HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-20 Agenda Packet - HybridIN-PERSON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/ZOOM ACCESS: Members wishing to attend the meeting
in person are encouraged to wear a face covering.
Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) authorizes public meetings to take place via teleconference (i.e., virtual
using Zoom), or in person if in part, State and Local officials continue to recommend measures to
promote social distancing. In addition to this hybrid format, alternate ways to view City Council
meetings live or on-demand remain: livestreamed on HBTV Channel 3 (replayed on Wednesday’s at
10:00 a.m. and Thursday’s at 6:00 p.m.); live and archived meetings for on-demand viewing accessed
from https://huntingtonbeach.legistar.com/calendar ; or, from any Roku, Fire TV or Apple device by
downloading the Cablecast Screenweave App and searching for the City of Huntington Beach channel.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Individuals wishing to provide a comment on agendized or non-agendized
items, including Study Session, Closed Session, and Public Hearing, may do so in person by
completing a Request to Speak form delivered to the City Clerk, or from a virtual location by entering
Zoom Webinar ID 971 5413 0528 via computer device, or by phone at (669) 900-6833. The Zoom
Webinar can be accessed here: https://huntingtonbeach.zoom.us/j/97154130528 . Instructions for
those utilizing computer devices to request to speak are provided in each section of the agenda where
public comments are accepted.
Members of the public unable to personally participate in the meeting but interested in communicating
with the City Council on agenda-related items are encouraged to submit a written (supplemental)
communication via email at SupplementalComm@Surfcity-hb.org, or City.Council@surfcity-hb.org .
Supplemental Communications are public record, and if received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting,
will be distributed to the City Council prior to consideration of agenda-related items, posted to the City
website, and announced, but not read, at the meeting. Communications received following the 2:00 PM
deadline will be incorporated into the administrative record.
MEETING 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.
AGENDA
City Council/Public Financing Authority
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Special Meetings of the Housing Authority,
Parking Authority and Successor Agency
No Study Session / 4:30 PM Closed Session
6:00 PM Regular Business Meeting
Council Chambers
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
--or--
Virtual via Zoom Webinar
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
TONY STRICKLAND, Mayor
GRACEY VAN DER MARK, Mayor Pro Tem
RHONDA BOLTON, Councilmember
PAT BURNS, Councilmember
DAN KALMICK, Councilmember
CASEY McKEON, Councilmember
NATALIE MOSER, Councilmember
STAFF
AL ZELINKA, City Manager
MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, City Clerk
ALISA BACKSTROM, City Treasurer
1
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
4:30 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Kalmick, Moser, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon, Bolton, Burns
City Clerk Robin Estanislau has requested permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter
Section 310 (a)
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda
Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit)
At this time, the City Council will receive comments from members of the public regarding any
topic, including items on the Study Session and/or Closed Session agendas. Please note that the
Brown Act does not allow discussion or action on topics that are not on the agenda. Members of
the public who would like to speak directly with a Councilmember on an item not on the agenda
may consider scheduling an appointment by contacting the City Council's Administrative
Assistant at (714) 536-5553 or emailing the entire City Council at city.council@surfcity-hb.org.
Individuals wishing to provide a comment on item(s) scheduled for Study Session or Closed
Session may do so either in person by filling out a Request to Speak form delivered to the City
Clerk, via computer through Zoom Webinar ID 971 5413 0528, or Zoom Webinar by phone by
calling (669) 900-6833. Once the Mayor opens Public Comments, in-person participants will be
called to speak first. Zoom Webinar participants wishing to speak will be provided a 15-minute
window to select the “Raise Hand” feature in the Webinar Controls section. Attendees entering the
Webinar and requesting to speak by phone can enter *9 to enable the “Raise Hand” feature,
followed by the *6 prompt that unmutes their handheld device microphone. Individuals will be
prompted to speak when the Clerk announces their name or the last three digits of their phone
number. After a virtual speaker concludes their comment, their microphone will be muted. All
speakers are encouraged, but not required to identify themselves by name. Each speaker may
have up to 3 minutes unless the volume of speakers warrants reducing the time allowance.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
22-11011.Mayor Strickland to announce: Pursuant to Government Code §
54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce
and identify designated labor negotiators, Al Zelinka, City Manager
and Peter Brown Chief Negotiator; also in attendance: Brittany
Mello, Administrative Services Director, Travis Hopkins, Assistant
City Manager; Eric Parra, Chief of Police; and Dahle Bulosan, Chief
Page 1 of 13
2
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Financial Officer, who will be participating in today's Closed Session
discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach
Police Officers’ Association (HBPOA).
CLOSED SESSION
22-10972.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION.
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case:
Chodzko (Tara) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC Case No.:
30-2021-01237196.
22-10983.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION.
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case:
Babaie (Masoud) and Hervin-Babaie (Negin) v. City of Huntington
Beach; Case No. 30-2020-01159653.
22-10994.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION.
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case:
Whitaker (Brittany) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.; OCSC Case
No.: 30-2021-01235807.
22-11005.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section
54957.6.) Agency designated representatives: Al Zelinka, City
Manager, and Peter Brown, Chief Negotiator; also in attendance:
Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director; Travis Hopkins,
Assistant City Manager; Eric Parra, Chief of Police; and Dahle
Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer. Employee Organization: Police
Officers’ Association (POA).
22-11026.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-LITIGATION (Gov. Code
section 54956.9(d)(4).): Number of Cases, one (1) - Oil Spill.
22-11037.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION.
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case:
Pacific Airshow, LLC v. City of Huntington Beach and Kim Carr;
OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01287749.
6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING, AND CALL TO
ORDER THE SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, PARKING AUTHORITY
Page 2 of 13
3
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH
ROLL CALL
Kalmick, Moser, Van Der Mark, Strickland, McKeon, Bolton, Burns
City Clerk Robin Estanislau has requested permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter
Section 310 (a)
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.
22-11158.Charles Niederman of Temple Beth David in Westminster and
member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda
Distribution)
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit)
At this time, the City Council will receive comments from members of the public regarding any
topic, including items on the open session agenda. Please note that the Brown Act does not allow
discussion or action on topics that are not on the agenda. Members of the public who would like
to speak directly with a Councilmember on an item not on the agenda may consider scheduling an
appointment by contacting the City Council's Administrative Assistant at (714) 536-5553 or
emailing the entire City Council at city.council@surfcity-hb.org.
At approximately 6:00 PM, individuals wishing to provide a comment on agendized or
non-agendized items may do so either in person by filling out a Request to Speak form delivered
to the City Clerk, via computer through Zoom Webinar ID 971 5413 0528, or Zoom Webinar by
phone by calling (669) 900-6833. Once the Mayor opens Public Comments, in-person participants
will be called to speak first. Zoom Webinar participants wishing to speak will be provided a
15-minute window to select the “Raise Hand” feature in the Webinar Controls section. Attendees
entering the Webinar and requesting to speak by phone can enter *9 to enable the “Raise Hand”
feature, followed by the *6 prompt that unmutes their handheld device microphone. Individuals will
be prompted to speak when the Clerk announces their name or the last three digits of their phone
number. After a virtual speaker concludes their comment, their microphone will be muted but they
may remain in Webinar attendance for the duration of the meeting. All speakers are encouraged,
but not required to identify themselves by name. Each speaker may have up to 3 minutes unless
Page 3 of 13
4
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
the volume of speakers warrants reducing the time allowance.
While the City Council welcomes public involvement and supports and defends free speech, the
City Council rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory or otherwise not
protected free speech. Those comments will not inform nor be considered by the City Council and
may be cause for the Mayor to interrupt the public speaker. Such public comments will not be
consented to or otherwise adopted by the City Council in its discussions and findings for any
matter tonight.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers may make brief announcements on any appointments made to a board,
committee, or commission. Councilmembers may not discuss or take any action on these
announcements. Announcements are limited to 1 minute.
22-10419.Approve Mayor Strickland’s 2023 Council Liaison List
As recommended by the City Council, Public Financing Authority, Housing Authority,
Parking Authority, and Successor Agency: Approve the 2023 Council Liaison List that
includes appointments to citizen boards, commissions, committees, and task forces as
presented by Mayor Strickland. (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.)
Recommended Action:
AB 1234 REPORTING
Per AB 1234 (Government Code Section 53232.3(d)) Councilmembers who attend a meeting,
conference, or similar event at the expense of the City must provide a brief report of the meeting,
conference, or similar event during the next regular City Council meeting. Reports are limited to 1
minute.
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATION DISCLOSURES
Councilmembers must publicly disclose any meetings or communications with City employee
associations, related to the negotiations of labor agreements. Disclosures are limited to 1 minute
and must be made by the next regular City Council Meeting.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
22-69410.Welcome to New OneHB Team Members
CONSENT CALENDAR
Office of City Attorney
Page 4 of 13
5
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
22-111311.Adopt Resolution No. 2022-82 Modifying Non-Associated Salary
Schedule for City Attorney to Adjust for Recent Inflation, Make
Compensation More Competitive
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-82, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Modifying Salary and Certain Benefits of the Elected City Attorney.”
Recommended Action:
Office of City Clerk
22-98912.Approve and Adopt Minutes
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes of
November 15, 2022 and the special meeting minutes of November 29, 2022 .
Recommended Action:
22-24113.Reaffirm adoption of Resolution No. 2021-62 finding a proclaimed
state of emergency continues to impact the ability to meet safely in
person, and allows meetings of the City Council and all City boards,
commissions and committees to be conducted remotely as needed
in compliance with new Brown Act provisions identified in Assembly
Bill 361
Reaffirm Resolution No. 2021-62, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California, Finding that the Proclaimed State of Emergency Continues
to Impact the Ability to Meet Safely in Person.”
Recommended Action:
22-104014.Receive and file the Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023
(terms on City boards, commissions, and committees that expire in
2023) informing the public of openings and vacancies based on 2023
expiration of current members’ terms
Receive and file the Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023 showing vacancies that
will occur on City boards, commissions, and committees in the year 2023, 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 -
2023 will also be posted at all branch libraries and on the City’s website.
Recommended Action:
Administrative Services Department
22-101715.Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81 modifying the pay schedule for
part-time, non-permanent, and non-classified employees to comport
Page 5 of 13
6
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
with the State minimum wage increase effective January 1, 2023
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Approving the Pay Schedule for Part-Time Non-Permanent and Non-Classified
Employees Effective January 1, 2023,” and authorize the City Manager to take all
administrative and budgetary actions necessary to implement the revised pay schedule .
Recommended Action:
Community Development Department
22-75516.Approve Final Tract Map No. 19136, accept bonds, and authorize
execution of a Subdivision Agreement for the Gisler Residential
subdivision by Lennar Homes of California, LLC at 21141 Strathmoor
Lane
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 19136 and accept the offer of dedications pursuant to
findings and requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement
by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Lennar Homes of California, LLC
(Attachment No. 6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond Nos. US00121914SU22A and
US00121915SU22A, Labor and Material Bond Nos. US00121914SU22A and
US00121915SU22A, and Monument Bond No. US00121913SU22A as sureties
(Attachment No. 7) for the installation of the subdivision’s required public improvements
and survey monumentation and Gisler Park improvements; and ,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the
Surety, XL Specialty Insurance Company, of this action.
Recommended Action:
22-103117.Approve Final Tract Map No. 18079, accept Bonds, and authorize
execution of a Subdivision Agreement for the Georgia Townhomes
Subdivision by Hilltop Townhomes LLC at 910 Georgia Street
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 18079 and accept the offer of easement pursuant to
findings and requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement
by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Hilltop Townhomes LLC (Attachment
No. 6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond No. 4459427, Labor and Material Bond No.
4459427, and Monument Bond No. 4459428 as sureties (Attachment No. 7) for the
Recommended Action:
Page 6 of 13
7
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
installation of the subdivision’s required public improvements and survey monumentation;
and,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the
Markel Insurance Company of this action.
22-103718.Approve Final Tract Map No. 19157, accept bonds, and authorize
execution of a Subdivision Agreement for the Olson Townhomes
subdivision by Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC at 8371 to
8461 Talbert Avenue
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 19157 and accept the offer of easement pursuant to
findings and requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement
by and between the City of Huntington Beach and Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC
(Attachment No. 6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond No. PB03010409024, Labor and Material Bond
No. PB03010409024, and Monument Bond No. PB03010409039 as sureties (Attachment
No. 7) for the installation of the subdivision’s required public improvements and survey
monumentation; and,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the
Surety, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, of this action.
Recommended Action:
22-111919.Authorize the Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Support for a
Jamboree Housing Corporation application for grant funds from the
California Departments of Health Care Services and Social Services
through the Behavior Health Continuum Infrastructure and the
Community Care Expansion Programs
Authorize and direct the Executive Director to sign letters of support (Attachments 1 and 2)
to support the grant application the California Departments of Health Care Services and
Social Services through the Behavior Health Continuum Infrastructure and the Community
Care Expansion Programs.
Recommended Action:
Finance Department
22-106320.Adopt Resolution No. 2022-80 accepting and approving the
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and to
make findings as required by Government Code Sections 66006 and
66001
Page 7 of 13
8
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Accept and approve the Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
2022 and Adopt Resolution No. 2022-80, “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, 2022 and to Make the Findings as Required by Government Code
Sections 66006(b) and 66001(d).”
Recommended Action:
Fire Department
22-93021.Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79 approving the Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan enabling the City to be eligible for pre- or post-disaster hazard
mitigation funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Approving the Updated Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan."
Recommended Action:
22-102722.Approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the California Department
of Health Care Services (DHCS) Public Provider Ground Emergency
Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer Program (PP-GEMT
IGT) for FY 2022/23.
Approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the PP-GEMT IGT Program for FY 2022/23.
Recommended Action:
Public Works Department
22-104423.Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid and authorize
execution of a construction contract with Stance Construction
Company in the amount of $585,014.50 for the Residential Curb
Ramp Project, CC-1700
A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Stance Construction
Company in the amount of $585,014.50; and,
B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Recommended Action:
22-104824.Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid, authorize
execution of a construction contract with Modern General Contractor
Inc. in the amount of $397,000.00 for the Police Department Traffic
and Homeless Task Force Office Renovation, CC-1678, and authorize
Page 8 of 13
9
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
change orders
A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Modern General
Contractor Inc. in the amount of $397,000.00.
B) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute change orders not to exceed 20% of
the contract costs, or $79,400.00.
Recommended Action:
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
22-109025.Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative Services
Department into the Human Resources Department and Information
Services Department, and Adopt Resolution No. 2022-83 Amending
the City’s Classification Plan to Delete the Director of Administrative
Services and Add the Positions of Director of Human Resources and
the Chief Information Officer
A) Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative Services Department into separate
Human Resources and Information Services Departments, authorize one additional
full-time equivalent position and appropriate $138,140 in the Fiscal Year 22/23 budget,
and authorize the City Manager to take all administrative and budgetary actions necessary
to implement the reorganization.
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-83, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Amending the City’s Classification Plan by Deleting the Director of
Administrative Services and Adding the Job Classifications of Director of Human
Resources and Chief Information Officer and Establishing Compensation.”
Recommended Action:
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
22-109226.Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Proposed Ordinance to Establish a
Code Enforcement Complaint Process Regarding Alleged Business
Violations and Prohibits the Submission of Anonymous Complaints
Request the City Attorney to return to City Council with a proposed ordinance that bans
anonymous complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business
violations.
The Ordinance should provide that Code Enforcement is welcome to continue to take in
complaints from the public about businesses, but that in order to do so, strict new reporting
requirements must be adhered to. Any and all complaints by individuals must occur in
person at City Hall, which will include a new and updated intake form to be completed with
all identifying information of the complaining party. The intake of the complaint shall
include a copy of the individual's driver's license or other form of ID with a full name,
Recommended Action:
Page 9 of 13
10
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
address, and photo of the individual. If a City worker, including a member of Code
Enforcement is lodging the complaint, then he/she identifies him/herself likewise.
22-109327.Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to amend the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code to raise Campaign Contribution Limits
Direct the City Attorney to return at the next City Council Meeting with an amendment to the
City's municipal code to raise the contribution limit to match or track that of the limits for
California's Senate/Assembly candidates.
Recommended Action:
22-110528.Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to perform a CEQA review
for the Great Pacific Air Show
Request the City Manager to return to City Council at the first regular City Council Meeting
in January 2023 with a specific and actionable recommendation for undertaking an
adequate CEQA review of the Air Show. Chief Assistant City Attorney, Mike Vigliotta’s
experience in environmental legal review will provide the leadership to retain the consultant
necessary to complete the environmental review.
Recommended Action:
22-109429.Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark - Report on
Homelessness, Anti-Camping and Anti-Loitering Laws
Direct the City Manager and the Police Chief to return on January 17, 2023 to present the
following:
1.A full report and accounting identifying all of the City's resources, including recently
hired/appointed City personnel, County programs present in the City, and facilities like the
Navigation Center, that have been employed or deployed to combat homelessness; and
2.A full report and accounting of the Navigation Center's use since it opened in December
2020, including the number of beds occupied over time (utilizing monthly data), where the
clients/patrons are from (have they been Huntington Beach homeless or have they been
brought in by the County or other cities), and average length of how long individuals stay
and where they go once released (e.g., back on the streets, County facilities, or back
home); and
3.A proposal that incorporates former Police Chief Handy's 90-day plan on how HBPD
will enforce the City's and State's anti-camping and anti-loitering laws to get the City's
public spaces free from the mentioned encampments, loitering, and their related health
and safety concerns; and
4.A request for the Police Chief to give quarterly updates at City Council on enforcement
of anti-camping and anti-loitering.
Recommended Action:
Page 10 of 13
11
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
22-110830.Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark and Councilmember
McKeon - Request to Switch the City of Huntington Beach’s (The
Organization) OCPA Energy Rate to Basic Choice and provide
Recommendations to Withdraw as a Founding Member of the OCPA
We request the City Manager to present options at the next City Council meeting on the
City's pursuit to immediately switch the City of Huntington Beach facilities to OCPA's
Basic Choice Option. We also request for staff to return at a study session before the end
of February 2023 to provide options, costs and paths forward to remove/withdraw the City
entirely from the Orange County Power Authority.
Recommended Action:
22-111031.Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark and Councilmember
McKeon - Request to Pause the Main Street Redevelopment Project
and Solicit Additional Community Feedback Prior to Reconsidering
the Project
Request the City Manager to pause the work of Studio One Eleven architects and
re-engage the community. Return to the City Council in February 2023 to share the
feedback received from the community and engage in another discussion on whether to
pursue the Main Street redesign. If direction is given to proceed, Council and staff will
discuss various options for the redesign of the first, second, and third blocks of Main
Street.
Recommended Action:
22-109532.Submitted by Councilmember Burns - Request for HBPD Crime
Statistics and Enhanced Public Safety Enforcement Activities
1. Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Chief and return on January 17, 2023
with a report on crime statistics over the past year, particularly regarding theft from or
damage to our local businesses and home invasion burglaries throughout the City; and
2. Return on January 17, 2023 with a report on what measures (without reporting/revealing
tactics that should be kept confidential) that the HBPD will take in 2023 to increase public
safety and law enforcement; and
3. Return quarterly with crime statistics and include explanations of the HBPD’s increased
efforts to fight crime; and
4. Direct the City Attorney to return on January 17, 2023 with any recommendations to
increase prosecutorial support of the HBPD, if any.
Recommended Action:
22-109633.Submitted by Councilmember McKeon - Oppose RHNA Mandate and
Page 11 of 13
12
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
Adopt an Ordinance to Ban Builder’s Remedy Developments
Authorize the City Attorney to:
1. Challenge the State‘s RHNA mandate for Huntington Beach, including its validity and
any laws in support of such a mandate over the City as a Charter City, by taking whatever
legal action is required; and
2. Return to City Council at the City Attorney's earliest convenience with an ordinance
banning "Builder’s Remedy" developments from taking place in Huntington Beach.
Development without proper approvals is already not legal in the City, but this Ordinance is
essential to make it clear to the entire community that Huntington Beach will fight any
developer that seeks to develop pursuant to "Builder’s Remedy" laws.
Recommended Action:
22-110934.Submitted by Councilmember McKeon - Request for Information and
Actions Related to the RWG Report
1. City Council vote tonight to waive the attorney-client and Closed Session confidentiality
privileges for the 10 Closed Session Meetings on the Moore v. City, Gates lawsuit for the
sole purposes of allowing Mr. Gates to give his side of the story - to return to City Council
with a public presentation on what was discussed and decided (by Councilmember votes)
in those 10 Closed Sessions, and
2. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other
confidentiality privilege on any and all communications between Councilmembers and
Craig Steele and his attorneys regarding this "investigation," and
3. Direct the City Manager to work with IS to preserve all emails/texts/communications
between City Council Members and Craig Steele and Richards Watson Gershon (RWG)
and between former City Manager Oliver Chi and RWG, and
4. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other
confidentiality privilege on any and all RWG invoices for the work they have done on this
"investigation" (going back to 2020) and to have those invoices, all of them, sent by the
Finance Director and City Manager to Mr. Gates for review to make determinations as to
the propriety of the work by RWG and to see if a new investigation should be undertaken to
analyze the propriety of RWG's investigation of Mr. Gates in the first place, and the
propriety of the taxpayer dollars spent on the Steel "investigation," and
5. Direct the City Manager to remove the RWG report from the City's website - so that
there are no links and no availability on the City's website whatsoever. If any member of
the public wants a copy, they can send a request to the City Attorney's office to produce
public records under the CPRA, and
6. Direct Mr. Gates, after review of the aforementioned communications and invoices, to
Recommended Action:
Page 12 of 13
13
AGENDA December 20, 2022City Council/Public Financing
Authority
return to City Council with recommendations if any further action could be taken to correct
the actions of RWG and the City Council retainer of RWG and the spending of taxpayer
moneys on such an "investigation" behind closed doors and away from the public visibility
and accountability.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing
Authority is Tuesday, January 3, 2023, 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 13 of 13
14
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1101 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Mayor Strickland to announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council
takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiators, Al
Zelinka, City Manager and Peter Brown Chief Negotiator; also in attendance: Brittany Mello,
Administrative Services Director, Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager; Eric Parra, Chief of
Police; and Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer, who will be participating in today's Closed
Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach Police Officers’
Association (HBPOA).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™15
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1097 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Chodzko (Tara) v. City of Huntington Beach; OCSC
Case No.: 30-2021-01237196.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™16
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1098 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Babaie (Masoud) and Hervin-Babaie (Negin) v. City of
Huntington Beach; Case No. 30-2020-01159653.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™17
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1099 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Whitaker (Brittany) v. City of Huntington Beach, et al.;
OCSC Case No.: 30-2021-01235807.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™18
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1100 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section 54957.6.) Agency
designated representatives: Al Zelinka, City Manager, and Peter Brown, Chief Negotiator; also
in attendance: Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director; Travis Hopkins, Assistant City
Manager; Eric Parra, Chief of Police; and Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer. Employee
Organization: Police Officers’ Association (POA).
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™19
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1102 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-LITIGATION (Gov. Code section 54956.9(d)(4).):
Number of Cases, one (1) - Oil Spill.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™20
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1103 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Pacific Airshow, LLC v. City of Huntington Beach and
Kim Carr; OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01287749.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1115 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Charles Niederman of Temple Beth David in Westminster and member of the Greater
Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™22
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1041 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
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 Mayor Strickland’s 2023 Council Liaison List
Statement of Issue:
The City Council is being asked to approve Mayor Strickland’s proposed appointments to citizen
boards, commissions, committees, and task forces for calendar year 2023.
Financial Impact:
Not Applicable
Recommended Action:
As recommended by the City Council, Public Financing Authority, Housing Authority, Parking
Authority, and Successor Agency: Approve the 2023 Council Liaison List that includes appointments
to citizen boards, commissions, committees, and task forces as presented by Mayor Strickland. (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.)
Alternative Action(s):
None.
Analysis:
Not Applicable.
Environmental Status:
Not Applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™23
File #:22-1041 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Attachment(s):
1. 2023 Council Liaison List
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™24
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2023 COUNCIL LIAISON LIST
CITIZEN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
(Citizen Members Appointed by City Council to Four-Year Terms)
- Updated 12/2022 -
Citizen-led Bodies Council Liaisons Meeting Date/Place* Staffing Department
1. Citizen Infrastructure Advisory
Board / Public Works Commission
Individual Appointments 3rd Wed. Monthly, 5:00 PM
Utilities Yard, 19021 Huntington St
Public Works
2. Citizen Participation Advisory
Board (CPAB)
Individual Appointments 1st Thurs. Monthly from Jan.- June, and as
needed, 6:00 PM, City Hall Lower-Level B-8
Community Development
3. Community & Library Services
Commission
Individual Appointments 2nd Wed. Monthly, 6:00 PM,
Zoom / City Hall Council Chamber
Community & Library
Services
4. Design Review Board (DRB) Burns, Van Der Mark 2nd Thurs. Monthly, 3:30 PM,
City Hall Lower Level, B-8
Community Development
5. Environmental & Sustainability
Board
Moser, Bolton
(also served as Chair and Vice
Chair of the Board)
2nd Wed. Every other month, 6:00 PM,
City Hall Lower Level, B-8
City Manager’s Office
6. Finance Commission Individual Appointments Every other month or six times a year,
5:00 PM,
City Hall Lower Level, B-7/B-8
Finance
7. Fourth of July Executive Board Van Der Mark, McKeon 1st Wed. Monthly, 6:00 PM,
Zoom / City Hall Lower-Level B-8
Community & Library
Services
8. Harbor Commission Van Der Mark, Burns 4th Thurs. Monthly, 5:00 PM,
City Hall Lower-Level B-8
Fire
9. Historic Resources Board Van Der Mark, Burns 3rd Wed. Monthly, 5:00 PM,
City Hall Lower-Level B-7
Community & Library
Services
10. Human Relations Committee Van Der Mark, Burns 2nd Tues. Monthly, 6:45 PM,
City Hall Lower-Level B-7
City Manager’s Office
11. Investment Advisory Board Individual Appointments 3rd Thur. Quarterly (January, April, July,
October), 6:00 PM, Via Zoom
City Treasurer
1 of 7
25
2023 Council Liaison List
2 of 7
Citizen Group Council Liaisons Meeting Date/Place* Staffing Department
12. Jet Noise Commission Strickland, McKeon 4th Mon. Monthly, 5:30 PM,
City Hall Lower Level B-7
City Manager’s Office
13. Mobile Home Advisory Board Van Der Mark, McKeon 4th Mon, 5:00 PM
Quarterly (January, April, July, October)
Zoom / City Hall Lower-Level B-8
City Manager’s Office
14. Personnel Commission** Van Der Mark, Burns 3rd Wed. Quarterly, 5:30 PM
(January, April, July, October)
City Hall Lower Level B-8
Administrative Services
15. Planning Commission Individual Appointments 2nd & 4th Tues. Monthly, 6:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
Community Development
16. Youth Board Van Der Mark, Burns 2nd Mon, Monthly, 3:30 PM
(No Meetings – June, July, Aug.)
City Hall, 5th Floor Conf. Room
Community &
Library Services
17. Sunset Beach
Local Coastal
Program Review Board***
N/A 2n Tues., Monthly, 7:30 PM
Nobles Family Community Center
Community Development
*Meeting Date/Place is subject to change.
** 2-year term
***The primary structure of the Sunset Beach Local Coastal Program Review Board remains the same after the annexation. The Board is comprised of seven members
initially appointed by the OC Board of Supervisors and subsequent members elected by the Review Board itself.
26
2023 Council Liaison List
3 of 7
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
COUNCIL COMMITTEES (STANDING)
(Created by City Council Action, consisting of three Council members; subject to the Brown Act)
Council Committee Committee Members Meeting Date/Place* Department
1. Communications Committee Strickland, Van Der Mark, Burns 4th Tues. Monthly, 3:30 PM,
City Hall 4th Floor, CR #1
City Manager’s Office
2. Economic Development Committee
(EDC)
Strickland, Van Der Mark, McKeon
(Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Immediate
Past Mayor – prescribed)
2nd Wed., Every Other Month, 3:30 PM,
City Hall Lower Level B8
Community Development
3. Intergovernmental Relations
Committee (IRC)
Strickland, Van Der Mark, Burns 3rd Wed. Monthly, 4:00 PM,
City Hall 4th Floor, CR #2
City Manager’s Office
4. Smart Cities & Technology
Committee
Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon As needed,
TBD
Public Works
COUNCIL COMMITTEES (AD-HOC)
(Created by City Council Action; not subject to the Brown Act)
Council Committee Committee Members Meeting Date/Place* Department
1. Downtown Urban Design Study
(Ad-hoc)
Strickland, Van Der Mark, Moser As Needed Community Development
2. Housing / RHNA Committee
(Ad-hoc)
Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon As Needed Community Development
3. Short Term Rental Committee
(Ad-hoc)
Bolton, Kalmick, Moser As Needed Community Development
4 Cannabis Regulation & Policy
Committee (Ad-hoc)
Strickland, Burns, Kalmick As Needed City Manager’s Office
27
2023 Council Liaison List
4 of 7
OTHER CITY AND CITIZEN COMMITTEES
(Created by City Council Action; not subject to the Brown Act, Community Meetings w/ Roundtable format)
Citizen Group Council Liaisons Meeting Date/Place* Department
1.Specific Events Executive Committee Van Der Mark, Burns As needed
City Hall Lower Level, Room B-8
Community & Library
Services
2.Homeless Task Force Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon 3rd Wednesday, 3:00 p.m.,
City Hall Lower Level B-7
Police Department
3.Huntington Central Park Collaborative Strickland, Van Der Mark Last Tuesday of the Month, 4:30-6:40 PM
City Hall Lower Level Room B-8
Community & Library
Services
4.Oakview Community Meetings
(formerly Oakview Task Force)
Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon As needed
Oak View Elementary
Community & Library
Services
5.School District / City Van Der Mark, Burns 2nd Mon. Quarterly, 3:30 PM,
City Hall Lower Level B-7
City Manager’s Office
6.Southeast Area Committee Van Der Mark, Burns, McKeon 4th Wed., 4:30 PM, Every two month (Jan.
March, May, July, September, Nov.)
City Hall Lower Level Room B8 and Zoom
City Manager’s Office
7.Sunset Beach Area Committee Strickland, Van Der Mark, Burns As needed
City Hall Lower Level Room B-8
Community Development
COMMUNITY GROUPS/ INDEPENDENT CITY-AFFILIATED BOARDS
(Community groups both local and regional requiring participation by one or two Council Members; Citizen Members are not appointees)
Citizen Group Council Liaisons Meeting Date/Place* Department
1.Huntington Beach Council on Aging Bolton, Moser 1st Thurs, Monthly, 9:00 AM
Senior Center (EMG, Room 1)
Community & Library
Services
2.Huntington Beach Downtown Business
Improvement District (Downtown BID)
Strickland, Van Der Mark 2nd Thursday, 9:00 AM
Huntington Beach Art Center
Community Development
3.Neighborhood Watch Van Der Mark, Burns 2nd Tues, 6:00 PM (No meeting in July,
Aug, Dec), Police Dept, 1st Fl. Conf. Room
Police Department
4.Sister City Association Van Der Mark, McKeon 2nd Wednesday, Central Library
(Room TBA), 6:00 PM
Community & Library
Services
28
2023 Council Liaison List
5 of 7
COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AGENCIES AND COMMITTEES
(Appointed by Mayor)
Name of Agency/Committee Appointee Meeting Date/ Place**
1.California Coastal Coalition (CalCoast) Board Van Der Mark, Burns 2-3 meetings/year, various places
2. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce
Government Affairs Committee Strickland, Van Der Mark Quarterly, meeting time varies. Golden West College,
15744 Golden West St., Admin Bldg. 4-Room137
4. O.C. Council of Governments (OCCOG) McKeon; Burns (Alternate) 4th Thurs, 10:30 AM, Monthly, Irvine City Hall, City Council
Chambers, 1 Civic Center Plaza, Irvine
5. Orange County Power Authority (OCPA)
Term: Four (4) years
McKeon; Strickland (Alternate) 2nd Tues, 10 AM, Monthly, Virtual Meeting via Zoom
6. O.C. Sanitation District (OCSD)
Board of Directors
(Plus Committee assigned by Chair)
$212.50 per meeting
Burns; Van Der Mark (Alternate) 4th Wed of every month, 6:00 PM,
Virtual Meeting via Zoom /
OCSD Administrative Office,
10844 Ellis Ave., Fountain Valley, CA
7. O.C. Mosquito & Vector Control District
Board of Trustees
$100 per meeting
Kalmick 3rd Thurs of every month, 3:00 PM.
Virtual Meeting / OCMVCD Headquarter, 13001 Garden
Grove Blvd, 92843
8. Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency
(SARFPA) Burns; McKeon (Alternate) Executive Committee Meetings: 4th Thurs, 4:00 PM, January,
March, May, July, September Via Zoom
Full Agency Meetings: June, November
9. Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG)
Regional Council District 64 Delegate*
Term: Two (2) years /$120 per meeting
McKeon; Burns (Alternate)
(Whoever is on SCAG is also on
OCCOG)
1st Thurs of every month, 9:00 AM – 2:00 PM
Virtual Meeting / SCAG Office, Downtown L.A.
10. Visit Huntington Beach
Advocacy Committee Strickland; Van Der Mark (Alternate) Monthly, usually Tuesday at 3:30 PM but varies.
Virtual Meeting via Zoom /
VHB Office, 155 Fifth Street, Suite 111, Huntington Beach
11. West O.C. Water Board (WOCWB)
$100 per quarterly meeting Strickland, Van Der Mark 3rd Wednesday, 4:00 PM, (January, April, July and October),
Utilities Operations Building, 19001 Huntington St.
29
2023 Council Liaison List
6 of 7
APPOINTMENTS BY STATE & REGIONAL AGENCIES
(FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY)
Name of Agency/Committee Appointments
1.Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Board of Directors ___________
2.California Commission on Aging _______(appointed by Speaker Anthony
Rendon)
3.City Selection Committee-- Held with League of Cities O.C. Division Meeting Mayor or Council Member designee
(prescribed)
4.League of California Cities –Orange County Division Executive Board _________
5.League of California Cities – Environmental Quality Board _________
6.League of California Cities – Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee
(Meetings occur quarterly Jan, Apr, June, & Sept. Thurs.
