacific City Retail and Pasea Hotel
for Maintenance of Landscape Improvements within the State Highway Right of Way on
Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)
Statement of Issue:
Two Landscape Maintenance Agreements between the City and the State of California (Caltrans) are
presented for City Council approval and execution for the public landscape areas within the State
highway right of way in front of the Pacific City Retail and Pasea Hotel projects on Pacific Coast
Highway.
Financial Impact:
Not Applicable.
Recommended Action:
A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and record the “Landscape
Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of Huntington
Beach” for the Pacific City Retail project (Attachment 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and record the “Landscape
Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of Huntington
Beach” for the Pasea Hotel project (Attachment 2).
Alternative Action(s):
Do not authorize execution of the two agreements, and direct staff accordingly.This alternative action will
prevent the typical transfer of maintenance obligations (from State-to-City and City-to-Developer) for
landscaping improvements within the State right of way on Pacific Coast Highway.
Analysis:
The Pacific City Retail Redevelopment and Pasea Hotel projects are located at 21002 and 21080
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™507
File #:19-1277 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
The Pacific City Retail Redevelopment and Pasea Hotel projects are located at 21002 and 21080
Pacific Coast Highway, respectively. The projects’ development requirements included the
construction and future maintenance responsibilities of landscaping and hardscape improvements
within the public right of way along their street frontages. To document these responsibilities, the
developer/owner(s) are required to execute the appropriate landscape maintenance agreement(s) for
all landscaping, irrigation, street furniture and enhanced hardscape that encroaches into the State
(Caltrans) right of way along Pacific Coast Highway and into the City’s rights of way along First Street
and Huntington Street. In addition to landscaping and irrigation, the agreements also address
sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree replacement and all other aspects of
maintenance for areas in State and City right of way.
With respect to the State’s right of way along Pacific Coast Highway, it is Caltrans’ policy to only enter into
such agreements with other governmental agencies, not with private developers/owners. Consequently, there
are three agreements necessary to adequately address these landscape maintenance responsibilities: two
agreements (one for each project) between the State of California and the City of Huntington Beach
(Attachments 1 and 2), and a third, “companion” agreement between the City and the private developer/owner
(s) (Attachment 3), which effectively transfers the maintenance responsibilities from the City to the
developer/owner(s). This “companion” agreement was executed between the City, 20112 HB and PC Group
Retail is included as Attachment 3 for reference.
The State has now provided two “Landscape Maintenance Agreement(s) within State Highway Right
of Way on Route 1 within the City of Huntington Beach”(Attachments 1 and 2),which are currently
presented to City Council for approval. These agreements have been reviewed and approved by
Caltrans, Public Works staff and the City Attorney’s Office, which are now ready for approval by City
Council for execution. The Director of Caltrans will only sign and execute the subject agreements
following the City’s approval and signatures.
Public Works Commission Action: Not required.
Environmental Status:
These agreements are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant
to City Council Resolution No. 4501.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. “Landscape Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of
Huntington Beach” for the Pacific City Retail project.
2.”Landscape Maintenance Agreement Within State Highway Right of Way on Route 1 Within the City of
Huntington Beach” for the Pasea Hotel project.
3.Executed “Amended and Restated License and Maintenance Agreement” (between the City, 20112 HB
and PC Group Retail)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1328 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Robert Handy, Chief of Police
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Waymakers to
authorize a one-year contract extension and additional compensation of $114,509 for
management of the Victim and Witness Assistance Services Program; and, approve grant
fund appropriation
Statement of Issue:
City Council is requested to approve an amendment to the original three-year contract with
Waymakers, for the management of the Victim and Witness Assistance Services Program. Approval
of the attached amendment will renew this agreement and allow payment to Waymakers for services
rendered through calendar year 2020.
Financial Impact:
The contract is contingent upon the funding of the grant provided by the California Office of
Emergency Services. Upon receipt of the grant award, sufficient appropriations will be available to
fund the 2020 calendar year of the Waymakers contract. A new fund “Business Unit” will be
designated by the Finance Department upon receipt of the grant award.
Recommended Action:
A) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute “Amendment No. 1 to Agreement
Between the City of Huntington Beach and Community Service Programs, Inc. (Waymakers) for
Victim and Witness Assistance Services;” and,
B) Approve appropriation of $114,509 contingent upon grant funding provided by the California Office
of Emergency Services, and increase professional services authority for the commensurate amount.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve and direct staff accordingly.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™542
File #:20-1328 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Analysis:
Since 1998, the Huntington Beach Police Department and Waymakers have been in a partnership to
combat, investigate and prosecute domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking cases. Since the
inception of the Violence Against Women Project, the Advocates have been continuously funded
through a series of grants. The goal of the program is to help heal families and stop the cycle of
violence. Without this grant, the Police Department would not be able to offer the services of Victim
Advocates to victims of domestic violence. The Advocates work closely with a Police Department
investigator to form a cohesive team to assist victims.
The authorization of Amendment No. 1 and No. 2 will extend the length of the contract and allow the
funding for one Waymakers Victim Advocate through the end of the calendar year 2020.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Waymakers
2. Professional Service Approval Form - Amendment 1 (Waymakers)
3. Original fully executed contract with CSP (now Waymakers)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1285 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of an Amendment to a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Orange County Transportation Authority and the cities of Fountain Valley and Costa Mesa
to extend the deadline for completion of street improvements associated with the potential
removal of the Garfield/Gisler crossing of the Santa Ana River
Statement of Issue:
The Cities of Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach entered into a Memorandum of
Understand (MOU) in 2006 to pursue certain street improvements and operational goals on our
respective local streets that would potentially make the future connection of Garfield Avenue and
Gisler Avenue across the Santa Ana River unnecessary and allow for the permanent deletion of the
roadway from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Due to the extended period of time it took to
begin and complete the Interstate 405 Freeway project and to allow for additional time for each
agency to pursue completion of individual efforts, an amendment to the agreement is needed to
extend the current December 2020 completion deadline.
Financial Impact:
Extension of the agreement does not result in the commitment by the City to pursue any new
improvements not previously identified in the current MOU. Additional funding may be needed from
various funds to complete potential projects or demonstrate the additional capacity is no longer
needed. Appropriation for additional funding requirements will be requested as needed. Funding for
improvements is expected to be provided through grant funding, traffic impact fee and other
appropriate local roadway funding (e.g. Gas Tax) and identified through the annual Capital
Improvement Program process.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute “Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding C
-6-0834 Among Cities of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach and Orange County
Transportation Authority Regarding Agency Responsibilities for Implementing the Consensus
Recommendation for the Garfield-Gisler Bridge Crossing over the Santa Ana River.”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™560
File #:19-1285 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Alternative Action(s):
Provide recommended changes to the proposed Memorandum of Understanding to pursue with
OCTA, Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley.
Analysis:
The cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley entered into a cooperative
Memorandum of Understanding with OCTA in 2006 to address ongoing concerns about the future
connection of Garfield Avenue east, across the Santa Ana River to Gisler Avenue in Costa Mesa.
This connection has been depicted on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) for many
years and had been used to model projections of long term traffic conditions in the area. In 2006, the
Cities of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach expressed their desire to have the bridge removed from
the MPAH due to the anticipated community impacts the connection would have in both cities.
Fountain Valley expressed their concern over any deletion from the MPAH because the impacts of
not having the bridge in the future would significantly, and disproportionately impact roadways in
Fountain Valley. A detailed study was undertaken at the time by OCTA to fully evaluate whether there
were suitable, effective roadway network options that could be pursued to offset the need for the
Garfield-Gisler Bridge. A group of improvements were identified that were expected to provide
sufficient future roadway capacity to offset the loss of the Garfield-Gisler Bridge.
The MOU set goals for completing the various improvements by the different agencies and set a
target completion date of the end of the calendar year 2020. It also created an interim designation
for the Garfield-Gisler connection called a “right-of-way reserve” status. With this status , all parties
agreed to assume that the bridge would not be built during the evaluation of all project traffic impacts
and planning of all roadway improvements (future analyses). None of the Cities have fully completed
the improvements in their jurisdictions at this time. The Interstate 405 freeway project was also
expected to be completed by the end of 2020 back in 2006. Since the project took longer to develop
than expected and evolved over time, we will not know the true effects/benefits of the project until the
expected completion date in 2023. Therefore, OCTA proposed an extending the deadline for
completion of city efforts to 2025. The agreement was developed with input from staff from each
agency and agreed to bring the agreement to each City Council for approval.
Staff from each of the agencies are presenting the same version of the Amendment to their
respective City Councils for action. Should any City request a modification to the language during
the final stage of the process, it is likely that each City will need to reconsider the new version for
approval. At the time of this writing, Fountain Valley has already approved the proposed language
and Costa Mesa is expected to process the agreement in January or February 2020.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. Amendment No. 1 to MOU C-6-0834 (Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and OCTA)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™561
File #:19-1285 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
- Garfield-Gisler Bridge Crossing
2. Original 2006 MOU C-6-0834 (Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach and OCTA) -
Garfield-Gisler Bridge Crossing
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1290 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject:
Approve and authorize execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the
City of Huntington Beach and SC Cleaning Specialist for the Installation and Maintenance of
Marina Trash Skimmer at 16011 Santa Barbara Lane
Statement of Issue:
In April of 2016, the City of Huntington Beach (partnering with Westchester Bay HOA, Peter’s
Landing Marina, Huntington Harbour Marina, and OC Parks) applied for and was awarded a grant
from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup
Program (ECP), Tier 1 to purchase and install seven Marina Trash Skimmer (MTS) units. These
MTS units were purchased with grant funds and installed in different locations within the waters of
Huntington Harbour to remove floating and partially submerged trash and debris as well as
hydrocarbons from the surface. This MOU between the City and SC Cleaning Specialist will formally
authorize the installation and establish maintenance responsibilities of the MTS unit at 16011 Santa
Barbara Lane for the next ten years.
The City has already executed MOUs between the City and grant partners Peter’s Landing Marina,
Huntington Harbour Marina, Davenport Marina, and OC Parks.
Financial Impact:
The City Council has already authorized the purchase and installation of the MTS unit to be installed
at 16011 Santa Barbara Lane at the July 17, 2017 City Council meeting. Funds were included in the
FY 16-17 CIP budget and the unit was purchased at that time. Ongoing maintenance costs will be
covered in the existing and future Public Works maintenance budgets in business unit 10085206 and
will range between $7,000 - $12,000 annually depending on the maintenance cycle.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the “Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the City of Huntington Beach and SC Cleaning Specialist for the Installation and
Maintenance of Marina Trash Skimmer(s) in Huntington Harbour,” (16011 Santa Barbara Lane).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™577
File #:19-1290 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Alternative Action(s):
Do not authorize the MOU and direct staff with an alternate action. Absent an MOU, the City cannot
install the MTS unit at 16011 Santa Barbara Lane.
Analysis:
The OCTA Measure M2 ECP,Tier 1 grant funding program is designed to mitigate the more visible
forms of pollution, such as litter and debris that collects on the roadways and in the catch basins prior
to being deposited in waterways and the ocean. The program enables eligible jurisdictions to
purchase and install structural best management practices such as screens, filters, and other “street
scale” low flow diversion devices to address these pollutants and mitigate the impact to local water
bodies.