7.League of California Cities – Public Safety Policy Committee
(Meetings occur quarterly: Jan, Apr, June, & Sept. Thurs.
8.League of California Cities – Community Services Policy Committee
(Meetings occur quarterly: Jan, Apr, June, & Sept. Thurs.
9.League of California Cities –Administrative Services Policy Committee
10.League of California Cities - Coastal Cities Group / Leadership Committee
11.Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of Directors
2nd & 4th Monday, 9:00 AM,
OCTA Headquarters, 550 S. Main St., Orange, CA Conf. Room 07-08 / Zoom
__________ (as elected by City Selection)
12.OCTA Citizen Advisory Committee ___________
13.Orange County Waste Management Commission (OCWMC)
Quarterly-2nd Thursday in March, June, September & December, 2:00 PM
Virtual Meeting via Zoom
14.SCAG - Energy and Environmental Policy Committee __________
15.SCAG –Transportation & Communications Committee
1st Thurs, 10 am, SCAG Offices, Downtown L.A.
16.SCAG –Community, Economic, & Human Development (CEHD)
1st Thurs, 10 am, SCAG Offices, Downtown L.A.
______________
30
Annual Appointment to the City of Huntington Beach Agencies/ Authorities/Corporations
December 2022-December2023
There is no remunerati on for serving or attendi ng meetings
Huntington Beach Housing Authority
Chairperson: Tony Strickland
Vice Chairperson: Gracey Van Der Mark
Commissioners: Rhonda Bolton, Pat Burns, Dan Kalmick,
Natalie Moser, C asey McKeon
Executive Officer: Al Zelinka
Authority Treasurer: Alisa Backstrom
Authority Clerk: Robin Estanislau
Authority Attorney: Michael E. Gates
Public Financing Authority
Chair: Tony Strickland
Vice Chair: Gracey Van Der Mark
Directors: Rhonda Bolton, Pat Burns, Dan Kalmick,
Natalie Moser, Casey McKeon
Executive Director: Al Zelinka
Authority Treasurer: Alisa Backstrom
Authority Secretary: Robin Estanislau
Authority Attorney: Michael E. Gates
Parking Authority
President: Tony Strickland
Vice President: Gracey Van Der Mark
Directors: Rhonda Bolton, Pat Burns, Dan Kalmick,
Natalie Moser, C asey McKeon
Chief Executive Director: Al Zelinka
Authority Treasurer: Alisa Backstrom
Authority Secretary: Robin Estanislau
Legal Advisor: Michael E. Gates
Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach
Chairperson: Tony Strickland
Vice Chairperson: Gracey Van Der Mark
Commissioners: Rhonda Bolton, Pat Burns, Dan Kalmick,
Natalie Moser, Casey McKeon
Executive Director: Al Zelinka
Agency Treasurer: Alisa Backstrom
Agency Clerk: Robin Estanislau
General Legal Counsel: Michael E. Gates
31
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-694 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Welcome to New OneHB Team Members
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™32
Welcome to
New OneHB
Team Members
City Council Meeting
December 20, 2022
33
Welcome, New Employees!
•City Manager’s Office
•Anabel Garcia, Social Worker
•Jessica Valiquette, Social Worker
•Community & Library Services
•Trevor Matsuda, Lifeguard
•Matthew Saunders, Parking Attendant
•Sabrina Rosengren, Literacy Program Specialist
•Ruby Vergara, Community Services Rec Specialist
•Skyler Barthold, Office Assistant II
•Milan Capizzi, Graduate Intern
•Caren Oravec, Parking Attendant
•Jennifer Rothfuss, Recreation Leader
•Ranko Spremo, Parking Attendant
34
Welcome, New Employees!
•Finance
•Sunny Rong, Department Services Aide
•Police Department
•Dominic Kellum, Police Records Supervisor
•Public Works
•Robert Tolentino, College Intern
•Jose Barrerra, Irrigation Specialist
•Alec Lemus, Beach Operations Assistant
35
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1113 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
VIA:Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
PREPARED BY:Michael J. Vigliotta, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-82 Modifying Non-Associated Salary Schedule for City Attorney to
Adjust for Recent Inflation, Make Compensation More Competitive
Statement of Issue:
The City Attorney’s last compensation increase was May of 2019, which by comparison to all other
City employees, is the longest period for any employee without an increase in compensation.
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, inflation has dramatically increased over those years
by nearly 16%, which reduces income by the same amount in contrast. Moreover, the current
compensation rate for the City Attorney is not competitive, even with other governments in the area.
The City Attorney’s current rate is $117.63/hour, and it is recommended that this rate increase to
$140.00/hour to adjust for the dramatic increase in inflation since 2019 and to maintain compensation
as competitive.
The City Attorney has been a dedicated, faithful, and successful public servant. In addition to a string
of legal wins for the City over the past 8 years, just this year alone Mr. Gates won a large, high profile
case at trial defending two of the City’s police officers in a $20,000,000 lawsuit. In addition, the City
prevailed in a suit this year against the State of California in which a $5,200,000 decision in favor of
Huntington Beach was won, not including another $22,400,000 that is possible to come back to the
City. The City Attorney’s work has been very good and he has provided the City with substantial,
measurable financial and monetary benefits on the scale of millions of dollars. In addition, the City
Attorney’s Office has benefitted from the great leadership of the City Attorney, with the office
performing at a level seen in the private sector.
In the City’s recent Class and Comp Study, the City Attorney’s position was not studied and no
comparable salaries were provided. However, according to a random sampling of local law firms in
Orange County, the City Attorney’s experience and expertise as an experienced manager and trial
attorney would provide income of at least $300/hour. While the City Attorney position is not in the
private sector, the City’s ability to continue with this high level, high quality legal representation is
ensured by providing a respectable, even competitive, salary to the City Attorney’s position.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™36
File #:22-1113 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Comparable Salaries for City Attorney
City of Santa Monica $320,136.00, or $154/hour
City of Long Beach $312,528.00, or $150/hour
City of Anaheim $283,447.00, or $137/hour
City of Newport Beach $275,836.00, or $133/hour
After a study of comparable salaries, it is proposed that compensation for the position of City Attorney
be $140.00/hour or $291,200.00/annum. It is also recommended that this rate increase be retroactive
to and including July 1, 2022, that the cap on ability to cash out accrued vacation be removed, that
3% automatic increases be given for anticipated inflation for the next two years, and that all other
allowances and benefits remain and track according to the Non-Associated agreement(s) with the
City.
Financial Impact:
The estimated Fiscal Year 2022/23 impact for the proposal is $60,929 plus any cash out of accrued
vacation due to removal of the cap. The additional costs can be absorbed in the City Attorney’s
Office Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-82, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Modifying Salary and Certain Benefits of the Elected City Attorney.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt Resolution No. 2022-82 Modifying Salary and Certain Benefits of the Elected City
Attorney.
Analysis:
The City Attorney, Michael Gates, was elected in 2014. When he took the position, he volunteered
to receive compensation at a much lower rate than what his predecessor was making.
The City Attorney’s last compensation increase was May of 2019, which by comparison to all other
City employees, is the longest period for any employee without an increase in compensation.
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, inflation has dramatically increased over those years
by nearly 16%, which reduces income by the same amount in contrast. Moreover, the current
compensation rate for the City Attorney is not competitive, even with other governments in the area.
The City Attorney’s current rate is $117.63/hour and it is recommended that this rate increase to
$140.00/hour to adjust for the dramatic increase in inflation since 2019 and to maintain compensation
as competitive.
The pay for the City Attorney position is “set” and “locked” by Resolution of the City Council. Unlike
nearly every other City Department Head, the City Attorney’s pay does not automatically progress
up the City Council designated pay range. In fact, while other city employees naturally get increases
with the passage of time, the City Attorney’s pay does not, it is locked in place until the City Council
takes action again.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™37
File #:22-1113 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
The City Attorney has been a dedicated, faithful, and successful public servant. In addition to a string
of legal wins for the City over the past 8 years, just this year alone Mr. Gates won a large, high profile
case at trial defending two of the City’s police officers in a $20,000,000 lawsuit. In addition, the City
prevailed in a suit this year against the State of California in which a $5,200,000 decision in favor of
Huntington Beach was won, not including another $22,400,000 that is possible to come back to the
City.
Moreover, over the last eight years the City Attorney has demonstrated exceptional leadership, great
management decision-making, exceptional legal skill and judgment; he implemented office-wide
efficiencies and eliminated waste. Under his leadership and through the work of the City Attorney’s
Office over the past four and a half years, the City has saved over $150,000,000 in good, smart legal
work. As it is now, the City Attorney’s Office of Huntington Beach is as good as any private sector
law firm of the same size and is now an example to many other cities, not to mention the City’s
relatively new image of strong legal advocacy. It is proposed that the City Attorney compensation be
increased to reflect the outstanding legal work that has been accomplished for the taxpayers.
In the City’s recent Class and Comp Study, the City Attorney’s position was not studied and no
comparable salaries were provided. However, according to a random sampling of local law firms in
Orange County, the City Attorney’s experience and expertise as an experienced manager and trial
attorney would provide income of at least $300/hour. While the City Attorney position is not in the
private sector, the City’s ability to continue with this high level, high quality legal representation is
ensured by providing a respectable, even competitive, salary to the City Attorney’s position.
Comparable Salaries for City Attorney
City of Santa Monica $320,136.00, or $154/hour
City of Long Beach $312,528.00, or $150/hour
City of Anaheim $283,447.00, or $137/hour
City of Newport Beach $275,836.00, or $133/hour
After a study of comparable salaries, it is proposed that compensation for the position of City Attorney
be $140.00/hour or $291,200.00/annum. It is also recommended that this rate increase be retroactive
to and including July 1, 2022, that the cap on ability to cash out accrued vacation be removed, that
3% automatic increases be given for anticipated inflation for the next two years, and that all other
allowances and benefits remain and track according to the Non-Associated agreement(s) with the
City.
Environmental Status:
N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2022-82 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™38
File #:22-1113 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Modifying Salary and Certain Benefits for of the Elected City Attorney.”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™39
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-82
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH MODIFYING SALARY AND CERTAIN
BENEFITS OF THE ELECTED CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to modify the
salary and certain benefits of the Elected City Attorney upon adoption of this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach as follows:
SECTION 1. The Salary of the Elected City Attorney as reflected in the salary range
contained in the Non-Associated Executive Management Salary Schedule "Exhibit A", attached
hereto and incorporated by this reference is increased to account for an inflation adjustment
(since last increase of May 2019,) from current $117.63/hour to $140/hour. This increase is
effective immediately and retroactive to and including July I, 2022. Prospectively, the City
Attorney's salary automatically increases at 3% annually as reflected in the salary range
contained in "Exhibit B," attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
The current cap on the City Attorney's ability to cash out accrued general leave is
removed, which removes the annual limit for cashing out.
All other allowances and benefits not specifically listed above (for example, Ca!PERs,
etc.) will immediately match, continue to follow, and be updated according to agreed-upon Non-
Associated Resolution modifications ..
SECTION 2. Any existing provisions in conflict with the foregoing, whether by minute
action or resolution of the City Council, are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. All other benefits and salary ranges established and reflected in the Non-
Associated Employees Pay and Benefits Resolution in effect, shall continue unless modified by
City Council action.
40
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-82
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the ____ day of ___________ , 2022.
Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED INITIATED AND APPROVED
City Manager Chief Assistant City Attorney A.{!-
APPROJX~ TO FORM:
Cfa t~
Chief Assistant City Attorney ,MJ)
2
41
EXHIBIT A
42
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MODIFYING THE NON-ELECTED NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES PAY SCHEDULE
TO AMEND HIE COMPENSA TJON FOR THE CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach desires to modity the
salary for non-elected. non-represented employees upon adoption oft his resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach as follows:
SECTION I. The salary range for the City Manager shall be modified as rellccted in
Exhibit l A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 2. All other benefits and salary r-.mges established and rellected in the Non•
Associated Employees Pay and Benefits Resolution 2022-09 shall continue unless
modified by City Council action.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 3"1 day of May. 2022.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED INITIATED AND APPROVED
//~ \
( '
~-L....,,, .....
city M~o'::"c: ..0~~£.o .
Director of Administrative Services
22-11308/281861
43
Resolution No, 2022-24
EXHIBIT1A
NON-ASSOCIATED APPOINTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SAi.ARY SCHEDULE
Effoctive May 3, 202~
EXECUTIVE MANAOEMENT
29 103:!ll 106,44 113.87 11U6 125.54 13ta2
DEPARTMENT HEADS
592 I 275 65.57 Bll.85 94.34 98.rn 104.01 109.21 114.67
15 flreCJllef ni 85,57 89.85 "434 ..... 104,01 109.21 114.67
t1 PoiiooC!llel 85.57 89.85 9434 99.00 104.01 109.21 114.67
516 Clllel F-Officer -60.61 64.64 85.atl 93.32 97.99 102.lU 10R03
5611 -ent --80.&1 64.64 SUB 63.32 91.99 102.88 10$.03
800 Dileclorof---60.61 64.84 66.•• 93.32 97.m 102.811 108.03
801 Oiractor of Communifv & Linnuv Services 269 B(tfi1 64.64 aitaa 9332 97.99 102 . .88 108.03
10 -of~-2119 60.61 84.64 68.811 93.32 9799 102.!la 10£t03
CONTRACT NON-OEPAflTMENT HEADS
593 •·--c 261 74.44 · 78.17 82.00 88.18 90.49 95.01 Q!l,76
860 --al--& 2!18 772' 71!>-87 7966 83.64 87.83 92.22 9f3-83 ---845 Dopu!y -al Publ!cWoriG 2!18 72.26 7587 79.66 83.64 87.93 9222 9tl83
900 ~ Flnanclal Offic« 249 6607 5U7 72.84 76. 60.3 64.32 65.53 ... , __ Oiroct« of Adm~ &u'Yices 249 66.07 69.37 7284 71U8 00.3 84.32 88.53
655 --al 249 66.07 69.37 72.84 7tU3 60.3 84.32 88.53
Commun/Iv & 1 """""" Services
640 Deputy -of
t 249 66.07 69,37 7284 /6.48 803 8◄.32 MU:i3
699 ·~~·· Pr""""°"" 206 43,07 45.22 47.48 49.86 5236 64.97 57.72
44
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
ONON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION -
EXHIBIT A .............................................................................................................. 1
SECTION I -PAY ........................................................................................................... 1
A. APPOINTED SALARY SCHEDULE ............................................................................... 1
B. ELECTED SALARY SCHEDULE ................................................................................... 1
C. PERFORMANCE BONUS ............................................................................................ 1
D. DIRECT DEPOSIT ..................................................................................................... 2
E. ASSIGNED VEHICLE/AUTO ALLOWANCE .............................................................. : .•.•. 2
SECTION II -HOURS OF WORK/OVERTIME/TIME OFF ............................................. 2
A. EXECUTIVE LEAVE ................................................................................................... 2
B. FLEXIBLE AND ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULES ........................................................ 2
1. 5140 Wor1< Schedule .................................................................................................................... 2
2. 9180 Wor1< Schedule .................................................................................................................... 2
3. Alternative Wor1< Schedule .......................................................................................................... 2
SECTION Ill -HEAL TH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS ................................... 3
A. HEAL TH INSURANCE ................................................................................................ 3
1. Medical. Dental and Vision Insurance ......................................................................................... 3
2. City and Employee Paid Health Insurance ................................................................................. 3
3. Medical Cash Out. ....................................................................................................................... 5
4. Section 125 Plan ......................................................................................................................... 5
B. LIFE AND ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DISMEMBERMENT INSURANCE ............................... 5
C. LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ......................................................................... 5
D. CITY-PAID PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS ........................................................................ 6
E. MISCELLANEOUS ..................................................................................................... 6
F. RETIREE MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR RETIREES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CITY MEDICAL
RETIREE SUBSIDY PLAN ................................................................................................. 6
G. POST-65 SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE COVERAGE ...................................................... 6
SECTION IV -RETIREMENT ......................................................................................... 7
A. BENEFITS ..................•..•.••.•••••.•....•.........................................•.•....•.•....•.•..••......•.... 7
1. Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit .......................................................................... 7
2. Medical Insurance for Retirees ................................................................................................... 7
B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTIONS AND REPORTING ............ ?
1. 11 Classic Member" Miscellaneous Retirement Benefits .................................................... 7
2. "New Member" Miscellaneous Retirement Benefits ........................................................ 8
3. "Classic Member" Safety Members Retirement Benefits .................................................. 8
4. "New Member" Safety Retirement Benefits ................................................................... 9
5. IRS Code 414(h)(2) .................................................................................................. 9
6. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit ................................................................. 9
7. Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits ....................................................................................... 9
8. VEBA Plan Requirements ........................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09
45
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
SECTION V-LEAVE BENEFITS ................................................................................ 11
A. GENERALLEAVE ................................................................................................... 11
1. Accrual ........................................................................................................ , ... , ......................... 11
2. Eligibility and Approval ........................................................... , ................................................. 11
3. Leave Benefit Entitlements ....................................................................................................... 11
4. Conversion to Cash .................................................................................................................. 11
B. HOLIDAYSANDPAYPROVISIONS ............................................................................ 12
C. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ........................................................................................... 12
D. VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION PROGRAM ........................................ 13
SECTION VI -RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN .................................................. 13
SECTION VII -MISCELLANEOUS .............................................................................. 13
A. COLLECTION OF PAYROLL OVERPAYMENTS ............................................................. 13
B. UNIFORMS AND CALPERS REPORTING .................................................................. 13
EXHIBIT 1A-NON-ASSOCIATED APPOINTED SALARY SCHEDULE .................... 14
EXHIBIT 1B-NON-ASSOCIATED ELECTED SALARY SCHEDULE ..................... 15
EXHIBIT 2 -RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN ...................................................................... 16
EXHIBIT 3 -9/80 WORK SCHEDULE ......................................................................... 20
EXHIBIT 4-VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION ............................. 22
Exhibit A to Non-Associaled Resolution No. 2022-09 ii
46
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
A. Appointed Salary Schedule
EXHIBIT A
SECTION 1-PAY
Effective March 19, 2022, the parties agree that the salary schedule in Exhibit 1A reflects
the following modifications from the salary schedule in Resolution No. 2016-50:
1. The salary schedule will include seven (7) steps from A-G;
2. The steps will be live percent (5%) steps;
3. The salary ranges will be one percent (1%) apart;
4. Each job classification will be assigned a salary range by:
a. Locating the range on the new salary schedule with a Step F that is nearest to the
position's current top step (Step E) without being less; and then,
b. Moving two ranges higher, thereby providing a wage increase of not less than two
percent (2%) for all appointed non-represented employees.
5. Each employee will be placed on the step (A-F) of their classification's assigned salary
range that is nearest to their base salary step (A-E of the November 2, 2020, salary
schedule) without being less.
6. Once placed on the new, seven-step salary schedule, employees will be eligible to move
to the next step on their anniversary date (i.e., the date they are due for their next
evaluation) upon receipt of a satisfactory evaluation.
7. The City Manager is authorized to set the salaries of the appointed executive
management positions identified in Exhibit 1A at any rate at or below Step E of the
designated salary range. The City Manager is authorized to increase the salary by 5%
based upon performance at annual review and market data. However, no salary for a
new employee may be set above Step E at any time without City Council approval.
B. Elected Salary Schedule
1. All elected executive management positions shall receive the salaries as identified in
Exhibit 1B.
2. The City Council shall set the salaries of the elected executive management positions
identified in Exhibit 1 B, at any rate within the designated salary range.
C. Performance Bonus
1. Appointed employees who are al Step G on the salary schedule are eligible for an
annual performance bonus of up to three percent (3%) of their base pay at the time of
their evaluation.
2. The annual performance bonus amount will be determined based upon the evaluation
of the employee's performance. A completed performance evaluation with specific
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09
47
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
recognition of outstanding performance must be attached to the Personnel Action Form
and sent to the Human Resources Division. The evaluation will also identify
performance goals and objectives.
The parties agree that to the extent permitted by CalPERS or law, the City will report the
compensation in this section as special compensation pursuant to Title 2 CCR, Section
571(a)(1) Bonus.
D. Direct Deposit
All Non-Associated employees are required to utilize direct deposit of payroll checks.
E. Assigned Vehicle/Auto Allowance
Appointed Department Heads, Contract Non-Department Heads, as well as the City Clerk,
City Treasurer, and City Attorney shall receive an auto allowance in the amount of two
hundred thirty dollars and seventy-seven cents ($230.77) per bi-weekly pay period plus
reimbursement of out-of-town travel at the approved mileage rate. Appointed Department
Heads and the City Clerk, City Treasurer, and City Attorney shall have the option of an
assigned City vehicle in lieu of an auto allowance.
SECTION II -HOURS OF WORK/TIME OFF
A. Executive Leave
Non-Associated exempt employees shall not be eligible for overtime compensation. Exempt
department heads and contract non-department heads shall be credited with eighty (80)
hours of executive leave per calendar year.
B. Flexible and Alternative Work Schedules
1. 5/40 Work Schedule
The 5/40 work schedule shall be defined as working five (5), eight (8) hour days, Monday
through Friday each week, with a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling a forty
(40) hour work week.
2. 9/80 Work Schedule
The 9/80 work schedule, as outlined in Exhibit 3, shall be defined as working nine (9) days
for eighty (80) hours in a two-week pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours
per day and working one (1) day for eight (8) hours (Friday), with a one-hour lunch during
each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA designated work week. The 9/80
work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental effectiveness,
productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee.
3. Alternative Work Schedule
Non-associated employees may elect any alternative work schedule approved by the City
Manager or designee.
Exnibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 2
48
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
SECTION 111-HEAL TH AND OTHER INSURANCE BENEFITS
A. Health Insurance
1. Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance
The City shall continue to make group medical, dental, and vision benefits available to
all Non-Associated employees.
2. City and Employee Paid Health Insurance
The City and the employee shall pay for health insurance premiums for employees and
qualified dependent(s) effective the first of the month following the employee's hire date.
The employee payroll deduction for premium contributions shall be deducted on a pre-
tax basis.
Such deductions shall be aligned with the effective date of coverage and the ending date
of coverage upon employment separation. The employee's payroll deduction amount
shall begin no later than the beginning of the first full pay period following the effective
date of coverage and pro-rated for coverage through the end of the month in which
employment was separated.
i. Maximum Employer Contributions -The City's maximum monthly employer
contributions for each employee's health and other insurance premiums are set forth
as follows:
a. The City's maximum monthly contribution to medical premiums for elected
non-represented positions will continue at the current City contribution rate.
Actual contributions for plan year 2022 based on premium costs are shown
in the rate sheet included herein.
b. Effective the beginning of the month following Council approval, the City's
maximum monthly contribution to medical premiums for appointed non-
represented positions will increase as summarized in the table below.
c. Effective the pay period that includes January 1, 2023, the City's maximum
monthly contribution to medical premiums will increase by $23.33 per month,
per medical plan and enrollment tier, up to, but not to exceed the monthly
plan premium cost.
d. The maximum City contribution shall be based on the employee's enrollment
in each plan. If the employee enrolls in a plan wherein the costs exceed the
City contribution, the employee is responsible for all additional premiums
through pre-tax payroll deductions.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 3
49
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
Current City Maximum City Contributions
Contribution JI for Appointed Positions
Plan Tier Maximum for Effective the Month Effective the Pay
Elected Following City Period Including
Positions• Council Approval January 1, 2023
Single 551.00 587.92 611.25
Kaiser _ Two-Party 1,174.36 1,233.08 ....... 1,256.41_ , '" " .,_
Family 1,370.04 1,438.54 1,461.87 _, ___ ,,
Single 621.00 662.61 685.94
Blue Shield ·----------··~
TRIO HMO Two-Party 1,174.36 1.233.08 1,256.41
Family 1,370.04 1,438.54 1,461.87 .
Blue Shield
Single 677.00 722.36 745.69
HMO Two-Party .. 1,174.36 1,233.08 1,256.41
Family 1,370.04 1,438.54 1,461.87
,M.s,o "'''h••~ -o,•~--M-WO ..
Single 740.00 789.58 812.91
Blue Shield Two-Party 1,335.78 1,402.57 1,425.90 PPO
Family 1,514.31 1,590.03 1,613.36
Single 567.00 590.33
Blue Shield Two-Party 1,163.00 1,186.33 HDHP -~--.,•----·~ -
Family 1,432.00 1,455.33
• Applies to elected non-represented positions for an indefinite period.
ii. "Safety Member" Health Premiums -EmpJoyer Contribution
Plan
Employees who are classified as a "safety member" by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) may have access to the medical plans
offered by CalPERS as contracted by the City. In accordance with eligibility provisions,
the Police Chief and the Fire Chief may elect to enroll in the CalPERS health insurance
program offered by the City.
The City's maximum monthly employer contributions for the CalPERS health insurance
program will match the PORAC Region 2 premiums, but not to exceed the maximum
amounts Indicated in the chart below. The amounts listed therein include the mandated
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) contribution.
Non-Associated Safety Members
CunentClty Effective the Month Effective the Pay
Tier Contribution Following City Period Including
Council Approval January 1, 2023
Single 774.00 825.86 849.19
Medical Two-Party 1,623.00 1,704.15 1,727.48
FamUy __ , 2,076.00 2,179.80 2,203.13
Iii. Employees shall not be entitled to the difference between the employer contribution
and the premiums for insurance plan(s) selected by the employee.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 4 ~----·-------------------------···-··
50
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
iv. Future Premiums
The City caps its contributions toward monthly group medical, dental, and vision plan
premiums by category (Single, Two-Party, and Family) as outlined in sections i and ii
above.
For the term of this agreement, and thereafter unless modified by negotiated
agreement of the parties, the City's monthly contributions to medical, dental, and
vision insurance shall remain as specified for the 2022 and 2023 Health Premiums
and Contribution amounts, unless otherwise specified herein. The City's contribution
caps will remain in place, even if premium increases result in these additional costs
being borne by the employee.
3. Medical Cash Out
If an employee is covered by a medical program outside of a City-provided program
(evidence of which must be supplied to Human Resources), the employee may elect to
discontinue City medical coverage and receive the monthly value of the City's contribution
to the Kaiser, Employee-only medical premium offered to this unit. Safety Members will
receive the monthly value of the City's contribution for the lowest-cost, employee only
medical coverage as described in Article 111.A.2.(ii).
4. Section 125 Plan
Employees shall be eligible to participate in a City-approved Section 125 Flexible
Spending Account Plan the same as all other eligible employees, as provided by IRS law.
This plan allows employees to use pre-tax salary to pay for regular childcare, adult
dependent care, and/or medical expenses.
B. Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance
Each Non-Associated employee shall be provided with S50,000 life insurance and $50,000
accidental death and dismemberment insurance paid for by the City. Each employee shall have
the option, at their own expense, to purchase additional amounts of life insurance and accidental
death and dismemberment insurance to the extent provided by the City's current providers.
Evidence of insurability is contingent upon total participation in additional amounts.
C. Long-Term Disability Insurance
This program provides benefits for each incident of illness or injury after a waiting period of
thirty (30) calendar days during which the Non-Associated employee may use accumulated sick
leave, general leave, or executive leave pay. Subsequent to the thirty-(30) day waiting period,
the employee will be covered by an insurance plan paid for by the City providing sixty-six and
two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the first $12,500 of the employee's basic monthly earnings up to
a maximum monthly benefit of $8,332.50. The maximum benefit period for disability due to injury
or illness shall be to age sixty-five (65).
Days and months refer to calendar days and months. Benefits under the plan are integrated with
sick leave, Worker's Compensation, Social Security and other non-private program benefits to
which the employee may be entitled. Disability is defined as: "The inability to perform all of the
duties of regular occupation during two years and thereafter the inability to engage in any
employment or occupation, for which they are fitted by reason of education, training or
experience." Rehabilitation benefits are provided in the event the individual, due to disability,
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 5
51
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
must engage in other occupation. Survivor's benefits continue the plan payment for three {3)
months beyond death. A copy of the plan is on file in the Human Resources Office.
o_ City Paid Physical Examinations
Non-Associated employees shall be provided, once every two years, with a City-paid physical
examination comparable to the current pre-placement class physical examination or reimbursed
the amount authorized for said physical examination_ No more than one-half of the eligible
employees shall receive examinations in any one fiscal year. Said exam shall be comprehensive
in nature and shall include:
1. A complete medical history, physical exam and review of results by physician_
2. Health testing including vision, hearing, breathing, chest x-ray and stress EKG.
3. Laboratory test including standard chemical test, blood count, HDL, urinalysis and stool test
for blood.
E. Miscellaneous
When a Non-Associated employee is on a leave of absence without pay for reason of medical
disability, the City shall maintain the City-paid insurance premiums during the period the
employee is in a non-pay status for the length of said leave, not to exceed twenty-four (24)
months.
F. Retiree Medical Coverage for Retirees Not Eligible for the City Medical Retiree Subsidy Plan
Employees who retire from the City after January 1, 2004, and are granted a retirement allowance
by the California Public Employees· Retirement System and are not eligible for the City's Retiree
Subsidy Medical Plan may choose to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans until
the first of the month in which they turn age sixty-five (65).
The retiree shall pay the full premium for City-sponsored medical insurance for themselves and/or
qualified dependents without any City subsidy.
Employees who retire from the City and receive a retirement allowance from the California Public
Employees' Retirement System and are not eligible for the City's Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan
and choose not to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance upon retirement permanently
lose eligibility for this insurance.
However, if a retiree who is not eligible for the City's Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan chooses not
to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans because the retiree has access to other
group medical insurance, and subsequently loses eligibility for that group medical insurance, the
retiree and their qualified dependents will have access to City-sponsored medical insurance plans
reinstated.
Eligibility for Retiree Medical Coverage terminates the first of the month in which the retiree or
qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65).
G. Post-65 Supplemental Medicare Coverage
Retirees who are participating in the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan as of January 1, 2004, and all
future retirees who meet the criteria to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance, with or
Exhibit A to Non~Associaled Resolution No. 2022v09 6
52
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
without the Retiree Medical Subsidy Plan, may participate in City-sponsored medical insurance
plans that are supplemental to Medicare, after a contract is in place between the City and a health
insurance provider.
A retiree or qualified dependent must choose to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance
plans that are supplemental to Medicare beginning the first of the month in which the retiree or
qualified dependent turns age sixty-five (65).
The retiree shall pay the full premium to participate in City-sponsored medical insurance plans
that are supplemental to Medicare for themselves or qualified dependents without any City
subsidy.
Retirees or qualified dependents, upon turning age 65, who choose not to participate in the City-
sponsored medical insurance plans that are supplemental to Medicare permanently lose eligibility
for this insurance.
SECTION IV -RETIREMENT
A. Benefits
1. Self-Funded Supplemental Retirement Benefit
In the event a Non-Associated employee member elects Option #1, #2, #2W, #3, #3W or
#4 of the Public Employees' Retirement law, the City shall pay the difference between such
elected option and the unmodified allowance which the member would have received for
their life alone as provided in California Government Code sections 21455, 21456, 21457,
and 21548 as said referenced Government Code sections exist as, of the date of this
agreement. This payment shall be made only to the member (Non-Associated employee),
shall be payable by the City during the life of the member, and upon that member's death,
the City's obligation shall cease. Unless previously excluded by employment or resolution,
eligibility for this benefit is limited to employees hired before December 27, 1997.
2. Medical Insurance for Retirees
a. Upon retirement, whether service or disability connected, each Non-Associated
employee shall be entitled to cause self, spouse, and dependents to participate fully
in the City's group health insurance program at the equivalent of the City's group
premium rate in accordance with the provisions specified by Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Such participation shall be at
employee's expense and upon terms, conditions, and restrictions currently in effect.
b. As an alternative to the benefit described in the preceding paragraph, the City will
provide a financial contribution towards the cost of retiree medical premiums as
described in Section VL
B. Public Employees' Retirement System Contributions and Reporting
1. "Classic Member" Miscellaneous Members Retirement Benefits
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 7
53
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
a. Retirement Formula -The City shall provide all miscellaneous employees described
as classic members by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 with that
certain retirement program commonly known and described as the "2.5% at age 55
plan," which is based on the retirement formula as set forth in the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), Section 21354 of the California
Government Code.
b. Classic Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution -All miscellaneous
bargaining unil classic members shall pay to CalPERS as part of the required member
retirement contribution eight percent (8%) of pensionable income. This provision shall
not sunset.
c. One-Year Final Compensation -The City shall contract with CalPERS to have
retirement benefits calculated based upon the classic employee's highest one year's
compensation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20042 (highest single year).
d. The obligations of the City and the retirement rights of employees as provided in this
Article shall survive the term of this resolution.
2. "New Member" Miscellaneous Members Retirement Benefits -For New Members within
the meaning of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 as defined in
California Government Code Sectiorr 7522.04(1).
a. Retirement Formula -New Members shall be governed by the two percent at age 62
(2% @ 62) retirement formula set forth in Government Code section 7522.20.
b. Final Compensation -Final compensation will be based on the highest annual
average compensation earnable during the 36 consecutive months immediately
preceding the effective date of retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month period
designated by the member.
c. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution -Effective January 1,
2013, all new members, as defined by PEPRA and determined by CalPERS, shall
contribute one half (50%) of the normal cost as established by CalPERS each year in
its annual valuation for the City, as required by California Government Code Section
7522.30(c).
3. "Classic Member" Safety Members Retirement Benefits
a. Retirement Formula -The City shall provide all safety employees described as
"classic" members by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 -"PEP RA"
with that certain retirement program commonty known and described as the "3% at
age 50 plan" which is based on the retirement formula as set forth in the California
Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), Section 21362.2 of the California
Government Code.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 8
54
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
b. Classic Member Safety CalPERS Member Contribution -All safety employees
described as "classic" members shall pay to CalPERS as part of the required member
retirement contribution nine percent (9%) of pensionable income. This provision shall
not sunset.
c. One-Year Final Compensation -The City shall contract with CalPERS to have
retirement benefits calculated based upon the "classic" employee's highest one year's
compensation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20042 (highest single year).
d. The obligations of the City and the retirement rights of employees as provided in this
Article shall survive the term of this resolution.
4. "New Member" Safety Members Retirement Benefits -For New Members within the
meaning of the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013.
a. Retirement Formula -New Members shall be governed by the two and seven tenths
percent at age 57 (2.7% @ 57) retirement formula set forth in Government Code
section 7522.25(d)
b. Final Compensation -Final compensation will be based on the highest annual
average compensation eamable during the 36 consecutive months immediately
preceding the effective date of retirement, or some other 36 consecutive month
period designated by the member.
c. New Member Miscellaneous CalPERS Member Contribution -All new members as
defined by PEPRA and determined by CalPERS, shall contribute one half (50%) of
the normal cost, as established by CalPERS.
5. IRS Code Section 414/h)/2\
The City has adopted the CalPERS Resolution in accordance with IRS Code section
414(h)(2) to ensure that both the employee contribution and the City pickup of the required
member contribution are made on a pre-tax basis. However, ultimately, the tax status of
any benefit is determined by the law.
6. Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit
Non-Associated employees shall be covered by the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2
Death Benefit as identified in Section 21548 of the California Government Code when
approved by the City Council.
7. Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits
Non-Associated employees shall be covered by the Fourth Level of the 1959 Survivor
Benefit as identified in Section 2157 4 of the California Government Code.
8. VEBA Plan Requirements
a. Eligibility Defined
Effective December 23, 2009, all eligible non-associated employees with 25 years of
continuous service to the City of Huntington Beach wilt participate in the Plan. An
eligible employee is an employee who works twenty (20) or more hours per week and
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022--09 9
55
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
receives benefits. Eligibility criteria may be amended upon a majority vote of non•
associated employees, as no cost is borne by the City.
b. Leave Payout Plan Contribution
Each eligible unrepresented management employee shall designate all leave payouts
to be rolled over to their VEBA Plan account based on the established range upon
separation from City employment.
c. Participant Account
A separate account is maintained for each contributing eligible non-associated
employee, which documents the employee's contributions and disbursements.
Contributions to a VEBA plan account as well as any disoursements to cover
nonreimbursed, post-tax medical care expenses are both tax free. Eligible benefits
subject to reimbursement by the Plan shall be limited to long-term care expenses and
nonreimbursed medical premiums, co-pays, prescribed drug expenses and other
medical care costs as that term is defined by the Internal Revenue Code Section 213.
d. Administrative Fees
Any Plan administrative fees will be deducted from interest on the total Plan
investments.
An eligible non-associated employee's Plan account is subject to a monthly
administrative fee for expenses related to recordkeeping, claims processing, and
claims reimbursement. The fee will first be deducted from interest on total plan
investments, and then deducted, if necessary, from the employee's individual account.
e, Dispute Resolution
This Resolution and any disputes arising under or in connection with this Resolution
shall not be subject to any dispute resolution procedures in the City's Personnel Rules,
nor shall this Resolution and any such dispute relating thereto be subject to the
jurisdiction of the City's Personnel Commission for any reason whatsoever.
f. Indemnification
All non-associated employees agree to indemnify and hold the City of Huntington
Beach harmless against any claims made of any nature and against any suit instituted
against the City arising from this Resolution, including, but not limited to, claims arising
from an employee's participation in VEBA or from any salary reduction initiated by the
City for VEBA contributions.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 10
56
A.
=~--
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND B ENEFITS RESOLUTION .
SECTION V -LEAVE BEN EFITS
General Leave
1. Accrual
General leave may be used for any purpose, includi ng vacation, sick leave, and personal
shall be accrued as follows: leave. General leave for non-associated employees
Years of Service Annual General Lea ve Biweekly General Leave
Allowance Allowance
First throuah Fourth Year 176 hours 6.77
Fifth throuoh Ninth Year 200 hours 7.69
Tenth throuah Fourteenth Year 224 hours
Fifteenth Year and Thereafter 256 hours 9.85
2. Eligibility and Approval
General leave must be pre-approved except for ill
may require a physician's statement for approval.
computed from hiring date anniversary. Employees
ness, injury or family sickness, which
General leave accrued time is to be
shall not be permitted to take general
all not accrue general leave in excess
ot use their general leave to advance
on from employment.
leave in excess of actual time earned. Employees sh
of six hundred forty (640) hours. Employees may n
their separation date on retirement or other separati
3. Leave Benefit Entitlements
The City shall comply with all State and Federal leav e benefit entitlement laws. An eligible
o use applicable earned Sick Leave,
personal health issues. For more
Human Resources Office.
employee on an approved leave shall be allowed t
General Leave, or Executive Leave for family or
information on employee leave options contact the
4. Conversion to Cash
a.
b.
Pay Off at T ennination
An employee shall be paid for unused general I eave upon termination of employment
receive compensation at their current
to which they are entitled up to and
at which time such terminating employee shall
salary rate for all unused, earned general leave
including the effective date of their termination.
Conversion to Cash
Two times during each fiscal year, each perman ent employee shall have the option to
pensatlon up to a total of one hundred
fiscal year. The employee shall give
clslon to exercise such option.
convert into a cash payment or deferred com
and sixty (160) general leave benefit hours per
payroll two (2) weeks' advance notice of their de
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 11
57
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
c. Deferred Compensation Contribution at Time of Separation
The value of any unused earned leave benefits may be transferred to deferred
compensation at separation (including retirement), but only during the time that the
employee is actively employed with the City, The latest opportunity for such transfer
must be the beginning of the pay period prior to the employee's last day of employment.
B. Holidays and Pay Provisions
1. Non-Associated employees shall receive the following legal holidays as of the first pay
period following adoption of the Non-Associated Resolution paid in full per the employee's
regularly scheduled work shift:
(1) New Year's Day (January 1)
(2) Martin Luther King Day (third Monday in January)
(3) Presidents Day (third Monday in February)
( 4) Memorial Day (last Monday in May)
(5) Independence Day (July 4)
(6) Labor Day (first Monday in September)
(7) Veteran's Day (November 11)
(8) Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November)
(9) The Friday after Thanksgiving
(10) Christmas Day (December 25)
In addition, all appointed positions shall receive the following holidays:
(11) Christmas Eve (December 24)
(12) New Year's Eve (December 31)
2. Any day declared by the President of the United States to be a national holiday or by the
Governor of the State of California to be a state holiday and adopted as an employee
holiday by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach.
3. The parties agree that the City shall issue an official City holiday calendar in January of
each year that will determine the dates that holidays are observed, following the
guidelines below:
a. City paid holidays which fall on Saturday shall be observed the preceding Friday,
and those falling on Sunday shall be observed the following Monday.
b. In the event that two consecutive City paid holidays fall on a Friday and Saturday,
the two holidays shall be observed on the preceding Thursday and Friday.
c. In the event that two consecutive City paid holidays fall on a Sunday and Monday,
the two holidays shall be observed on Monday and the following Tuesday.
C. Bereavement Leave
Employees shall be entitled to bereavement leave not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours in
each instance of death in their immediate family. Immediate family is defined as a parent,
sibling, spouse, registered domestic partner, child, grandparent, grandchild, or wards of which
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 12
58
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
the employee is the legal guardian, recognizing all birth, marital, and other legal ties (i.e., step
relatives, in-laws, etc.).
D. Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program
Under certain conditions, an employee may donate leave time to another employee in need.
The program is outlined in Exhibit 4.
SECTION VI -RETIREE SUBSIDY MEDICAL PLAN
An employee who has retired from the City shall be entitled to participate in the City-sponsored
medical insurance plans in accordance with the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan as outlined in Exhibit
2. Employees hired on or after December 1, 2009, shall not be eligible for this benefit.
SECTION VII -MISCELLANEOUS
A. Collection of Payroll Overpayments
In the event that a payroll overpayment is discovered and verified, and considering all reasonable
factors including the length of time that the overpayment was made and if and when the employee
could have reasonably known about such overpayment, the City shall take action to collect from
the employee the amount of overpayment(s). Such collection shall be processed by payroll
deduction over a reasonable period of time considering the total amount of overpayment.
In the event the employee separates from employment during the collection period, the final
amount shall be deducted from the last payroll check of the employee. If applicable, the balance
due from the employee shall be communicated upon employment separation if the last payroll
check does not sufficiently cover the amount due the City.
It shall be the responsibility of the employee and the City to periodically monitor the accuracy of
compensation payments or reimbursements due to the possibility of a clerical oversight or error.
The City reserves the right to also collect compensation overpayments caused by or the result of
misinterpretation of a pay provision by non-authorized personnel. The interpretation of all pay
provisions shall be administered by the City Manager or designee and as adopted by the City
Council. Unauthorized compensation payments shall not constitute a past practice (1/03/05).
B. Uniforms and CalPERS Reporting
The City provides uniforms to active duty employees in the classifications of Police Chief and Fire
Chief. These employees are required to wear a standard uniform for appearance, uniformity, and
public recognition purposes.
The City will report to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) -the
average annual cost of uniforms as special compensation for each eligible employee in
accordance with Title 2, California Code of Regulations, Section 571 (a)(5).
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 13
59
I
0591 Cit
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT 1A
NON-ASSOCIATED APPOINTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective March 19, 2022•
~01'1
294 103.38 108.55 113.98 119.68 125.66 131.94 138.54
ntenm IIV 0029 I . c· M anaaer 289 I 98.36 3 10 .28 108.44 1 113.87 I 1 9.56 I 125.54 I 131.82
DEPARTMENT HEADS
0592 Assistant Citv Manaoer 275 85.57 89.85 94.34 99.06 104.01 109.21 114.67 .. ,
0015 Fire Chief 275 85.57 89.85 94.34 99.06 104.01 109.21 114.67
0011 Police Chlef 275 85.57 89.85 94.34 99.06 104.01 109.21 114.67
0518 Chief Financial Officer 269 80.61 84.64 88.88 93.32 97.99 102.88 108.03
Community Development
0589 Director 269 80.61 84.64 88.88 93.32 97.99 102.88 108.03
Director of Administrative
0800 Services 269 80.61 84.64 88.88 93.32 97.99 102.88 108.03
Director of Community &
0801 Librarv Services 269 80.61 84.64 88.88 93.32 97.99 102.88 108.03
0010 Director of Public Works 269 80.61 84.64 88.88 93.32 97.99 102.88 108.03
CONTRACT NON-DEPARTMENT HEADS
0593 Chief Assistant City Attorney 261 74.44 78.17 82.08 86.18 90.49 95.01 99.76
0860 Deputy Dir. of Homelessness & 258 72.26 75.87 79.66 83.64 87.83 92.22 96.83
Behavioral Health Services
0845 Deputy Director of 258 72.26 75.87 79.66 83.64 87.83 92.22 96.83
Public Works --·-"~ 0900 Assistant Chief Financial 249 66.07 69.37 72.84 76.48 80.30 84.32 88.53
Officer
0850 Deputy Director of 249 66.07 69.37 72.84 76.48 80.30 84.32 88.53
Administrative Services
0855 Deputy Director of 249 66.07 69.37 72.84 76.48 80.30 84.32 88.53
Communitv & Librarv Services
0840 Deputy Director of 249 66.07 69.37 72.84 76.48 80.30 84.32 88.53
Community Develooment
0699 Deputy Community Prosecutor 206 43.07 45.22 47.48 49.86 52.35 54.97 57.72 ·-
·Per Resolution No. 2022-09
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 14
-·~•,..•,~~
60
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION --···-·_;_:-=-:_:__:_:=c::__::cc__cc=:;__;:::=..=::..:c:=::_:_c=_::_:::~-==="-'-=-=-,:c=c:_::-=-:c_:c_=-:_: __
EXHIBIT 1B
NON-ASSOCIATED ELECTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective November 2, 2020*
ELECTED OFFICIALS
0016 NA0016
0017 NA0017
0018 Ci Treasurer Part-Time _ NA0018
'Per Resolution No. 2020-80
·~·
,orllt
100.18 111.51
69,94 77.85
69,94 77.85
124.10
86,66
86,66
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No, 2022-09 . __ 15 _________________ ~
61
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT2
RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN
An employee who has retired from the City shall be entitled to participate in the City sponsored
medical insurance plans and the City shall contribute toward monthly premiums for coverage in an
amount as specified in accordance with this Plan, provided:
A. At the time of retirement the employee has a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous full
time City service or is granted an industrial disability retirement; and
B. At the time of retirement, the employee is employed by the City; and
C. Following official separation from the City, the employee is granted a retirement allowance
by the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
The City's obligation to pay the monthly premium as indicated shall be modified downward
or cease during the lifetime of the retiree upon the occurrence of any one of the following:
1. On the first of the month in which a retiree or dependent reaches age 65 or on
the date the retiree or dependent can first apply and become eligible,
automatically or voluntarily, for medical coverage under Medicare (whether or
not such application is made) the City's obligation to pay monthly premiums
may be adjusted downward or eliminated. Benefit coverage at age 65 under
the City's medical plans shall be governed by applicable plan document.
2. In the event of the death of any employee, whether retired or not, the amount
of the retiree medical insurance subsidy benefit which the deceased employee
was receiving at the time of their death would be eligible to receive if they were
retired at the time of death, shall be paid on behalf of the spouse or family for
a period not to exceed twelve ( 12) months.
D. Schedule of Benefits
1. Minimum Eligibility for Benefits
With the exception of an industrial disability retirement, eligibility for benefits begins
after an employee has completed ten (10) years of continuous full time service with
the City of Huntington Beach. Said service must be continuous unless prior service
is reinstated at the time of their rehire in accordance with the City's Personnel Rules.
Employees hired on or after December 1, 2009 shall not be eligible for this benefit.
2. Disability Retirees
Industrial disability retirees with less than ten (10) years of service shall receive a
maximum monthly payment toward the premium for health insurance of $121.
Payments shall be in accordance with the stipulations and conditions, which exist for
all retirees. Payment shall not exceed dollar amount, which is equal to the full cost of
premium for employee only.
3. Marital Status -Married retirees eligible for benefits under the Retiree Medical
Subsidy Plan may each receive the benefit earned pursuant to Section 4 -Maximum
Monthly Subsidy Payments, whether enrolled individually as the plan enrollee or
whether enrolled as a dependent on any City-sponsored medical plan.
Exhibit A to NonMAssociated Resolution No. 2022-09 16
62
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
a. In the case where a retiree is married to a City employee (active or retired)
who is not an unrepresented/non-associated employee or retiree, this
provision shall remain applicable.
b. This provision shall apply to State of California registered domestic partners
the same as married spouses.
4. Maximum Monthly Subsidy Payments
Payment amounts may be reduced each month as dependent eligibility ceases due
to death, divorce or loss of dependent child status. However, the amount shaft not
be reduced if such reduction would cause insufficient funds needed to pay the full
premium for the employee and the remaining dependents. In the event no reduction
occurs and the remaining benefit premium is not sufficient to pay the premium amount
for the employee and the eligible dependents. said needed excess premium amount
shall be paid by the employee.
All retirees, including those retired as a result of disability whose number of years of
service prior to retirement, exceeds ten (10) years of continuous full time service, shall
be entitled to maximum monthly payment of premiums by the City for each year of
completed City service as follows:
Maximum Monthly Payment
for Retirements After:
Years of Service Subsldy
10 $121
11 136
12 151
13 166 -14 181
15 196
16 211
17 226
18 241
19 256
20 271 "_,,_,,,_,~,,--,, ~,w,m-~~mM'
21 286 ··-~-"" --" ·=~--,,-
22 300
23 315
24 330 ~-
25 344
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 17
63
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Eligibility:
1 . The effective start-up date of the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan for the various
employee groups shall be the first of the month following retirement date.
2. A retiree may change plans, add dependents, etc., during annual open enrollment.
The Human Resources Office shall notify covered retirees of this opportunity each
year.
3. Years of service computed for the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan are actual years of
completed service with the City of Huntington Beach.
B. Benefits:
1. The Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan includes any medical plan offered by the City to
active and/or retired unrepresented/non-associated employees and retirees.
2. City Plans are the primary payer for active employees age 65 and over, with Medicare
the secondary payer. Retirees age 65 and over have no City Plan options and are
eligible only for Medicare.
3. Premium payments are to be received at least one month in advance of the coverage
period.
C. Subsidies:
1. The subsidy payments will pay for:
a. The Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan.
b. HMO.
c. Part A of Medicare for those retirees not eligible for paid Part A.
2. Subsidy payments will not pay for:
a. Part B Medicare.
b. Any other employee benefit plan.
c. Any other commercially available benefit plan.
d. Medicare supplements
D. Medicare:
1. All persons are eligible for Medicare coverage at age 65. Those with sufficient credit
quarters of Social Security will receive Part A of Medicare at no cost. Those without
sufficient credited quarters are still eligible for Medicare at age 65, but will have to pay
for Part A of Medicare if the individual elects to take Medicare. In all cases, Part B of
Medicare is paid for by the participant.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 18
64
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
2. When a retiree and their spouse are both 65 or over, and neither is eligible for paid
Part A of Medicare, the subsidy shall pay for Part A for each of them or the maximum
subsidy, whichever is less.
3. When a retiree at age 65 is eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and their spouse is not
eligible for paid Part A, the spouse shall not receive subsidy. When a retiree at age
65 is not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare and their spouse who is also age 65 is
eligible for paid Part A of Medicare. the subsidy shall be for the retiree's Part A only.
E. Cancellation:
1. For retirees/dependents eligible for paid Part A of Medicare, the following cancellation
provisions apply:
a. Coverage for a retiree under the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan will be eliminated
on the first day of the month in which the retiree reaches age 65. If such retiree
was covering dependents under the Plan, dependents will be eligible for COBRA
continuation benefits effective as of the retiree's 65th birthday.
b. Dependent coverage will be eliminated upon whichever of the following occasions
comes first:
1) After 36 months of COBRA continuation coverage, or
2) When the covered dependent reaches age 65 in the event such dependent
reaches age 65 prior to the retiree reaching age 65.
c. At age 65 retirees are eligible to make application for Medicare. Upon being
considered "eligible to make application," whether or not application has been
made for Medicare, the Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan will be eliminated.
2, See provisions under "Benefits," "Subsidies," and "Medicare" for those
retirees/dependents not eligible for paid Part A of Medicare.
3. Retiree Subsidy Medical Plan and COBRA participants shall be notified of non-
payment of premium by means of a certified letter from Employee Benefits in
accordance with provisions of the Non-Associated Resolution.
4. A retiree who fails to pay premiums due for coverage and is in arrears for sixty
(60) days shall be terminated from the Plan and shall not have reinstatement
rights.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 19
65
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT 3
9180 WORK SCHEDULE
This work schedule is known as "9/80". The 9/80 work schedule is designed to be in compliance with
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the event that there is a conflict with
the current rules, practices and/or procedures regarding work schedules and leave plans, then the
rules listed below shall govern.
9/80 WORK SCHEDULE DEFINED
The 9/80 work schedule shall be defined as working nine (9) days for eighty (80) hours in a two week
pay period by working eight (8) days at nine (9) hours per day and working one (1) day for eight (8)
hours (Friday), with a one-hour lunch during each work shift, totaling forty (40) hours in each FLSA
work week. The 9/80 work schedule shall not reduce service to the public, departmental
effectiveness, productivity and/or efficiency as determined by the City Manager or designee.
A. Forty (40) Hour FLSA Work Week
The actual FLSA workweek is from Friday at mid-shift (p,m.) to Friday at mid-shift (a.m.). No
employee working the 9/80 work schedule will be able to flex their Friday start time nor the
time they take their lunch break, which will be from 12:00 p.m. to 1 :00 p.m. on Fridays. All
employee work shifts will start at 8:00 a.m. on their Friday worked. The start of the FLSA
workweek is 12:00 noon Friday.
B. Two Week Pay Period
The pay period for employees starts Friday mid-shift (p.m.) and continues for fourteen (14)
days until Friday mid-shift (a.m.), During this period, each week is made up of four (4) nine
(9) hour work days (thirty-six (36) hours) and one (1) four (4) hour Friday and those hours
equal forty (40) work hours in each work week (e.g. the Friday is split into four (4) hours for
the a.m. shift, which is charged to work week one and four (4) hours for the p.m. shift, which
is charged to work week two).
C. A/B Schedules
To continue to provide service to the public every Friday, employees are to be divided
between two schedules, known as the "A" schedule and the "B" schedule, based upon the
departmental needs. For identification purposes, the "A" schedule shall be known as the
schedule with a day off on the Friday in the middle of the pay period, or, "off on payday", the
·s· schedule shall have the first Friday (p.m.) and the last Friday (a.m.) off, or "working on
payday·. An example is listed below:
AM PM AM PM AM PM
F F s s M T w Th F F s s M T w Th F F
IA Schedule 4 4 . -9 9 9 9 . -. . 9 9 9 9 4 4
IB Schedule . -. -9 9 9 9 4 4 . . 9 9 9 9 . -
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 20
66
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
D. NB Schedule Changes
FLSA exempt employees may change NB schedules at the beginning of any pay period with
supervisor or City Manager approval.
E. Emergencies
All employees on the 9/80 work schedule are subject to be called to work any time to meet
any and all emergencies or unusual conditions which. in the opinion of the City Manager, or
designee may require such service from any of said employees.
LEAVE BENEFITS
When an employee is off on a scheduled workday under the 9/80 work schedule, then nine (9) hours
of eligible leave per workday shall be charged against the employee's leave balance or eight (8)
hours shall be charged if the day off is a Friday. All leaves shall continue under the current accrual,
eligibility, request and approval requirements.
1. General Leave -As stated in the Non-Associated Resolution.
2. Sick Leave -As stated in the Non-Associated Resolution.
3. Executive Leave -As stated in the Non-Associated Resolution.
4. Bereavement Leave -As stated in the Non-Associated Resolution.
5. Holidays -As stated in the Non-Associated Resolution.
6. Jury Duty-The provisions of the Personnel Rules shall continue to apply, however, if an
FLSA exempt employee is called to serve on jury duty during a normal Friday off. Saturday,
or Sunday, or on a City holiday, then the jury duty shall be considered the same as having
occurred during the employees day off work, therefore, the employee will receive no added
compensation.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 21
67
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
EXHIBIT 4
VOLUNTARY CATASTROPHIC LEAVE DONATION
Guidelines
1. Purpose
The purpose of the volunlary catastrophic leave donation program is to bridge employees
who have been approved leave time to either return to work, long-term disability, or medical
retirement. Permanent employees who accrue vacation, general leave or compensatory time
may donate such leave to another permanent employee when a catastrophic illness or injury
befalls that employee or because the employee is needed to care for a seriously ill family
member. The leave-sharing Leave Donation Program is Citywide across all departments and
is intended to provide an additional benefit. Nothing in this program is intended to change
current policy and practice for use and/or accrual of vacation, general, or sick leave.
2. Definitions
Catastrophic Illness or Injury• A serious debilitating illness or injury, which incapacitates the
employee or an employee's family member.
Family Member-For the purposes of this policy, the definition of family member is that defined
in the Family Medical Leave Act (child, parent, spouse or domestic partner).
3. Eligible Leave
Accrued compensatory, vacation or general leave hours may be donated. The minimum
donation an employee may make is two (2) hours and the maximum is forty (40) hours.
4. Eligibility
Permanent employees who accrue vacation or general leave may donate such hours to
eligible recipients. Compensatory time accrued may also be donated. An eligible recipient is
an employee who:
• Accrues vacation or general leave;
• Is not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensation payments; and
• Requests donated leave.
5. Transfer of Leave
The maximum donation credited to a recipient's leave account shall be the amount necessary
to ensure continuation of the employee's regular salary during the employee's period of
approved catastrophic leave. Donations will be voluntary, confidential and irrevocable. Hours
donated will be converted into a dollar amount based on the hourly wage of the donor. The
dollar amount will then be converted into accrued hours based on the recipient's hourly wage.
An employee needing leave will complete a Leave Donation Request Form and submit it to
the Department Director for approval. The Department Director will forward the form to
Human Resources for processing. Human Resources, working with the department, will send
out the request for leave donations.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 22
68
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
Employees wanting to make donations will submit a Leave Donation Form to the Finance
Department (payroll).
All donation forms submitted to payroll will be date stamped and used in order received for
each bi-weekly pay period. Multiple donations will be rotated in order to insure even use of
time from donors. Any donation form submitted that is not needed will be returned to the
donor.
6. other
Please contact the Human Resources Office with questions regarding employee participation
in this program.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 23
69
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program
Leave Request Form
Requester. Please Complete
According to the provisions of the Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program, I hereby request
donated vacation, general leave or compensatory lime.
MY SIGNATURE CERTIFIES THAT:
• A Leave of absence in relation to a catastrophic illness or injury has been approved by my
Department; and
• I am not receiving disability benefits or Workers' Compensalion payments.
~ame:(PieasePrint oriype: Last, i=irst,MIJ
Pobfiue:
i
:Requester Signature:
;Departmentbirector Signature oisupport:
!
'Department:
'
~ ,--~ , __ ,_._,,, ________ ,_,_ -------
JEmployee ID#:
'
Date:
'oate:
Please submit this form to the Human Resources Office for processing.
70
NON-ASSOCIATED EMPLOYEES PAY AND BENEFITS RESOLUTION
Voluntary Catastrophic Leave Donation Program
Leave Donation Form
Donor, please complete
!Donor Name: (Please Print or Type: Last, First, Ml)
!Donor Job Title:
~ype of Accrued Leave:
0 Vacation
0 Compensatory Time
0 General Leave
I
!Number of Hours I wish to Donate:
Hours of Vacation
I Hours of Compensatory Time
I Hours of General Leave
i--
I understand that this voluntary donation of leave credits, once processed, is irrevocable;
but if not needed, the donation will be returned to me. I also understand that this donation
will remain confidential.
I wish to donate my accrued vacation, comp or general leave hours to the Leave Donation
Program for:
Eligible recipient employee's name (Last, First. Ml):
!Donor Signature:
Please submit to the Payroll/Finance Department.
Exhibit A to Non-Associated Resolution No. 2022-09 25
71
Res. No. 2022-24
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted
by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a Regular meeting thereof held on May 3, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSE:
Peterson, Bolton, Delgleize, Carr, Posey, Moser, Kalmick
None
None
None
City Clerk ·and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
72
EXHIBIT B
73
EXHIBITS
NON-ASSOCIATED ELECTED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 2, 2020'
ELECTED OFFICIALS
0017 City Clerk NA0017 69.94 77.85 86.66
0018 City Treasurer-PART-TIME NA0018 69.94 77.85 86.66
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2022'
ELECTED OFFICIALS -CITY ATTORNEY
0016 City Attorney NA0016 100.18 -120.09 140.00
3.0% EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS -CITY ATTORNEY
0016 City Attorney NA0016 100.18 123.69 144.20
3.0% EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2024
ELECTED OFFICIALS -CITY ATTORNEY
0016 City Attorney NA0016 100.18 127.40 148.53
* Per Resolution No. 2020-80
t Per Resolution No. 2022..J<X adopted on 12/20/2022, the compensation of City Attorney was modified retroactive to 07/01/2022, and a 3.0%
increase is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2023, and July 1, 2024.
74
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-989 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
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 of November 15, 2022 and the
special meeting minutes of November 29, 2022, require review and approval.
Financial Impact: None.
Recommended Action:
Approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes of November
15, 2022 and the special meeting minutes of November 29, 2022.
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. November 15, 2022 CC/PFA regular meeting minutes
2. November 29, 2022 CC/PFA special meeting minutes
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™75
Minutes
City Council/Public Financing Authority
City of Huntington Beach
Tuesday, November 15, 2022
4:00 PM - Council Chambers
6:00 PM - Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Or Virtual via Zoom Webinar
A video recording of the 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM portions of this meeting
is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at
www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/
5:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALLED TO ORDER — 5:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
Absent: Carr
Councilmember Carr was granted permission to be absent pursuant to Resolution 2001-54, and City
Clerk Robin Estanislau was granted permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter Section 310 (a).
Mayor Delgleize announced City Manager Al Zelinka was granted permission to be absent per City
Charter Section 402, and Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins was the Acting City Manager for this
meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION
ITEM(S) (Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS — None
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT(S)
1. 22-991 Mayor Delgleize Announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8, the City
Council shall recess to Closed Session to give instructions to the City's
Negotiators, Al Zelinka, Travis Hopkins, Acting City Manager; Ursula Luna-
Reynosa, Director of Community Development; Sean Crumby, Director of Public
Works, regarding negotiations with Timothy A. Fissinger, Vice President of Real
Estate for Republic Services concerning price and terms of payment for the
disposition of real property located at APN numbers 111-372-06 and 111-372-07
A motion was made by Kalmick, second Bolton, to recess to Closed Session.
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — 5:02 PM
76
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 2 of 18
CLOSED SESSION
2. 22-992 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code section
54956.8.) Property: APN numbers 111-372-06 and 111-372-07. Agency negotiator: Al
Zelinka, Travis Hopkins, Acting City Manager; Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of
Community Development; and Sean Crumby, Director of Public Works. Negotiating
parties: Timothy A. Fissinger. Vice President of Real Estate for Republic Services.
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
6:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:03 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
Absent: Carr
Councilmember Carr was granted permission to be absent pursuant to Resolution 2001-54, and City
Clerk Robin Estanislau was granted permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter Section 310 (a).
Mayor Delgleize announced City Manager Al Zelinka was granted permission to be absent per City
Charter Section 402, and Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins was the Acting City Manager for this
City Council meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Mayor Pro Tem Posey.
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.
3. 22-931 Zarathushti Maneck Bhujwala of the Zoroastrian Community and member of the
Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — None
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
4. 22-938 Mayor Delgleize called on Eagle Scout recipient Joe Broadway who recently rebuilt
the staircase to the mudslide at the City’s Adventure Playground
Joe Broadway of Troop 274, a life-time resident of Huntington Beach, was acknowledged by Mayor
Delgleize for his Adventure Playground Eagle Scout project. Joe was responsible for the new pathway
that was built which required 33 volunteers and 509 service hours. The project took over a year and was
completed in April 2022. Mayor Delgleize thanked Joe for being such a great role model and presented
him with a Certificate of Commendation.
Joe expressed his gratitude for an opportunity to help kids in the City he grew up in, and thanked
everyone who volunteered, his Scout Master Mr. LaParn, as well as Assistant City Manager Travis
77
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 3 of 18
Hopkins who was his first Scout Master, Kiwanis Club of Huntington Beach and Huntington Beach Digital
Arts for their generous support for the project.
5. 22-939 Mayor Delgleize recognized Republic Services Drivers Ben Matua and Jose
Cardosa for being Good Samaritans in assisting a customer in need of help
Mr. Dettloff described how he fell while working in his yard, and shared how helpful both Mr. Matua and
Mr. Cardosa were to ensure he got safely into his home. Mayor Delgleize commended both Republic
Services drivers for their compassion and kindness in this situation, and presented Certificates of
Commendation.
6. 22-977 Mayor Delgleize called on members of the Huntington Beach Host Lions Club to
present the Club’s Melvin Jones Award to Community & Library Services Director
Chris Slama
Lions Club 2nd Vice District Governor Scott Quinlan and Janet Price, HB Lion President, noted that the
Lions (Loving Individuals Offering Needed Service) Club is the largest service organization in the world.
Ms. Price presented a plaque and thanked Chris Slama for his 25 years of service through Lions Club.
Mr. Slama thanked the Lions Club for this recognition, and acknowledged his City team members,
community members, and his family for their tremendous support through the years.
7. 22-923 Mayor Delgleize presented the November Mayor’s HB Excellence Award to Chaplain
Roger Wing with HBFD and HBPD
Mayor Delgleize noted that the Mayor's HB Excellence Awardees are nominated by their co-workers for
exemplifying the attributes of humility, social awareness, passion, exceptionality, integrity and are team
oriented.
Chaplain Wing has served the HB Police and Fire Departments for the past 25 years with heart-felt
passion for the employees as well as community members, and looks for ways to honor those he serves.
Chaplain Wing has provided comfort to citizens and Public Safety personnel suffering from traumatic
incidents. He is a trusted counselor, and Police Chief Parra described Chaplain Wing as a man with
selfless dedication especially during the grieving process whether he is ministering to families after tragic
accidents, or affected community members and fellow employees.
Chaplain Wing stated it has been an honor, a privilege and a blessing to serve and thanked Mayor
Delgleize for the recognition.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution)
Administrative Items
#21 (22-956) Amended side letter of agreement with Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters
submitted by Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director.
#23 (22-969) Ten (10) email communications received regarding drafting a Zoning Text Amendment
(ZTA) to delete the cannabis prohibition.
78
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 4 of 18
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 33 In-Person and 1 Call-In 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.
Carol Rohr, President, Huntington Beach Mobile Home Resident Coalition, was called to speak and
shared her disappointment in the results of the November 2022 Councilmember elections, as the winners
chose to not participate in the Coalition's outreach. Ms. Rohr stated her support for Administrative Items
#20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:43:08)
Allie Plum, owner of an "immobile" home in Huntington Beach for nearly a decade, was invited to speak
and encouraged the newly elected Councilmembers to focus on providing affordable housing, and care
for the homeless, to keep Huntington Beach a great City. Ms. Plum stated her support for Administrative
Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:45:15)
Mary Jo Baretich, a 40-year resident of Cabrillo Mobile Home Park, and Mobile Home Advisory Board
Member, was called to speak and stated her support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending
Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:47:25)
Art Estrada, Huntington Beach Mobile Home Resident Coalition Member, was called to speak and
shared his disappointment that none of the Council Candidates that sympathize with the Coalition
members were elected. Mr. Estrada stated his support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending
Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:48:53)
Marcos Rebollar was called to speak and stated his support for Administrative Items #20, regarding
extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:50:55)
Molly Rebollar, Ocean View Estates resident for 22 years and life-long resident of Huntington Beach,
was called to speak and stated her support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean
View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:51:11)
Sok Kim, a resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated his support for Administrative
Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:51:40)
Unnamed Guest, a resident of Huntington Beach for 55 years and currently living in Ocean View Estates,
was called to speak and stated his support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean
View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. (00:53:02)
Richard Chimotti, a resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated his support for
Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039.