In partnership with Westchester Bay HOA, Peter’s Landing Marina, Huntington Harbour Marina, and
OC Parks the City applied for and was awarded grant funding in the amount of $73,118. Total
projected costs associated with the purchase, delivery, and installation of the MTS units is
$97,486.54. As part of the grant application, the City and OC Parks have agreed to divide the
matching portion of the grant (25%) and each contribute $12,185.82 to meet the grant requirements.
This is primarily due to the fact that most of the trash and debris that discharged to the waters of
Huntington Harbour is conveyed by City and County storm drain systems.
Once purchased, delivered and installed at the pre-designated locations, the MTS units are designed
to draw in floating and partially submerged debris, such as plastics, bottles, paper, oil sheens, and
organic materials. The installation of MTS units in the Harbor will enable the City to reduce the
amount of trash and debris reaching the open ocean.
The MTS devices once installed will require weekly and quarterly maintenance. The weekly
maintenance will be conducted by the staff or approved contractor working on behalf of the grant
partners. Weekly maintenance includes removing the accumulated trash and verifying that the unit
(s) are operating properly. Quarterly maintenance which is more extensive and includes replacing
filters and routine maintenance on the intake pump system will be conducted by an authorized
vendor as contracted by Public Works Department.
The MOUs between the City and the grant partners establishes the responsibilities for the MTS units
once purchased and installed for the next ten years. The MOU will require the partners to provide
and pay for the electrical power to power the MTS units and conduct weekly routine maintenance.
The City will conduct the quarterly maintenance and perform other maintenance such as replacing
parts.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™578
File #:19-1290 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Attachment(s):
1. MOU between the City and SC Cleaning Specialist
2. SC Cleaning Specialist Insurance Certificate
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1346 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Travis K. Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
Subject:
Approve the appointment of Scott Haberle to the position of Fire Chief, and authorize the City
Manager to execute the employment agreement
Statement of Issue:
The City’s Fire Chief retired in July of 2019. To fill this critical leadership position, a national
recruitment was conducted for the position of Fire Chief. Based on a thorough process to include a
panel interview, Department Head meetings, and background and reference checks, the City
Manager is recommending the appointment of Scott Haberle to the position.
Financial Impact:
Funding for this position is included in the FY 2019/20 budget.
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the “Employment Agreement between the City of
Huntington Beach and Scott Haberle” for the position of Fire Chief.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the appointment of Scott Haberle for the position of Fire Chief and direct the City
Manager to re-launch a national recruitment.
Analysis:
The position of Fire Chief has been vacant since July 2019 due to the retirement of the former
incumbent, thereby creating the need to fill the department head vacancy. The City Manager
authorized Human Resources to launch the recruitment for Fire Chief in the fall of 2019. The City
received more than 40+ applications for the position. Seven (7) candidates were invited to an
interview process with two panels, a technical panel with external seasoned leaders in the Fire Safety
industry and a representative of the Fire Association, and a second panel of the City’s Executive
(Department Head) team. The panels jointly recommended two (2) finalists.
The City Manager and Assistant City Manager conducted follow-up interviews with each finalist. After
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™593
File #:20-1346 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
full and deliberate consideration, the City Manager recommends City Council approval to appoint
Scott Haberle to the position of Fire Chief, effective February 10, 2020.
Mr. Haberle is a 28 year veteran within the fire service. He has served as Fire Chief in the City of
Monterey Park for the past five years. Additionally, he spent 23 years serving the City of Monrovia,
where he held positions as the Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire Captain,
Firefighter/Paramedic, Fire Inspector/Fire Investigator, Firefighter, and Fire Cadet.
Mr. Haberle holds a Bachelor of Science degree from California State University Long Beach and a
Masters of Public Administration from the University of La Verne. He has also attained the Executive
Fire Officer (EFO) Certification from the Nation Fire Academy, which is one of the highest
designations for fire executive training.
The contractual compensation is recommended at Non-Associated/Executive Management Pay
Grade NA 0015, staring point at step E ($106.31 hourly). The annual salary is $221,124.80. All other
benefits provided are generally applicable to the former incumbent and/or non-associated employees
(department heads) hired after 12/27/1997, as set forth in Huntington Beach City Council Resolution
No. 2014-32.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Fire Chief Recruitment Brochure
2. Resume, Scott Haberle
3. Employment Agreement
4. Exhibit 1 - Non-Associated Executive Management Salary Schedule Effective November 04,
2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
Pay Starting Control High
Grade Point Point Point
0591 City Manager NA0591 Per Contract 125.00 128.29
0029 Interim City Manager NA0029 NA NA 122.68
0592 Assistant City Manager NA0592 85.82 95.51 106.32
0009 Director of Building & Safety NA0009 74.64 83.07 92.46
0014 Director of Community Services NA0014 74.64 83.07 92.46
0008 Director of Economic Development NA0008 74.64 83.07 92.46
0574 Director of Human Resources NA0574 74.64 83.07 92.46
0479 Chief Information Officer NA0479 74.64 83.07 92.46
0007 Director of Library Services NA0007 69.94 77.85 86.66
0589 Community Development Director NA0589 80.82 89.97 100.13
0010 Director of Public Works NA0010 80.82 89.97 100.13
0518 Chief Financial Officer NA0518 80.82 89.97 100.13
0015 Fire Chief NA0015 85.82 95.51 106.31
0011 Police Chief NA0011 85.82 95.52 106.31
0012
Director of Organizational Learning &
Engagement NA0012 74.64 83.07 92.46
0016 City Attorney NA0016 100.18 111.51 124.10
0017 City Clerk NA0017 69.94 77.85 86.66
0018 City Treasurer - PART-TIME NA0018 69.94 77.85 86.66
Pay
Grade
0593 Chief Assistant City Attorney NA0593 74.64 78.75 83.07 87.64 92.46
0699 Deputy Community Prosecutor NA0699 43.20 45.58 48.08 50.73 53.52
0840 Deputy Director of Community Dev NA0840 66.54 70.21 74.07 78.14 82.44
0650 Assistant Chief of Police NA0650 78.70 83.03 87.60 92.41 97.50
0900 Assistant Chief Financial Officer NA0900 66.54 70.21 74.07 78.14 82.44
E
*Per Resolution 2019-78 adopted on 11/04/19 the compensation of City Manager was modified, the Director of Organizational Learning &
Engagement was added; and the positions of the Director of Human Resources, Director of Building & Safety and Director of Economic
Development were deleted.
EXHIBIT 1
NON-ASSOCIATED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 04, 2019
Job No.Description
Job No.Description A B C
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT HEADS
ELECTED OFFICIALS
ELECTED OFFICIALS PART-TIME
CONTRACT NON-DEPARTMENT HEAD
D
614
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1249 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
David A Segura, Interim Fire Chief
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01 authorizing the Director of Public Works to submit application
(s) and administer the Used Oil Payment Program (UOPP) for Eligible CalRecycle Grants; and,
appropriate funds
Statement of Issue:
Approval is requested to adopt a resolution authorizing the Department of Public Works to administer
the Used Oil and Used Oil Filter Collection Program and to apply annually for future Used Oil and
Used Oil Filter Collection grants, which are currently administered by the Fire Department. An
appropriation of $54,699 is requested for the current fiscal year.
Financial Impact:
Approximately $55,000 in annual funding is currently provided by the California Department of
Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Used Oil Payment Program. The funding level is
determined on a per capita basis using State Department of Finance population estimates.
Recommended Action:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Submit Application(s) and Administer the Used Oil
Payment Program for Eligible CalRecycle Grants;” and,
B) Appropriate $54,699 to used Used Oil OPP grant fund account 96066046.69505.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt the attached resolution and continue to have the Fire Department administer the Used
Oil and Used Oil Filter Collection Program.
Analysis:
The Huntington Beach Fire Department, has operated a grant-funded Used Oil and Used Oil Filter
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™615
File #:19-1249 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
The Huntington Beach Fire Department, has operated a grant-funded Used Oil and Used Oil Filter
Collection Program for over 22 years. The Used Oil Payment Program (UOPP) authorized in Senate
Bill 546 (Lowenthal) provides up to $11 million annually in payment to municipal governments for
implementation of local used oil and used oil filter recycling programs. The Public Works Department
has agreed to administer the program since program best aligns with the goals and mission of the
Stormwater/Urban Runoff Section of Public Works. Funding from the UOPP can be used to fund the
installation of catch basin filters designed to remove oil and grease and other pollutants from City
streets and thereby protecting the water quality of downstream waterbodies.
Applicants are required to have a used oil and used oil filter collection program, including at least one
certified collection center per 100,000 residents, or a curbside program that includes collection at
least monthly and a public education program that informs the public of locally available used oil
recycling opportunities. The City currently has 23 certified used oil collection centers, a curbside
program that meets State requirements and a public education program that has been in existence
for many years.
The attached resolution reauthorizes Public Works Department staff to administer the program and to
submit a UOPP application to CalRecycle. It also authorizes the Director of Public Works or his
designee to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment under this program.
This authorization will be effective until rescinded by the City Council.
Environmental Status:
None.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2020-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Submit Application(s) and Administer the Used Oil
Payment Program for Eligible CalRecycle Grants."
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™616
617
618
619
620
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1299 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Tom Herbel, PE, Acting Director of Public Works
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2020-02 approving the submittal of an application to the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) for funding under the Project V Community-Based
Transit/Circulators Program
Statement of Issue:
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) offers grants to provide funding for
programs/projects that complement regional transit services and meet needs in areas not adequately
serviced by regional transit. Staff has applied for this grant to develop and implement a two-year pilot
program for a shared ride hailing service. Due to the short time-frame for submittal, a draft resolution
approving the application was submitted with the application. This is allowed by OCTA. Staff seeks
formal approval of the resolution.
Financial Impact:
Staff proposes a 20 percent match of an estimated $102,280 per year in the Air Quality Management
Fund (201). If the City is awarded the grant, these funds will be included in future budget submittals
beginning with FY 2020-21.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution 2020-02 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
approving the submittal of the Project V application to the Orange County Transportation Authority for
funding under the Project V Community-Based Transit/Circulators Program.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff to withdraw the application.
Analysis:
Under Measure M2, OCTA has developed the Project V Community-Based Transit/Circulators
Program, which establishes a competitive process to enable local jurisdictions to develop local transit
services that complement regional transit services and meet needs in areas not adequately served
by regional transit. Projects must meet specific criteria in order to compete for funding through this
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™621
File #:20-1299 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
program. In addition, local jurisdictions are required to demonstrate the ability to provide matching
funds.
Staff is proposing a two-year pilot program to provide residents reduced cost, fixed fee, shared rides
to downtown Huntington Beach. This would connect riders to OCTA bus routes. Staff has identified
the southeast area of Huntington Beach as the pilot area to gauge the effectiveness of the program.
This area was chosen due to the gaps in existing bus service resulting from elimination of bus routes.
A portion of route 35, which runs down Brookhurst, was eliminated from Hamilton Street to PCH.
Route 173, which ran down Atlanta Avenue from Magnolia Street to downtown was eliminated
entirely. A map of the proposed service area, including current active bus routes, is attached.
A resolution approving the application and committing matching funds must be submitted to OCTA. If
approved, staff will move forward with implementation, targeting a July 1, 2020, start date.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2020-02, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
approving the submittal of the Project V application to the Orange County Transportation
Authority for funding under the Project V Community-Based Transit/Circulators Program.”
2. Proposed Pilot Program area map.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™622
623
624
!!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Edison
Gisler
Lake
Drew
Eader
Hawes
Bailey
Edison
Blu
f
f
T
o
p
Seeley
Bauer
Worthy
Burke
Farquhar
Moffett
Sowers
Manning
Banning/Magnolia
Triangle
LeBard
Pacific City
Edison High
John R. Peterson
S.A. Moffett
Isaac L. Sowers
Ralph E. Hawes
SaintsSimon & Jude
La PetiteAcademy
Ethel DwyerMiddle School
Agnes L. Smith
FirstChristian
Huntington ChristianChurch School
Brethren Christian High
John H. Eader
Indianapolis Ave.Indianapolis Ave.BrookhurstSt.Bushard St.BrookhurstSt.MagnoliaSt.Newland St.Delaware St.Adams Ave.NewlandSt.BeachBlvd.Atlanta Ave.BeachBlvd.Goldenwest St.Pal
m
A
v
e
.MagnoliaSt.Lake St.Paci
f
i
c
C
o
a
s
t
H
w
y
.
Adams Ave.
Atlanta Ave.
Ora
n
g
e
A
v
e
.17th St.BushardSt.Adams Ave.
Banning Ave.
Paci
f
i
c
C
o
a
s
t
H
w
y
.
Hamilton Ave.
Banning Ave.
Hamilton Ave.
Atlanta Ave.
Indianapolis Ave.
COSTA MESA
NEWPORT BEACH
Ro
u
t
e
1 Route 33Route 178
Route 35Route 29Ro
u
t
e
2
5
R
Surf City
Huntington Beach
N
S
EW
0 0.50.25
Miles
HB GISDecember 2019
Information Services Department
G:\GIS\Projects\Administration\OCTA_ProjectV_GoHB\BusRoutesStops2Downtown.mxd
CAUTION WHEN USING THIS MAP
Information shown hereon is a compilationof data from sources of varying accuracyand is provided as a convenience to theuser. The City of Huntington Beach doesnot guarantee its completeness or accuracy.
It is the user's responsibility to verify allinformation to their own satisfaction.S A N T A A N A R I V E R!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Pacific City6th St6th St
Huntington St7th St1st St3rd StPacif
i
c
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
Atlanta Ave
Walnut AveWa
l
n
u
t
A
v
e
Ro
u
t
e
1
Ro
u
t
e
2
5
Route 29Bus Routes
City of Huntington Beach
Bus Routes
Harbor/Channels
Beaches
City Boundary
Bus Stops
Schools
Residential Low Density Parks
!
Residential Medium Density
Residential Medium High Density
Residential High Density
Drop-Off Zone
#
0 0.250.125 Miles
625
City of Huntington Beach
File #:20-1301 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR SUCCESSOR AGENCY ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Chair and Board Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, Executive Director
PREPARED BY:Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director of Economic Development
Subject:
Adopt Successor Agency Resolution Nos. 2020-02 and 2020-01 approving the Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Huntington Beach
Successor Agency for the period of July 1, 2020, through June 3, 2021, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 34177 and related actions
Statement of Issue:
The Successor Agency is requested to approve the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
(ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the period of July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020. An
approved ROPS must be submitted to the County of Orange Oversight Board by January 28, 2020,
and then to the Department of Finance (DOF) by February 1, 2020. This is the second year that the
Successor Agency is submitting the annual ROPS to the Countywide Oversight Board.
Financial Impact:
The ROPS provides the County Auditor-Controller with the amount of the former Redevelopment
Agency’s enforceable obligations for which the Successor Agency anticipates incurring expenditures.
Once approved by DOF, the Successor Agency will be entitled to receive property tax revenue up to
the amount of the DOF-approved enforceable obligations included in the Payment Schedule. The
ROPS requests $6,467,379 in funds to support existing legally required enforceable obligations.
Successor Agency Recommended Action:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-01, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Successor Agency Administrative Budget for
the Period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021;” and,
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2020-02, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the Period July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 (‘ROPS 20-21’).”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt the Resolutions and direct staff accordingly. Per Health and Safety Code Section
34177 (m)(2), the Successor Agency would be assessed a $10,000 per-day penalty for failure to
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™626
File #:20-1301 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
submit the ROPS on a timely basis. Additionally, failure to submit the ROPS within ten (10) days of
the deadline may result in a 25% reduction of the Successor Agency’s maximum administrative cost
allowance for the period covered by the delinquent ROPS.
Analysis:
As part of the 2011 Budget Act, as recommended by then Governor Jerry Brown, the Legislature
approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus Redevelopment Agencies. After litigation, the
California Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dissolution Act, all redevelopment agencies in California
were dissolved effective February 1, 2012.
The Dissolution Act, AB 1484, and related legislation describe the procedures to wind-down the
affairs of the former redevelopment agencies. These provisions include the continued payment of
recognized enforceable obligations as defined in the law. The ROPS for July 1, 2020, through June
30, 2021, request payment for enforceable obligations associated with the former Redevelopment
Agency’s Tax Allocation bonds, development agreements, legal services, administrative, and other
miscellaneous costs. The County Oversight Board and DOF has the authority to review the ROPS
and return it to the Successor Agency for reconsideration and modification or to disallow payment for
a listed obligation.
The County Oversight Board will review and approve the City’s current ROPS on the January 28,
2020, meeting, then the City must submit to the State DOF by February 1, 2020. The State DOF will
make its determination by April 15. The City’s ROPS will not be effective until approved by the State
DOF.
The Successor Agency and City are pursuing legal action to begin the repayment of former
redevelopment agency loans from the City. The DOF has denied the repayment of these legitimate
redevelopment loans on three separate occasions totaling $71 million.
The Administrative Budget for the July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, budget reflects a total of
$250,000, which represents the maximum reimbursement to cities allowed by law for costs
associated with administering these obligations.
Environmental Status:
Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Strengthen long-term financial and economic sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2020-01, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Successor Agency Administrative Budget
for the Period July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021”
2. Resolution No. 2020-02, “A Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™627
File #:20-1301 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule
for the Period July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 (‘ROPS 20-21’)”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Public Hearing Continued Open from December 16, 2019 to consider Zoning Text Amendment
No. 19-002 (Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Update) by approving for
introduction Ordinance Nos. 4193, 4194, 4195, 4196, 4197, 4198 and 4199
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002,a City-initiated request to
amend seven chapters of the HBZSO for overall maintenance pertaining to vehicle storage, parking
structures, residential infill requirements, and moving/relocating structures. The request also codifies
existing policies and clarifies sections of the code.The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the request.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
A) Find Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California
Environmental Quality Act (Attachment No. 1); and
B) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and approve for
introduction:
Ordinance No. 4193, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled R
Residential Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4194, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 203 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled
Definitions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4195, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™644
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Amending Chapter 204 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Use
Classifications (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4196, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Off-
Street Parking and Loading Provisions (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4197, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 230 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled Site
Standards (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);”
Ordinance No. 4198, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 212 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled I
Industrial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);” and,
Ordinance No. 4199, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Titled C
Commercial Districts (Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002);” (Attachment Nos. 3 - 9).
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
A) Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 and direct staff to return with findings for denial.
B) Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Location: Citywide
The Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) proposes to amend seven chapters of the Huntington Beach
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to reorganize certain entitlement applications to a
lower hearing body or permit by right, codify existing policies, and clarify sections of the code.
The seven chapters to be amended are Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter 204 (Use
Classifications), Chapter 210 (Residential Districts), Chapter 211 (Commercial Districts), Chapter
212 (Industrial Districts), Chapter 230 - Section 230.22 (Residential Infill Lot Development) and
Section 230.74 (Outdoor Facilities), and Chapter 231 (Off-Street Parking and Loading
Provisions).
In an ongoing effort to improve customer service and ensure the HBZSO is clear, current, and
consistently adapting to market trends, staff has identified some needed changes. The proposed
amendments would decrease processing time for applicants, encourage new businesses,
provide greater clarity, and ultimately improve customer service. ZTA No. 19-002 represents the
second phase of the overall ongoing HBZSO update. A matrix providing a comparison between
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™645
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
the current code sections and the proposed changes is included as Attachment No. 2. Legislative
drafts of the amended chapters are also attached.
B.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on ZTA No. 19-002 on November 12, 2019.
There were no public comments regarding the proposed ZSO update. The Planning Commission
asked some questions for clarification regarding vehicle storage and infill. Commissioner
Scandura made a motion to recommend that all vehicle storage uses in all zones be reviewed by
the Planning Commission. However, the motion did not receive a second and failed.
Planning Commission Action on November 12, 2019:
The motion was made by Kalmick, seconded by Perkins, to find and determine that the project is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, recommend approval of ZTA No. 19 -002,
and forward to the City Council for consideration carried by the following vote:
AYES: Ray, Grant, Garcia, Kalmick, Perkins
NOES: Scandura
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mandic
C.STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Zoning Compliance:
The following provides a review of the proposed amendments in four sections.
1.Residential Infill
Section 203.06 - Infill Lot Development
Section 203.06 - Residential Infill Lot
Delete current definitions and replace with new Residential Privacy Design Standards
Section 203.06 - Residential Privacy Design Standards
Add new definition to describe applicability of Residential Privacy Design Standards:
Add floor area above first floor of existing SFD or construction of new SFD with more
than one floor
Increase number of windows or move existing windows above first floor of existing SFD
Section 210.06 (W) - Residential Development Standards
Require design elements to ensure privacy between structures:
Off-set bedroom and bathroom windows above the first floor
Orient balconies to front, rear, open space, street, or provide:
o Min. 20 ft. separation between balcony/deck and adjacent structure
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™646
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Section 230.22 - Residential Infill Lot Developments
Delete section and replace with additional provision 210.06 (W) for Residential Privacy Design
Standards.
Renaming Residential Infill requirements as Residential Privacy Design Standards more
accurately describes the provisions for offsetting windows and balconies on single family
homes. Reorganizing the requirements within the ZSO from Section 230.22 into Section 210.06
will enable property owners and architects to easily access the revised standards while
reviewing the applicable development standards. The revised privacy design standards will be
applicable to area above the first floor only. Single family homes in the City are typically
separated by a six ft. wall or fence, which provides substantial privacy for any windows that may
align on the first floor. Revising the applicability of privacy design standards reduces the
processing time of single family remodel/addition projects that do not add or alter any area
above the first floor.