(00:53:55)
Wededa Hepesh, an 8-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated her support
for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039,
and asked if there is any way to provide more parking for Ocean View Estates residents. (00:54:13)
Unnamed Guest, a 15-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated her support
for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039.
(00:55:37)
79
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 5 of 18
Darla Chemotti, a 10-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated her support
for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039.
(00:56:30)
Tresa Holloway was called to speak and stated her support for Housing Element Options #2, #3 or #6 for
the Seacliff area, and asked the newly elected Councilmembers to explore all areas of the City for any
high density projects. (00:56:52)
Dennis Holloway was called to speak and stated his opinion that SP7 and SP9 are not necessarily
needed to meet State mandates, and support for Housing Element Options #2, #3 or #6 for the Seacliff
area, and for exploring all areas of the City for high density projects. (00:57:52)
Arturo Sanchez, a 25-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated his support
for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039.
(00:59:43)
Lola Archibald, an 8-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated her support for
Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039.
(01:00:57)
Aiden, with Boy Scouts of America Troop 1931, was called to speak and shared that recently, while
working on their Citizenship and Community Badge, the Troop met with Councilmember Moser. Aiden,
with the support of three additional Troop members, thanked Councilmember Moser for her time to
answer their questions. (01:01:21)
Mickey Golden, a resident of Peninsula Park, was called to speak and stated her opposition to the
Housing Element Plan #4 for Holly-Seacliff at Goldenwest Street and Garfield Avenue. She also shared
her opinion that more time should be spent on reviewing Options #4, #5, and #6 before making any
decisions. (01:04:33)
Patricia Taylor, a resident of Rancho Huntington Mobile Home Park, was called to speak and stated her
support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September
30, 2039. (01:06:30)
Amory Hanson was called to speak and stated his support for Administrative Items #20, regarding
extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039, as a great example for other mobile
home park owners. (01:08:33)
Tim Geddes, a 39-year resident of southeast Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated his
support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estate leases until September 30,
2039. Mr. Geddes stated his hope that the newly elected Councilmembers will govern less by ideology
and more by what is best for the citizens they represent. (01:09:06)
John Hill, a 30-year resident currently living in Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and stated his
support for Administrative Items #20, regarding extending Ocean View Estates leases until September
30, 2039. (01:10:59)
Sal Solo, U. S. Army Veteran and Cannabis Banking Consultant, was called to speak and stated his
support for Measure O regarding the cannabis licensing program and described some of the financial
benefits for the City. (01:11:46)
80
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 6 of 18
Val Parker, a 26-year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared details on this
year's Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week and stated her support for City Council formally
declaring that housing is a basic human right. (01:13:54)
Pano Frousiakis was called to speak and shared his enthusiasm regarding the City Council election
results, his expectation that the community will join forces, and noted work is really just beginning for a
brighter future. (01:15:58)
Rick Minato, a Peninsula Park resident for 22 years, was called to speak and stated his opposition to the
current high-density housing plans for the Seacliff area, and shared his opinion that the density should
be no higher than 35 units per acre, or similar to the property adjacent to Seagate. (01:18:13)
Love Ghione, a member of the HB Lion's Club and Huntington Beach/Seal Beach Chapter of the
Surfrider Foundation, was called to speak and thanked Councilmembers for serving the community. Ms.
Ghione invited everyone to participate in Surf City Splash on January 1, 2023, sponsored by the local
chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. (01:20:41)
Venilda Mayer was called to speak and shared her experience of immigrating to the U. S. 54 years ago,
and asked the Sergeant of Arms to hand some paperwork for Mayor Delgleize. (01:22:42)
Jonny Zurba, a resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and expressed appreciation for
Community Development Administrative Aide Kim Radding and her abilities to get along with everyone
while quickly responding to resident concerns. (01:25:15)
Jamie Zurba, a 14-year resident of Ocean View Estates, was called to speak and expressed her
appreciation and gratitude for such a beautiful place to live. (01:26:50)
Toni Squires, a 54-resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated her opposition to
Consent Calendar Item #17 regarding the replacement of artificial turf at the Sports Complex outdoor
soccer arena. Ms. Squires also stated her opposition to high-density housing for the open spaces at
Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. (01:27:10)
Mike Mastropaolo was called to speak and stated his support for Administrative Items #20, regarding
extending Ocean View Estates leases until September 30, 2039. He also shared his dismay at the
situation so many mobile home residents are facing with uncontrolled space lease increases. (01:29:25)
Russell Neal, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated his support for charter
cities, localized government for the preservation of liberty, and preventing a dictatorship. Mr. Neal also
stated his support for the newly elected Councilmembers who he believes will stand up for local residents
and fight against Sacramento. (01:31:35)
Caller Joe was invited to speak and stated his support for allowing cannabis businesses in Huntington
Beach, and his concerns regarding approved business locations and the requirement for four existing
California licenses before applying for a business license from Huntington Beach. (01:33:55)
COUNCIL COMMITTEE — APPOINTMENTS — LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND
OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES
Mayor Pro Tem Posey reported attending a CalPERS Local Officials Forum.
81
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 7 of 18
Councilmember Moser reported attending the following meetings: CalPERS Local Officials Forum; July
4th Board; Veterans Day Ceremony; Veterans of the Year Event at Irvine Valley College to honor
Huntington Beach Veteran Wayne (Russ) Dohmann; Human Relations Committee; Hosted Troop 1931
for Badge Requirement meeting; HB Business Improvement District (BID); Wetlands and Wildlife Care
Center Gala to Celebrate 50 years of Wildlife Rehabilitation; Youth Board; and announced the next
Community Cafe meeting on November 30, 5:30 – 8 PM, pre-registration required. Councilmember
Moser also shared Homelessness and Housing updates and planned activities.
Councilmember Bolton reported attending the following meetings: CalPERS Local Officials Forum;
Edison Park Community Group; Human Relations Committee; Orange County Council of Government
Women's Leadership Luncheon; and Veterans Day Ceremony.
Mayor Delgleize reported attending the following meetings: Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA);
Grand Re-Opening of Vista View Middle School; and Village View Elementary Veterans Day Assembly.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
Acting City Manager Travis Hopkins provided a brief update on the Housing Element and
announced the Planning Commission Public Hearing, November 16, 2022, to consider Option #3
of the Housing Element as presented to the City Council on November 1, 2022, and invited public
participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Bolton pulled Item #10, and Mayor Pro Tem Posey pulled Item #11 for further
discussions.
Office of City Clerk
8. 22-958 Approved and Adopted Minutes
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve and adopt the City Council/Public Financing
Authority regular meeting and Housing Authority special meeting minutes of November 1, 2022.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
9. 22-240 Reaffirmed adoption of Resolution No. 2021-62 finding a proclaimed state of
emergency continues to impact the ability to meet safely in person, and allows
meetings of the City Council and all City boards, commissions and committees to
be conducted remotely as needed in compliance with new Brown Act provisions
identified in Assembly Bill 361
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to reaffirm Resolution No. 2021-62, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, finding that the Proclaimed State of Emergency
Continues to Impact the Ability to Meet Safely in Person."
82
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 8 of 18
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Peterson
ABSENT: Carr
Office of City Manager
10. 22-889 Reported on Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents and Recommendations by the
Huntington Beach Human Relations Committee (HRC)
Councilmember Bolton pulled this item to thank the members of the Human Relations Committee for
their report on ways to support victims of hate incidents.
Councilmember Moser added her appreciation for the volunteer members of the Human Relations
Committee for their work, as well as the Ad Hoc Committee, Police Department and staff.
A motion was made by Bolton, second Moser to receive and file the Report on Hate Crimes and Hate
Incidents and Recommendations by the Huntington Beach Human Relations Committee
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
Community Development Department
11. 22-961 Adopted Resolution No. 2022-77 approving the decertification of Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) No. 10-001; rescission of Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) No. 02-004, Entitlement Plan Amendment (EPA) No. 10-001, Coastal
Development Permit (CDP) No. 10-014, and Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 10-130;
and termination of related agreements (Poseidon)
Mayor Pro Tem Posey pulled this item to note his opposition.
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve decertification of SEIR No. 10-001; rescission
of CUP No. 02-004, EPA No. 10-001, CDP No. 10-014, and TPM No. 10-130; and termination of related
agreements by adopting Resolution No. 2022-77 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Decertifying Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 10-001 and
Repealing Resolution No. 2010-63 and Rescinding all City Entitlement Approvals and Terminating All
Agreements (Attachment No. 1)."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Posey
ABSENT: Carr
83
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 9 of 18
12. 22-964 Approved an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement between the City of
Huntington Beach and Waterfront Hotel, LLC, for the beach concession at 21351
Pacific Coast Highway
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement
between the City of Huntington Beach and Waterfront Hotel, LLC for the Concession Stand at 21351
Pacific Coast Highway; and, authorize the Mayor, City Manager, and City Clerk to execute the
Agreement and other related documents.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
13. 22-957 Adopted Ordinance 4267 approving Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 21-003
amending the Bella Terra Specific Plan to revise the Zoning Boundaries and
Development Standards of the Real Property located at 7777 Edinger Avenue (Bella
Terra Residential Project)
Approved for introduction as amended November 1, 2022 - Vote: 6-1 (Peterson - No)
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 21-003 with
findings (Attachment No. 1) and adopt City Council Ordinance No. 4267, "An Ordinance of the City of
Huntington Beach Amending the Bella Terra Specific Plan to Revise the Zoning Boundaries and
Development Standards of the Real Property Located at 7777 Edinger Avenue (Zoning Text Amendment
No. 21-003)" (Attachment No. 4).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Peterson
ABSENT: Carr
Fire Department
14. 22-912 Approved four reappointments to the Harbour Commission, as recommended by
City Council Liaisons, Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Councilmember Peterson
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve the reappointment of William Larkin as a
Member of the Harbour Commission through December 31, 2026; and, approve the reappointment of
Kimberley Milligan as a Member of the Harbour Commission through December 31, 2026; and, approve
the reappointment of Chris Nielsen as a Member of the Harbour Commission through December 31,
2026; and, approve the reappointment of Craig Schauppner as a Member of the Harbour Commission
through December 31, 2026.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
84
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 10 of 18
Public Works Department
15. 22-886 Approved a sole source procurement request to purchase 3 Meeder Ransome
vaporizer units to fuel backup generators for the water system’s booster stations
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve the sole source procurement request for the
purchase of 3 Meeder Ransome vaporizer units to fuel backup generators for the water system's booster
stations.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
16. 22-936 Adopted and authorized recordation of Resolution No. 2022-66 ordering the
summary vacation of an easement over a portion of Huntington Street near the
intersection with Atlanta Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to adopt Resolution No. 2022-66, "A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ordering the Summary Vacation of an Undeveloped Portion of
an Existing Street and Public Utility Easement Along the Eastside of 102 and 104 Huntington Street, in
the City of Huntington Beach, and Making a Finding of Exemption Under CEQA" (Attachment 2); and,
instruct the City Clerk to record Resolution No. 2022-66 and the respective attached exhibits with the
Orange County Recorder.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
17. 22-945 Approved a one-time reallocation of $250,000 of HB Recovery funds for
unscheduled turf replacement at the HB Sports Complex outdoor soccer arena
A motion was made by Posey, second Moser to approve the reallocation of $250,000 of HB Recovery
Funds toward the replacement of artificial turf surfacing at the Sports Complex outdoor soccer arena.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
PUBLIC HEARING
18. 22-908 Adopted Ordinance No. 4270 adopting the 2022 Model California Construction
Codes.
Approved for Introduction October 18, 2022 - Vote: 6-0-1 Peterson Absent
85
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 11 of 18
Community Development Director Ursula Luna-Reynosa announced that Jasmine Daly, Building Official,
had presented a detailed report for this item on October 18, 2022, and was present to answer any
questions.
Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing.
Assistant City Clerk Patty Esparza announced there were no Supplemental Communications nor any
public speakers for this item.
Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Ordinance No. 4270, "An Ordinance of the City
of Huntington Beach Amending Title 17 - Buildings and Construction of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code Adopting the California Building Standards Code and Repealing Ordinance No. 4190."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
19. 22-948 Adopted Ordinance No. 4268 amending Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, adopting California Fire Code
Approved for Introduction October 18, 2022 - Vote 6-0-1, Peterson absent
Deputy Fire Marshal Steve Eros stated that a PowerPoint communication titled Local Adoption of the
2022 California Fire Code was presented on October 18, 2022, and Fire Marshal Janice Van Mullem was
present to answer any questions.
Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing.
Assistant City Clerk Patty Esparza announced there were no Supplemental Communications nor any
public speakers for this item.
Mayor Delgleize closed the Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Peterson, second Posey to adopt Ordinance No. 4268, "An Ordinance of the City
of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Adopting the
California Fire Code and Repealing Ordinance No. 4189."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
20. 22-944 AS AMENDED, approved proposed extension of the City-owned Ocean View
Estates Mobile Home Park and authorization to temporarily reduce rents for eligible
senior Mobile Home owners at Ocean View Estates
86
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 12 of 18
Steve Holtz, Deputy Director of Community Development, and Charles Kovac, Housing Manager,
presented a PowerPoint communication titled Proposed Extension of Ocean View Estates Mobile Home
Park, with slides entitled: Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park; Financial Impact; Response to
September 20, 2022 Study Session Questions; City-Wide Rent Survey; Rent Survey; Capital
Improvement Costs; Capital Improvement Costs - Continued; Sale of OVE Mobile Home Park; Options to
Extend Mobile Home Park Use and Establish a Special Reserve Fund; Scenario: 1 Cost of Closure Only;
Scenario 1 Revenues vs. Expenditures; Scenario 2: Cost of Closure and Creation of Passive
Recreational Park; Scenario 2 Revenues vs. Expenditures; Scenario 3: Cost of Closure, Creation of
Passive Recreational Park, and Contribution to Central Park Maintenance; Scenario 3 Revenues vs.
Expenditures; OVE Space Rent Assistance; Recommendations; and Questions?
Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Director Luna-Reynosa discussed the issue of property tax on land that is
leased to private entities by the City, and Director Luna-Reynosa explained the County calculates a
"possessory" interest based on the terms of the lease, including rental rate.
Councilmember Moser stated appreciation for staff's time to address this item, and her support for the
15-year extension to allow for proper planning. There was further discussion with Deputy Director Holtz
regarding TBRA Program funding beyond two years.
Mayor Delgleize confirmed with Deputy Director Holtz that the proposed action does not include any
extra funds for Central Park maintenance.
Councilmember Kalmick noted this item does not lock the City into a Special Reserve Fund, and stated
his support for checking on how things are going in ten years. Councilmember Kalmick recommended
that the Ocean View Estates (OVE) Rent Reduction for Eligible Seniors be tied to the City-wide mobile
home TRBA program.
Councilmember Peterson stated his support for this item, and added his support for some of the funds
going back to Central Park maintenance.
Director Luna-Reynosa stated that Council has the ability to place General Fund monies back to Central
Park, and staff didn't want to present an option that might restrict any of the money. She further noted
that because the land is zoned as park land, this is the only way to monetize the property.
Mayor Delgleize stated her support for keeping Ocean View Estates as a mobile home park as long as
possible.
Councilmember Bolton confirmed with Housing Manager Kovac that three percent (3%) inflation number
was used for the calculations.
Councilmember Moser and Deputy Director Holtz discussed options for the proposed 10-year check-in,
as well as the process for owners who may be interested in having first right of refusal if property
ownership would be an available option in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Posey stated his support for this item, and agreed with Director Luna-Reynosa that this
is a way to monetize the property, and protect a taxpayer asset. He further noted that spending nearly
ten percent (10%) of the net revenue each year on capital improvements, or increased value, should be
considered in the future when evaluating lease rates.
87
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 13 of 18
A motion was made by Kalmick, second Peterson to authorize an extension of the Rental Agreements
and operations at Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park for a period of 15 years through September
30, 2039, and direct 65 percent of net operating revenue to a Special Reserve Fund for Ocean View
Estates Mobile Home Park closure. The Special Reserve Fund will provide for 1) replacement housing
and relocation of park residents upon cessation of use as a mobile home park; and 2) remediation of the
mobile home park. In the event of budgetary constraints due to escalating CalPERS costs, authorize the
City Manager with consultation with the Chief Financial Officer to reallocate Special Reserve Fund as
needed. Directed staff to return five years prior to the planned closure date with an assessment of the
capacity of the Special Reserve Fund to cover costs associated with closing the mobile home park and
Park Development Impact Fees to cover the costs of converting the property to a passive recreational
park. Authorized the Office of the City Attorney to prepare revised Rental Agreements for Ocean View
Estates Mobile Home Park residents and further authorize the City Manager or designee to execute such
Rental Agreements. Authorized the City Manager or designee to approve temporary rent reduction for
eligible seniors at Ocean View Estates consistent with the Mobile Home Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Program, as amended to have staff return in 10 years and tie the Ocean View Estates Program
money with the TBRA Program money.
The amended motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
21. 22-956 Approved the Classification and Compensation Study Implementation Plan by
adopting Resolutions No. 2022-70, 2022-71, 2022-72, 2022-73, and 2022-74 related to
Side Letters of Agreement with the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT),
Management Employees’ Organization (MEO), Marine Safety Management
Association (MSMA), Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA), and Fire
Management Association (FMA); and by adopting Resolution No. 2022-76 modifying
salary and benefits for appointed Non-Associated (NA) employees; and approve
Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement between the City of Huntington
Beach and Scott Haberle; and adopt Resolution 2022-75 related to a Side Letter of
Agreement with Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association (HBFA) regarding the
Retiree Medical Trust
Brittany Mello, Director of Administrative Services, along with Consultant Bob Longmire who was
available via Zoom, presented a PowerPoint communication titled Classification & Compensation Study
Implementation Plan, with slides entitled: Background (3); Job Market Challenges; Results of Salary
Survey; Implementation Strategy; Agreement Reached with Associations; Overview of Citywide
Changes; Non-Associated; Fiscal Impact; Staff Recommendation; and Questions?
Mayor Pro Tem Posey commended Ms. Mello and Consultant Longmire for completion of this project,
and noted the importance of recruiting and retaining employees. He stated his pleasure for the
opportunity to support this item which keeps Huntington Beach competitive, and to confirm sound staffing
economics.
Director Mello, noted that the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reports that on
average it costs a company six to nine months of an employee's salary to replace them.
88
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 14 of 18
Councilmember Kalmick thanked Director Mello and Consultant Longmire for an excellent presentation
that was easy to understand.
Councilmember Moser stated her support for this item, and noted how important it is to retain employees
and their knowledge base.
A motion was made by Posey, second Kalmick to adopt Resolution No. 2022-70, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the City's Classification Plan and Memorandum
of Understanding Between the City and the Huntington Beach Municipal Teamsters (HBMT) by Adopting
the Side Letter of Agreement" (Attachment 1); and adopt Resolution No. 2022-71, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the City's Classification Plan and Memorandum
of Understanding Between the City and the Huntington Beach Management Employees' Organization
(MEO) by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement" (Attachment 2); and adopt Resolution No. 2022-72, "A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the City's Classification Plan
and Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Huntington Beach Marine Safety
Management Association (MSMA) by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement" (Attachment 3); and adopt
Resolution No. 222-73, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the
City's Classification Plan and Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the Surf City
Lifeguard Employees' Association (SCLEA) by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement" (Attachment 4);
and adopt Resolution No. 2022-74, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending the City's Classification Plan and Memorandum of Understanding Between the City and the
Huntington Beach Fire Management Association (FMA) by Adopting the Side Letter of Agreement"
(Attachment 5); and adopt Resolution No. 2022-76, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Modifying Salary and Benefits for Non-Represented Employees by Adding or
Amending Classifications and Compensations for Various Positions" (Attachment 6); and approve and
authorize the City Manager to execute, "Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement between the
City of Huntington Beach and Scott Haberle" (Attachment 7); and adopt Resolution No. 2022-75, "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" (Attachment 8); and authorize the City Manager to take all administrative
and budgetary actions necessary to implement the Classification and Compensation Study.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
22. 22-962 Approved Fiscal Year 2021/22 Year-End and Budget Adjustments and Inter-Fund
Transfers
Chief Financial Officer Dahle Bulosan presented a PowerPoint communication titled Financial Update &
FY 2021/22 Year-End Budget Adjustments, with slides entitled: Presentation Overview; Financial
Update; General Fund (Fund 100) Projections; CalPERS Update; CalPERS UAL Payment Projection;
Section 115 Trust Projected Balance Scenarios; General Fund Long-Term Financial Plan (3); Year-End
Budget Adjustment Requests; General Fund Adjustments; General Fund Surplus with Year End
Adjustments; Other Fund Adjustments (2); Other Recommendations; What's on the Budget Horizon?;
Summary of Recommended Actions; and Questions?
89
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 15 of 18
Mayor Pro Tem Posey reminded Councilmembers that there has to be a conscious awareness of
CalPERS and their decisions which impact investment returns.
A motion was made by Posey, second Kalmick to approve the year-end inter-fund transfers for the FY
2021/22 Revised Budget in the funds and by the amounts contained in Attachment 1 and carry the
remaining appropriations into FY 2022/23; and, increase appropriations for the FY 2021/22 Revised
Budget by $12,423,138 in the funds and amounts contained in Attachment 1 and associated FY 2022/23
carryovers to reconcile the budget with actual expenses incurred; and, approve the FY 2022/23
appropriation of $5 million of grant revenues and expenditures into Fund 1277 for the Oak View
Neighborhood Cleanup and Beautification Project received through the Clean California Local Grant
Program; and, approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 3 to
Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Winbourne Consulting, LLC for Consulting
Services for CAD Mobile Law RMS Replacement Services" (Attachment 2).
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
23. 22-969 Directed staff to draft a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to delete the cannabis
prohibition and to permit cannabis activities consistent with the Council’s Ad Hoc
Committee’s recommendations
Senior Planner Hayden Beckman presented a PowerPoint communication titled Cannabis Activities with
slides entitled: Background; Community Outreach; Land Use Policy Recommendations (2); Buffer
Restrictions Map; Next Steps; Staff Recommendation; and Questions? Senior Planner Beckman also
noted the current results for Measure O are at 54.1% for approval.
Councilmember Kalmick explained this is the land use portion of the process and noted that if
Councilmembers do not move this forward the industry will step in with a ballot initiative with their own
rules. He further shared his opinion that restricting the number of suitable sites by going to the 1,000-
foot buffer may result in lack of enough locations. Councilmember Kalmick stated his support for staff
recommendation.
Councilmember Peterson stated he will not support this item, for one because he supports the 1,000-feet
buffer from property line to property line. He added he feels this issue is being unnecessarily rushed
through and with more industry input a better plan could be put in place.
Mayor Delgleize, Councilmembers Peterson and Bolton discussed the pros and cons for 600-foot vs.
1,000-foot buffers and what other cities use.
Councilmember Bolton stated that from her perspective the issue is having local control which can only
happen if Council moves forward.
Mayor Delgleize stated her support for being a step ahead and ensuring proper regulations are in place.
Councilmember Moser stated her support for retaining as much control as possible by writing the
ordinance and managing the details. She also stated her expectation that the Planning Commission
would acknowledge the letter received from the Ocean View School District regarding support for the
90
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 16 of 18
1,000-foot buffer and consider how that may or may not impact the Ocean View schools in adjacent
cities.
Councilmember Kalmick stated that with all of the criteria that must be met for retail locations, many of
the sites that appear on a map will in actuality not qualify, and it would be a very time consuming and
difficult exercise to try to pre-determine which sites would qualify. He noted that the map showing the
600-foot buffer appears to fairly evenly distribute potential sites throughout Huntington Beach. He further
discussed the big differences between clients for legal vs. illegal cannabis businesses, and noted the
goal is to drive out the illicit market by providing easy legal access.
Mayor Pro Tem Posey stated that THC is still a Schedule 1 hallucinogenic, there is still a federal banking
issue for the industry, and he is not convinced that the revenue generated will exceed the social cost as
his reasons for not supporting this item. He also stated his opinion that adding taxes and fees to
legitimate businesses might create prices that would not necessarily drive out the illicit business.
Councilmember Moser stated her support for moving ahead, knowing there will be opportunities to fine-
tune decisions along the way. Councilmember Mosher stated her support for making medical product
legally available for those who may benefit.
Mayor Delgleize stated her support for this item to maintain local control, and ensure safe medicinal
products.
A motion was made by Kalmick, second Bolton to request the City Manager (or designee) to draft a
Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to
delete the existing cannabis prohibition and add necessary language to allow cannabis activities
consistent with the Council's Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Bolton, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Peterson, and Posey
ABSENT: Carr
24. 22-971 Approved recommendations regarding the City’s procurement policies as they
pertain to formal bid thresholds, approval levels, and reporting to City Manager and
City Council; directed staff to prepare ordinances for City Council approval
Chief Financial Officer Dahle Bulosan and Consultant Ryan McNeely with PFM presented a PowerPoint
communication entitled Procurement Policy Review, with slides entitled: Presentation Overview;
Background; Procurement Project Timeline; City of Huntington Beach Procurement Policies (4); Staff
Survey of Neighboring Cities (3); PFM Review (2); PFM Review: Procurement Goals and Principles (3);
PFM Review: Transparency; PFM Review: Fairness (2); PFM Review: Efficiency (2); Public Works
Drives Procurement Activity; Public Works Drives Procurement Spending; Most City Contracts are for
$30,000 or Less; Most Cost is Attributable to Contracts $500,000+; PFM Review: Efficiency; PFM
Review: Effectiveness; PFM Review: Areas for Additional Analysis; PFM Review: Preliminary
Recommendations (15); PFM Review: Areas for Future Recommendations (2); Summary of
Recommendations; Summary of Recommendations - Bid Limits; Summary of Recommendations -
Approval Levels; and Questions?
91
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 17 of 18
Mayor Pro Tem Posey noted that he and Councilmember Peterson first brought up the topic of
procurement processes back in 2015 and he is delighted to see this detailed presentation, especially
Page 29, reporting on contracts. He reiterated that big ticket items need to be addressed to ensure
transparency and public awareness, monthly or even quarterly, as a Consent Calendar item to receive
and file.
A motion was made by Posey, second Peterson to approve recommended bid thresholds, approval
levels, and reporting to City Manager and City Council, and; direct staff to incorporate recommended
changes and prepare ordinances as part of Phase 2 of the Procurement Project for City Council
approval.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
25. 22-934 Approved Item submitted by Councilmember Kalmick — Sign Code Update (HBZSO
Section 233)
Councilmember Kalmick introduced this item as an effort to ensure that the Huntington Beach Sign Code
is enforceable and current. The second portion of this item is to determine why non-commercial signs
are allowed in public right of way and ask staff to review best practices from other cities.
A motion was made by Kalmick, second Posey to direct the City Manager and City Attorney's office to
review our Sign Code (HBZSO Section 233) for compliance with these two Supreme Court rulings and
any other rulings not listed here and bring back any necessary Zoning Text Amendments to the Planning
Commission and City Council in Q1 2023. Additionally, direct staff to bring back by the end of the 2023
an analysis of our noncommercial sign policy and make any recommendations for modification.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: Carr
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
Councilmember Moser shared more details regarding Huntington Beach Veteran of the Year
acknowledgement for Huntington Beach Veteran Wayne (Russ) Dohmann. She also shared more
details regarding the first Community Cafe meeting, and encouraged residents to get involved and
participate in future meetings. She closed her comments by thanking Boy Scout Troop 1931 for inspiring
her.
ADJOURNMENT — 10:17 PM to a special meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public
Financing Authority scheduled for 4:00 PM, Tuesday, November 29, 2022 in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
92
City Council/PFA Regular Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 18 of 18
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is
Tuesday, December 6, 2022, 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
_______________________________________
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of
the Public Financing Authority of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk-Secretary
______________________________________
Mayor-Chair
93
Minutes
Special Meeting
City Council/Public Financing Authority
City of Huntington Beach
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
4:00 PM – Council Chambers
5:00 PM – Council Chambers
6:00 PM – Council Chambers
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Or Virtual via Zoom Webinar
A video recording of the 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM portions 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 — 4:03 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
Absent: Peterson
Councilmember Peterson was granted permission to be absent from Study and Closed Sessions
pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-54; City Clerk Robin Estanislau was granted permission to be absent
pursuant to City Charter Section 310 (a); and City Attorney Michael Gates was granted permission to be
absent pursuant to City Charter Section 309 (d).
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS PERTAINING TO STUDY
SESSION/CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
(3 Minute Time Limit) — 1 Public Speaker
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.
Galen Pickett was called to speak and stated his opinions related to the Housing Element which will be
discussed by Councilmembers during the 6 PM City Council Meeting, and thanked Councilmembers for
their leadership. (00:01:23)
STUDY SESSION
1. 22-1016 City Manager’s First 100 Day Report
City Manager Al Zelinka, and members of the Executive Leadership Team (Police Chief Parra, Chief
Financial Officer Dahle Bulosan, Director of Community Development Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of
94
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 2 of 14
Community and Library Services Chris Slama, Director of Public Works Sean Crumby, Fire Chief
Haberle, Director of Administrative Services Brittany Mello, Assistant City Manager Travis Hopkins, and
Assistant to City Manager Catherine Jun), presented a PowerPoint communication titled First 100 Days,
with slides entitled: Agenda; Observations About HB; HB (14); Forward Facing; OneHB Mission;
Accountability; Transparency; Responsiveness; Effective & Efficient; Diversity, Equity & Inclusivity;
Engagement & Consensus Building; Foundations & Aspirations; Accountability; Transparency;
Responsiveness; Effective & Efficient; Diversity, Equity & Inclusivity; Engagement & Consensus Building;
Major Initiatives; Gratitude; Questions, and Comments.
Mayor Pro Tem Posey expressed his appreciation for this report being presented by all members of the
Executive Leadership Team, and stated his support for the importance of Town Hall meetings as well as
being aware of economic sustainability and the return on investment (ROI).
Councilmember Bolton stated her appreciation for City Manager Zelinka's fresh approach and innovative
mindset to the management of Huntington Beach.
Councilmember Carr stated her appreciation for the comprehensive report, and commended City
Manager Zelinka for working with the outstanding Executive Leadership Team that was in place when he
was hired.
Councilmember Moser stated her appreciation for the calm, measured, focused, and strategic manner
that City Manager Zelinka brings to the Executive Leadership Team.
Mayor Delgleize expressed her appreciation for an excellent presentation.
A motion was made by Posey second by Carr to recess to Closed Session.
RECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION — 5:04 PM
CLOSED SESSION
2. 22-1021 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION. (Paragraph (1) of
subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9). Name of case: Pacific Airshow, LLC v. City of
Huntington Beach and Carr; Case No. 30-2022-01287749.
6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:06 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
Absent: None
City Clerk Robin Estanislau was granted permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter Section 310
(a), and City Attorney Michael Gates was granted permission to be absent pursuant to City Charter
Section 309 (d).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Moser
95
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 3 of 14
INVOCATION
3. 22-978 Marsha Rechsteiner of Saints Simon and Jude Catholic Church in Huntington
Beach and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council
CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — Chief Assistant City Attorney Mike Vigliotta
announced that City Council voted 6–0–1 (Peterson absent) to waive attorney/client privilege and
disclose Council voted 6–0–1 (Peterson absent) to indemnify Kim Carr in the Pacific Air Show vs
City of Huntington Beach lawsuit.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Received After Agenda Distribution) — None
PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 12 In-Person Public 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.
Jannika Kampschuur, a life-long resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated her
opposition to Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the Housing Element, specifically the proposed high-
density zoning for the Frontier site at Slater Avenue and Gothard Street. (01:26:02)
Cathey Ryder, also speaking on behalf of her husband Bob, was called to speak and acknowledged the
need for affordable senior housing for which there is no easy solution. She also stated their appreciation
for the excellent service and commitment of Mayor Delgleize, Mayor Pro Tem Posey, and
Councilmembers Peterson and Carr. (01:27:00)
Mike Costello was called to speak and stated his opposition to Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the
Housing Element and zoning for high density housing anywhere within Huntington Beach. He also
stated his opposition to Councilmember Items #9 regarding appointing Councilmember Kalmick to OCTA
District 1 Seat. (01:28:52)
Shirley Dettloff was called to speak and thanked Councilmembers for their leadership through two City
Managers, an oil spill, a pandemic, and commended them for standing up for what was right on so many
issues. (01:30:20)
Amory Hanson was called to speak and stated his support for Consent Calendar Item #5, regarding a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Huntington Beach and the American Legion
Huntington Beach Post 133. (01:33:32)
Russ Neal, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and shared his opinion on Public
Hearing Item #8 regarding the Housing Element, and specifically noted the Council's analysis which
stated it will degrade, and not improve, the quality of life in Huntington Beach. He also noted that the
current City Council has failed to push back on State housing mandates. (01:34:21)
Charles Dean, a resident living adjacent to the Frontier site at Slater Avenue and Gothard Street for the
last 14 years, was called to speak and stated his opposition to Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the
Housing Element proposed high density zoning for the Frontier site or next to any single-family
neighborhood. (01:36:21)
96
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 4 of 14
Jim Shandrick, a resident of Huntington Beach for over 57 years, was called to speak and asked if any of
the parcels of open land targeted for high density housing with Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the
Housing Element can be expected to be taken through eminent domain. He noted that his family had
land in the Downtown area previously taken by eminent domain, and he doesn't want that to happen to
another piece of family land located in the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan. He got a negative headshake
response from a Councilmember. (01:39:32)
Laura M., a resident of Huntington Beach since 1997, was called to speak and stated her opinion that
Councilmembers have the power, authority and responsibility to do what is best for the residents when
considering how to vote on Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the Housing Element and zoning for high
density housing. (01:41:48)
Vanessa Casella, a resident of the Surf Crest community for over 20 years, was called to speak and
stated appreciation for recent changes at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Seapoint
Street to increase pedestrian safety. She also expressed concerns regarding recent decisions related to
cannabis business locations, and asked that Public Hearing Item #8 regarding the Housing Element
proposed zoning overlays be tabled so the newly elected Councilmembers can make the decisions they
will have to contend with. (01:45:08)
Robert Fisher, a resident for over 25 years, was called to speak and stated his opposition to Public
Hearing Item #8 regarding the Housing Element proposed high density zoning overlays. He shared his
opinion that this item has not taken into consideration the impact on schools, infrastructure, or quality of
life for residents, and suggested the item should be tabled so the newly elected Councilmembers can
make the decision they will have to contend with. Mr. Fisher stated he is an attorney and offered his pro
bono services to the City Attorney's Office on any of these matters. (01:46:24)
Maureen was called to speak and shared her opinion that people do not want more high density in
Huntington Beach. She also shared her opinion that all of the Councilmembers do not pay attention to
Public Speakers, but rather seem distracted by their computers. (01:49:44)
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Manager Al Zelinka temporarily pulled Item #6 regarding electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Councilmember Moser recused herself for Item #6 and left the room for voting on that item because her
husband is employed by a company that installs electric vehicle charging stations.
City Manager’s Office
4. 22-1014 Approved appointment of Kim Kaston to the Huntington Beach Human Relations
Committee (HBHRC) as recommended by City Council Liaisons, Councilmember
Bolton and Councilmember Moser
A motion was made by Carr, second Posey to approve the appointment of Kim Kaston as a member of
the Huntington Beach Human Relations Committee through December 31, 2023, the end of term for the
current unscheduled vacancy, as recommended by City Council Liaisons Bolton and Moser.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
97
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 5 of 14
Community and Library Services Department
5. 22-1022 Approved and authorized execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between
the City of Huntington Beach and the American Legion Huntington Beach Post 133
A motion was made by Carr, second Posey to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the "Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Huntington Beach and the American
Legion Huntington Beach Post 133 for the Use of City Facilities and Provision of Veterans Services."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
Public Works Department
6. 22-921 Approved the construction of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and
authorized the execution of Charge Ready Rebate Participation Agreements and
Easement Agreements between City of Huntington Beach and Southern California
Edison (SCE) as necessary to receive electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure
at no cost to the City
A motion was made by Posey, second Kalmick to approve the construction of electric vehicle charging
infrastructure as designed by SCE; and, authorize the Director of Public Works to execute the Charge
Ready Rebate Participation Agreement and Easement Agreement between City of Huntington Beach
and SCE for each project site.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, and Kalmick
NOES: None
RECUSED: Moser
7. 22-947 Adopted Resolution No. 2022-67, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Concerning the Measure M2 Expenditure Report for the City of
Huntington Beach"
A motion was made by Carr, second Posey to adopt Resolution No. 2022-67, "A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach Concerning the Measure M2 Expenditure Report for the City of
Huntington Beach."
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: None
98
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 6 of 14
PUBLIC HEARING
8. 22-870 As amended to Open Public Hearing and Keep Open to a Special Meeting on
December 8, 2022, at 6:00 PM to adopt Resolution No. 2022-62 approving General
Plan Amendment No. 2021-003 (Housing Element Update), adopt Resolution No.
2022-78 approving General Plan Amendment No. 2022-001 (General Plan Land Use
Element Affordable Housing Overlay), approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4269
approving Zoning Map Amendment No. 2022-002 (Zoning Map Affordable Housing
Overlay), approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4272 approving Zoning Text
Amendment No. 2022-008 (HBZSO Chapter 229 Affordable Housing Overlay), adopt
Resolution No. 2022-59 approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-009 (Beach
and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan Affordable Housing Overlay), approve for
introduction Ordinance No. 4271 approving Zoning Text Amendment No. 2022-007
(Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Affordable Housing Overlay), and adopt Resolution No.
2022-63 approving Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 2022-002 with
findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations (Housing Element
Update and Associated Program Implementation Actions).
Councilmember Carr recused herself, as advised by the City Attorney's Office, because she owns
property within 1,000 feet of properties to be discussed during this Public Hearing.
A motion was made by Kalmick, second Moser to CEQA Action approve Subsequent EIR No. 22-002
with findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations by approving City Council Resolution No.
2022-63, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach certifying Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report No. 22-002 for the City of Huntington Beach 6th Cycle Housing Element
Update (2021-2029), adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a
statement of overriding considerations, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program"
(Attachment No. 1); Housing Element Update Action approve General Plan Amendment No. 21-003
(Housing Element Update) and City Council Resolution No. 2022-62, "A Resolution of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 21-003 (2021-2029 Housing
Element Update" (Attachment No. 2); Implementation Actions (Legislative Amendments) to approve
General Plan Amendment No. 22-001 (General Plan Land Use Element Affordable Housing Overlay) and
City Council Resolution No. 22-78, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-001 (Land Use Element and Land Use Map Updates"
(Attachment Nos. 3, 4 and 5); approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 22-002 (Zoning Map Affordable
Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 6) by approving Ordinance No. 4269, "An Ordinance of
the City of Huntington Beach amending District Maps 2 (Sectional Map 2-6-11), 15 (Sectional Map 14-5-
11), 26 (Sectional Map 23-5-11), 27 (Sectional Map 24-5-11), 31 (Sectional Map 26-5-11), 32 (Sectional
Map 27-5-11), and 39 (Sectional Map 35-5-11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance to add the Affordable Housing Overlay to real property within the City of Huntington Beach"
(Attachment No. 7); approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-008 (HBZSO Chapter 229 Affordable
Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 6) by approving draft Ordinance No. 4272, "An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Zoning and Subdivision
Code of the City of Huntington Beach to add a new Chapter 229 (Affordable Housing Overlay)"
(Attachment No. 8); approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-009 (Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific
Plan Affordable Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 9) by approving draft City Council
Resolution No. 2022-59, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving an
amendment to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14)" (Attachment No. 10); and
approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-007 (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Affordable Housing Overlay)
99
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 7 of 14
with findings (Attachment No. 11) by approving draft Ordinance No. 4271, "An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (SP 9) to establish an
Affordable Housing Overlay" (Attachment No. 12), as amended to hear a condensed Staff Report and
Public Speakers tonight, and continue Public Hearing open to a Special Meeting, December 8,
2022, at 6 PM, so that newly elected Councilmembers can participate in the decision.
Councilmember Moser stated her opinion that the newly elected Councilmembers should be allowed to
engage in the conversation, and noted that campaign promises are different than governing within legal
constraints. She added that the longer this decision is delayed only increases the potential damage,
danger and repercussions to the City.
Councilmember Peterson confirmed with Councilmember Kalmick the intent of the amended motion is to
repeat the Staff Report and allow Public Speakers to return to the December 8, 2022, Special Meeting so
that newly elected Councilmembers are fully informed.
A substitute motion was made by Posey, which failed due to lack of a second, to CEQA Action approve
Subsequent EIR No. 22-002 with findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations by approving
City Council Resolution No. 2022-63, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
certifying Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report No. 22-002 for the City of Huntington Beach
6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029), adopting findings pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, and adopting a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program" (Attachment No. 1); Housing Element Update Action to approve
General Plan Amendment No. 21-003 (Housing Element Update) and City Council Resolution No. 2022-
62, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan
Amendment No. 21-003 (2021-2029 Housing Element Update" (Attachment No. 2); Implementation
Actions (Legislative Amendments) to approve General Plan Amendment No. 22-001 (General Plan Land
Use Element Affordable Housing Overlay) and City Council Resolution No. 22-78, "A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-001 (Land Use
Element and Land Use Map Updates" (Attachment Nos. 3, 4 and 5); approve Zoning Map Amendment
No. 22-002 (Zoning Map Affordable Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 6) by approving
Ordinance No. 4269, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending District Maps 2 (Sectional
Map 2-6-11), 15 (Sectional Map 14-5-11), 26 (Sectional Map 23-5-11), 27 (Sectional Map 24-5-11), 31
(Sectional Map 26-5-11), 32 (Sectional Map 27-5-11), and 39 (Sectional Map 35-5-11) of the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to add the Affordable Housing Overlay to real property within
the City of Huntington Beach" (Attachment No. 7); approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-008 (HBZSO
Chapter 229 Affordable Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 6) by approving draft Ordinance
No. 4272, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Zoning and
Subdivision Code of the City of Huntington Beach to add a new Chapter 229 (Affordable Housing
Overlay)" (Attachment No. 8); approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-009 (Beach and Edinger Corridor
Specific Plan Affordable Housing Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 9) by approving draft City
Council Resolution No. 2022-59, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
approving an amendment to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14)" (Attachment No.
10); and approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 22-007 (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Affordable Housing
Overlay) with findings (Attachment No. 11) by approving draft Ordinance No. 4271, "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (SP 9) to establish
an Affordable Housing Overlay" (Attachment No. 12).
The motion failed by the lack of a second.
The amended motion carried by the following vote:
100
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 8 of 14
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Delgleize, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Posey
RECUSED: Carr
Mayor Delgleize opened the Public Hearing. (02:01:43)
Community Development Director Ursula Luna-Reynosa noted the document under consideration has
been a lot of work over multiple years, and acknowledged Administrative Analyst Nicolle Aube, Deputy
Director of Community Development Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Alyssa Matheus, Housing
Manager Charles Kovac, and Deputy Director of Community Development Steve Holtz, as well as
Consultants Kimberly Horn, Dave Barquist, and Rita Garcia.
Director Luna-Reynosa briefly noted that this task is not easy in a built-out city, and added it was
impossible to find sites that do not impact existing neighborhoods. She also described another small city
which was impacted by a builder's remedy project that moved forward because that city was out of
compliance with their Housing Element, and noted this possibility is becoming more common.
Director Luna-Reynosa further explained this document must be approved by Councilmembers so that a
Certified Housing Element is received, after which the State and Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) numbers can be challenged by the City. She noted the City will be in a better position to make
those challenges after the Housing Element is certified.
Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, Assistant City Clerk Patty Esparza announced
supplemental communications received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet:
Public Hearing
8. 22-870 Eighty-one (81) email communications.
Public Hearing Speakers: 22 In-Person, and 1 Caller
Carol Rohr, Huntington Beach Mobile Home Resident Coalition President, was called to speak and
stated her opposition to converting mobile home parks to high density building. She acknowledged the
need for more affordable housing, and noted many mobile home park residents feel a threat to their
quality of life as they review the proposed Housing Element. Ms. Rohr noted that mobile home park
residents need City Council oversight in order to protect them in the event predatory park owners use the
proposed changes to their advantage. She stated if the newly elected Council majority decides to
appease the special interests of the mobile home park owners who donated to their campaigns, then the
current mobile home owners will see their worst nightmare come true, and Ms. Rohr asked
Councilmembers to not let that happen. (02:05:28)
Robert Romansik, a resident of Huntington Beach since 1984 and Environmental Engineer, was called to
speak and stated his opposition to developing the Frontier site with high density housing. He stated that
in his professional opinion that project would not be sustainable in any manner, because of noise that
would impact the flora and fauna in the park, major safety concerns along the roadways including lack of
traffic visibility, substantial air pollution, no discussion of the underground fuel tanks on the site, and
social injustice. He further noted that proposed high density zoning changes are not spread throughout
the City, but appear to be concentrated between Gothard and Goldenwest Streets. (02:07:44)
101
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 9 of 14
Joclyn Rabbitt-Sire, a resident of Huntington Beach since 1999, was called to speak and stated her
support for the General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update). She noted that currently
approximately seventy-six percent (76%) of the State's municipalities required to have a Housing
Element are in compliance, and she suggested that Huntington Beach should join that group, and help
solve the local housing crisis. Ms. Rabbitt-Sire noted the staggering penalties for non-compliance
include an escalating structure of fines, and making the City ineligible for a raft of State funds and grants
that are used for improved infrastructure. (02:10:57)
Bob Walsh, a resident of the Seagate neighborhood whose home backs to one of the overlay parcels,
and a commercial real estate developer, was called to speak and stated his opposition to the Housing
Element zoning overlay. He stated his opinion that the City has not been transparent in keeping
residents informed, and his biggest concern is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
numbers cannot be achieved while also adhering to the goal of "preserving the character, scale and
quality of established residential neighborhoods". He noted that the buffer between the RHNA number of
approximately 13,700 and the target of 20,000 seems excessive, and suggested the eighty percent
(80%) factor is very conservative and should be re-visited. Mr. Walsh also stated his support for pushing
back on State mandates. (02:13:24)
Ann Palmer was called to speak and stated her support for the comments of Mr. Walsh, and that she is
opposed to the General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update). She read past comments she
noted were made by Councilmembers regarding this topic, and stated it appears the current Council
direction is falling in opposition to those previous statements. Ms. Palmer asked which Council is going
to be the one to stop the increasing housing numbers. She noted the community's interest in keeping
Huntington Beach a town, rather than converting it to a metro, and encouraged Councilmembers to be
open to considering innovative solutions such as approving projects which include low-income housing
rather than allowing in-lieu payments to place the low-income housing somewhere else. (02:16:18)
Kathryn Sear was called to speak and stated her opposition to the General Plan Amendment (Housing
Element Update). In her opinion, when considering the long run, the only thing that really matters for
anyone is their answer to God when this life is over. (02:19:33)
Charles Dean, a resident of the Golden View neighborhood, was called to speak and noted that quality of
life in Huntington Beach is the most important thing to his family. He stated his opposition to the General
Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update) and his appreciation for the opportunity to share his
concerns
. (02:20:44)
Marilyn Schmidt, a resident of Huntington Beach for 30 years, was called to speak and stated her
support for continuing this Public Hearing so that the newly elected Councilmembers can be part of the
decision process. She stated her support for so many of the comments already expressed, and her
interest in maintaining the quality of life for Huntington Beach residents. (02:23:12)
Wilson Turner, a resident of Huntington Beach since 2019, was called to speak and shared the thoughts
of a friend who currently lives in high density housing, including too many people packed into a tight
area, lack of respect for others and their property, the noise of garbage trucks every day because of so
much trash, and who concluded, "I don't like this place". He further shared his opinion that current
Councilmembers have little regard for the hopes and concerns of the citizens, and stated his opinion that
City Council's support for high density development is just an effort for power and control. (02:24:24)
102
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 10 of 14
Laura M. was called to speak and stated her opposition to the General Plan Amendment (Housing
Element Update) because of the drain and strain on the schools, medical facilities, public safety, and
noted the lack of notice for the meetings which addressed this issue. She stated her support for the many
opposition comments already made, and shared her opinion that each Councilmember is in a position to
support what is morally right, and high density housing will transform Huntington Beach from a suburban
to a metropolitan environment which she believes will become crowded, dirty, and unsafe. She also
shared her opinion that when this life is over each person will answer to God for their decisions and
actions. (02:26:51)
Pat Goodman, a resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated her support for the
General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update) and opportunity for the newly elected
Councilmembers to participate in the decision to be made. She stated her support for affordable
housing, and noted she would not like to live in a city that does not have a compliant Housing Element.
(02:30:26)
Allie Plum was called to speak and stated her support for the comments of Pat Goodman. Ms. Plum
stated her opposition to placing high density zoning on mobile home parks, and acknowledged there is a
need for affordable housing within Huntington Beach. She also stated her support for making it possible
for the newly elected Councilmembers to be involved in the decision process. (02:32:47)
Bobbi King, a resident of Del Mar Mobile Estates, was called to speak and stated her support for the
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance. (02:34:08)
Unnamed Guest was called to speak and expressed appreciation for Save Surf City efforts, and stated
his concerns regarding a developer's ability to randomly raise rents in a high density project. He also
expressed concerns such as increased traffic and negative impact on the school system if additional high
density housing is approved. (02:34:40)
Diane Bentley, a 21-year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated her support for
the General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update). She acknowledged the need for safe
affordable housing for all economic segments of the community, which she believes will decrease crime
and increase property values. Ms. Bentley shared her opinion that approving this plan will provide the
best opportunity to meet housing goals and retain local control over housing development, while failure to
approve the Housing Element Update will expose the City to severe consequences as previously
described by other speakers. (02:36:13)
Unnamed Guest, a resident whose home backs to Ernest Drive in the Seagate community, and a
professional city planner for 25 years, was called to speak and stated her support for Planning
Commission Option #3 to include stipulating no balconies or roof decks 100 feet from the south side of
Ernest Drive. She further asked that Councilmembers seriously consider the position of strength that will
result for fighting State housing mandates if there is a compliant Housing Element in place. (02:38:47)
Mary Jo Baretich, a 40-year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and noted numerous
discrepancies between the Zoning, General Plan, Land Use, and Community Sub-Area maps. Ms
Baretich stated her opinion that mobile home parks need to retain the original RMP [Revised Master
Plan] zoning as shown on the 2016 Zoning map, and shared her concerns related to the possibility that
mobile home parks will be converted to apartment complexes displacing mostly senior citizens. She
noted that the proposed General Plan and Land Use maps show the wetlands designation of "coastal
conservation" along Pacific Coast Highway between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street has been
replaced with "commercial visitor serving" for an area that includes the Cabrillo Beachfront Mobile Home
103
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 11 of 14
Park. Ms. Baretich offered to assist in ensuring the original RMP and coastal conservation designations
are honored. (02:41:17)
Cheri Atkinson, a long-term resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak and stated her support for
the General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update) while considering the concerns of the
community. Ms. Atkinson commended Councilmembers and City staff for the important services and
programs provided for the homeless and low-income members of the community. She noted that if the
Huntington Beach Housing Element is not compliant, then State funds used for many of these projects
will be lost. (02:44:20)
Stefan Redl, a resident of Huntington Beach since he was a young child, was called to speak and shared
his perspective as a long-time, productive, local business owner, and tax-paying resident. He noted that
the General Plan Amendment (Housing Element Update) will impact the whole community, not just those
who reside in Edwards Hill neighborhoods. He stated that Slater Street is already dangerous and shared
his opinion that putting high density housing on the Frontier site will only increase that issue, as well as
negatively impact park users and wildlife. (02:47:12)
Davida Milo, a 25-year resident of Huntington Beach, was called to speak, and stated her impression that
unfortunately it is the State, not the local City Council, that determines housing numbers, and she
supports having a complaint Housing Element that can be later disputed or challenged. She further
stated her opinion that it is incredibly irresponsible to put Huntington Beach at risk legally and financially
by not having a compliant Housing Element. Ms. Milo stated her support for including the newly elected
Councilmembers in the Housing Element decision, and expressed her support for distributing housing
need projects throughout the whole City, rather than unduly impacting a few neighborhoods. She further
clarified the need to ensure decks and balconies are not approved for any development units within a
100 feet of Ernest Drive. (02:50:29)
Heidi Mann, a resident of Huntington Beach since 2019, was called to speak and shared her opinion
there has been no consideration of "theory" vs "practice" in all of the discussions related to the Housing
Element, and decisions are being made based on mandates from people who do not live in Huntington
Beach. She stated her support for continuing this item so that a compromise can be reached that
supports the needs of everyone. (02:53:38)
Karen Catania, a resident of Surf City Beach Cottages, was called to speak and stated she does not
want to be looking at large buildings from Central Park. She further shared her opinion this is an
opportunity for Huntington Beach to take a stand against Sacramento mandates. (02:56:18)
Roger Noor was called to speak and suggested that the property purchased in Westminster for the use
of the Huntington Beach Police Department instead be used for the housing mandates from Sacramento.
(02:58:07)
Caller Mark Sheldon, a 30+ year resident of Huntington Beach, was invited to speak and directed his
comments to a Consent Calendar item rather than this Public Hearing. He also thanked
Councilmembers for their service. (02:59:49)
Councilmember Moser noted for the record that staff has worked very diligently and hard on this item,
and outlined the next steps to allow the newly elected Councilmembers to be fully informed and able to
participate in the vote on whether to approve the Housing Element Update.
104
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 12 of 14
Director Luna-Reynosa confirmed that per the City Charter, Council-approved resolutions become
effective immediately, and ordinances require an introduction, or first reading, followed by a second
reading for a vote at least five (5) days later. If approved, an ordinance becomes effective 30 days later.
Mayor Pro Tem Posey stated his disappointment the vote on this issue has been delayed, and added the
best way to maintain local control is to exercise it, in this case by approving a Housing Element. He
added that if the Housing Element is not approved on December 8, it will only create chaos and will
encourage developers to invoke SB35 or SB330 or other builders remedy tactics to construct what they
want where they want, irrespective of the Housing Element. He also noted that as of July 1, AB2011
basically moots all discussions regarding zoning overlays and allows developers to purchase
commercially zoned properties such as strip malls, parking lots and office space to convert the space to
housing without local Planning Commission or City Council oversight and approval. Mayor Pro Tem
Posey stated that on December 8 the decision made will either turn local development over to
developers, or approve a Housing Element that is compliant with State law. He noted that SB2 funding,
which pays for a large part of the operation of the Navigation Center, is only available if Huntington
Beach has a compliant Housing Element, and referenced the sizeable amount of funding that was lost
one year because of a delayed compliant Housing Element. Mayor Pro Tem Posey further described
how State mandated housing numbers are reached, as well as previous and current lawsuits related to
this issue. (03:06:30)
Mayor Delgleize announced that the Public Hearing will remain open for further discussion until the
Special Meeting scheduled for December 8, 2022, at 6 PM in Council Chambers. (03:11:36)
COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS
9. 22-1026 Approved Item Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Posey — Requested the Mayor to
Support Councilmember Kalmick for the OCTA District 1 Seat During City Selection
on December 1, 2022
Mayor Pro Tem Posey clarified that the Huntington Beach City Council does not have the power to make
appointments to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board, but rather there is a City
Selection Committee Election process utilized by the County of Orange. He further explained this item is
only a polite request that Mayor Delgleize vote for Huntington Beach Councilmember Kalmick rather than
any alternate candidate during the voting process. Mayor Pro Tem Posey stated his opinion that keeping
a Huntington Beach representative on the OCTA Board is the best way for Huntington Beach interests to
be served.
Councilmember Kalmick clarified he had submitted his application for the position, and explained that
through redistricting he is seeking a newly created OCTA Board seat. The OCTA Board position
currently held by Major Delgleize has been moved to District 2. Councilmember Kalmick noted he has
served on the OCTA Advisory Committee for over a decade and has been Vice Chair for multiple years.
Councilmember Carr noted that this action will not be a guarantee because all Orange County mayors for
District 1 will be voting, and stated her support for formalizing the Huntington Beach City Council position
for all regional board positions moving forward.
A motion was made by Posey, second Carr to request that the Mayor or her designee vote for
Councilmember Kalmick at City Selection Committee for Orange County Transit Authority District 1
Population Seat through multiple rounds.
105
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 13 of 14
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, and Kalmick
NOES: Peterson
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized)
Councilmember Moser announced the following upcoming events: 17th Street Ribbon Cutting for the
Park on Saturday, December 3, 10 – 11 AM; HB Police Department Open House in Civic Center Plaza
on Saturday, December 3, 12 – 3 PM; and Lite a Light of Love Parade and Snowflake Lighting,
Downtown and Pier Plaza on Sunday, December 4, 3:30 – 6 PM.
Councilmember Moser noted the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center is celebrating 50 years of operation
with 25 years of that time located in Huntington Beach.
Mayor Pro Tem Posey described the service of Dick Harlow as the Former City Planning Director and
noted Mr. Harlow was the person who helped him understand and develop housing policy when he
served on the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Moser shared her thoughts of appreciation for the commitment that Mary Urashima
made to the community through the years by serving on various committees, including efforts to preserve
Historic Wintersburg.
Mayor Delgleize shared some background on Mr. Harlow's service to the community and noted that
Huntington Beach is a better City because he lived here.
Mayor Delgleize also shared details to honor the life of Mary Adams Urashima who served Huntington
Beach for more than 20 years, and described her as a kind, professional, ethical, good historian, a good
mediator, and great mentor and friend to many.
ADJOURNMENT — 8:11 PM in memory of Dick Harlow, Mary Urashima and Dr. David Keulen, to the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on
Tuesday, December 6, 2022, 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
_______________________________________
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of
the Public Financing Authority of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
106
Council/PFA Special Meeting
November 29, 2022
Page 14 of 14
ATTEST:
______________________________________
City Clerk-Secretary
______________________________________
Mayor-Chair
107
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-241 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
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:
Reaffirm adoption of Resolution No. 2021-62 finding a proclaimed state of emergency
continues to impact the ability to meet safely in person, and allows meetings of the City
Council and all City boards, commissions and committees to be conducted remotely as
needed in compliance with new Brown Act provisions identified in Assembly Bill 361
Statement of Issue:
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom approved Assembly Bill 361 (Rivas) that amends the
Ralph M. Brown Act to include a new authorization that allows all local agencies to host remote
meetings and remote public comments. The authorization, which largely extends the provisions of
the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 (approved March 17, 2020) and Executive Order N-35-20
(approved March 21, 2020), is in effect until January 1, 2024. To comply with the new provisions
identified in AB 361, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-62 finding a proclaimed state of
emergency continues to impact the ability to meet safely in person, and allows meetings of the City
Council and all City boards, commissions and committees to be conducted remotely as needed due
to health and safety concerns for the public.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Reaffirm Resolution No. 2021-62, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, Finding that the Proclaimed State of Emergency Continues to Impact the Ability to Meet
Safely in Person.”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not reaffirm Resolution No. 2021-62 and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
A provision of Assembly Bill 361 requires local agencies to verify every 30 days that the exemption
from traditional teleconference requirements is still necessary. Specifically, the legislative body must
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™108
File #:22-241 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
make findings no later than 30 days after the first teleconference and every 30 days thereafter that:
·The legislative body has reconsidered the state of emergency circumstances; and
·Either i) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet
safely in person, or ii) state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
If necessary, the City will continue to make appropriate findings at least every 30 days to ensure
compliance with this verification requirement of Assembly Bill 361 until its sunset date of January 1,
2024.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2021-62
2. Assembly Bill 361
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1040 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
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:
Receive and file the Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023 (terms on City boards,
commissions, and committees that expire in 2023) informing the public of openings and
vacancies based on 2023 expiration of current members’ terms
Statement of Issue:
Compliance with the Maddy Act requires that the City Council annually receive and file an updated
list of all boards, commission, and committees on which members’ terms are scheduled to expire.
The Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023 informs the public of available opportunities to serve
on City boards and commissions in 2023.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Receive and file the Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023 showing vacancies that will occur on
City boards, commissions, and committees in the year 2023, 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 - 2023 will also be posted at all branch libraries and
on the City’s website.
Alternative Action(s):
None.
Analysis:
Annually, each legislative body shall prepare an appointment list of all regular and ongoing boards,
commissions, and committees appointed by the legislative body of the local agency. The list of
appointees shall contain the following information:
1. A list of all appointive terms that will expire during the next calendar year (2023) with the name
of the incumbent appointee, the date of appointment, the date the term expires, and the
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™127
File #:22-1040 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
necessary qualifications for each position.
2. A list of all boards, commissions, and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the
legislative body and the necessary qualifications for each position.
Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs on any board, commission, or committee for which the
legislative body has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination or other
causes, a special Notice of Vacancy shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk of the local agency
and in other places as directed by the legislative body, not earlier than 20 days before or not later
than 20 days after the vacancy occurs. The legislative body shall not make final appointment to a
board, commission, or committee for at least 10 working days after the posting of the Notice of
Vacancy.
Emergency vacancies can be filled, but the appointee will serve on an acting basis until a final
appointment is made.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non-Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Maddy Act Local Appointments List - 2023
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™128
City of Huntington Beach
LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST – 2023
Opportunity for Public Service on
City Boards, Commissions, Committees
CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TERMS
WHICH HAVE EXPIRATION DATES OCCURING IN CALENDAR YEAR 2023
This list is prepared to inform members of the community of opportunities to serve on City boards,
commissions, committees, and to invite applications from interested parties per Chapter 11,
Section 54970, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code.
Please note that the following information pertains to openings that will be available in 2023
because of expiration of members’ terms. Very often during the year there will be openings
on boards, commissions and committees because members resign. These openings are posted
separately at the Civic Center and Huntington Central Library, and are listed on the city’s website
at:
https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/boards_commissions/notice_of_vacancies.cfm.
Applications for public service on a City Board, Commission, Committee can be accessed here:
https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/boards_commissions/.
ROBIN ESTANISLAU, CITY CLERK
Office of the City Clerk
2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor
714-536-5227
129
CIAB/PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
David Gins (Chair) 12/21/2020 Natalie Moser
Steven Shepherd 01/19/2021 Dan Kalmick
John Villa 11/16/2021 Rhonda Bolton
Cory Johnson 12/21/2020 Dan Kalmick
Vacant Tony Strickland
Vacant Gracey Van Der Mark
Vacant Pat Burns
Vacant Casey McKeon
Mission/Purpose: The mission of the CIAB/Public Works Commission is to review and make
recommendations related to Public Works capital improvement projects and programs. In 2021,
the City Council voted in favor of consolidating the Citizens’ Infrastructure Advisory Board,
Beautification, Landscape, and Trees (BLT) Committee, and the Public Works Commission.
Members and Appointments: All current members of the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory
Board (CIAB) and Public Works Commission members in good standing will continue to serve
until their terms sunsets. The Commission will thereafter consist of seven (7) members made
by direct appointment of each City Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City
Councilmember's term.
Members may have no interest in any contract with the City, either during their term or for a
period of one year after cessation of Commission service. All members serve without
compensation, may hold no other office or employment in city government and no other
employment that is incompatible with Commission service. Appointments to this board must file
California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic Interests."
Meeting Times and Dates: The CIAB/Public Works Commission holds regular monthly
meetings on the third Wednesday of each month at 5:00 PM at the Utilities Yard located on
19021 Huntington Street. All meetings are open to the public and special meetings may be
called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the Public
Works Department at (714) 375-5055.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and elector / resident of the City of
Huntington Beach with special interest, training, and/or experience in the field of Public Works.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his / her term, an
appointment shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current
vacancies, please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
130
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION ADVISORY BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
Parna Ghosh 01/01/2021 Dan Kalmick
Macey Lachman 01/01/2021 Natalie Moser
Vacant Rhonda Bolton
Vacant Tony Strickland
Vacant Gracey Van Der Mark
Vacant Pat Burns
Vacant Casey McKeon
Mission/Purpose: The mission of the Citizens Participation Advisory Board (CPAB) is to submit
recommendations to City Council on allocations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds.
Members and Appointments: The CPAB includes seven members made by direct appointment of
each City Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City Councilmember's term.
Meeting Dates and Times: The CPAB holds regular meetings on the 1st Thursday of the month
beginning at 6:00 p.m. in Room B-8 of the Civic Center; additional meetings may be required
depending on the number of grant applications received or as other issues arise. All meetings are
open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Staff support is provided by the Office of Business Development at (714) 536-5470.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington Beach;
members shall have an interest in assessing the needs of the community, particularly that of low
and moderate-income households. Low-income and disadvantaged persons are encouraged to
apply.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall be
made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
131
COMMUNITY AND LIBRARY SERVICES COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
Laura Costelloe 12/21/20 Natalie Moser
Term: 1/1/21-12/31/24
Dr. Richard Harrison 10/21 Dan Kalmick
Term: 1/1/21-12/31/24
Taryn Palumbo 5/17/22 Rhonda Bolton
Term: 1/1/21-12/31/24
Elaine Parker 9/3/19 Merged from Library Board
Term: 7/1/19-6/30/23
Faith Vogel 4/6/09 Merged from Library Board
Term: 7/1/19-6/30/23
Vacant Tony Strickland
Vacant Gracey Van Der Mark
Vacant Pat Burns
Vacant Casey McKeon
Mission/Purpose: The mission of the Community and Library Services Commission is to make
recommendations to City Council on matters relating to development, acquisition, and renovation of park,
beach, libraries, and recreational facilities.
Members and Appointments: The Commission includes seven members made by direct
appointment of each City Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City
Councilmember's term. The commission cooperates with other governmental agencies and civic
groups in the advancement of sound parks, recreational planning, and library services under the
direction of the City Council. Commissioners study, report and interpret the needs of the public to the
City Council, including conducting public meetings to garner community input on projects and
facilities. The Commission reviews the annual Capital Improvement Projects budget as presented to
the City Council and advises them on the current needs and long-range plans.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Commission meets regularly on the second Wednesday of each
month at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA. All
meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph
M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the Community and Library Services Department at
(714) 536-5486.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington Beach;
interested in recreational programming, development of parks and the operation and conduct of
City libraries
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
132
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Kathie Schey July 2021 N/A
Kayla Acosta-Galvan February 2022 N/A
Jeffery Dahl July 2019 July 2023 (First Term)
Matthew Fertal May 2022 May 2026 (First Term)
Lilli Cutler May 2022 May 2026 (First Term)
Mission/Purpose: The Design Review Board (DRB) assists the Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, and Planning Commission in reviewing development plans and
architectural drawings within designated geographic areas of the City, makes recommendations
and may impose conditions or modifications on projects reviewed.
Members and Appointments: The DRB is comprised of five members: one Planning
Commission member, one Historic Resources Board member, and three at-large members that
are recommended by two Council liaisons, and appointed by a majority of the City Council. At-
large members serve four-year terms.
Meeting Dates and Times: The DRB meets regularly on the second Thursday of each month
at 3:30 P.M. in Room B-8 located at the Lower Level of City Hall. All meetings are open to the
public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff
support is provided by the Community Development Department at (714) 536-5271.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years of age, a resident of the
City of Huntington Beach; interested in guiding, encouraging and promoting the maintenance of
harmonious, compatible, attractive and aesthetic developments within special and unique areas
of the City. Members must have training, education or work experience in design-related fields
including, but not limited to, architecture, landscaping, art, urban/environmental design and
aesthetics.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies,
please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
133
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Dan Kalmick, Chair December 21, 2021 December 31, 2024
Natalie Moser, Vice-Chair December 21, 2021 December 31, 2024
Bud Benneman October 21, 2019 June 30, 2023
Eric Bornstein September 20, 2022 June 30, 2023
KC Fockler October 21, 2019 June 30, 2023
Kathleen McGowan October 21, 2019 June 30, 2023
Joan Siegal October 21, 2019 June 30, 2023
Oscar Rodriguez (non-voting N/A N/A
member from Planning Commission)
Mission/Purpose: The Environmental Board has the duty to provide advice and monitor the
City’s comprehensive Sustainability Master Plan that incorporates water and energy
conservation, recourse recovery/waste management, renewable/recycle products, air quality,
mobility and other pertinent issues that affect the overall sustainability, economic, ecological and
social environments of Huntington Beach. The Board also performs other duties as may time to
time be assigned or delegated to it by the City Council.