2.Vehicle Storage
Section 204.10 (GG) 8. Vehicle Storage
Delete this definition and add three more specific vehicle storage classifications
Section 204.10 (GG) 8. Vehicle Storage, Impound Yards
Add new impound yard use classification
Section 204.10 (GG) 9. Vehicle Storage, Off-Site Auto Sales
Add new use classification for off-site vehicle storage for auto sales businesses located within
the City
Section 204.10 (GG) 10. Vehicle Storage, Recreational Vehicles
Add new recreational vehicle storage use classification
Section 211.04 CO, CG, and CV Districts - Land Use Controls (Vehicle Storage)
Current Process: CUP from ZA in CG Zone
Proposed Process:
·Delete Vehicle Storage use classification and add 3 more specific classifications
·Add:
o Vehicle Storage, Impound Yards (PC in CG Zone)
o Vehicle Storage, Off-Site Auto Sales (P/ZA in CG Zone based on proximity to R
districts)
o Vehicle Storage, Recreational Vehicles (ZA in CG Zone)
o Additional provisions for screening/walls
Section 212.04 IG, IL, and RT Districts - Land Use Controls (Vehicle Storage)
Current Process:
·Permitted in IG Zone
·CUP from ZA in IL Zone
·CUP from ZA/PC in RT Zone (based on proximity to R districts)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™647
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
·Additional provision H**
Proposed Process:
·Delete Vehicle Storage use classification and add 3 more specific classifications
·Revise/update formatting for additional provision H** and allow auto storage uses on
public agency owned property pursuant to a Parking Area Plan
·Add:
o Vehicle Storage, Impound Yards (PC all Zones)
o Vehicle Storage, Off-Site Auto Sales (P/ZA all Zones)
o Vehicle Storage, Recreational Vehicles (ZA all Zones)
o Additional provisions for screening/walls
3.Parking and Parking Structure
Section 203.06 - Parking, Subterranean
Section 203.06 - Parking, Tandem
Add new definitions for clarification of two types of parking facilities
Section 203.06 - Parking Structure
Update definition for clarification
Section 231.18 (G) - Parking Structures
Clarify development standards and establish design guidelines for parking structures. Revise
to codify existing policy that allows for maximum 15% slope with minimum 12 foot long
transitions for ramps that are not used for back up space for parking stalls.
Section 230.74 Outdoor Facilities
Add Vehicle Storage to list of exceptions for outdoor storage entitlement requirements to avoid
conflicts with requirements for updated use classifications
Adding definitions of subterranean parking and tandem parking will provide clarity within the
ZSO regarding these common types of parking facilities. Revising the parking structure
definition will ensure the definition is inclusive of new technologies such as automated parking
structures and clarify that a surface parking lot with a roof above it is not a parking structure.
Further, some development standards will also be clarified, such as screening and
landscaping requirements. There are currently no codified design guidelines for parking
structures. The revision includes a menu of options for design guidelines to improve the
architectural quality of parking structures and give applicants some direction on aesthetics.
Also, the list of exceptions in the outdoor facilities section would be updated to also include the
new vehicle storage classifications which are subject to their own specific requirements in the
commercial and industrial code sections. Providing these revisions to the ZSO ensures it is
clear to all readers, updates it in accordance with modern standards, and provides better
guidance for architectural quality.
4.The following amendments include cleanup and clarification:
Section 204.10 (H) - Commercial Recreation and Entertainment - Delete reference to HBMC
9.28 which has been repealed.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™648
File #:19-1170 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Section 210.06 (X) - Development Standards -Add provision to reference HBMC 17.28 if
moving/relocating structures
These amendments involve cleaning up the HBZSO to improve clarity and allow for internal
consistency. By adding the relocation provision to the ZSO, the information is readily accessible
to staff and the public.
D.SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 19-002 with
findings based on the following:
·Cleans up the HBZSO to improve clarity, address deficiencies, and maintain currency.
·Codifies existing policies and code interpretations and allows select entitlement
requests to be reviewed by a lower hearing body or to be permitted by right.
·Results in better customer service by providing a clear, prompt, and cost effective
review process.
·Consistent with General Plan goals and policies.
Environmental Status:
ZTA No. 19-002 is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20,
which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act because the request is a minor
amendment to the zoning ordinance that does not change the development standards intensity or
density.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings of Approval - ZTA No. 19-002
2. HBZSO Update Matrix of Changes
3. Ord 4193 - Chapter 210 (Residential Districts) w/Legislative Draft
4. Ord 4194 - Chapter 203 (Definitions) w/Legislative Draft
5. Ord 4195 - Chapter 204 (Use Classifications) w/Legislative Draft
6. Ord 4196 - Chapter 231 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Provisions) w/Legislative Draft
7. Ord 4197 - Chapter 230 (Site Standards) w/Legislative Draft
8. Ord 4198 - Chapter 212 (Industrial Districts) w/Legislative Draft
9. Ord 4199 - Chapter 211 (Commercial Districts) w/Legislative Draft
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™649
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 19-002
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements CEQA
because the request is a minor amendment to the zoning ordinance that does not change the
development standards intensity or density.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 19-002:
1. Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 19-002 to amend Chapter 203 (Definitions), Chapter
204 (Use Classifications), Chapter 210 (Residential Districts), Chapter 211 (Commercial
Districts), Chapter 212 (Industrial Districts), Chapter 230 - Section 230.22 (Residential
Infill Lot Development) and Section 230.74 (Outdoor Facilities), and Chapter 231 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading Provisions) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance (HBZSO) to reorganize certain entitlement applications, codify existing
policies, and clarify sections of the code is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan including:
Land Use Element
Goal LU-11: Commercial land uses provide goods and services to meet regional and
local needs.
Policy LU-11 (A): Encourage a variety of commercial uses that cater to local and
regional demand to create an environment that meets resident needs and increases the
capture of sales tax revenues.
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to
ensure a high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13 (A): Encourage expansion of the range of goods and services provided to
accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
650
Policy LU-2 (E): Intensify the use and strengthen the role of public art, architecture,
landscaping, site design, and development patterns to enhance the visual image of
Huntington Beach.
Policy LU-4 (D): Ensure that single-family residences are of compatible proportion scale
and character to surrounding neighborhoods.
The ZTA will allow the City to process new development and land use applications in a
more effective and efficient manner which will encourage a variety of commercial uses,
goods, and services to meet market needs and capture sales tax revenues. The proposed
amendments would decrease processing time for applicants by updating review
processes, provide clarity, reflect market conditions within the City, and ultimately improve
customer service.
2. In the case of a general land use provision, ZTA No. 19-002 is compatible with the uses
authorized in, and the standards prescribed for the zoning district for which it is proposed
because it primarily revises the processing of entitlements and clarifies various sections of
the HBZSO. The few uses that have been added or clarified will not change the character of
the base zoning district and the uses authorized therein.
3. A community need is demonstrated for the changes proposed because there is a constant
community desire to improve customer service with decreased processing time and ensure
the HBZSO is clear, current, and consistently adapting to market trends.
4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice because ZTA No. 19-002 ensures the HBZSO is clear, current, consistently
adapting to market trends, and reflective of the City’s ongoing effort to improve customer
service.
651
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 19-002 SUMMARY
TOPIC CURRENT PROPOSED
Chapter 203:
DEFINTIONS
Infill Lot Development
Describes applicability of
Residential Infill Standards
Delete definition – replaced with
new Residential Privacy Design
Standards
Parking, Subterranean -- Add new definition for
clarification
Parking, Tandem -- Add new definition for
clarification
Parking Structure
A structure used for parking of
vehicles where parking spaces,
turning radius, and drive aisles
are incorporated within the
structure.
Update definition for clarification
Residential Infill Lot Describes applicability of
Residential Infill Standards
Delete definition – replaced with
new Residential Privacy Design
Standards
Residential Privacy
Design Standards
-- Add new definition to describe
applicability and requirements of
Residential Privacy Design
Standards
Chapter 204: USE
CLASSIFICATIONS
204.10 (H) Commercial
Recreation and
Entertainment
Cyber café having more than
four coin-operated game
machines as regulated by HBMC
Chapter 9.28
Delete reference to HBMC 9.28
which has been repealed
204.10 (GG) 8. Vehicle
Storage
Describes the general business of
storing vehicles
Delete; add three more specific
vehicle storage classifications
204.10 (GG) 8. Vehicle
Storage, Impound Yards
-- Add new definition of impound
yards
204.10 (GG) 9. Vehicle
Storage, Off-Site Auto
Sales
-- Add new definition of off-site
vehicle storage for auto sales
businesses within the City
204.10 (GG) 10. Vehicle
Storage, Recreational
Vehicles
-- Add new definition of the storage
of recreational vehicles
Chapter 210:
RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
210.06 (W) Development
Standards
210.06 (X) Development
Standards
--
--
Add Residential Privacy Design
Standards
Add provision to reference
HBMC 17.28 if
moving/relocating structures
Chapter 211:
652
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS
211.04 CO, CG, and CV
Districts – Land Use
Controls
Vehicle Storage:
ZA in CG Zone
Delete Vehicle Storage use
classification
Add:
Vehicle Storage, Impound Yards
(PC in CG Zone)
Vehicle Storage, Off-Site Auto
Sales (P/ZA in CG Zone)
Vehicle Storage, Recreational
Vehicles (ZA in CG Zone)
Additional provisions for
screening/walls
Chapter 212:
INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICTS
212.04 IG, IL, and RT
Districts – Land Use
Controls
Vehicle Storage:
IG Zone: P
IL Zone: ZA
RT Zone: ZA/PC
Additional provision H**
Delete Vehicle Storage use
classification
Revise additional provision H**
for auto storage uses on public
agency owned property
Add:
Vehicle Storage, Impound Yards
(PC all Zones)
Vehicle Storage, Off-Site Auto
Sales (P/ZA all Zones)
Vehicle Storage, Recreational
Vehicles (ZA all Zones)
Additional provisions for
screening/walls
Chapter 230: SITE
STANDARDS
230.22 Residential Infill
Lot Developments
Describes requirements Infill Lot
Development
Delete section – replaced with
additional provision in 210.06 for
Residential Privacy Design
Standards
230.74 Outdoor Facilities Describes requirements for
outdoor display and storage of
merchandise/materials
Add provision to exceptions in
accordance with revised Vehicle
Storage use classifications
Chapter 231: OFF-
STREET PARKING
AND LOADING
PROVISIONS
231.18 (G) Parking
Structures
Describes development
standards for parking structures
Clarify development standards
and establish design guidelines
for parking structures
Revise to codify existing policy
that allows for maximum 15%
slope with minimum 12 foot long
transitions for ramps that are not
653
used for back up space for
parking stalls
P: Permitted
N/P: Not Permitted
Director: Submitted for staff review
AP/NN: Administrative Permit with Neighborhood Notification
CUP: Conditional Use Permit
ZA: CUP to Zoning Administrator
PC: CUP to Planning Commission
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 (3rd Street Commercial Building)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Councilmember Peterson of the Planning
Commission’s approval of Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No.
19-001. This application is a request to construct a four-story building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft.
of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with an accessible roof top deck on an
8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot. The project includes one level of parking at the ground floor with 34 percent of
the required parking in a vertical tandem configuration (car lifts) and one level of subterranean
parking accessed by a car elevator and a valet parking service. The appeal is based on concerns
regarding the proposed parking design and the potential impacts it may have to the surrounding area.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
City Council Action:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council take the following action(s):
A) Find the Proposed Project Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to
Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457; and,
B) Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 with
findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No.1).
Alternative Action:
A) Continue Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 and
direct staff to return with findings for denial;
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™738
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
B) Continue Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 and
direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Jeff Bergsma, 221 Main Street, Suite S, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Property Owner: Justin Helwig, WBJH Properties, 1112 Park Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Location: 321 3rd Street, 92648 (north side of 3rd Street between Orange Ave. and Olive Ave.)
The project site is a vacant 0.19-acre site located in District 1 of the Downtown Specific Plan (SP 5).
The proposed building will be the headquarters for a local office business with a small-scale retail use
at the ground floor.
A comprehensive description of the proposed project as well as the General Plan and Zoning
analysis can be found in the November 12, 2019 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No.
6).
B.PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 12, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed
project. Testimony in support of the request was received from the applicant and the applicant’s
representatives. Testimony in opposition of the request was received from four adjacent businesses.
The neighboring businesses were concerned with potential queueing of vehicles into the alley and
potential impacts to the loading and unloading of delivery trucks within the alley. Other comments in
opposition also included concerns for impacts to the Downtown public parking.
Commissioners had questions regarding the use being a drug rehabilitation center and the timing and
mechanics of the proposed parking design. Commissioners questioned the efficiency of the proposed
parking design and valet service but overall supported the request and cited that the project met
development standards, and a letter in support was received by a resident across 3
rd Street.
Ultimately, the Planning Commission stated that the parking design was an innovative idea to provide
parking onsite and there were sufficient conditions of approval in place to ensure the operations and
management of the valet service, mechanical lifts, and car elevator are maintained at all times and a
drug rehabilitation center is not permitted within the building.
Planning Commission Action on November 12, 2019
A motion was made by Kalmick, seconded by Grant to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 19-
001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 with findings carried by the following vote:
AYES: Garcia, Grant, Scandura, Ray, Kalmick, Perkins
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Mandic
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™739
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
ABSENT: None
MOTION PASSED
C.APPEAL:
On November 20, 2019, Councilmember Peterson appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of
the project (Attachment No. 8). The appeal was based on concerns regarding the proposed parking
and the potential impacts to the surrounding area.
Access and Parking
Access to the parking area is taken from the public alley from either Orange Avenue or Olive Avenue.
The proposed project requires 41 parking spaces and provides for 41 spaces within two levels of
parking. The retail component requires one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft. and the office use requires
two spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as shown in the breakdown below:
Retail = 1,660 sq. ft./1,000 * 3 = 4.98
Office = 18,000 sq. ft./1000 * 2 = 361
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 41 SPACES
TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = 41 SPACES (With vertical lifts and vehicle elevator)
The Downtown Specific Plan (SP 5) allows for a maximum of 40 percent of required parking for
commercial uses to be provided as tandem parking with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Additionally, in developments where 100 percent of the required parking is provided onsite, the
Planning Commission may still impose parking strategies, such as valet service, to avoid impacts to
public access and parking. In this case, the applicant submitted a parking management plan
(Attachment No. 5) to demonstrate how valet attendants will provide retail customers and office
tenants with access to parking through the vehicle lifts and car elevator.
The parking design includes parking at the ground floor with seven standard stalls and 14 spaces in a
vertical tandem configuration (34 percent of required parking). The vertical tandem spaces are
operated with a mechanical lift where the lift is lowered to the ground and a vehicle is driven onto the
lift and raised to allow another vehicle to park below. The parking layout also includes a subterranean
level that is accessed by a car elevator located within the ground floor parking lot. The car elevator
allows for one car to be lowered into the subterranean level at a time. The subterranean level has 20
standard stalls and bicycle storage.
The applicant proposes a valet service that will be available during all office and retail operating
hours. The valet service includes two attendants on the ground floor and two attendants on the
subterranean level. Each attendant will be equipped with radios to communicate to each other to
operate the service. Upon entering the parking lot, an attendant will park a vehicle on one of the
mechanical lifts and then raise the lift to expose the lower space for another vehicle to park. Once all
ground floor parking spaces are filled, vehicles will be placed on the car elevator and lowered to the
subterranean floor where the two attendants will park them in available spaces. During a peak arrival
time, one attendant from the subterranean level will come up to the ground floor and bring any
queuing vehicles into the car elevator to send them to the subterranean level to provide relief for the
upper level operation and to minimize queuing into the alley. The parking management plan states it
takes approximately three minutes and 20 seconds to utilize the car elevator method and
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™740
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
takes approximately three minutes and 20 seconds to utilize the car elevator method and
approximately one minute and 45 seconds for the mechanical lifts from the time a driver enters the
garage, hands the key off, and the valet attendant gets the vehicle parked. If a vehicle is within the
subterranean parking level, an attendant on the ground floor will radio an attendant below to retrieve
the vehicle and send it up the car elevator. When a vehicle is on a lift, one attendant will move the
vehicle parked below while another attendant will lower the claimed vehicle. In addition, as spaces
open up at the end of the day, vehicles will be moved into easily accessible spaces to ensure vehicle
retrieval is expedited.
A survey of other cities that allow for alternative parking designs similar to the proposed project also
require a covenant and agreement regarding maintenance of the mechanical parking system to
ensure the parking system is maintained in operable condition at all times. Furthermore, the covenant
requires the automated parking systems be equipped with an onsite generator with sufficient capacity
to store and retrieve cars when the power is down. Mechanical lifts must provide manual override
capability to access or remove cars from the parking lift in the event of a power outage; and if the
facility is inoperable for more than three days, what the operator’s plan would be to accommodate the
parking of vehicles until the system is fully operational.
To ensure availability of code required parking at all times, a condition of approval is in place for the
recordation of a covenant to permanently implement and maintain the parking management plan and
mechanical parking system as described. The covenant as well as the conditions of approval include
specific instructions such as requiring the operator to notify the Community Development Department
within 24-hours of any failure of the mechanical system in order for the Department to monitor the
situation and enforce an alternative parking plan as necessary. The covenant and the conditions of
approval state the parking system shall not be inoperable for more than five days. However, in the
event the issues cannot be resolved within five days, the operator must submit evidence that the
parking issues are being actively addressed for resolution and the operator shall continue to work
with the Department to employ alternative parking strategies until the parking system is operable.
Queueing and Loading
Queueing of vehicles cannot occur within the adjacent public alley right-of-way. The Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) addresses queueing for uses such as drive
through services and specifies a number of spaces for the stacking of vehicles in a manner that
would not impede traffic in the adjacent area. For instance, a drive through restaurant requires queue
space for five cars per service window to ensure that vehicles do not spill over onto an adjacent
property or within the public right-of-way. In addition, when barriers or gates are proposed at property
entrances, the HBZSO requires a minimum 20 ft. setback so that vehicles waiting to enter a site do
not block or impede traffic flow on the adjacent street system.
In other cities that allow for this type of alternative, space-efficient parking design, a queueing area is
also required. For example, the City of Santa Monica requires that off-street queueing space at the
entrance of the parking garage be provided at a minimum rate of five percent of the total parking
spaces. A challenge is that the HBZSO does not explicitly address this alternative parking system
and therefore does not specify a specific queueing area requirement for this design. The applicant
has not proposed any queueing areas onsite; and instead, is proposing to stagger the start time of
the office employees. Because the office use is a headquarters for one business, staggering of the
start times is feasible. Based on the applicant’s narrative (Attachment No. 3), the hours of operation
of the retail and office use is 7:00am to 7:00pm and there is a condition of approval to require the
valet service during all hours of operation and until the last vehicle is retrieved from the parkingCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™741
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
valet service during all hours of operation and until the last vehicle is retrieved from the parking
garage. However, in the event the building is sold to a new property owner and/or leased out to
multiple tenants, another condition of approval requires the property owner to submit an updated
parking management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to another occupant. In addition, to ensure the proposed
parking design is easy to use for a mix of uses, i.e., long-term users such as office employees and
short-term retail customers with a higher turnover rate, the retail customers will be kept off the lifts
and parked in the standard ground floor stalls to expedite their departure. In addition, the Planning
Commission added a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a plan that specifies
the staggered start times for employees to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and that plan will be included in the parking management plan.
Lastly, to address potential impacts from truck deliveries or loading and unloading, a condition of
approval requires that truck deliveries or loading and unloading shall occur offsite in the designated
loading areas on public streets, and will occur outside of peak arrival and departure times to ensure
traffic impacts within the alley are minimized.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is covered by the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 08-1, which was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach on January 19, 2010. The request to
construct approximately 19,660 sq. ft. building with 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor, 18,000
sq. ft. of office above, and a roof top deck on a 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot is subject to compliance with
the adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 08-1. The
project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for projects in conformity with that specific plan. The project is consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or
more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously
certified Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan project (EIR No. 08-1) and the project is
conditioned to comply with all applicable EIR No. 08-1 mitigation measures. In light of the whole
record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines are present;
and therefore, no EIR or MND is required.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain high quality City services
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for CDP 19-001/CUP 19-001
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Narrative Dated April 3, 2019
4. Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations Received October 14, 2019
5. Parking Management Plan Dated August 2, 2019
6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 12, 2019
7. PC Notice of Action Dated November 13, 2019
8. Appeal of Planning Commission Action Dated November 20, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™742
File #:19-1205 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™743
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-001
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19-001
FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA:
The proposed project is covered by the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 08-1, which was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach on January 19, 2010. The
request to construct approximately 19,660 sq. ft. building with 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground
floor, 18,000 sq. ft. of office above, and a roof top deck on a 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot is subject to
compliance with the adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 08-1. The project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to
prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for projects in conformity with that
specific plan. The project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. Furthermore,
implementation of the project would not result in any new or more severe potentially adverse
environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously certified Program EIR for the
Downtown Specific Plan project (EIR No. 08-1) and the project is conditioned to comply with all
applicable EIR No. 08-1 mitigation measures. In light of the whole record, none of the
circumstances described under Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines are present; and therefore,
no EIR or MND is required.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-001:
1. Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 to construct a four-story building with approximately
1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with an accessible
roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot conforms with the General Plan, including the Local
Coastal Program because it is consistent with Coastal Element C 1.1.1, which encourages
development within, or contiguous to or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to
accommodate it. The proposed construction of a new commercial building is located on a site
that is contiguous to existing commercial buildings.
2. The request for Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 to construct a four-story building with
approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with
an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot is consistent with the requirements
of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of
the Municipal Code because the project complies with the minimum onsite parking, upper
story setbacks, setbacks, building height, and all other zoning requirements.
3. At the time of occupancy, the proposed request to Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001
to construct a four-story building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor
and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant
lot can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with Local Coastal
Program in that the subdivided lot will allow for the construction of a commercial building on a
site in an urbanized area with all necessary services and infrastructure available, including
water, sewer, and roadways.
744
The proposed request to Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 to construct a four-story
building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office
above with an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot conforms with the public
access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act because the
proposed development will not impede public access, recreation, or views to coastal resources.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19-001:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 for the development to construct a four-story building with
approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with
an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot and includes one level of parking at
the ground floor with 34 percent of the required parking in a vertical tandem configuration (car
lifts) and one level of subterranean parking accessed by a car elevator and a valet parking
service will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the
vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The
project will improve the existing underutilized parcel of land with a development consistent
with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. The project is located in the
downtown core area (District 1), which promotes visitor-serving commercial developments.
The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, will be
designed on a pedestrian scale and character, and will meet the goals and policies of the
General Plan. Additionally, the proposed retail and office use is similar to those existing uses
in the vicinity. The project will not result in any adverse or significant environmental impacts
including traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, and hazardous materials. Due to upper story
setbacks on the third and fourth floors, the project will be consistent in massing and scale to
adjacent commercial and residential uses. Proposed improvements include enhanced
landscaping, decorative paving, and quality architectural design throughout the site.
Furthermore, the layout of the site improves the visual surroundings by taking vehicular
access from the rear public alley, hence minimizing the visibility of the parking garage
entrance. The project complies with retail and office parking requirements and proposes a
valet service to operate the proposed mechanical vehicle lifts and car elevator in order to
make the required parking spaces accessible at all times.
2. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 for the development to construct a four-
story building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft.
of office above with an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot and includes
one level of parking at the ground floor with 34 percent of the required parking in a vertical
tandem configuration (car lifts) and one level of subterranean parking accessed by a car
elevator and a valet parking service will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is M-sp (30-50 du/ac)
(Mixed-Use - Specific Plan Overlay – 30-50 dwelling units/acre) and the zoning designation is
SP5–CZ–District 1 (Downtown Specific Plan – Coastal Zone Overlay – Downtown Core). The
proposed project will implement both the General Plan and specific plan designations of the
site. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of these designations, and the goals
and policies of the City’s General Plan as follows:
745
A. Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New Commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to
ensure that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the
community.
Policy LU-1A: Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations
presented in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable
to each land use designation.
Policy LU-1B: Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of
environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C: Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D: Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale
and character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2B: Ensure that new renovated structures and building architecture and site
design are context-sensitive, creative, complementary to the city’s beach culture, and
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy LU-2E: Intensify the use and strengthen the role of public art, architecture,
landscaping, site design, and development patterns to enhance the visual image of
Huntington Beach.
Policy LU-7B: Use street trees, signage, landscaping, street furniture, public art, and other
aesthetic elements to enhance the appearance and identify the subareas, neighborhoods,
corridors, nodes, and public spaces.
Policy LU-8B: Encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and
unique architecture.
Policy LU-8D: Reinforce the unique Downtown character and visual distinctions,
architecture, and streetscape.
Goal LU-11: Commercial land uses provide goods and services to meet regional and local
needs.
Policy LU-11A: Encourage a variety of commercial uses that cater to local and regional
demand to create an environment that meets resident needs and increases the capture of
sales tax revenues.
Policy LU-11B: Encourage new businesses to locate on existing vacant or underutilized
commercial properties where these properties have good locations and accessibility.
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure
a high quality of life and thriving industry.
746
Policy LU-13A: Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided to
accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
B. Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-2D: Allow for shared parking and other creative parking arrangements that
optimize available parking areas, and support and collaborate with property owners to
manage the available parking supply. Identify rideshare service opportunities that could
reduce parking demand, where feasible.
The four-story building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000
sq. ft. of office above with an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot is
coordinated and ensures the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs
of the community because the project is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of land
use, building scale and character. The proposed project also enhances the visual image of
Huntington Beach and the Downtown area because the project proposes a public art
component within the public open space area and a contemporary architectural design aligns
with the character of the neighborhood and the distinct Surf City identity. In addition, the
proposed project will be constructed on a vacant lot, which will promote infill development and
encourage a new business to locate within the Downtown area. Furthermore, the project will
provide a variety of commercial uses, services, and provide job opportunities for residents and
the regional area. Lastly, the project proposes a parking management plan that includes a
valet service to manage the use of mechanical vehicle lifts and a car elevator that allows cars
to be lowered into a subterranean parking area. The parking management plan and the use
of mechanical vehicle lifts and a car elevator offers a creative parking arrangement while
meeting the Downtown Specific Plan’s required number of parking spaces.
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 for the development to construct a four-story building with
approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with
an accessible roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot and includes one level of parking at
the ground floor with 34 percent of the required parking in a vertical tandem configuration (car
lifts) and one level of subterranean parking accessed by a car elevator and a valet parking
service complies with all provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan and applicable provisions
in Titles 20 through 25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The
project complies with the development standards in terms of setbacks, upper story setbacks,
building height, public open space, and parking. The project complies with retail and office
parking requirements and proposes 34 percent of the required parking in a vert ical tandem
configuration (car lifts) which is allowed with the approval of a conditional use permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-001/
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19-001:
1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated October 14, 2019 shall be the
conceptually approved design with the following modifications:
a. Ground floor public open space shall include landscaping, decorative lighting, and
seating amenities.
b. Second floor public open space shall provide seating amenities and landscaping.
c. Remove any proposed awnings or canopies that will project over the property line.
747
d. Identify the location and copy of ground floor signage directing the public to the
available second floor public open space area.
e. Remove the steel channel across the elevator shaft. The entire elevator shaft shall be
brick only.
f. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Community
Development Department with an updated colors and material board for the smooth
stucco, brick color, grout color, and railings as recommended by the Design Review
Board. Revised materials and colors shall be reflected on plans.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a. An application for a Lot Line Adjustment to adjust the underlying lot lines to result in
one lot must be approved by the City and recorded with the County Clerk Recorder’s
Office.
b. The proposed public art shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review by the Design Review Board and approved by the Community
Development Director.
3. The use shall comply with the following:
a. The approved use is for ground floor visitor serving commercial uses and a corporate
office headquarters on the upper levels. Any proposed change to the approved uses
requires review and approval by the Community Development Department to ensure
provision of code required parking spaces.
b. The corporate office headquarter use shall not include drug abuse or alcohol recovery
or treatment centers in any form. Drug abuse centers, general residential alcohol
recovery centers, or general residential care or treatment facilities, which may include
drop-in or 24-hour residential and/or nonmedical services in a group setting to adults
who are recovering from drug and alcohol misuse who need guidance, counseling, or
other alcohol or drug recovery services are not permitted. Additionally, any drug abuse
or alcohol recovery programs which include daytime stays for prolonged periods of
time or meals provided during the course of the client’s stay are not permitted.
c. All business operations for the office and retail use shall occur entirely indoors unless
approval is obtained by the Community Development Department.
4. The parking management plan (PMP) dated August 2, 2019 shall be the conceptually
approved plan with the following modifications:
a. The PMP shall be updated to state the valet service shall be made available during all
business hours of both the visitor serving commercial and the corporate office
headquarters. The valet service shall permanently operate in accordance with the
revised parking management plan.
b. The floor plans in the PMP shall be replaced with the plans dated October 14, 2019.
748
c. A detailed plan (as described in Condition of Approval No. 5) approved by the
Community Development Department that specifies staggered start time of employees
shall be included.
5. A detailed plan that demonstrates the staggered start time of employees shall be submitted
for the review and approval by the Community Development Department. The plan shall
include but is not limited to the day and time for each staggered shift and the number of
employees per shift.
6. The valet service shall have two attendants on the ground floor and two attendants on the
subterranean level during peak hours of operation for both the office and retail use.
7. At least one valet attendant shall be onsite during all operating hours and until the last vehicle
is retrieved.
8. A wired communication system approved by the Fire Department shall be installed within
both levels of parking and maintained at all times. Radios used for the valet service
operations shall also include approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the
building based upon existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems.
9. The business operator for the office use shall stagger the start time of employees so that
multiple employees do not arrive at the same time to ensure queueing does not occur within
the public alley.
10. If there is a change in occupancy, a new parking management and valet attendant plan shall
be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
11. Queueing within the public alley shall not occur at any time.
12. Idling of delivery trucks, loading, and unloading shall occur within designated Downtown
loading areas on public streets. Deliveries shall be scheduled to occur during non-peak hours
of arrival or departure times to ensure traffic impacts are minimized. Delivery vehicles shall
not block the public alley.
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a covenant regarding maintenance of the
mechanical parking system to ensure both the vehicle lifts and the vehicle elevator are
maintained in operable condition at all times shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and the City Attorney’s Office for review and approval with the
following information included:
a. The covenant shall reference the approved parking management plan dated August
2, 2019. The parking management plan shall be an addendum to the covenant.
b. An onsite generator with sufficient capacity to store and retrieve cars for a minimum of
three days shall be provided.
c. The mechanical lifts and car elevator shall provide a manual override capability to
access or remove cars in the event of a power outage.
749
d. In the event the parking system is inoperable, the operator shall notify the Community
Development Department within 24-hours and identify implementation of alternative
parking strategies.
e. A plan shall be included that addresses the location (e.g., partial onsite, offsite, shared
parking agreement, etc.) of where vehicles can park in the event the parking system
is inoperable for more than three days. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the covenant. If the
parking system cannot be operable within five days, the operator shall submit evidence
that the parking issues are actively being resolved on a more permanent basis and the
operator shall continue to work with the Community Development Department until the
parking system is operable.
f. If the building is sold, transferred, or leased, prior to issuance of a new certificate of
occupancy, the new occupant or property owner shall submit an updated parking
management plan for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
g. The covenant shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder’s Office prior to
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
14. Roof access shall be controlled for the use of employees only during regular business hours
(and no later than 10:00 PM). Posting of rules on the roof top area shall include acceptable
activities, behaviors, and roof hours. (PD)
15. Surveillance cameras must be installed throughout the building including inside and outside
the elevator, both levels of parking, storage room, and roof top area. Cameras must record
24 hours per day and signs must be posted stating there is electronic surveillance. (PD)
16. A Duel Knox Box shall be installed to allow the Fire Department and Police Department
access into the parking garage. (PD)
17. Lighting in the storage room within the subterranean level shall be motion-sensor only. (PD)
18. A security window shall be installed on the storage room door for visibility into the room prior
to entering. (PD)
19. Storage room door shall open outward with emergency hardware installed for quick exit. (PD)
20. Prior to submittal of building permits, the following shall be completed: zoning entitlement
numbers, conditions of approval and code requirements shall be printed verbatim on one of
the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits
(architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the
sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point.
21. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in
writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the
project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of
planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of
work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit,
750
a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department.
22. CDP 19-001 and CUP 19-001 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years
of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director
pursuant to a written request submitted to the Community Development Department a
minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date.
23. The Development Services Departments and divisions (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and
Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code
requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Community Development may
approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on
changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed
plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building
permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have
reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning
Commission’s action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to
the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to
the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. The applicant and/or applicant’s representative shall be responsible for ensuring the
accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval.
2. The final building permit(s) cannot be approved until the following have been completed:
a. All improvements must be completed in accordance with approved plans.
b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be verified by the
Community Development Department.
c. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable
material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them.
3. Incorporating sustainable or “green” building practices into the design of the proposed
structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building
practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U.S. Green Building
Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification
(http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19) or Build It Green’s Green Building
Guidelines and Rating Systems http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building-guidelines-
rating).
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION:
The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different
from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney’s fees and costs against the City or
its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City,
including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or
Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
751
VICINITY MAP
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-001/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19-001
3rd STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
BY:Jessica Bui, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19-001/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
19-001 (3
RD STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING) (CONTINUED FROM THE
OCTOBER 22, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN)
REQUEST:
To construct a four-story building with approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the
ground floor and 18,000 sq. ft. of office above with an accessible roof top deck
on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot. The project includes one level of parking at the
ground floor with 34 percent of the required parking in a vertical tandem
configuration (car lifts) and one level of subterranean parking accessed by a car
elevator and a valet parking service.
LOCATION:
321 3rd Street, 92648 (north side of 3rd St. between Orange Ave. and Olive Ave.)
APPLICANT:
Jeff Bergsma, 221 Main Street, Suite S, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROPERTY
OWNER/
BUSINESS
OWNER:
Justin Helwig, WBJH Properties, 1112 Park Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
1. Is the project proposal consistent with the City of Huntington Beach’s adopted land use
regulations (i.e. General Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code including the Downtown Specific
Plan)?