Members and Appointments: The Board consists of seven voting members including five
eligible individuals appointed by the City Council, as well as two City Council Liaisons that shall
serve as chair and vice chair of the Board, unless the liaison delegates the position to another
board member. The Board also includes one non-voting member who is a representative of the
Planning Commission.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Board meets regularly on the second Wednesday of every
other month at 6:00 pm in Room B-8, Lower Level of City Hall. All meetings are open to the
public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff
support is provided by the City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5202.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington Beach;
have a general interest in promoting local efforts that will encourage sustainable practices and
environmental preservation.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his / her term, an
appointment shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. For current vacancies,
check out the Notice of Vacancies page.
134
FINANCE COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
Robert Sternberg 12/14/2020 Dan Kalmick
Jamie Craver 12/23/2020 Natalie Moser
Janet Michels 09/07/2021 Rhonda Bolton
Vacant Tony Strickland
Vacant Gracey Van Der Mark
Vacant Pat Burns
Vacant Casey McKeon
Mission/Purpose: The purpose of the Finance Commission is to act in an advisory capacity to
the City Council in matters pertaining to financial planning, specifically:
•Mid-Year Budget Review & Budget Kickoff
•Year End Audit, Single Audit, and new GASB Standards Review
•CIP & Infrastructure Calculation Review
•Adopted Budget Review
•Investment Update & Debt and Refinancing Opportunities
•Year-End Review and Celebration
Members and Appointments: The Commission includes seven members made by direct
appointment of each City Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City
Councilmember's term.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Finance Commission holds regular meetings on the fourth
Wednesday of every other month (6x per year) at 5:00 PM in Meeting Rooms B-7 / B-8 of City
Hall. All meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with
the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the Finance Department at (714) 536-5630.
Note: Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic
Interests."
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his / her term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. For current vacancies, check out
the Notice of Vacancies page.
135
FOURTH OF JULY EXECUTIVE BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Allison Stevens May 3, 2022 September 30, 2025
Andi Hamamoto-Kowal March 21, 2011 September 30, 2023
Don Ramsey May 3, 2022 September 30, 2023
Floreal Taboada May 3, 2022 September 30, 2025
Linda Vircks December 15, 2008 September 30, 2023
Lisa Marie Moreo May 3, 2022 September 30, 2023
Pat Love September 30, 2023
Paul Simonds May 3, 2022 September 30, 2025
Ryan Van Tuyl May 3, 2022 September 30, 2025
Mission/Purpose: The Fourth of July Executive Board assists in the production of the Fourth of
July Parade and festivities.
Members and Appointments: The Board shall consist of nine to fifteen members, recommended
for appointment by two City Council liaisons, and approved by a majority of the City Council (terms
not applicable). The Executive Board serves as an advisory body to the City Council, implementing
policy as set by the City Council, and shall work with staff and volunteers to assist in coordinating the
City’s annual Fourth of July parade (fundraising, coordination and presentation of the City's annual
Fourth of July Celebration, including a parade, fireworks, 5K run, and related entertainment).
Meeting Dates and Times: The board meets monthly on the 1st Wednesday at 6:00 pm year-
round, with two meetings in May and weekly or as-needed meetings in June. . All meetings are
open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown
Act. Staff support is provided by the Community and Library Services Department at (714) 536-
5486.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
136
HARBOR COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
CHRIS NIELSEN 3/16/2020
WILLIAM LARKIN (BILL) 3/4/2019
KIMBERLEY MILLIGAN 3/4/2019
MICHAEL VANVOORHIS (MIKE) 3/4/2019
CRAIG SCHAUPPNER 3/4/2019
VAN VU 1/1/2022
DIANE WOOD 1/1/2022
12/31/2026
12/31/2026
12/31/2026
12/31/2024
12/31/2026
12/31/2024
12/31/2024
Mission/Purpose: To serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters related to
Huntington Beach Harbor, its beaches, facilities, and parks. The Commission advises the City Council
about waterway safety, general infrastructure (e.g. seawalls, pier headlines, bulkheads etc.), water
quality and Municipal Code amendments. The Harbor Commission also cooperates with other
governmental agencies and civic groups for the advancement of the Huntington Harbor and
recreational planning under the direction of the City Council.
Members and Appointments: The Commission shall consist of seven (7) members,
recommended for appointment by two City Council liaisons, and approved by a majority of the City
Council.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Commission meets on the fourth Thursday of each month at 5:00 p.m.
in meeting Room B-8 on the Lower Level of the Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA.
All meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the Fire Department at (714) 536-5411. Staff
support is provided by Fire Chief Scott Haberle, Marine Safety Division Chief Eric Dieterman and
Senior Administrative Analyst Kevin Justen.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
137
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
7/1/2021 6/30/2025
7/1/2021 6/30/2025
7/1/2019 6/30/2023
7/1/2019 6/30/2023
7/1/2021 6/30/2025
7/1/2019 6/30/2023
Current Appointee
Kathie Schey
Amory Hanson
Susan Nguyen
Joe Santiago
Duane Wentworth
David Wentworth, Sr.
Marc Zambrano 7/1/2021 6/30/2025
Mission/Purpose: The purpose of the Historic Resources Board is to encourage and promote
programs and activities that enhance public awareness of historic resources.
Members and Appointments: The eleven member Board includes eight (8) at-large members,
recommended for appointment by two City Council liaisons, and approved by a majority of the City
Council. The Board shall serve as an advisory body to City Council, as well as a liaison to Council for
local, state and federal groups and agencies whose interest involves historic issues.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Board meets as needed on the 3rd Wednesday of each month at
5:00 p.m. in Room B-7 (lower level) of City Hall. All meetings are open to the public, and special
meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by
the Community and Library Services Department at (714) 960-8836.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington Beach;
preferably general interest in local history.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
138
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
12/18/2017 12/31/2023
3/15/2021 12/31/2023
10/05/2021 12/31/2023
6/07/2022 12/31/2025
10/05/2021 12/31/2025
1/21/2020 12/31/2025
1/21/2020 12/31/2023
1/18/2022 12/31/2025
Current Appointee
V.C. Rhone, Chair
Debbi Parrott, Vice Chair
Jonathan Smith, Secretary
Vanessa Chow
Elaine Keeley
Hemesh Patel
Timothy Stuart
Iliana Velazquez
Kim Kaston 11/29/2022 12/31/2023
Mission/Purpose: The Human Relations Committee’s mission is to inspire and promote mutual
understanding, respect, safety, and the wellbeing of all in our community through education and
engagement.
Members and Appointment: The Committee shall consist of nine (9) members recommended
for appointment by two City Council liaisons, and approved by a majority of the City Council.
The Committee sponsors community events through the year and serves as a resource to the
community in promoting human dignity and cooperation.
Meeting Dates and Times: The Human Relations Committee meets monthly on the 2nd Tuesday
of each month at 6:45 p.m. at Huntington Beach City Hall, Lower Level Meeting Room B-7. All
meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5910.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and elector / resident of the City of
Huntington Beach; interested in promoting cultural diversity and inclusion efforts within the
community. Fundraising and public information work experience is beneficial.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his / her term, an
appointment shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current
vacancies, please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
139
INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
Sean Haymann, Chair December 2020 Dan Kalmick
Dennis Kelly December 2020 Natalie Moser
Monica Erskine March 2022 Rhonda Bolton
Vacant Tony Strickland
Vacant Gracey Van Der Mark
Vacant Pat Burns
Vacant Casey McKeon
Mission/Purpose: The purpose of the Investment Advisory Board (IAB) is to act in an advisory
capacity to the City Treasurer and the City Council in matters pertaining to the financial planning and
the City's investments as per Municipal Code Chapter 2.109.
Members and Appointments: The IAB currently consists of seven members made by direct
appointment of each City Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City
Councilmember's term.
Meeting Dates and Times: The IAB meets on a quarterly basis (January, April, July, October)
on the third Thursday of the month at 6:30 PM in Room B-7 of the Huntington Beach Civic
Center. All meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in
conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the City Treasurer’s
Office at (714) 536-5553.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
140
JET NOISE COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Jeff Morin, Chair 2/4/2019 12/31/2026
David Porter 2/4/2019 12/31/2026
Keith Bohr 2/4/2019 12/31/2024
Phillip Burtis 2/4/2019 12/31/2024
Michael Bourgeault 2/4/2019 12/31/2026
Christopher Kunze 2/4/2019 12/31/2026
Mario Tabernig 2/4/2019 12/31/2024
Mission/Purpose: The Jet Noise Commission (JNC) was formed to monitor issues related to
jet noise from commercial aviation traffic flying over the City, to act as an advisory body to the
Council on matters pertaining to jet noise from commercial aviation traffic over the City, and to
engage with neighboring cities, regulatory bodies, airlines, and staff regarding the impact of air
traffic activities on the quality of life in Huntington Beach.
Members and Appointments: The JNC shall consist of seven at-large members recommended
by two Council liaisons, and appointed by a majority of the City Council.
Meeting Dates and Times: The JNC holds regular monthly meetings, generally on the fourth
Monday at 5:30 PM in B-7 of the lower level of City Hall or via Zoom. All meetings are open to the
public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff
support is provided by the City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5202.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach. Members shall hold no paid office or employment in the City government while serving
on the JNC.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies,
please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
141
MOBILE HOME ADVISORY BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Tim Geddes, Chair 4/19/2022 August 2024
Eric Silkenson, Chair Elect 5/3/2021 August 2025
Valerie Avilla 4/19/2022 August 2024
Mary Jo Baretich 4/19/2022 August 2024
Carolyne Carey Jo Chase 4/19/2022 August 2024
Chris Houser 7/7/2021 August 2025
Scott Miller 4/19/2022 August 2025
Allison Plum 5/3/2021 August 2025
Vickie Talley 7/21/2021 August 2025
Mission/Purpose: The Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB) ensures the quality of life in
mobile home parks and to review matters concerning mobile home parks in the City of
Huntington Beach, through healthy communication with park owners, manufactured home
owners and the City Council. The Board acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on
matters concerning the mobile home community.
Members and Appointments: Nine members, three each as follows: Park representatives,
Resident/Owner representatives, and citizens at-large who have no affiliation or relationship
with mobile home parks. All members are recommended by two Council liaisons and appointed
by a majority of the City Council.
Meeting Dates and Times: The MHAB meets quarterly at 5:00 p.m. on the 4th Monday of the
month in January, April, July, and October at a Civic Center, Lower level B-8 and via Zoom. All
meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance with the
Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the City Manager’s Office at (714) 536-5910.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and elector / resident of the City of
Huntington Beach, except park representative members. Depending on type of vacant
membership position, one has to be a mobilehome owner in the City or park representative.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies,
please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
142
PERSONNEL COMMISSION
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Cindy Vellucci (Chair) 6/15/2021 6/30/2023
Dianne Thompson (Vice-Chair) 6/15/2021 6/30/2023
George Rivera 6/15/2021 6/30/2023
Katherine Elford 10/4/2022 6/30/2024
Vacancy
Mission/Purpose: The primary focus of the Personnel Commission is employee arbitration
issues.
Members and Appointments: The Personnel Commission consists of five members, each of
which are recommended by two Council liaisons and appointed by a majority of the City Council.
The members serve a two-year term, and are limited to serve two consecutive terms. No member
shall hold any paid office or employment with City during, or for a period of one year after terminating
service as a member of the Commission.
Meeting Dates and Times: Meetings take place at least quarterly and on an as-needed
basis. All meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in conformance
with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the City Manager’s Office at (714)
536-5252.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington
Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
143
PLANNING COMMISSION
(Term Limits Not Applicable; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Appointed By
Kayla Acosta-Galvan January 12, 2021 Kamick
Oscar Rodriguez January 12, 2021 Moser
Ian Adam October 19, 2021 Bolton
VACANT Strickland
VACANT Van Der Mark
VACANT Burns
VACANT McKeon
Mission/Purpose: In addition to power and duties specified in the Government Code, the
Planning Commission shall have the power and duties to:
• Recommend to the City Council after a public hearing thereon, the adoption, amendment
or repeal of a master or general plan, or any part thereof, for guidance in the physical
development of the City;
• Exercise such functions with respect to land subdivisions as shall be provided by the
Subdivision Map Act, and by ordinance not inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter;
• Exercise such functions with respect to zoning, building, land use, precise plans, specific
plans, and related matters which may be prescribed by ordinance not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Charter; and
• Perform such other functions not inconsistent with the Charter as may be delegated to it
by the City Council.
Projects typically acted upon by the Planning Commission are major development proposals,
tentative tract maps, zoning map amendments, zoning text amendments, general plan
amendments, and various similar applications.
Members and Appointments: The Planning Commission, a quasi-judicial body that is empowered by
State law and the City Council, consists of seven members made by direct appointment of each City
Councilmember to a term that coincides with the City Councilmember's term.
Appointments to this board must file California Form 700 - "Statement of Economic Interests."
Meeting Times and Dates: The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth
Tuesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Study sessions are frequently
held at 5:15 p.m. prior to the meeting in Council Chambers. All meetings are open to the public,
and special meetings may be called in conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support
is provided by the Community Development at (714) 536-5276.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and elector / resident of the City of Huntington Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment
shall be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies,
please visit the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
144
YOUTH BOARD
(Resignations Occur; See Notices of Vacancies for Potential Openings)
Current Appointee Date of Appointment Date of Expiration
Bartel, Acacia 09/07/2021 05/31/2023
Blankenbaker, Luke 07/20/2020 05/31/2023
Nguyen, Faith 09/07/2021 05/31/2023
Osborne, Kenady 07/20/2020 05/31/2023
Parrott, Colin 09/07/2021 05/31/2023
Pham, Olivia 10/04/2022 05/31/2023
Rizvi, Sarah 09/07/2021 05/31/2023
Vo, Adam 09/07/2021 05/31/2023
Wong, Kai 10/04/2022 05/31/2023
Mission/Purpose: The objective of the Huntington Beach Youth Board is to act as a voluntary
advisory board to the Huntington Beach City Council regarding youth achievements, problems
and needs. The board will represent, involve and promote youth participation in community affairs.
Members and Appointments: The Youth Board shall consist of nine (9) members composed in
the following manner: One member each representing four Huntington Beach public high schools
(Edison, Huntington Beach, Marina and Ocean View), and five members chosen from the community
at large. Members at-large are recommended by two Council liaisons and appointed by a
majority of the City Council Members of the Youth Board shall be appointed annually in June and
shall serve a term of one year. After serving they must be reappointed by the City Council in order
to continue serving on the Youth Board.
Meeting Dates and Times: The board meets on the second Monday of each month at 3:30
p.m. in the Community & Library Services Department, 5th Floor, 2000 Main Street, Civic
Center. All meetings are open to the public, and special meetings may be called in
conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Staff support is provided by the Community &
Library Services Department at (714) 374-5312.
Necessary Requirements: Must be a U.S. citizen and resident of the City of Huntington Beach.
Vacancies: In the event a member retires or is unable to complete his term, an appointment shall
be made to fill the remainder of the unexpired term. To find out the current vacancies, please visit
the Notice of Vacancies webpage.
145
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1017 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director
PREPARED BY:Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director
Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81 modifying the pay schedule for part-time, non-permanent , and
non-classified employees to comport with the State minimum wage increase effective January
1, 2023
Statement of Issue:
The State of California minimum wage law will increase to $15.50 per hour effective January 1, 2023.
In order for the City to act in accordance with the State minimum wage change, the pay schedule for
part-time / hourly / non-permanent and non-classified employees requires modification.
Financial Impact:
The estimated Fiscal Year 2022/23 impact is $104,047 to address the financial impact associated
with State minimum wage and consequent adjustments to the City’s part-time pay schedule.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Approving the Pay Schedule for Part-Time Non-Permanent and Non-Classified Employees Effective
January 1, 2023,” and authorize the City Manager to take all administrative and budgetary actions
necessary to implement the revised pay schedule.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not adopt the Resolution, and direct staff to find an alternative means of complying with the
statewide minimum wage requirements.
Analysis:
The State of California Minimum Wage will increase from $15.00 to $15.50 per hour effective January
1, 2023. The City is required to modify its compensation schedules to comport with the law by the
January 1, 2023, implementation date. Those employees currently at a pay range starting below
$15.50 per hour will need to be increased to a pay range with a minimum higher than $15.50 per
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™146
File #:22-1017 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
hour. The part-time pay schedule has been adjusted to assign new ranges on the City’s master
salary schedule to comply with the minimum requirements, along with modifications to minimize
compaction within the impacted job series. Additionally, unused working titles have been removed,
and new working titles have been added to assist with recruitment efforts to meet evolving
operational needs. The updated pay schedule for Part-Time, Non-Permanent , and Non-Classified
Employees is included as Exhibit A.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2022-81, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Approving the Pay Schedule for Part-Time Non-Permanent and Non-Classified Employees
Effective January 1, 2023”
2. 2023 Part-Time Pay Schedule (with Tracked Changes)
3. PowerPoint Presentation
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
City of Huntington Beach
HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023
Working Title Pay
Range A B C D E F G
Ambulance Operator 104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Athletic Field Attendant (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Beach Operations Assistant (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Department Assistant (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Gallery Aide 104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Library Page (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Parking Attendant (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Police Cadet 104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Recreation Leader (Entry)104 $15.61 $16.39 $17.21 $18.07 $18.97 $19.92 $20.92
Beach Operations Assistant (Journey)107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Department Assistant (Journey)107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Journey)107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Parking Attendant (Journey)107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Recreation Leader (Journey)107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Senior Services Driver 107 $16.08 $16.89 $17.73 $18.62 $19.55 $20.53 $21.55
Athletic Field Attendant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Beach Operations Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
College Intern I 110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Department Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Library Page (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Lifeguard (Entry)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Parking Attendant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Recreation Leader (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Senior Services Dept Aide (Entry)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
College Intern II 115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Department Services Aide (Entry)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Lifeguard (Experienced)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Senior Services Department Aide (Journey)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Water Safety Instructor (Entry)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
College Intern III 120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Senior Services Department Aide (Experienced)120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Social Worker Assistant 120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Water Safety Instructor (Experienced)120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Department Service Aide (Journey)125 $19.24 $20.20 $21.21 $22.27 $23.38 $24.55 $25.78
Program Coordinator 127 $19.62 $20.60 $21.63 $22.72 $23.85 $25.04 $26.30
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Entry)130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Library Facilities Assistant 130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Traffic Control Officer 130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Fire Dept Trainee 138 $21.89 $22.99 $24.14 $25.34 $26.61 $27.94 $29.34
Department Service Aide (Experienced)139 $22.11 $23.22 $24.38 $25.60 $26.88 $28.22 $29.63
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Journey)139 $22.11 $23.22 $24.38 $25.60 $26.88 $28.22 $29.63
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Experienced)145 $23.47 $24.64 $25.88 $27.17 $28.53 $29.95 $31.45
Senior Maintenance Worker Assistant 145 $23.47 $24.64 $25.88 $27.17 $28.53 $29.95 $31.45
156
City of Huntington Beach
HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023Working Title Pay
Range A B C D E F G
Graduate Intern 150 $24.67 $25.90 $27.20 $28.56 $29.99 $31.49 $33.06
Dept Services Specialist (Entry)165 $28.64 $30.07 $31.58 $33.15 $34.81 $36.55 $38.38
Substitute Librarian 170 $30.10 $31.61 $33.19 $34.84 $36.59 $38.42 $40.34
Department Services Specialist (Journey)183 $34.26 $35.97 $37.77 $39.66 $41.64 $43.72 $45.91
Department Services Specialist (Experienced)200 $40.57 $42.60 $44.73 $46.97 $49.32 $51.78 $54.37
Managerial Specialist 230 $54.69 $57.42 $60.29 $63.30 $66.47 $69.79 $73.28
Director Specalist 245 $63.49 $66.66 $70.00 $73.50 $77.17 $81.03 $85.08
157
City of Huntington Beach
HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023
Working Title Pay
Range A B C D E F G
Ambulance Operator 100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Athletic Field Attendant (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Beach Operations Assistant (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Department Assistant (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Gallery Aide 100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Library Page (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Parking Attendant (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Police Cadet 100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Recreation Leader (Entry)100
104
$15.00
$15.61
$15.75
$16.39
$16.54
$17.21
$17.36
$18.07
$18.23
$18.97
$19.14
$19.92
$20.10
$20.92
Beach Operations Assistant (Journey)105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Department Assistant (Journey)105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Journey)105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Parking Attendant (Journey)105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Recreation Leader (Journey)105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Senior Services Driver 105
107
$15.77
$16.08
$16.55
$16.89
$17.38
$17.73
$18.25
$18.62
$19.16
$19.55
$20.12
$20.53
$21.13
$21.55
Athletic Field Attendant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Beach Operations Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
College Intern I 110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Department Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Library Page (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Lifeguard (Entry)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Parking Attendant (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Recreation Leader (Experienced)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
Senior Services Dept Aide (Entry)110 $16.57 $17.40 $18.27 $19.18 $20.14 $21.15 $22.20
College Intern II 115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Department Services Aide (Entry)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Library Services Aide (Entry)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
TRACKED CHANGES
158
City of Huntington Beach
HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023Working Title Pay
Range A B C D E F G
Lifeguard (Experienced)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Senior Services Department Aide (Journey)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
Water Safety Instructor (Entry)115 $17.41 $18.29 $19.20 $20.16 $21.17 $22.23 $23.34
College Intern III 120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Library Services Aide (Journey)120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Senior Services Department Aide (Experienced)120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Social Worker Assistant 120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Water Safety Instructor (Experienced)120 $18.30 $19.22 $20.18 $21.19 $22.25 $23.36 $24.53
Department Service Aide (Journey)125 $19.24 $20.20 $21.21 $22.27 $23.38 $24.55 $25.78
Library Services Aide (Experienced)125 $19.24 $20.20 $21.21 $22.27 $23.38 $24.55 $25.78
Program Coordinator 127 $19.62 $20.60 $21.63 $22.72 $23.85 $25.04 $26.30
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Entry)130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Library Facilities Assistant 130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Traffic Control Officer 130 $20.22 $21.23 $22.29 $23.40 $24.57 $25.80 $27.09
Fire Dept Trainee 138 $21.89 $22.99 $24.14 $25.34 $26.61 $27.94 $29.34
Department Service Aide (Experienced)139 $22.11 $23.22 $24.38 $25.60 $26.88 $28.22 $29.63
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Journey)139 $22.11 $23.22 $24.38 $25.60 $26.88 $28.22 $29.63
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Experienced)145 $23.47 $24.64 $25.88 $27.17 $28.53 $29.95 $31.45
Senior Maintenance Worker Assistant 145 $23.47 $24.64 $25.88 $27.17 $28.53 $29.95 $31.45
Graduate Intern 150 $24.67 $25.90 $27.20 $28.56 $29.99 $31.49 $33.06
Dept Services Specialist (Entry)165 $28.64 $30.07 $31.58 $33.15 $34.81 $36.55 $38.38
Substitute Librarian 170 $30.10 $31.61 $33.19 $34.84 $36.59 $38.42 $40.34
Department Services Specialist (Journey)183 $34.26 $35.97 $37.77 $39.66 $41.64 $43.72 $45.91
Department Services Specialist (Experienced)200 $40.57 $42.60 $44.73 $46.97 $49.32 $51.78 $54.37
Managerial Specialist 230 $54.69 $57.42 $60.29 $63.30 $66.47 $69.79 $73.28
Director Specalist 245 $63.49 $66.66 $70.00 $73.50 $77.17 $81.03 $85.08
TRACKED CHANGES
159
City of Huntington Beach
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023
Working Title Minimum Qualifications
Beach Operations Assistant (Entry)
Library Page (Entry)
Lifeguard (Entry)
Recreation Leader (Entry)
Library Page (Experienced)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Entry)
Parking Attendant (Entry)
Lifeguard (Experienced)
Recreation Leader (Journey)
Water Seafety Instructor (Entry)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Journey)
Parking Attendant (Journey)
Recreation Leader (Experienced)
Beach Operations Assistant (Journey)
College Intern II
Department Assistant (Entry)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Experienced)
Parking Attendant (Experienced)
Police Cadet
College Intern III Current enrollment in college with junior or senior-level standing
Beach Operations Assistant (Experienced)
Department Assistant (Journey)
Athletic Field Attendant (Entry)
Department Assistant (Experienced)
Graduate Intern
Senior Services Driver
Athletic Field Attendant (Experienced)3 or more years related experience with demonstrated technical skills
Department Services Aide (Entry)
Library Services Aide (Security)
Senior Services Department Aide (Entry, Journey)
Water Seafety Instructor (Experienced)
Department Service Aide (Journey)
Senior Services Department Aide (Experienced)
Social Worker Assistant
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Entry)
Library Facilities Assistant
Program Coordinator
Traffic Control Officer
Department Service Aide (Experienced)
Fire Department Trainee
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Journey/Experienced)
Senior Maintenance Worker Assistant
Substitute Librarian
Department Services Specialist (Entry)
Department Services Specialist (Journey)
Department Services Specialist (Experienced)
Managerial Specialist A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related supervisory or management level
experience
Director Specialist A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related director level experience
At least 2 years related, skilled experience
plus related education and/or training
Education, training or experience equivalent to 3 years related
experience with demonstrated office or technical skills,
Graduate Intern requires graduate status
in an accredited college or university
3 years directly-related experience with demonstrated technical skills
3 years directly-related experience with demonstrated technical skills,
Fire Department Trainee requires enrollment in accredited CA Paramedic
Program or the Huntington Beach Fire Academy - Position is exempt from years
of experience requirement
A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related professional level experience
Some college or vocational education or
equivalent work experience required,
College Intern II requires current enrollment in college level courses
Some High School and previous experience or related training required
High School graduation or equivalent and
previous on the job training required
College Intern I
Gallery Aide
High School graduation or equivalent and previous
on the job training required or certifications,
College intern requires current enrollment in college level courses
160
City of Huntington Beach
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR PART-TIME, NON-PERMANENT, AND NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE 1/1/2023
Working Title Minimum Qualifications
Beach Operations Assistant (Entry)
Library Page (Entry)
Lifeguard (Entry)
Recreation Leader (Entry)
Library Page (Experienced)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Entry)
Parking Attendant (Entry)
Lifeguard (Experienced)
Recreation Leader (Journey)
Water Seafety Instructor (Entry)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Journey)
Parking Attendant (Journey)
Recreation Leader (Experienced)
Beach Operations Assistant (Journey)
College Intern II
Department Assistant (Entry)
Maintenance Worker Assistant (Experienced)
Parking Attendant (Experienced)
Police Cadet
College Intern III Current enrollment in college with junior or senior-level standing
Beach Operations Assistant (Experienced)
Department Assistant (Journey)
Athletic Field Attendant (Entry)
Department Assistant (Experienced)
Graduate Intern
Senior Services Driver
Athletic Field Attendant (Experienced)3 or more years related experience with demonstrated technical skills
Department Services Aide (Entry)
Library Services Aide (Entry)
Library Services Aide (Security)
Senior Services Department Aide (Entry, Journey)
Water Seafety Instructor (Experienced)
Department Service Aide (Journey)
Library Services Aide (Experienced)
Senior Services Department Aide (Experienced)
Social Worker Assistant
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Entry)
Library Facilities Assistant
Program Coordinator
Traffic Control Officer
Department Service Aide (Experienced)
Fire Department Trainee
Homeless Outreach Case Manager (Journey/Experienced)
Senior Maintenance Worker Assistant
Substitute Librarian
Department Services Specialist (Entry)
Department Services Specialist (Journey)
Department Services Specialist (Experienced)
Managerial Specialist A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related supervisory or management level
experience
Director Specialist A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related director level experience
A Bachelor's Degree with directly-related professional level experience
Some High School and previous experience or related training required
High School graduation or equivalent and
previous on the job training required
At least 2 years related, skilled experience
plus related education and/or training
Education, training or experience equivalent to 3 years related
experience with demonstrated office or technical skills,
Graduate Intern requires graduate status
in an accredited college or university
3 years directly-related experience with demonstrated technical skills
High School graduation or equivalent and previous
on the job training required or certifications,
College intern requires current enrollment in college level courses
Some college or vocational education or
equivalent work experience required,
College Intern II requires current enrollment in college level courses
3 years directly-related experience with demonstrated technical skills,
Fire Department Trainee requires enrollment in accredited CA Paramedic
Program or the Huntington Beach Fire Academy - Position is exempt from years
of experience requirement
College Intern I
Gallery Aide
TRACKED CHANGES
161
Modifications to the
Part-Time Pay Schedule
to Comport with State
Minimum Wage Increase
City Council Meeting
December 20, 2022
162
Background
•The State of California minimum wage law will
increase to $15.50 per hour effective January 1, 2023
•In order for the City to act in accordance with the
State minimum wage change, the pay schedule for
part-time / hourly / non-permanent and non-classified
employees must be modified
163
Part-Time Pay Schedule
•Those employees currently at a pay range starting below $15.50
per hour will be placed on a pay range with a minimum higher than
$15.50 per hour
•The pay schedule has been adjusted to assign new ranges on the
City’s master salary schedule, along with modifications to minimize
compaction
•Unused working titles have been removed and new working titles
have been added to meet evolving operational needs
•The estimated Fiscal Year 2022/23 impact is $104,047
164
Staff Recommendation
•Adopt Resolution No. 2022-81, “A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the
Pay Schedule for Part-Time Non-Permanent and Non-
Classified Employees Effective January 1, 2023,” and
authorize the City Manager to take all administrative and
budgetary actions necessary to implement the revised
pay schedule
165
Questions?
166
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-755 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:Ricky Ramos, Principal Planner
Subject:
Approve Final Tract Map No. 19136, accept bonds, and authorize execution of a Subdivision
Agreement for the Gisler Residential subdivision by Lennar Homes of California, LLC at 21141
Strathmoor Lane
Statement of Issue:
Presented for your consideration is Final Tract Map No. 19136 for the Gisler Residential subdivision
by Lennar Homes of California, LLC at 21141 Strathmoor Lane (west side, south of Bluefield Drive).
This map subdivides an approximately 13.6 net acre site into 85 single-family residential numbered
lots and 15 lettered lots for private streets, open space, and landscaping.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact
Recommended Action:
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 19136 and accept the offer of dedications pursuant to findings and
requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement by and
between the City of Huntington Beach and Lennar Homes of California, LLC (Attachment No. 6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond Nos. US00121914SU22A and US00121915SU22A, Labor and
Material Bond Nos. US00121914SU22A and US00121915SU22A, and Monument Bond No.
US00121913SU22A as sureties (Attachment No. 7) for the installation of the subdivision’s required
public improvements and survey monumentation and Gisler Park improvements; and,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the Surety, XL
Specialty Insurance Company, of this action.
Analysis:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™167
File #:22-755 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: Dan Hosseinzadeh, Lennar, 2000 FivePoint, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92618
Property Owner: Lennar Homes of California, LLC, 2000 FivePoint, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92618
Surveyor: Kurt R. Troxell, Fuscoe Engineering, 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92606
Surety: XL Specialty Insurance Company
Location: 21141 Stathmoor Lane (west side, south of Bluefield Drive)
General Plan: RL (Residential Low Density)
Zoning: RL (Residential Low Density)
No. of Acres: 13.6 net
No. of Numbered Lots: 85
No. of Lettered Lots: 15
No. of Units: 85
B.BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2021 the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 19136 to
subdivide approximately 13.6 net acres into 85 numbered lots and 15 lettered lots for the
development of 85 single family residences. The Planning Commission also approved Conditional
Use Permit No. 20-024 and recommended approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment
No. 20-002, Zoning Map Amendment No. 20-002, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 20-002 as
part of the proposed project.
A motion was made by Mandic, seconded by Perkins, to approve TTM No. 19136 with findings and
conditions carried by the following vote:
AYES: Acosta-Galvan, Mandic, Perkins, Scandura, Rodriguez
NOES: Ray
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™168
File #:22-755 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
C.RECOMMENDATION
The final map has been examined and certified by the City Engineer as being in substantial
compliance with the conditions of approval of the tentative map, as approved by the Planning
Commission. The conditions require certain dedications to the City for various purposes such as
streets, public sidewalk, public utilities, police/fire access, and water quality inspection.
Also presented for City Council approval and execution are the required Subdivision Agreement
(between the City and Lennar Homes of California, LLC) and bonds pursuant to the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act in order for the map to record prior to the required
public improvements being completed.
Environmental Status:
The action to accept Final Tract Map No. 19136, the Subdivision Agreement, and bonds is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15268(b).
Strategic Plan Goal:
Economic Development & Housing
Attachment(s):
1. Findings and Requirements for Acceptance of the Final Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Final Tract Map No. 19136
4. Planning Commission Notice of Action for Tentative Tract Map No. 19136
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 19136
6. Subdivision Agreement
7. Bonds (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material, Monument)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™169
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP
Findings for Acceptance of Final Map:
1. Final Tract Map No. 19136 is in conformance with the California Subdivision Map
Act, the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Tentative
Tract Map No. 19136 conditions of approval, as approved by the Planning
Commission.
Requirements:
1. Accept dedication in fee to City for street and public utility purposes for Strathmoor
and Bluefield.
2. Accept easement dedication to City for public utility and public sidewalk purposes
along Strathmoor and Bluefield.
3. Accept easement dedication to City for Police and Fire Department access
purposes on the private streets and private drive within tract.
4. Accept easement dedication to City for access and inspection of water quality
treatment devices on the private streets and Lot “A” within tract.
5. The City Clerk shall affix her signature to the map and release it for recordation by
the County of Orange.
170
VICINITY MAP
Gisler Residential
Garfield.
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
GISLER PARKSTRATHMOOR LN BLUEFIELD DRCOCOBANA
LN
EFFINGHAM DR787977 80768175827483738472857170123456789101112131415585957605661556254635364526551665067496848693738394041424344454647363534333231302928272625242322212019181716LOTALOT B'A' STREET'E' STREET'B' STREET
'D' STREET
'C' STREETLOT ELOT DLOT CLOT GLOT FLOT HLOT ILOT JLOT KLOT MLOT LGINSLER PARKPARKING LOT(CITY OF HUNTINGTONBEACH)LOT OLOT NLOT MAPARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDESEXIST. BLUEFIELD DR.1PARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDESEXIST. STRATHMOOR LN B1CPARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDESPRIVATE STREET1LOT LDPARALLEL PARKING BOTH SIDESPRIVATE STREET1LOT FLOT GEPARALLEL PARKING ONE SIDEPRIVATE STREET1FTRANSITION FROM 40' TO 28'PRIVATE STREET1www.fuscoe.comtel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315Irvine, California 9260616795 Von Karman, Suite 100N G IEN E E R I N GTENTATIVE TRACT NO. 19136190
78797780768175827483738472857170123456789101112131415585957605661556254635364526551665067496848693738394041424344454647363534333231302928272625242322212019181716LOTALOT BGISLER PARKSTRATHMOOR LN BLUEFIELD DRCOCOBANA
LN
EFFINGHAM DRLOT GLOT FLOT HLOT ILOT JLOT KLOT MLOT LLOT CLOT DLOT ELOT NLOT OGISLER PARKPARKING LOT(CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH)PANACEADRBLACKFINCIRVOLANTEDRINFERNOLNRED JACKETCIR
INDIGO CIR
www.fuscoe.comtel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315Irvine, California 9260616795 Von Karman, Suite 100N G IEN E E R I N G191
www.fuscoe.comtel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315Irvine, California 9260616795 Von Karman, Suite 100N G IEN E E R I N G192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1031 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:Tess Nguyen, Associate Planner
Subject:
Approve Final Tract Map No. 18079, accept Bonds, and authorize execution of a Subdivision
Agreement for the Georgia Townhomes Subdivision by Hilltop Townhomes LLC at 910
Georgia Street
Statement of Issue:
Presented for your consideration is Final Tract Map No. 18079 for the Georgia Townhomes
Residential Subdivision by Hilltop Townhomes LLC at 910 Georgia Street (east side of Georgia
Street, between Joliet Avenue and Indianapolis Avenue). This map subdivides an approximately 0.80
acre parcel into one numbered lot for the construction of ten condominium units.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact
Recommended Action:
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 18079 and accept the offer of easement pursuant to findings and
requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement by and
between the City of Huntington Beach and Hilltop Townhomes LLC (Attachment No. 6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond No. 4459427, Labor and Material Bond No. 4459427, and
Monument Bond No. 4459428 as sureties (Attachment No. 7) for the installation of the subdivision’s
required public improvements and survey monumentation; and,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the Markel
Insurance Company of this action.
Analysis:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™237
File #:22-1031 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: Justin Jarjour, 815 Indianapolis Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 92648
Property Owner: Nabil Jarjour, 22181 Wood Island Avenue, Huntington Beach CA 92648
Surveyor: Daniel Rubio, Jones, Cahl & Associates, 18090 Beach Boulevard, Suite 12, Huntington
Beach CA 92648
Surety: Markel Insurance Company, Attn: Amanda Garcia (c/o CT Corporation System), 330 N.
Brand Boulevard, Suite 700, Glendale CA 91203
Location: 910 Georgia Street (east side of Georgia Street, between Joliet Avenue and
Indianapolis Avenue)
General Plan: RMH (Residential Medium High Density)
Zone: RMH (Residential Medium High Density)
No. of Acres: 0.80
No. of Numbered Lots: 1
No. of Lettered Lots: 0
No. of Units: 18
B.BACKGROUND
On January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 18079 to
subdivide approximately 0.80 acre into one numbered lot for condominium purposes.
A motion was made by Scandura, seconded by Perkins, to approve Tentative Tract Map No.
18079 with findings and conditions of approval, carried by the following vote:
AYES: Rodriguez, Acosta-Galvan, Perkins, Ray, Scandura, Van Der Mark
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Mandic
Motion Approved
C.RECOMMENDATION
The final map has been examined and certified by the City Engineer as being in substantial
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™238
File #:22-1031 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
The final map has been examined and certified by the City Engineer as being in substantial
compliance with the conditions of approval of the tentative map, as approved by the Planning
Commission on January 26, 2021. The conditions require certain easements benefit to the City
for various public purposes such as street and public utility, police and fire access, and access
and inspection.
Also presented for the City Council approval and execution are the required Subdivision
Agreement (between the City and Hilltop Townhomes LLC) and Bonds, pursuant to the City’s
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the State’s Subdivision Map Act.
Environmental Status:
The actions to accept Final Tract Map No. 18079 and the respective Subdivision Agreement with
Bonds is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Section 15268(b).
Strategic Plan Goal:
Economic Development & Housing
Attachment(s):
1. Findings and Requirements for Acceptance of the Final Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Final Tract Map No. 18079
4. Planning Commission Notice of Action for Tentative Tract Map No. 18079 with Findings and
Conditions of Approval
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 18079
6. Subdivision Agreement
7. Bonds (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material, Monument)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™239
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP
Findings for Acceptance of Final Map:
1. Final Tract Map No. 18079 is in conformance with the California Subdivision Map
Act, the City of Huntington Beach Subdivision Ordinance and Tentative Tract Map
No. 18079 conditions of approval, as approved by the Planning Commission.
Requirements:
1. Accept the easement dedication for street and public utility purposes over Georgia
Street and Joliet Avenue.
2. The City Clerk shall affix her signature to the map and release it for recordation by
the County of Orange.
240
VICINITY MAP
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18079 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18-032
(GEORGIA TOWNHOMES – 910 GEORGIA STREET)
Joliet Avenue
Beach Boulevard Indianapolis Avenue
Georgia Street Project
Site
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1037 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:Ricky Ramos, Principal Planner
Subject:
Approve Final Tract Map No. 19157, accept bonds, and authorize execution of a Subdivision
Agreement for the Olson Townhomes subdivision by Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC
at 8371 to 8461 Talbert Avenue
Statement of Issue:
Presented for your consideration is Final Tract Map No. 19157 for the Olson Townhomes subdivision
by Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC at 8371 to 8461 Talbert Avenue (north side, west of
Newland Street). This map subdivides an approximately 2.065 net acre site into a 1 lot condominium
for the construction of 34 townhomes.
Financial Impact:
No fiscal impact
Recommended Action:
A) Approve Final Tract Map No. 19157 and accept the offer of easement pursuant to findings and
requirements (Attachment No. 1); and,
B) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreement by and
between the City of Huntington Beach and Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC (Attachment No.
6); and,
C) Accept Faithful Performance Bond No. PB03010409024, Labor and Material Bond No.
PB03010409024, and Monument Bond No. PB03010409039 as sureties (Attachment No. 7) for the
installation of the subdivision’s required public improvements and survey monumentation; and,
D) Instruct the City Clerk to file the respective bonds with the City Treasurer and notify the Surety,
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, of this action.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™293
File #:22-1037 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Analysis:
A.PROJECT PROPOSAL
Applicant: John Reekstin, The Olson Company, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100, Seal Beach,
CA 90704
Property Owner: Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 100,
Seal Beach, CA 90704
Surveyor: Jeffery L. Mays, Advanced Civil Group, Inc., 30251 Golden Lantern, Suite E, PMB 251,
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Surety: Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Location: 8371-8461 Talbert Avenue (north side, west of Newland Street)
General Plan: RM (Residential Medium Density)
Zoning: RM (Residential Medium Density)
No. of Acres: 2.065 net
No. of Numbered Lots: 1
No. of Lettered Lots: 0
No. of Units: 34
B.BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2022,the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 19157 to
subdivide approximately 2.065 net acres into a one-lot condominium for the development of 34
townhomes.
A motion was made by Scandura, seconded by Acosta-Galvan, to approve TTM No. 19157 with
findings and conditions carried by the following vote:
AYES: Adam, Mandic, Acosta-Galvan, Perkins, Scandura, Rodriguez, Ray
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™294
File #:22-1037 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
ABSENT:
C.RECOMMENDATION
The final map has been examined and certified by the City Engineer as being in substantial
compliance with the conditions of approval of the tentative map, as approved by the Planning
Commission. The conditions require certain easements benefit the City for various purposes such as
public utilities, police/fire access, and water quality facilities inspection.
Also presented for City Council approval and execution are the required Subdivision Agreement
(between the City and Olson Urban V-Huntington Beach 4, LLC) and bonds pursuant to the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act in order for the map to record prior to the
required public improvements being completed.
Environmental Status:
The action to accept Final Tract Map No. 19157, the Subdivision Agreement, and bonds is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15268(b).
Strategic Plan Goal:
Economic Development & Housing
Attachment(s):
1. Findings and Requirements for Acceptance of the Final Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Final Tract Map No. 19157
4. Planning Commission Notice of Action for Tentative Tract Map No. 19157
5. Tentative Tract Map No. 19157
6. Subdivision Agreement
7. Bonds (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material, Monument)
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™295
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL MAP
Findings for Acceptance of Final Map:
1. Final Tract Map No. 19157 is in conformance with the California Subdivision Map
Act, the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Tentative
Tract Map No. 19157 conditions of approval, as approved by the Planning
Commission.
Requirements:
1. Accept the easement dedications for public utilities, police/fire access, and water
quality facilities inspection.
2. The City Clerk shall affix her signature to the map and release it for recordation by
the County of Orange.
296
PROJECT
SITE
VICINITY MAP
Olson Townhomes
Garfield. Brookhurst 297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
MDSSDWRWOHESDFWS1G:\My Drive\ACG\Projects\106804\CAD\MST\106804-TTM.dwg, 3/21/2022 3:15:31 PM318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1119 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL / HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members/Chair and Board Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelilnka, City Manager/Executive Director
VIA:Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY:Steve Holtz, Deputy Director of Community Development
Jason Austin, Deputy Director of Homeless and Behavioral Health Services
Subject:
Authorize the Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Support for a Jamboree Housing
Corporation application for grant funds from the California Departments of Health Care
Services and Social Services through the Behavior Health Continuum Infrastructure and the
Community Care Expansion Programs
Statement of Issue:
This Council action requests authorization for staff to submit letters of support (Attachments 1 and 2)
for Jamboree Housing Corporation’s (the “Developer”) applications to apply for Twenty Million Dollars
($20,000,000) to the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) and Twenty
Million Dollars ($20,000,000) to the Community Care Expansion Program (CCE).
Financial Impact:
There is no current financial impact associated with this request. If staff and the Developer agree to
terms of an Affordable Housing Agreement, staff will return to the Housing Authority for consideration
of such agreement which may include conveyance of two adjacent parcels located at 17642 Beach
Boulevard (the “Property”) at that time.
Recommended Action:
Authorize and direct the Executive Director to sign letters of support (Attachments 1 and 2) to support
the grant application the California Departments of Health Care Services and Social Services through
the Behavior Health Continuum Infrastructure and the Community Care Expansion Programs.
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended action.
Analysis:
Background
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™352
File #:22-1119 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
The Huntington Beach Housing Authority (the “Housing Authority” was established in 2011 per Health
& Safety Code Sections 34200 et. seq. for the purpose of increasing the supply of safe and sanitary
dwelling accommodations in the City available to persons of low income at rents they can afford. In
2019 and 2020, the Housing Authority acquired the 1.6 acre Property to facilitate a future affordable
housing project. Since acquisition, the Property has been improved with a temporary homeless
shelter (the “Navigation Center”).
On March 22, 2022 a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) was issued soliciting qualification
statements to identify development partners to build, finance, and manage a new mixed-use
development consisting of a homeless shelter, a sobering center, support services (physical and
behavioral healthcare, housing navigation and employment), and transitional and affordable housing
at various income levels (the “Project”). The Developer submitted a qualification statement that
demonstrated strong partnerships, experience and financial capacity. On June 7, 2022 the City
Council authorized the Executive Director to execute an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (the
“Agreement”) with the Developer.
The Agreement provides 360 days during which the Developer may perform studies and
investigations and other due diligence activities on the Property and other analyses to determine the
feasibility of Developer’s acquisition of the Property. The Agreement further provides that the City
and Developer shall exclusively negotiate with each other in an attempt to agree on the terms of an
affordable housing agreement, including a fee-simple acquisition, ground lease, or other disposition
of the Property.
The Developer is actively exploring funding sources and financing options. It is anticipated that a
number of funding sources will be required to complete the project. The California Department of
Health Care Services (DHCS) and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) have
launched two new programs intended to expand the infrastructure and address gaps in the
behavioral health and services systems for people with behavioral health needs.
Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP)
In 2021, DHCS was authorized to establish BHCIP and release six grant rounds targeting various
gaps in the state’s behavioral health facility infrastructure. The Funding Rounds included:
Round 1: Mobile Crisis for $205 Million
Round 2: County and Tribal Planning Grants for $16 Million
Round 3: Launch Ready Programs for $518.5 Million
Round 4: Children & Youth Programs for $480.5 Million
Round 5: Behavioral Health Needs Assessment Phase One for $480 Million
Round 6: Behavioral Health Needs Assessment Phase Two for $480 Million
The purpose of Round 5: Crisis and Behavioral Health Continuum is to address significant crisis care
gaps in California’s behavioral health (mental health and substance use disorder) infrastructure, with
consideration for funding priority to those that provide crisis services to individuals in need. This
round will provide funding for crisis and behavioral health infrastructure to serve vulnerable
Californians of all ages, including those who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Applications will be
accepted for projects will expand service capacity..
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™353
File #:22-1119 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Community Care Expansion Program (CCE)
The CCE program was established by Assembly Bill No. 172 (Chapter 20, Statutes of 2021) and will
provide $805 Million in funding for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation projects to preserve and
expand adult and senior care facilities that serve those who are experiencing homelessness or are at
risk of homelessness. Approximately 75 percent of funds will be made available for capital expansion
projects including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation of residential care settings; with
approval granted to use a portion of these funds to establish a capitalized operating subsidy reserve
(COSR) for these projects for use up to five years. The additional 25 percent of the funds will be
made available for rehabilitation to preserve settings that serve the target and prioritized populations.
Counties, cities, tribal entities, nonprofit organizations, for profit organizations, and private
organizations are eligible to apply for this funding with the understanding that proposed projects need
to expand community capacity for serving the target and prioritized populations including Medi-Cal
beneficiaries. The Developer has approached Housing Authority staff with a proposal to submit an
application for up to $20,000,000 (Twenty Million) from the BHCIP program and $20,000,000 (Twenty
Million) from the CCE program. The funds would be used towards the construction of the Project.
The due date for the BHCIP application is January 17, 2023 with award announcements in Spring
2023 and the CCE has a rolling application date.
Environmental Status:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), administrative activities of governments that will
not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment do not constitute a project. If
negotiations are successful an Affordable Housing Agreement will be brought forward for the Housing
Authority’s consideration and an environmental assessment will be conducted at that time.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Homelessness Response
Attachment(s):
1. Attachment 1 - Letter of Support for Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program Grant
Funding
2. Attachment 2 - Letter of Support for Community Care Expansion Program Grant Funding
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™354
December 20, 2022 Mark Faucette BHCIP Program Director California Department of Health Care Services BHCIP Round 5: Crisis and Behavioral Health Continuum RE: Letter of Support for Jamboree Housing Corporation BHCIP Round 5: Crisis and Behavioral Health Continuum Huntington Beach Healing Center 17642 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 To Whom it May Concern: On behalf of the Housing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, we are pleased to support Jamboree’s application to the California Department of Health Care Services for Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program, Round 5: Crisis and Behavioral Health Continuum for the development referenced above. The Housing Authority recognizes that this project will provide a crucial space to engage unhoused individuals and create a path from homelessness to housing. At the same time, the project will assist in addressing the barriers that have prevented housing in the past. Jamboree Housing Corporation is a nonprofit housing developer with extensive experience constructing, renovating, financing, operating, and providing meaningful supportive services for all types of affordable and supportive housing communities throughout California. Thank you for the opportunity to document our commitment to the Jamboree application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jason Austin, Director of Homelessness and Behavioral Health at Jason.Austin@surfcity-hb.org or by phone at 714-374-1704. Sincerely, Al Zelinka Executive Director
355
December 20, 2022
Mark Faucette
BHCIP & CCE Program Director
Advocates for Human Potential, Inc.
Community Care Expansion Program
RE: Letter of Support for Jamboree Housing Corporation
CDSS Community Care Expansion Program
Huntington Beach Healing Center
17642 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92647
To Whom it May Concern:
On behalf of the Housing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, we are pleased to support
Jamboree’s application to the California Department of Social Services for the Community Care
Expansion Program for the development referenced above.
The Housing Authority recognizes that this project will provide a crucial space to engage unhoused
individuals and create a path from homelessness to housing. At the same time, the project will assist
in addressing the barriers that have prevented housing in the past.
Jamboree Housing Corporation is a nonprofit housing developer with extensive experience
constructing, renovating, financing, operating, and providing meaningful supportive services for all
types of affordable and supportive housing communities throughout California.
Thank you for the opportunity to document our commitment to the Jamboree application. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact Jason Austin, Director of Homelessness and Behavioral
Health at Jason.Austin@surfcity-hb.org or by phone at 714-374-1704.
Sincerely,
Al Zelinka
Executive Director
356
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1063 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
PREPARED BY:Serena Bubenheim, Finance Manager - Budget
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-80 accepting and approving the Development Impact Fee (DIF)
Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and to make findings as required by Government Code
Sections 66006 and 66001
Statement of Issue:
Pursuant to the Mitigation 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 DIF’s after the deposit into their
respective account or fund.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable
Recommended Action:
Accept and approve the Development Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022 and
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-80, “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, 2022 and
to Make the Findings as Required by Government Code Sections 66006(b) and 66001(d).”
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommendation and direct staff accordingly.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™357
File #:22-1063 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
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
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 Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Development Impact Fee Annual Report was released for public review
on December 2, 2022 (Attachment 1).
The FY 2021-22 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 2). A summary of the fees collected and
expenditures incurred in FY 2021-22 are included in the Financial Summary Report section. As
these funds are collected and their corresponding fund balance 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.
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:
Infrastructure & Parks
Attachment(s):
1. Memo to City Council dated December 2, 2022
2. Resolution No. 2022-80, “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,
2022 and to Make the Findings as Required by Government Code Section 66006(b) and
66001(d)” including Exhibit A, “Development Impact Fee Report”
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™358
CITY OF HUNTINGTON B EACH
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNI CATION
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
DATE: December 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Release of Fiscal Year 2021-22 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 2021-22 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 the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2022 for your preliminary review. They will be officially transmitted for approval
at the December 20, 2022 City Council Meeting. By way of this transmittal, I am releasing
the reports for public review. The reports will be available on the City’s website at the
following link: https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/government/transparency/files/DIF-FY-
2021-22-Annual-Report.pdf.
359
360
361
362
363
364
Development Impact
Fiscal Year End June 30, 2022
City of Huntington Beach
Fee Report
365
366
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Report
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2022
Submitted by
Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
367
Intentionally
Left
Blank
368
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 ............................................................................................................................... 29
Council Action
Request for Council Action December 17, 2018 .......................................................... 33
Resolution 2018-85 Amending Development Impact Fee Schedule to Include ADU .. 38
Development Impact Fee on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) .................................... 48
Request for Council Action May 7, 2012 ...................................................................... 56
Resolution 2012-23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ............ 65
Ordinance 3942 – Police Facilities Development Impact Fee ...................................... 92
Ordinance 3943 – Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee ......................................... 103
Ordinance 3944 – Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program .......................... 114
Ordinance 3945 – Library Development Impact Fee ................................................... 130
Ordinance 3946 – Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee ... 140
Ordinance 3947 – General Provisions for Development Impact Fees ......................... 151
Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Development Impact Fees ................................ 159
Master Facilities Plan .................................................................................................. 163
Development Impact Fee Calculation & Nexus Report ................................................ 259
369
ii
Intentionally
Left
Blank
370
City Council Directory
I
Barbara Delgleize
Mayor
Mayor
Mike Posey
Mayor Pro Tem
Natalie Moser
Council Member
Kim Carr
Council Member
Erik Peterson
Council Member
Rhonda Bolton
Council Member
Dan Kalmick
Council Member
371
II
Intentionally
Left
Blank
372
City Official Directory
III
Elected Officials
City Attorney ............................................................................ Michael Gates
City Clerk ................................................................................. Robin Estanislau
City Treasurer .......................................................................... Alisa Backstrom
City Manager’s Office
City Manager ............................................................................ Al Zelinka
Assistant City Manager ............................................................ Travis Hopkins
Department Directors
Administrative Services ........................................................... Brittany Mello
Community Development ........................................................ Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Community & Library Services ................................................. Chris Slama
Finance .................................................................................... Dahle Bulosan
Fire ........................................................................................... Scott Haberle
Police ....................................................................................... Eric Parra
Public Works ............................................................................ Sean Crumby
373
IV
Intentionally
Left
Blank
374
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
December 20, 2022
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 have 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, 2022.
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 each of the City’s adopted DIFs.
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 schedu led
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 2, 2022.
Sincerely,
Dahle Bulosan
Chief Financial Officer
1 375
Intentionally
Left
Blank
2 376
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.
3 377
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.
4 378
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.
5 379
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;
6 380
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.
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 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.
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 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.
7 381
Intentionally
Left
Blank
8 382
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$
9 383
Introduction
Master Fee Schedule
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and updated May 2021)
Land Use
Detached Dwelling Unit $ 2,624.30 /Unit
Apartment $ 1,843.08 /Unit
Condominium/ Townhouse $ 1,607.96 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling $ 1,372.83 /Unit
Hotel $ 1,812.75 /Room
All Suites Hotel $ 1,084.61 /Room
Motel $ 1,251.48 /Room
General Light Industrial $ 2,108.54 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial $ 2,040.29 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing $ 932.91 /1,000 sf
Warehousing $ 1,501.77 /1,000 sf
Office Park $ 2,472.61 /1,000 sf
Research Park $ 1,668.63 /1,000 sf
Business Park $ 3,117.30 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store $ 4,785.94 /1,000 sf
Garden Center $ 3,822.69 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater $ 401.99 /1,000 sf
Church $ 963.26 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office $ 7,410.25 /1,000 sf
General Office Building $ 2,389.18 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center $ 4,922.47 /1,000 sf
Hospital $ 1,865.83 /1,000 sf
Discount Center $ 10,262.09 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover Restaurant $ 1,448.67 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market $ 7,106.86 /1,000 sf
Office Park $ 2,275.41 /1,000 sf
Cemetery $ 500.58
/Acre
Service Station/Market (avg)$ 17,558.57 /Fuel Position
Service Station w/Car Wash $ 16,200.91 /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)
10 384
Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 *
Development Impact Fees
*Note: Unaudited actual
Description
Parkland
Acquisition
& Park
Facilities
Police
Facilities
Fire
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Sewer
Facilities
Fund
Drainage
Facilities
Fund
Traffic
Impact
Fees
REVENUES
Fees 440,288 149,993 64,895 77,394 366,521 963,139 143,409
Interest 62,860 19,691 9,959 9,669 (179,307) (197,540) 19,058
Other Revenue 12,310 96,987
Total Revenues 503,148 169,684 74,854 87,063 199,524 765,599 259,454
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 5,176,320 83,528 2,163,140 668 534,056
Total Expenditures 5,176,320 83,528 2,163,140 668 534,056
Rev Over/(Under) Exp (4,673,172) 19,348 1,940 3,535 (1,963,616) 764,930 (274,602)
Beginning Fund Balance 10,361,970 1,922,937 1,033,919 986,099 4,234,329 2,721,894 2,921,232
Ending Fund Balance 5,688,798 1,942,285 1,035,859 989,634 2,270,713 3,486,824 2,646,630
11 385
Intentionally
Left
Blank
12 386
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisition 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 2021/22. The
balance for the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year was $10,361,970. During FY 2021/22, the Parkland
Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund recognized $440,288 in impact fees paid, as
well as $62,860 in interest and market adjustments for a total of $503,148.
Expenditures from the fund totaled $5,176,320 including Rodgers Seniors’ Center Site Redevelopment ($1.76
million), Bluff Top Park improvements ($1.083 million), Lake Park Reconfiguration ($725,000), playground
equipment and accessibility improvements at Huntington Central Park and Sun View Park ($660,000), Harbor
View Clubhouse Rehabilitation ($120,000), Edison Community Center Building Improvements ($107,000),
Edison Park Reconfiguration design ($97,000), Bartlett Park and Huntington Central Park Trail Improvements
($82,000), Huntington Central Park Public Art ($75,000), as well as other various park improvements. The
fund balance at the end of the fiscal year is $5,688,798.
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 3,150,305 7,941,094 4,026,144 385,395 788,972 440,288
Interest 14,479 (29,654) 495,707 383,539 3,088 62,860
Other Revenue 50
Total Revenues 3,164,784 7,911,489 4,521,851 768,934 792,060 503,148
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 901,073 758,321 1,533,146 2,949,744 3,556,058 5,176,320
Total Expenditures 901,073 758,321 1,533,146 2,949,744 3,556,058 5,176,320
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 2,263,711 7,153,168 2,988,705 (2,180,810) (2,763,998) (4,673,172)
Beginning Fund Balance 2,901,194 5,164,905 12,318,073 15,306,778 13,125,968 10,361,970
Ending Fund Balance 5,164,905 12,318,073 15,306,778 13,125,968 10,361,970 5,688,798
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period. An increase in revenue was due to the following development.
FY 16/17 and 17/18: Pacific City and Monogram final building.
FY 18/19: Luce Apartments; Oakmont Assisted Living Facility
*Unaudited actual
13 387
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Planned Park Projects, Studies, and Expenditures
The FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes funding for the following new projects:
Huntington Central Park Slater Playground Improvements ($475,000) anticipated to be completed by June 30,
2023. Additional funds have been budgeted for continuing design work associated with reconfiguration
projects for Marina ($440,000) and Edison ($475,000) Parks. The combined total of these planned projects is
$1,390,000.
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, the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, the 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 for grant funding opportunities as available.
Looking forward, other potential uses of the fund balance include construction funding for Edison Park
Reconfiguration Improvements pending final approval of a master plan anticipated to be completed during
FY 2022/23. Additionally it is anticipated that the final design plans and specifications for the Marina Park
Reconfiguration project would begin in FY 2023/24, with construction beginning in FY 2025/26. Finally,
continued playground ADA equipment improvements as listed on the City Council approved Park Playground
& Equipment Replacement Priority List are also planned on an on-going basis as funding is available through
FY 2024/25 at an estimated cost of $3.6 million.
14 388
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund*
Beginning Balance 7/1/2021 $10,361,970
Revenue
Developer Fees (Residential) 353,199
Developer Fees (Commercial) 87,089
Others, Interest, & Adjustments 62,860
Total Revenue $503,148
Expenditures
Various Park Improvements/Monument Signs (11,030)
Park Leases (7,539)
Bartlett Park Loop Trail (70,324)
Edison Community Center Improvements (107,267)
Edison Park Reconfiguration (97,093)
Harbor View Clubhouse Rehabilitation (119,592)
HCP Group Picnic Area Reuse Improvements (614,644)
Huntington Central Library Fountain Improvements (103,127)
HCP Disc Golf Course (34,850)
Lake Park Reconfiguration (725,532)
LeBard Park Improvements (27,919)
HCP Trail Improvements (16,266)
HCP Restroom Improvements (23,515)
Playground Improvements (includes $45k Sun View Park match to Prop 68) (52,119)
Rodgers Seniors’ Center Redevelopment (1,755,990)
Bluff Top Park Improvements (1,082,979)
Huntington Central Park Public Art Plans (75,000)
Personnel and Professional Services (251,535)
Total Expenditures $(5,176,320)
Beginning Balance 7/1/2022 $5,688,798
*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.
15 389
Intentionally
Left
Blank
16 390
Financial Summary Report
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 253,771 461,454 278,513 178,437 154,900 149,993
Interest 2,333 (1,198) 48,848 49,575 9,948 19,691
Total Revenues 256,104 460,256 327,361 228,012 164,848 169,684
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 150,336
Total Expenditures 150,336
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 256,104 460,256 327,361 228,012 164,848 19,348
Beginning Fund Balance 486,356 742,460 1,202,716 1,530,077 1,758,089 1,922,937
Ending Fund Balance 742,460 1,202,716 1,530,077 1,758,089 1,922,937 1,942,285 Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees of $149,993 and $19,691 in interest/bank adjustments were posted
in FY 2021/22. Expenditures during Fiscal Year 2021/22 totaled $150,336 for PD Communications Center
and Traffic Office reconfigurations, start-up equipment for the Be Well OC Program, and a transit van for the
Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT).
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.
17 391
Intentionally
Left
Blank
18 392
Financial Summary Report
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 104,346 225,915 156,211 98,953 99,561 64,895
Interest 1,314 (552) 25,418 27,274 5,042 9,959
Total Revenues 105,660 225,363 181,629 126,227 104,603 74,854
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 72,914
Total Expenditures 72,914
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 105,660 225,363 181,629 126,227 104,603 1,940
Beginning Fund Balance 290,437 396,097 621,460 803,089 929,316 1,033,919
Ending Fund Balance 396,097 621,460 803,089 929,316 1,033,919 1,035,859
Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees of $64,895 and $9,959 in interest/bank adjustments were posted in
FY 2021/22. Expenditures totaled $72,914 for a Fire facilities assessment and standards of cover study.
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.
19 393
Intentionally
Left
Blank
20 394
Financial Summary Report
Library Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22
REVENUES
Fees 208,080 532,513 313,292 128,248 104,298 77,394
Interest 1,651 (1,842) 40,351 36,229 1,084 9,669
Total Revenues 209,731 530,671 353,643 164,477 105,382 87,063
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 53,806 50,313 125,856 156,639 349,272 83,528
Total Expenditures 53,806 50,313 125,856 156,639 349,272 83,528
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 155,925 480,358 227,787 7,838 (243,890) 3,535
Beginning Fund Balance 358,080 514,005 994,363 1,222,150 1,229,988 986,099
Ending Fund Balance 514,005 994,363 1,222,150 1,229,988 986,098 989,634 Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Library Development Impact Fees of $77,394 and interest/bank adjustments of $9,669 were posted in
FY 2021/22. Expenditures incurred in FY 2021/22 include professional services charges for the development
of the Library Facilities Master Plan ($83,528).
21 395
Intentionally
Left
Blank
22 396
Financial Summary Report
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 58,004 72,646 429,294 703,122 217,735 963,138
Interest 5,648 4,055 53,429 74,100 12,285 (197,540)
Other Revenue (386)
Total Revenues 63,652 76,701 482,337 777,222 230,020 765,598
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 63,795 236,119 26,749 668
Total Expenditures 63,795 236,119 26,749 668
Rev Over/(Under) Exp (143) (159,418) 482,337 777,222 203,271 764,930
Beginning Fund Balance 1,418,625 1,418,482 1,259,064 1,741,401 2,518,623 2,721,894
Ending Fund Balance 1,418,482 1,259,064 1,741,401 2,518,623 2,721,894 3,486,824 Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund revenues for FY 2021/22 include $963,138 of development fees plus
negative interest/bank adjustments ($197,540) for a total of $765,598. Expenditures in the fund totaled $668
for engineering work on the McCallen Storm Drain Project.
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.
23 397
Intentionally
Left
Blank
24 398
Financial Summary Report
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 38,582 180,456 215,496 405,790 92,206 366,521
Interest 31,458 17,063 257,329 188,404 (179,307)
Other Revenue 12,310 45,058 (2,214) 12,310 12,310 12,310
Total Revenues 82,350 242,577 470,611 606,504 104,516 199,524
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 159,127 341,264 1,898,104 85,394 2,954,357 2,163,140
Total Expenditures 159,127 341,264 1,898,104 85,394 2,954,357 2,163,140
Rev Over/(Under) Exp (76,777) (98,687) (1,427,493) 521,110 (2,849,841) (1,963,616)
Beginning Fund Balance 8,166,017 8,089,240 7,990,553 6,563,060 7,084,170 4,234,329
Ending Fund Balance 8,089,240 7,990,553 6,563,060 7,084,170 4,234,329 2,270,713 Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
FY 2021/22 Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund revenues totaled $199,524. Residential and commercial developer
fees contributed $366,521. In addition, the City received $12,310 from the Sunset Beach Sanitary District
representing the agency’s share for the construction of Lift Station D. These revenues were partially offset by
negative interest/bank adjustments of ($179,307).
Expenditures for the fund in FY 2021/22 totaled $2,163,140 and includes ongoing construction costs at
Saybrook Lift Station in the amount of $1,234,177, ongoing construction costs at Slater Lift station in the
amount of $705,799, and final engineering and beginning construction cost at McFadden Lift Station totaled
in the amount of $223,164. It should be noted that these projects are also partially funded by the Sewer
Service Fund.
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.
25 399
Intentionally
Left
Blank
26 400
Financial Summary Report
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22*
REVENUES
Fees 436,630 713,993 588,763 564,171 225,314 143,409
Interest 15,788 6,049 150,937 83,723 8,706 19,058
Other Revenue 362,078 70 (1,088) 106 96,987
Total Revenues 814,496 720,112 738,612 647,894 234,126 259,454
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 610,801 90,191 914,922 2,157,222 52,308 534,056
Total Expenditures 610,801 90,191 914,922 2,157,222 52,308 534,056
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 203,695 629,921 (176,310) (1,509,328) 181,818 (274,602)
Beginning Fund Balance 3,591,436 3,795,131 4,425,052 4,248,742 2,739,414 2,921,232
Ending Fund Balance 3,795,131 4,425,052 4,248,742 2,739,414 2,921,232 2,646,630 Note: ^Reflects a 9-month fiscal period.