2. Does the project satisfy all the findings required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit
and Conditional Use Permit?
3. Has the environmental analysis adequately identified all environmental impacts with
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 1 of 10
powered by Legistar™768
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
appropriate mitigation?
ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions:
A) Find the proposed project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code 65457 and approve Coastal
Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 19-001 with suggested findings and
conditions of approval. (Attachment No. 1).
B) Continue the public hearing for Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 19-001 and direct staff to return with findings for denial.
C) Continue the public hearing for Coastal Development Permit No. 19-001 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 19-001 and direct staff accordingly.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Background:
The applicant requested to continue this project from the regular meeting on October 22, 2019 to the
November 12, 2019 meeting. At the October 22, 2019 meeting, the chair opened the public hearing
and the Planning Commission confirmed the continuance to the next meeting with the public hearing
open.
The project site is a vacant .19-acre site located in District 1 of the Downtown Specific Plan (SP 5).
The project proposes to construct a four-story building with 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor,
18,000 sq. ft. of office on the three floors above and a roof top deck. The project also proposes an
alternative parking design, which includes one level of parking at the ground floor with 34 percent of
the required parking in a vertical tandem configuration with mechanical car lifts and one level of
subterranean parking that is accessed by a car elevator. The proposed building will be the
headquarters for a local office business with a small-scale retail use at the ground floor.
Coastal Development Permit: to construct an approximately 19,660 sq. ft. building with 1,660 sq. ft. of
retail on the ground floor, 18,000 sq. ft. of office above, and a roof top deck on an 8,475 sq. ft. vacant
lot in the Coastal Zone.
Conditional Use Permit: to permit 34 percent of required on-site commercial parking as vertical
tandem parking with a parking management plan for valet services.
Study Session:
The Planning Commission held a Study Session on October 8, 2019 and discussed many topics
including hours of operation, valet service operations, a covenant and agreement regarding
maintenance of the parking system, and Design Review Board action. Please see the “Zoning
Compliance” section of this staff report for more information.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 2 of 10
powered by Legistar™769
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
Subject Property And Surrounding General Plan Designations, Zoning And Land Uses:
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE
Subject Property:M - sp (Mixed Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP 5 (Downtown Specific
Plan)
Vacant
North, East, and
West of Subject
Property:
M - sp (Mixed Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP 5 (Downtown Specific
Plan)
Commercial
South of Subject
Property:
M - sp (Mixed Use -
Specific Plan Overlay)
SP 5 (Downtown Specific
Plan)
Single Family
Residential
General Plan Conformance:
The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the property is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay.
The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the goals and policies of the City’s
General Plan as follows:
A.Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: New Commercial, industrial, and residential development is coordinated to ensure
that the land use pattern is consistent with the overall goals and needs of the community.
Policy LU-1A:Ensure that development is consistent with the land use designations presented
in the Land Use Map, including density, intensity, and use standards applicable to each land
use designation.
Policy LU-1B:Ensure new development supports the protection and maintenance of
environmental and open spaces resources.
Policy LU-1C:Support infill development, consolidation of parcels, and adaptive reuse of
existing buildings.
Policy LU-1D:Ensure that new development projects are of compatible proportion, scale and
character to complement adjoining uses.
Policy LU-2B: Ensure that new renovated structures and building architecture and site design
are context-sensitive, creative, complementary to the city’s beach culture, and compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
Policy LU-2E: Intensify the use and strengthen the role of public art, architecture, landscaping,
site design, and development patterns to enhance the visual image of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU-7B: Use street trees, signage, landscaping, street furniture, public art, and other
aesthetic elements to enhance the appearance and identify the subareas, neighborhoods,
corridors, nodes, and public spaces.
Policy LU-8B: Encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 3 of 10
powered by Legistar™770
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
Policy LU-8B: Encourage development of underused parcels with a mix of uses and unique
architecture.
Policy LU-8D: Reinforce the unique Downtown character and visual distinctions, architecture,
and streetscape.
Goal LU-11: Commercial land uses provide goods and services to meet regional and local
needs.
Policy LU-11A: Encourage a variety of commercial uses that cater to local and regional
demand to create an environment that meets resident needs and increases the capture of
sales tax revenues.
Policy LU-11B: Encourage new businesses to locate on existing vacant or underutilized
commercial properties where these properties have good locations and accessibility.
Goal LU-13: The city provides opportunities for new businesses and employees to ensure a
high quality of life and thriving industry.
Policy LU-13A: Encourage the expansion of the range of goods and services provided to
accommodate the needs of all residents and the market area.
B.Circulation Element
Goal CIRC-2D: Allow for shared parking and other creative parking arrangements that
optimize available parking areas, and support and collaborate with property owners to manage
the available parking supply. Identify rideshare service opportunities that could reduce parking
demand, where feasible.
The development project is coordinated to ensure the land use pattern is consistent with the overall
goals and needs of the community in that the mixed use building complements the surrounding area
in terms of land use, building scale and character. The proposed project also enhances the visual
image of the Downtown area because a public art component is proposed within the public open
space area and the contemporary architectural design aligns with the character of the neighborhood
and the distinct Surf City identity because it complements recent developments in the area such as
Pacific City. In addition, the proposed project will be constructed on a vacant lot, which will promote
infill development and encourage a new office business to locate within the Downtown area which will
provide day-time population to patronize local restaurants and retail establishments. Furthermore, the
project will provide office and retail commercial uses to provide job opportunities for residents and the
regional area. Lastly, the project proposes a parking management plan that includes a valet service
to manage the use of mechanical vehicle lifts and a car elevator to transfer vehicles into a
subterranean parking area. The parking management plan and the use of mechanical vehicle lifts
and a car elevator offers a creative parking arrangement while meeting the Downtown Specific Plan’s
required number of parking spaces.
Zoning Compliance:
The proposed project is located within District 1 of the Downtown Specific Plan (SP5) and complies
with the development standards within District 1. The intent of District 1 is to promote visitor-serving
mixed-use commercial and office uses. The purpose of the district is to establish the area as theCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 4 of 10
powered by Legistar™771
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
mixed-use commercial and office uses. The purpose of the district is to establish the area as the
downtown core with the highest intensity of development concentrated within the District 1 area
emphasizing visitor-serving and coastal-related commercial uses.
Land Use Compatibility
The project is compatible with the existing and anticipated land uses in the surrounding area. The
properties to the north, east, and west are one- and two-story commercial buildings with retail and
office uses. To the south of the site are newly constructed, three-story single-family residences
approximately 60 ft. away from the project site boundary. SP5 anticipated commercial and offices
uses to be established in this area; and therefore, should not significantly impact the residences.
Visitor-Serving Requirements
District 1 of SP5 requires that visitor-serving uses be provided for all ground floor square footage.
Visitor-serving uses are typically commercial uses such as food service, hotels, motels, retail sales,
cultural uses, and amusement areas for tourists. The proposed project complies with this requirement
and provides approximately 1,660 sq. ft. of retail space. The ground floor retail space creates a
connection to the pedestrian environment. Based on the parking provided, the retail space can
accommodate an eating and drinking establishment with less than 12 seats or a general retail sales
use.
Development Standards
The proposed project complies with all development standards within District 1 of SP5 such as
minimum parcel size, building height, upper story setback; front, side, and rear setbacks, and public
open space requirements. The applicant is not requesting any deviations or waivers of development
standards.
Access and Parking
Access to the parking area is taken from the public alley from either Orange Avenue or Olive Avenue.
The proposed project requires 41 parking spaces and provides for 41 spaces within two levels of
parking. The retail component requires one parking space per 1,000 sq. ft. and the office use requires
two spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as shown in the breakdown below:
Retail = 1,660 sq. ft./1,000 * 3 = 4.98
Office = 18,000 sq. ft./1000 * 2 = 361
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 41 SPACES
TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED = 41 SPACES (With vertical lifts and vehicle elevator)
The Downtown Specific Plan (SP 5) allows for a maximum of 40 percent of required parking for
commercial uses to be provided as tandem parking with the approval of a conditional use permit.
Additionally, in developments where 100 percent of the required parking is provided onsite, the
Planning Commission may still impose parking strategies, such as valet service, to avoid impacts to
public access and parking. In this case, the applicant submitted a parking management plan
(Attachment No. 4) to demonstrate how valet attendants will provide retail customers and office
tenants with access to parking through the vehicle lifts and car elevator.
The parking design includes parking at the ground floor with seven standard stalls and 14 spaces in a
vertical tandem configuration (34 percent of required parking). The vertical tandem spaces are
operated with a mechanical lift where the lift is lowered to the ground and a vehicle is driven onto the
lift and raised to allow another vehicle to park below. The parking layout also includes a subterraneanCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 5 of 10
powered by Legistar™772
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
lift and raised to allow another vehicle to park below. The parking layout also includes a subterranean
level that is accessed by a car elevator located within the ground floor parking lot. The car elevator
allows for one car to be lowered into the subterranean level at a time. The subterranean level has 20
standard stalls and bicycle storage.
The applicant proposes a valet service that will be available during all office and retail operating
hours. The valet service includes two attendants on the ground floor and two attendants on the
subterranean level. Each attendant will be equipped with radios to communicate to each other to
operate the service. Upon entering the parking lot, an attendant will park a vehicle on one of the
mechanical lifts and then raise the lift to expose the lower space for another vehicle to park. Once all
ground floor parking spaces are filled, vehicles will be placed on the car elevator and lowered to the
subterranean floor where the two attendants will park them in available spaces. During a peak arrival
time, one attendant from the subterranean level will come up to the ground floor and bring any
queuing vehicles into the car elevator to send them to the subterranean level to provide relief for the
upper level operation and to minimize queuing into the alley. The parking management plan states it
takes approximately three minutes and 20 seconds to utilize the car elevator method and
approximately one minute and 45 seconds for the mechanical lifts. The retrieval of vehicles is similar
in time. If a vehicle is within the subterranean parking level, an attendant on the ground floor will radio
an attendant below to retrieve the vehicle and send it up the car elevator. When a vehicle is on a lift,
one attendant will move the vehicle parked below while another attendant will lower the claimed
vehicle. In addition, as spaces open up at the end of the day, vehicles will be moved into easily
accessible spaces to ensure vehicle retrieval is expedited.
A survey of other cities that allow for alternative parking designs similar to the proposed project also
require a covenant and agreement regarding maintenance of the mechanical parking system to
ensure the parking system is maintained in operable condition at all times. Furthermore, the covenant
requires the automated parking systems be equipped with an onsite generator with sufficient capacity
to store and retrieve cars when the power is down. Mechanical lifts must provide manual override
capability to access or remove cars from the parking lift in the event of a power outage; and if the
facility is inoperable for more than three days, what the operator’s plan would be to accommodate the
parking of vehicles until the system is fully operational.
To ensure availability of code required parking at all times, staff recommends a condition of approval
for a recorded covenant to permanently implement and maintain the parking management plan and
mechanical parking system as described. The covenant as well as the conditions of approval will also
include specific instructions such as requiring the operator to notify the Community Development
Department within 24-hours of any failure of the mechanical system in order for the Department to
monitor the situation and enforce an alternative parking plan as necessary. The covenant and the
conditions of approval shall state the parking system shall not be inoperable for more than five days.
However, in the event the issues cannot be resolved within five days, the operator must submit
evidence that the parking issues are being actively addressed for resolution and the operator shall
continue to work with the Department to employ alternative parking strategies until the parking
system is operable.
Queueing and Loading
Queueing of vehicles cannot occur within the adjacent public alley right-of-way. The Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) addresses queueing for uses such as drive
through services and specifies a number of spaces for the stacking of vehicles in a manner that
would not impede traffic in the adjacent area. For instance, a drive through restaurant requires queueCity of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 6 of 10
powered by Legistar™773
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
would not impede traffic in the adjacent area. For instance, a drive through restaurant requires queue
space for five cars per service window to ensure that vehicles do not spill over onto an adjacent
property or within the public right-of-way. In addition, when barriers or gates are proposed at property
entrances, the HBZSO requires a minimum 20 ft. setback so that vehicles waiting to enter a site do
not block or impede traffic flow on the adjacent street system.
In other cities that allow for this type of alternative, space-efficient parking design, a queueing area is
also required. For example, the City of Santa Monica requires that off-street queueing space at the
entrance of the parking garage be provided at a minimum rate of five percent of the total parking
spaces. A challenge is that the HBZSO does not explicitly address this alternative parking system
and therefore does not specify a specific queueing area requirement for this design. The applicant
has not proposed any queueing areas onsite; and instead, is proposing to stagger the start time of
the office employees. Because the office use is a headquarters for one business, staggering of the
start times is feasible. Based on the applicant’s narrative (Attachment No. 3), the proposed hours of
operation of the retail and office use is 7:00am to 7:00pm and a condition of approval is
recommended to require the valet service during all hours of operation and until the last vehicle is
retrieved from the parking garage. However, in the event the building is sold to a new property owner
and/or leased out to multiple tenants, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the property
owner to submit an updated parking management plan for review and approval by the Community
Development Director prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to another occupant. In
addition, to ensure the proposed parking design is easy to use for a mix of uses, i.e., long-term users
such as office employees and short-term retail customers with a higher turnover rate, the retail
customers will be kept off the lifts and parked in the standard ground floor stalls to expedite their
departure.
Lastly, to address potential impacts from truck deliveries or loading and unloading, a condition of
approval is recommended to require that truck deliveries, or loading and unloading shall occur offsite
in the designated loading areas on public streets, and will occur outside of peak arrival and departure
times to ensure traffic impacts within the alley are minimized.
Public Open Space
Public open space is required for this project and must provide a minimum of five percent of the
gross site area. Based on the size of the lot, the project must provide 424 sq. ft. of public open space.
Twenty-five percent of the required public open space may be provided above the street level;
however, the above street level public open space must be readily visible and obviously accessible to
the general public with adequate public access signage. Public open space areas must provide for
landscaping, seating amenities, decorative lighting, planters, fountains or water features, distinctive
paving, decorative tiles, public art, or bicycle racks.
The project provides for approximately 406 sq. ft. of public open space with landscaping amenities at
the ground floor, adjacent to the entry of the building and 108 sq. ft. above the street level, located at
the landing of the staircase on the second floor. The applicant is proposing a public art component at
the second floor public open space area with some seating amenities. In order to comply with the
intent of the public open space requirement, staff recommends a condition of approval that the public
art component is relocated to the street level with seating amenities and decorative lighting in order
to meet the intent of District 1, which is to create an active pedestrian environment. The second floor
public open space area should provide seating amenities and landscaping that could serve as
additional viewing area for the public art component.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 7 of 10
powered by Legistar™774
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
The Downtown Specific Plan Design Guidelines provide the minimum qualitative design expectations
for the downtown area. All development is required to comply with the spirit and intent of the design
guidelines. Building forms and facades influence cohesiveness, comfort, and aesthetic pride and at
the same time promote general pedestrian activity, encourage shopping, and an increased sense of
security. Where commercial buildings are neighbors to residential buildings or where infill buildings
are being constructed, consideration of scale, detail, and materials is very important. The massing
and scale of structures should remain in harmony with the surrounding natural setting and existing
structures.
The proposed building creates a contrast with the surrounding buildings by providing a more
contemporary architectural theme that includes a flat roof, a tower element with the elevator shaft
along the street front, large window glazing systems, and metal awnings. The building incorporates
architectural design principles such as orienting the building to the pedestrian environment with
primarily glass storefronts to provide the human scale element that separates the first floor of retail
with the office space above. Building volumes are articulated with the elevator shaft which provides
variation in wall planes to reduce the massing. The building complies with the requirement of a
minimum of an average of 10 ft. for an upper story setback from the front façade at the third and
fourth floors, which further reduces the mass, and bulk of the building along the street front. The
building façade also incorporates a variety of building materials to provide visual interest, especially
along the street front and includes smooth stucco, brick material, metal awning elements, and metal
railings. The street front also includes a public open space area that will be landscaped; and as
conditioned, will provide a public art component, and will enhance the aesthetics at the pedestrian
level and activate a space for public use. Overall, the building form, height, materials, and
architectural design is consistent with the SP5 Design Guidelines and the vision of the Specific Plan.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is covered by the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 08-1, which was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach on January 19, 2010. The request to
construct approximately 19,660 sq. ft. building with 1,660 sq. ft. of retail on the ground floor, 18,000
sq. ft. of office above, and a roof top deck on a 8,475 sq. ft. vacant lot is subject to compliance with
the adopted mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 08-1. The
project is exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that when an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) has been prepared for a specific plan, there is no need to prepare an EIR or Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for projects in conformity with that specific plan. The project is consistent with the
Downtown Specific Plan. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not result in any new or
more severe potentially adverse environmental impacts that were not considered in the previously
certified Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan project (EIR No. 08-1) and the project is
conditioned to comply with all applicable EIR No. 08-1 mitigation measures. In light of the whole
record, none of the circumstances described under Section 15162 of CEQA Guidelines are present;
and therefore, no EIR or MND is required.
Coastal Status:
The project is located within the non-appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. CDP 19-001 is being
processed pursuant to Chapter 245 of the HBZSO. The proposed project complies with the zoning
code and Coastal Zone requirements and will implement the Coastal Element objective and policies
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 8 of 10
powered by Legistar™775
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
as outlined in the General Plan Conformance section of this report.
Design Review Board:
The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the proposed design, colors, and materials for the project
on September 12, 2019 and recommended approval with conditions to the Planning Commission
(Attachment No. 6). The conditions include 1) provide brick on the elevator shaft with a less varied
color; 2) provide brick from the ground floor to the second floor windowsill; and 3) provide a lighter
shade of stucco on the third and fourth floors that matches the grout in the brick element. In addition,
an updated color and materials board must be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department. The applicant has already implemented all three of the Design Review
Board’s recommendations. Along with the DRB’s recommended revisions, the applicant added a
new horizontal steel element that spans across the elevator shaft in one location. Staff is
recommending removal of the horizontal steel because it breaks up the vertical element of the
elevator feature. The elevator shaft should be one, continuous vertical element for cohesiveness, to
create variation in the wall planes, and to provide visual interest along the street front.
Subdivision Committee:
Not applicable.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The Building Division, the Departments of Public Works, Fire and Police, and the Office of Business
Development, have reviewed the proposed development project. Recommended conditions are
incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code requirements have also been
identified (Attachment No. 7).
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave on October 10, 2019, and notices were
sent to property owners and record of occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject property,
individuals/organizations requesting notification (Community Development Department’s Notification
Matrix), and applicant. Written communications received prior to the October 22, 2019 Planning
Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Application Processing Dates:
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
August 28, 2019 November 26, 2019
SUMMARY:
- Consistent with the M-sp (Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay) Land Use Designation of the
General Plan and the SP5 - Downtown Specific Plan zoning designation.
- Implements the objectives of SP5 to create an economically vibrant, pedestrian oriented
destination.
- Consistent with SP5 development standards and compatible with the surrounding and
anticipated land uses.
- Creates an environment that supports pedestrian and bicycle activity and increases visitor-
serving uses.
- The project meets the requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
- The project will enhance the local economy, provide additional revenue to the City, create jobs,
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 9 of 10
powered by Legistar™776
File #:19-1090 MEETING DATE:11/12/2019
and provide an additional visitor-serving use in District 1 of SP5.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Narrative Received and Dated April 3, 2019
4. Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations Received October 14, 2019
5. Parking Management Plan Received and Dated August 2, 2019
6. Design Review Board Notice of Action Dated September 12, 2019
7. Code Requirements Letter Dated October 9, 2019
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 11/7/2019Page 10 of 10
powered by Legistar™777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
City of Huntington Beach
File #:19-1289 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Oliver Chi, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Robert Handy, Chief of Police
Subject:
Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4202, which amends Chapter 13.54 of the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code regarding specific events to prohibit weapons at parades and protests
Statement of Issue:
There have been an increasing number of demonstrations, protests, rallies, and other public
assemblies that have drawn local, state and national attention to a variety of emotionally charged
topics. Orange County and Huntington Beach have had several of these type events. The climate
and opportunity for citizens to exercise their freedom of speech, coupled with the use of social media,
has led to a surge of public opinion and negative dialogue between groups which has on occasion
led to violence.
The utmost priority of the City of Huntington Beach is to respect the rights of protestors and
attendees of public gatherings to ensure they are afforded the same safety and security protections.
We also must protect citizens, protestors, and public safety professionals and take measures to
protect public and private property from damage.
Groups and individuals attending or participating in these events in public places have been known to
bring with them weapons and/or items or articles that are generally considered as reasonably
capable of being used as weapons to commit unlawful and/or violent acts during the event, posing
serious threats to life, safety and property.
Financial Impact:
There is no known financial impact at this time.
Recommended Action:
Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4202, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending Chapter 13.54 Regarding Specific Events to Prohibit Weapons at Parades and Protests.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the proposed Ordinance and direct staff accordingly.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™792
File #:19-1289 MEETING DATE:1/21/2020
Analysis:
A primary mission of the City is to preserve public safety, protect public and private property, and to
prevent damage to City facilities while fairly balancing the rights of free speech and peaceful
assembly during demonstrations, rallies and protests on public property.
It is imperative that individuals engaging in peaceful expressive public activity, and law enforcement
personnel dedicated to protecting such activity, be allowed to do so without facing unnecessary risks
or suffering injury.
Recent history has shown various improvised items have been used to injure attendees and harm or
incapacitate law enforcement officers, including wood and metal pipes, poles, bats, chains,
projectiles, glass bottles or containers filled with harmful substances, and aerosol sprays to cause
flames or attack olfactory systems.
The proposed amendment to Chapter 13.54 of the Municipal Code seeks to balance the public
interests, protect property, and safety concerns while safeguarding the rights of persons to freedom
of speech and peaceful assembly while on public property. This section would be applicable at
specific and spontaneous events and would prohibit the carrying of specified items or articles while
attending or participating in the event. It establishes application guidelines, permit processes and
timelines, and provides criteria, which regulates the size, type, and nature of signage, flags, banners
and/or other visual aids that would be utilized during the event.
If passed, educational efforts would be conducted to ensure event planners were aware of the
regulations and they will have adequate time to plan accordingly. Violations of this chapter are a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to
exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and modernize public safety service delivery
Attachment(s):
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 4202, including legislative draft amending HBMC Chapter 13.54
regarding specific events to prohibit weapons at parades and protests.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 1/15/2020Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800