*Unaudited actual
During FY 2021/22, the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Fund recognized revenues of $143,409 in
impact fees paid plus $19,058 in interest/bank adjustments. Other Revenues include a transfer in from the
Gas Tax Fund in the amount of $3,595 and a transfer in from the Prop 42 Fund in the amount of $93,392 due
to accounting adjustments posted to close out various traffic signal grants. Revenues for the fund total
$259,454.
Expenditures include traffic signal modifications at the intersections of Warner-Graham ($170,483), Main-
Delaware ($53,293), and Warner-Ash ($47,461); design work on Bushard Fire Station fiber optic line ($4,420);
Citywide Mobility Corridor Improvements ($228,695) and general traffic signal repairs ($29,704). Expenditures
for the year totaled $534,056.
27 401
Intentionally
Left
Blank
28 402
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
The City’s current, Adopted Budget 2022-2023, which includes the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) 2022/23 – 2026/27 can be found on the City’s website at:
https://huntingtonbeachca.gov/files/users/finance/Adopted-Budget-2022-2023.pdf
Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2022/23 – FY 2026/27 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through
FY 2026/27. 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
New park development projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2022/23 include the design
and construction of various park improvements as listed below. Funds are also budgeted for park leases,
professional services, and personnel services.
FY 2022/23
Edison Park Reconfiguration Design Services - $475.000
This multi-year project includes the reconfiguration of Edison Park to include dual use tennis/pickleball
courts, repurposing of group picnic area, soccer fields, tot lot playground improvements, walkways, parking
lot rehabilitation, turf and irrigation improvements as well as other possible amenities based on the master
planning process currently underway. A total of $300,000 was appropriated in FY 21/22 and $475,000 in
FY 22/23.
Huntington Central Park Slater Playground Improvements - $475,000
This project includes replacement and rehabilitation of playground equipment with ADA compliant all new
units and safety surfacing throughout the playground area.
Marina Park Conceptual Design Reconfiguration Design Services - $440,000
This multi-year project includes the preparation of a conceptual master plan and design services to update
the park, including renovation of existing restroom/snack bar building, tennis courts, and potential
repurposing of hardscape areas and other park amenities.
FY 2023/24
Preliminary projects to include partial funding for Edison Park design and construction documents pending
final approval of a master plan, as well as Carr Park reconfiguration design services. Other preliminary
projects include the continuation of various playground equipment and site turf improvements as needed
throughout the city in order to comply with ADA requirements.
FY 2024/25
Preliminary projects include the continuation of playground equipment rehabilitation at various parks as
listed on the City Council approved Park Playground & Equipment Replacement Priority List, as well as
future projects as recommended in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan update currently underway.
29 403
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2022/23 includes the following projects funded by Police Facilities
Development Impact Fees:
Traffic Office Remodel - $415,000
The traffic department consists of old modular walls that are not configured to accommodate current
employees and workflow. The project includes renovation and refurbishment of the Traffic Bureau interior
of the Police Department and complete redesign of interior walls and workspace.
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2022/23 includes the construction for reconfiguration and renovation
of Fire Station #5 (Lake) and Fire Station #2 (Murdy). This project is needed for gender accommodation, in
addition to better use of space to accommodate personnel and services in Fire Department facilities. The
project includes professional services contracts for assessments of Fire Department facilities.
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:
Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)
Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia)
Acquire an Engine and Ambulance and for Station #4 (Magnolia)
Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1 (Gothard)
Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2 (Murdy)
These projects will be evaluated and considered for submission in the FY 2023/24 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. Proposed
use of funds include $350,000 for conceptual design services for the Central Library’s Children-Teen wing
included in the City’s FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It is anticipated that future funds
will be allocated to this project, as well as other library facility rehabilitation and expansion projects as
recommended in the Library Facilities Master Plan currently underway.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
The FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement Plan includes $700,000 in carryover funds from FY 2021/22 for the
rehabilitation/upgrade of Humboldt Sewer Lift Station and $1.2 million in carryover funds for the
rehabilitation/upgrade of McFadden Sewer Lift Station, with the prioritization of future lift stations to be
determined in future fiscal years.
30 404
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2022/23 through FY 2026/27 includes $2.0 million for reconstruction
of Heil Avenue Storm Water Pump Station, $120,000 for repairs to Channel C6 SC1, $1.2 million for storm
drain pump station forebay improvements, and $1.13 million for the installation of half round grates at
various locations throughout the City.
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
The FY 2022/23 Capital Improvement plan includes a total of $290,000 of projects to be funded from Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. This project is for the installation of a new traffic signal at the Heil
Avenue Fire Station, which will improve safety by enabling the Fire Department to stop traffic on Heil Avenue
while egressing the station.
31 405
Intentionally
Left
Blank
32 406
33
407
34
408
35
409
36
410
37
411
38
412
39
413
40
414
41
415
42
416
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
43
417
44
418
45
419
46
420
47
421
48
422
49
423
50
424
51
425
52
426
53
427
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
54
428
55
429
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-
56
430
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
57
431
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-
58
432
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
59
433
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-
60
434
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
61
435
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-
62
436
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)
63
437
ATTACHMENT #1
64
438
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
65
439
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
66
440
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
67
441
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
68
442
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
69
443
Resolution No. 2012-23
EXHIBIT A
70
444
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 71
445
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 72
446
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
73
447
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 74
448
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
75
449
76
450
77
451
78
452
79
453
80
454
81
455
82
456
83
457
84
458
85
459
86
460
87
461
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 88
462
89
463
90
464
ATTACHMENT #2
91
465
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
92
466
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
93
467
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
94
468
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
95
469
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
96
470
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
97
471
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
98
472
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
99
473
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
100
474
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
101
475
ATTACHMENT #3
102
476
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
103
477
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
104
478
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
105
479
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
106
480
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
107
481
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
108
482
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
109
483
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
110
484
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
111
485
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
112
486
ATTACHMENT #4
113
487
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
114
488
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
115
489
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
116
490
117
491
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
118
492
119
493
120
494
121
495
122
496
123
497
124
498
125
499
126
500
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)
127
501
128
502
ATTACHMENT #5
129
503
130
504
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
131
505
132
506
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
133
507
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
134
508
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
135
509
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
136
510
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
137
511
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
138
512
ATTACHMENT #6
139
513
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
140
514
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
141
515
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
142
516
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
143
517
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
144
518
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
145
519
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
146
520
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
147
521
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
148
522
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
149
523
ATTACHMENT #7
150
524
151
525
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
152
526
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
153
527
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
154
528
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
155
529
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
156
530
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
157
531
ATTACHMENT #8
158
532
159
533
160
534
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-
161
535
ATTACH ENT #9
162
536
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-
163
537
164
538
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-
165
539
166
540
167
541
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
168
542
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-
169
543
170
544
171
545
172
546
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-
173
547
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
174
548
175
549
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
176
550
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-
177
551
City of Huntington Beach
Law Enforcement Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
4
HB -243- Item 9. -108
178
552
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: 1179553
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
180
554
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
181
555
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
182
556
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-
183
557
184
558
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 185559
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
186
560
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
187
561
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
188
562
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
189
563
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
190
564
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
191
565
City of Huntington Beach
Circulation (Streets, Signals
And Bridges) System
18
HB -257- Item 9. -122
192
566
$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 193567
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 194568
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
195
569
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
196
570
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
197
571
198
572
199
573
200
574
201
575
202
576
203
577
204
578
205
579
206
580
207
581
208
582
209
583
210
584
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-
211
585
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
212
586
213
587
214
588
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
215
589
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
216
590
217
591
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 218592
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
219
593
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
220
594
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
221
595
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
222
596
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
223
597
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
224
598
City of Huntington Beach
Public Library Facilities
And Collection
51
HB -290-
225
599
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 226600
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
227
601
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
228
602
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
229
603
City of Huntington Beach
Park Land Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development
56
HB -295- Item 9.- 160
230
604
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 231605
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 232606
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
233
607
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
234
608
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
235
609
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
236
610
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
237
611
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
238
612
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 -
239
613
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
240
614
241
615
242
616
243
617
244
618
245
619
246
620
247
621
248
622
249
623
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
250
624
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
251
625
252
626
253
627
254
628
255
629
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
-
256
630
End of Plan
Item 9. - 187 11B -322-
257
631
ATTACHMENT #10
258
632
259
633
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
260
634
$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-
261
635
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
262
636
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-
263
637
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
264
638
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-
265
639
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
266
640
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-
267
641
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
268
642
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-
269
643
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
270
644
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-
271
645
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
272
646
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-
273
647
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
274
648
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-
275
649
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
276
650
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-
277
651
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
278
652
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-
279
653
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-
280
654
281
655
282
656
283
657
284
658
285
659
286
660
287
661
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
288
662
289
663
290664
291
665
292
666
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-
293
667
294
668
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-
295
669
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
296
670
297
671
298
672
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-
299
673
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
300
674
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 301675
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 302676
303677
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
304
678
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-
305
679
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
306
680
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-
307
681
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
308
682
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-
309
683
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-
310
684
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-
311
685
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
312
686
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-
313
687
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
314
688
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 $5,541,975
orward to Schedule •?_
NOTES:
1. The cost distribution is based upon annual Fire Department "Calls-for-Services statistics (NFIRs).
Revenu n .)st Specialists, L.L.C. Fulle A 92831 315689
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
295.00 1,749
0.123
Attached Dwelling Units 11t20 5,307
0.051
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9
0.212
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60
818
0.048
Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.106
Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000
0.044
Industrial/Manufacturing U$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 316690
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 317691
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
318
692
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-
319
693
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
320
694
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-
321
695
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
322
696
323
697
324
698
325
699
326
700
327
701
328
702
329
703
330
704
331705
332706
333707
334
708
335
709
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
336
710
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-
337
711
338
712
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-
339
713
340
714
341
715
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
342
716
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 92831343717
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 92831344718
'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 92831345719
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
346
720
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-
347
721
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
348
722
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-
349
723
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
350
724
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-
351
725
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-
352
726
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-
353
727
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
354
728
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-
355
729
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
356
730
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-
357
731
358
732
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-
359
733
360
734
361
735
362
736
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
363
737
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
364
738
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
365
739
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
366
740
367
741
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 -
368
742
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
369
743
- 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
370
744
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 -
371
745
APPENDIX A
Expanded Land-use Database
108
HB -437- Item 9. - 302
372
746
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-
373
747
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-
374
748
375
749
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
376
750
APPENDIX C
Master Facilities Plan
(See Separate Document)
113
HB -442-
377
751
End of Document
HB -443- Item 9. -308
378
752
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
379
753
?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/
380
754
•=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 ---
381
755
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 ---
382
756
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 383
757
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
384 758
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
385
759
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
386
760
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
387
761
388
762
389
763
390
764
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
391
765
392
766
393
767
394
768
395
769
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
396
770
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
397
771
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
398
772
399
773
400
774
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.
401
775
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.
402
776
403
777
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
404
778
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
405
779
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
406 780
407
781
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 a05107/12 408
782
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
409
783
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
410
784
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.
411
785
-•••• • • 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 412786
• 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.
413
787
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 414788
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.
415
789
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 416790
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 417791
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 418792
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-930 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Scott M. Haberle, Fire Chief
PREPARED BY:Brevyn Mettler, Emergency Services Coordinator
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79 approving the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan enabling the City to
be eligible for pre- or post-disaster hazard mitigation funds from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)
Statement of Issue:
City Council approval of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is requested.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2022-79, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Approving the Updated Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan."
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve the recommended action and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
FEMA mandates, through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, that any public agency that wishes to
apply for pre- or post-disaster hazard mitigation grants must have an approved local hazard
mitigation plan. Over the past 25 years the City of Huntington Beach has received approximately $18
million in disaster mitigation grants. Currently, the City’s Heil Flood Control Pump Station is being
funded with a LHMP Grant. This updated LHMP has been prepared to ensure compliance with FEMA
requirements.
The mission of the Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is to promote sound public policy
designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment
from natural hazards. This plan provides the first step toward accomplishing these goals by
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™793
File #:22-930 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
increasing public awareness, documenting the resources for risk reduction and loss prevention, and
identifying activities to guide the City of Huntington Beach toward building a safer, more sustainable
community. City Council adoption of the attached resolution assures that this public policy is
implemented.
City Council approval of the LHMP is requested. If the LHMP is not approved, the City will not be
eligible for pre- or post-disaster hazard mitigation funds from FEMA. If the LHMP is not approved, an
existing $2.7 million dollar grant from FEMA would be forfeited upon expiration of our current LHMP.
Environmental Status:
The adoption of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 6, Section
15306, of the California Environmental Quality Act, which states that basic data collection and
research, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource, is
exempt from further review. Additionally, the Hazard Mitigation Plan is only a study that identifies,
among other things, mitigation strategies that the local jurisdiction has not yet approved, adopted, or
funded.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Financial Sustainability, Public Safety or Other
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2022-79, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Approving the Updated Huntington Beach Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,” Exhibit A -
Hazard Mitigation Plan referenced, but not attached - available for Public Review in the City
Clerk’s Office
2. PowerPoint Presentation on the LHMP
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™794
795
796
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Adoption Huntington Beach Fire DepartmentDecember 20, 2022797
What is Hazard Mitigation798
What is Local Hazard Mitigation Plan • Provided Access to pre/post disaster mitigation funds • Better understanding of hazards, risks and vulnerabilities • Compliance with CA laws and requirements • Must be reviewed yearly • Updated every 5 year799
Hazard Mitigation Planning ProcessHazard Mitigation Team Assess Risks Develop mitigation Strategy/Plan Public/Partner OutreachAdopt Plan Plan Maintenance 800
How Does it Fit Into the CommunityMore Specific More General Long TimelineEmergency Operations PlanGeneral Plan Safety Element 65302 (g) 1Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Short Term801
802
Questions?803
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1027 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Scott M. Haberle, Fire Chief
PREPARED BY:Jeff Lopez, Battalion Chief
Subject:
Approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the California Department of Health Care Services
(DHCS) Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer
Program (PP-GEMT IGT) for FY 2022/23.
Statement of Issue:
As stated on the DHCS website, the PP-GEMT IGT Program is anticipated to be implemented on
January 1, 2023, contingent on federal approval.
With the New PP-GEMT IGT Program, it is expected that the City of Huntington Beach will receive an
estimated $770,000 in new annual revenue above the previous GEMT Programs. This estimated
$770,000 in new annual revenue amount is calculated after accounting for the $1,734,000 in
expected annual invoices to cover the City’s anticipated non-federal share. It is anticipated that half
of the annual $1,734,000, which would be $867,000, is expected to cover the City’s anticipated non-
federal share for the remainder of FY 2022/23.
Staff requests to approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the PP-GEMT IGT Program to pay DHCS
invoices in an expected amount of up to $867,000 to cover the City’s non-federal share described
below for the remainder of FY 2022/23. Future costs of the PP-GEMT IGT Program will be
incorporated in future years’ budgets.
Financial Impact:
A new appropriation of $867,000 is requested for the PP-GEMT IGT Program for the remainder of FY
2022/23. Future costs of the PP-GEMT IGT Program will be incorporated in future years’ budgets.
Program revenues are anticipated to fully cover the requested appropriation with a net annual
revenue of $770,000.
Recommended Action:
Approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the PP-GEMT IGT Program for FY 2022/23.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™804
File #:22-1027 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Alternative Action(s):
Do not approve and direct staff accordingly
Analysis:
The following information was provided on the Department of Health Care Services’ website about
the New PP-GEMT IGT Program (<https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/PPGEMTIGT.aspx>
):
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1705 (Chapter 544, Statues of 2019), the Department
of Health Care Services (DHCS) is developing the Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical
Transport (PP-GEMT) Intergovernmental Transfer Program (IGT) program to provide
increased reimbursements, by application of an add-on increase, to emergency medical
transports provided by eligible public GEMT providers. The non-federal share collected will be
used to provide an add-on increase to the fee-for-services (FFS) fee schedule rate for the
affected emergency medical transport billing codes and a rating increment that will be applied
to primary capitation rates for contracted Medi-Cal plans.
Currently, the Fire Department receives a $220 add-on pursuant to the GEMT QAF Program. Once
the New PP-GEMT IGT Program is implemented on January 1, 2023, public providers will no longer
be eligible to receive the $220 add-on from GEMT QAF Program and will no longer be able to
participate in the GEMT CPE Program. However, agencies will be invoiced quarterly and will receive
a reimbursement add-on of $946 instead under the New PP-GEMT IGT Program.
The New PP-GEMT IGT Program $946 add-on applies to more cases than the previous GEMT QAF
Program. The previous GEMT QAF Program revenue was approximately $100,000 annually. The
New PP-GEMT IGT Program revenue is estimated to be $770,000 annually. Staff recommends
appropriation approval for the PP-GEMT IGT Program due to the previous GEMT QAF and GEMT
CPE programs ending and due to the PP-GEMT IGT Program offering a greater net revenue than the
previous GEMT QAF and GEMT CPE programs as illustrated in the following table:
Staff requests to approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the PP-GEMT IGT Program to pay FY
2022/23 DHCS invoices in an expected amount of up to $867,000 to cover the City’s non-federal
share. If the invoices total less than $867,000, then the remaining funds will not be expended and will
be reverted back to the original appropriation. The City of Huntington Beach retains the right to
withhold invoice payments in this voluntary program if the non-federal share exceeds the expected
amount. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and Finance Department will analyze the PP-
GEMT IGT Program and its financial impact on a quarterly basis.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™805
File #:22-1027 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Environmental Status:
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Financial Sustainability, Public Safety or Other
Attachment(s):
1. PowerPoint Presentation on the New PP-GEMT IGT Program
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™806
PP-GEMT-IGTHuntington Beach Fire DepartmentDecember 20, 2022807
BackgroundAs stated on the DHCS website, the Public Provider Ground Emergency Medical Transport Intergovernmental Transfer Program (PP-GEMT IGT) is anticipated to be implemented on January 1, 2023, contingent on federal approval(https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/PPGEMTIGT.aspx).808
RecommendationStaff requests to approve an appropriation of $867,000 for the PP-GEMT IGT Program to pay FY 2022/23 DHCS invoices in an expected amount of up to $867,000 to cover the City’s non-federal share.809
AnalysisStaff recommends appropriation approval for the PP-GEMT IGT Program due to the previous GEMT QAF and GEMT CPE programs ending and due to the PP-GEMT IGT Program offering a greater net revenue than the previous GEMT QAF and GEMT CPE programs as illustrated in the following:Note: The New PP-GEMT IGT Program $946 add-on applies to more cases than the previous GEMT QAF. 810
Questions?811
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1044 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Sean Crumby, Director of Public Works
PREPARED BY:Max Olin, Contract Administrator
Subject:
Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid and authorize execution of a construction
contract with Stance Construction Company in the amount of $585,014.50 for the Residential
Curb Ramp Project, CC-1700
Statement of Issue:
On November 17, 2022, bids were publicly opened for the Residential Curb Ramp project. City
Council action is requested to award the construction contract to Stance Construction Company, the
lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Financial Impact:
The total cost of the project, including contingency and supplemental expenses, is $665,000. Funds
for this project are available in the current fiscal year budget in the Infrastructure Account
31440006.82300 ($365,000) and Measure “M” Account 21390004.82300 ($300,000)
Recommended Action:
A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Stance Construction Company in
the amount of $585,014.50; and,
B) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the
City Attorney.
Alternative Action(s):
Reject all bids, or provide staff with an alternative action.
Analysis:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) statues require the City to provide facilities and programs
that are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Many of our street intersections and crossings lack
the curb access ramps necessary to comply with ADA requirements. The project consists of installing
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™812
File #:22-1044 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
the curb access ramps necessary to comply with ADA requirements. The project consists of installing
ADA curb ramps throughout the City, but predominately in Maintenance Zone 2 (Attachment 1),
where the City’s annual pavement maintenance project has identified streets to overlay with new
asphalt.
Bids were publicly opened on November 17, 2022, with the following results:
BIDDER'S NAME BID AMOUNT
Stance Construction Company $585,014.50
Towo Enterprise Inc.$613,950.00
Nobest Inc.$690,000.00
Addison-Miller Inc.$860,900.00
CT&T Concrete Paving Inc.$957,200.00
Stance Construction Company has provided acceptable experience on similar projects in the past.
Therefore, staff recommends awarding a contract to Stance Construction Company in the amount of
$585,014.50.The total cost of the project is $665,000. This total includes the construction contract of
$585,014.50 plus ten-percent (10%) construction contingency of $58,501.45. In addition,
supplemental expenses of $21,484 for inspection. The engineer’s estimate for this project was
$665,000.
Environmental Status:
The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Section 15301(c) of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Infrastructure & Parks
Attachment(s):
1. Vicinity Map
2. PowerPoint Presentation - Zone 2 Curb Ramps
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™813
814
Zone 2 Residential Curb
Ramp Project
Zone 2
815
Residential Paving Program
12th (final) year - Residential Paving
Phases within program
• Tree Maintenance - Fall
• Concrete Rehabilitation - Winter
• Street Paving - Spring
• Slurry Seal – Spring
• Traffic Striping – Spring/Summer
816
Zone 2 Residential Curb
Ramp Project
• This project consists of approx. 100 curb
access ramps (comply with the American
Disabilities Act - ADA).
• ADA requires City to install ADA compliant
ramps on streets with paving.
• Includes ramps for all streets to be paved
within zone 2
817
Zone 2 Residential Curb Ramp Project
Curb Ramp Construction Completed Curb Ramp
818
Questions?
819
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1048 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Sean Crumby, Director of Public Works
PREPARED BY:John Martin, Contract Administrator
Subject:
Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid, authorize execution of a construction
contract with Modern General Contractor Inc. in the amount of $397,000.00 for the Police
Department Traffic and Homeless Task Force Office Renovation, CC-1678, and authorize
change orders
Statement of Issue:
On November 17, 2022 bids were opened for the Police Department Traffic and Homeless Task
Force Office Renovation Project CC-1678. City Council action is requested to award the construction
contract to Modern General Contractor Inc., the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Financial Impact:
The total cost of the project, including contingency, is $496,276.00. Funds for this project are
available in the current fiscal year budget in the Police Facilities Development Fund No.
22770104.82200.
Recommended Action:
A) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Modern General Contractor Inc. in
the amount of $397,000.00.
B) Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute change orders not to exceed 20% of the
contract costs, or $79,400.00.
Alternative Action(s):
Reject all bids, or provide staff with an alternative action.
Analysis:
The original traffic bureau and evidence room offices were designed and constructed in 1971 and are
in need of improvements and modernization. The traffic offices currently consist of adjustable wall
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™820
File #:22-1048 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
panels that separate briefing areas from private office spaces. The area includes a report writing
space that needs to be expanded from three to four work stations. The existing finishes (including
carpet) have outlived their useful life. The electrical, data, and HVAC systems all require
modernization as well. Also within that section of the building is an old evidence room that has not
been in use for quite some time and requires a complete removal of all flooring, drywall, and ceiling
tile.
The traffic office will be upgraded with steel-studded drywall and also include new carpet, ceiling tile,
HVAC, lighting, and data networking systems. Office space will be expanded from two to three
private offices, and the report writing area will include a fourth work station. The former evidence
room is being completely stripped down and rebuilt to house a new homeless task force (HTF) office.
The HTF space will consist of a private supervisor office and space for four officer work stations, as
well as renovated HVAC, electrical, and data networking systems.
The engineer’s estimate for this project was $450,000.00. Bids for the Traffic and Homeless Task
Force Office Renovation were opened on November 17, 2022, and are listed in ascending order
below.
Bidder Submitted Bid
1 Modern General Contractor Inc.$397,000.00
2 JT Construction Group Inc $398,135.29
3 KG Axis, Inc.$447,200.00
4 Legion Contractors, Inc.$448,000.00
5 Empire Design & Build $492,000.00
6 Monet Construction $510,638.00
7 Aguilar & Calderon Corporation $537,473.00
8 PUB Construction, Inc.$592,000.00
9 MLC Constructors $763,600.00
A check of references on Modern General Contractor Inc. indicates that they have successfully
completed tenant improvement building projects similar in scale. Therefore, it is recommended to
award a contract to Modern General Contractor Inc. in the amount of $397,000.00. The total project
cost is $496,276.00, which includes the construction contract of $397,000.00 plus a twenty-percent
(20%) construction contingency and $19,876.00 for project supplemental costs.
Environmental Status:
This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15303.c.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Infrastructure & Parks
Attachment(s):
1. Location Map - Traffic and Homeless Task Force Office Renovation CC-1678
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™821
File #:22-1048 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
2. Project Overview Slide Presentation
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™822
823
Traffic and
Homeless Task
Force Office
Renovations
Project
824
Table of Contents
•Current Configuration
•Renovated Design
•Questions
825
Current Configuration - Obsolete
Traffic Office
• Constructed in 1971.
• Carpeting, temp wall partitions,
HVAC, electrical and data
systems are all outdated.
• Traffic department needs
additional space and equipment.
Evidence Room
• Constructed in 1971.
• Evidence room relocated, current
room not in use.
• Current wall finishes, flooring,
HVAC, electrical, and data
network are in poor condition.
TRAFFIC OFFICE
EVIDENCE ROOM
(E) CITY
HALL
BLDG
826
Renovated Design
New traffic open office, above left, and private office, above right.
New Homeless Task Force Open Office
• Open office with 4 computers.
• New Supervisor office.
• New flooring, wall finishes, ceiling
tiles, electrical, HVAC, and data
network systems.
New Traffic Office
• New investigator office.
• Expanded report writing area with
5 desks.
• Renovations to entire office space
involve new permanent drywall,
flooring, ceiling tile, HVAC,
electrical, and data network
systems.
827
Questions?
828
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1090 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:Al Zelinka, City Manager
VIA:Al Zelinka, City Manager
PREPARED BY:Brittany Mello, Administrative Services Director
Travis Hopkins, Assistant City Manager
Subject:
Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative Services Department into the Human
Resources Department and Information Services Department, and Adopt Resolution No. 2022-
83 Amending the City’s Classification Plan to Delete the Director of Administrative Services
and Add the Positions of Director of Human Resources and the Chief Information Officer
Statement of Issue:
In November 2020, the City Council approved the COVID-19 Citywide Reorganization Plan following
a projected budget shortfall, reducing the number of authorized positions in the City and merging the
Information Services and Human Resources Departments into a new Administrative Services
Department. Due to the evolving needs of the organization, staff is recommending returning to the
prior operational structure to help meet the growing, complex demands of each operation.
Financial Impact:
The salary range for the positions of Human Resources Director and Chief Information Officer is
proposed to be placed at Range 269 of $167,668.80 - $224,702.40, mirroring the other non-safety
department heads. The proposed Human Resources Director would replace the existing
Administrative Services Director, so no additional funding is required for this position. To fully fund the
Chief Information Officer position’s pay and benefits, a budget appropriation of approximately
$288,952 would be needed annually. For the remainder of the current Fiscal Year 2022/23, funding
in the amount of $138,140 is requested to establish the role.
Recommended Action:
A) Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative Services Department into separate Human
Resources and Information Services Departments, authorize one additional full-time equivalent
position and appropriate $138,140 in the Fiscal Year 22/23 budget, and authorize the City Manager to
take all administrative and budgetary actions necessary to implement the reorganization.
B) Adopt Resolution No. 2022-83, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™829
File #:22-1090 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Amending the City’s Classification Plan by Deleting the Director of Administrative Services and
Adding the Job Classifications of Director of Human Resources and Chief Information Officer and
Establishing Compensation.”
Alternative Action(s):
Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative Services Department into separate Human
Resources and Information Services Departments, and adopt Resolution No. 2022-83, but do not
authorize an additional position, and authorize the City Manager to take all administrative and
budgetary actions necessary to implement the reorganization. If the additional position is not
authorized, then an existing, vacant authorized position would be de-funded to fund the Chief
Information Officer.
Analysis:
On November 2, 2020, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Citywide Reorganization
Plan in response to the negative economic impacts of COVID-19. A key component of this
Reorganization Plan was merging the Information Technology and Human Resources operations into
a single Administrative Services Department.
Over the last two years, the Administrative Services Department has provided exceptional internal
services to the eleven City departments at the City, serving approximately 1,500 full and part-time
employees across some 40 City facilities.
Following notification of the current Administrative Services Director’s upcoming departure from the
City on January 3, 2023, leadership in the City Manager’s Office and Administrative Services met to
evaluate the current structure, and the advantages and disadvantages of remaining merged or
bifurcating the department.
Due to the complexity and volume of Human Resources and Information Technology related
operational demands, along with numerous planned/ongoing special projects and the growing need
for employee relations, retention, recruitment, and training/development, staff is recommending a
return to the previous operational structure with separate Information Services and Human
Resources Departments.
In order to move forward with establishing separate departments, Resolution No. 2022-83 is
proposed to update the appointed Non-Associated (Non-Represented) Salary Schedule by adding
the Chief Information Officer and Human Resources Director classifications and establishing the
compensation at the same level as the non-safety department heads.
The existing Administrative Services Director position would be replaced by the Human Resources
Director. Staff is requesting funding for an additional full-time authorized position for the Chief
Information Officer position in the current fiscal year. Alternatively, City Council may choose to not
approve a new position. If so, an existing authorized position would be de-funded to fund the Chief
Information Officer position.
Environmental Status:
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™830
File #:22-1090 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
None.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution 2022-83, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending the City’s Classification Plan by Deleting the Director of Administrative Services and
Adding the Job Classifications of Director of Human Resources and Chief Information Officer
and Establishing Compensation” including Exhibit 1A-1 - Appointed Non-Associated Salary
Schedule Effective January 4, 2023, and Exhibit 1A-2 - Amended Non-Associated Salary
Schedule Effective February 4, 2023
2. PowerPoint Presentation
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™831
832
833
834
835
Administrative
Services Department
Reorganization
City Council Meeting
December 20, 2022
836
Background
•In November 2020, City Council approved the
Fiscal Year 2020/21 Citywide Reorganization Plan
in response to the negative economic impacts of
COVID-19
•A key component of the Plan was merging the
Information Technology and Human Resources
operations into a single Administrative Services
Department
837
Background
•The upcoming departure of the current
Administrative Services Director provides an
opportunity to re-evaluate if the current operating
structure best meets the City’s evolving needs
•Based on the complexity and volume of Human
Resources and Information Technology needs at
the City, staff is recommending separating these
functions into their own departments
838
Proposed Reorganization
•In order to bifurcate the department, a new director
position is requested at a fully-burdened cost of
approximately $288,952 annually
•Resolution No. 2022-83 is proposed to update the
appointed Non-Associated Salary Schedule to:
•Delete the Administrative Services Director position
•Add the Human Resources Director position
•Add the Chief Information Officer position
839
Staff Recommendation
A)Approve the Reorganization of the Administrative
Services Department into separate Human Resources
and Information Services Departments, authorize one
additional full-time equivalent position, and
appropriate $138,140 in FY 22/23; and
A)Adopt Resolution No. 2022-83
840
Questions?
841
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1092 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Proposed Ordinance to Establish a Code Enforcement
Complaint Process Regarding Alleged Business Violations and Prohibits the Submission of
Anonymous Complaints
Request the City Attorney to return to City Council with a proposed ordinance that bans anonymous
complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
The Ordinance should provide that Code Enforcement is welcome to continue to take in complaints
from the public about businesses, but that in order to do so, strict new reporting requirements must
be adhered to. Any and all complaints by individuals must occur in person at City Hall, which will
include a new and updated intake form to be completed with all identifying information of the
complaining party. The intake of the complaint shall include a copy of the individual's driver's license
or other form of ID with a full name, address, and photo of the individual. If a City worker, including a
member of Code Enforcement is lodging the complaint, then he/she identifies him/herself likewise.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™842
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT
PROCESS REGARDING ALLEGED BUSINESS VIOLATIONS AND PROHIBITS THE
SUBMISSION OF ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS
In the last year, Huntington Beach businesses have seen increasingly aggressive measures by
"anonymous" individuals who have reported complaints to Code Enforcement against
businesses. Some of the complaints, after investigation and review, were
unfounded. Nevertheless, the business owners were placed under unnecessary stress and
pressure to make corrections and/or face fines because of the basis of the anonymous
complaints. In addition, recently, small business owners received calls from Code Enforcement
regarding potential violations right after hosting political events at their restaurants. This was
perceived by the business owners as harassment, a violation of their exercise of free speech, and
a punishment for their participation in the political process.
Huntington Beach business owners are our community's treasures. Our business owners
represent the best of Huntington Beach - those individuals who have taken their own personal
risk to invest in the City, and then who employ members of our Huntington Beach
community. Our government should never be perceived as punitive or actively taking steps to
frustrate, discourage, or hinder business. Government should get out of the way of business to
allow business to flourish, and only when businesses are in actual, substantial violation of law,
should the government take corrective steps with the business to rectify the problem.
In the spirit of the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where individuals have a right to face
their accuser, Huntington Beach should have a policy banning anonymous complaints by
individuals or businesses to our local government to take action against other businesses. While
the 6th Amendment involves individuals in a criminal context, here I am concerned about
ensuring that only legitimate concerns involving a business are addressed through a proper
process.
To that end, the City should have an ordinance or regulatory scheme that bans anonymous Code
Enforcement complaints against businesses and requires that any individual who wishes to file a
complaint disclose his/her identity and other identifying information, even if that reporting
individual is another City worker. If a Code Enforcement officer comes across a violation on
his/her fieldwork, that individual would be the one identifying him/herself in the report. No Code
843
Enforcement reporting of any complaint could proceed without identifying the original observer
or eyewitness of the violation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Request the City Attorney to return to City Council with a proposed ordinance that bans
anonymous complaints by individuals to Code Enforcement about alleged business violations.
The Ordinance should provide that Code Enforcement is welcome to continue to take in
complaints from the public about businesses, but that in order to do so, strict new reporting
requirements must be adhered to. Any and all complaints by individuals must occur in person at
City Hall, which will include a new and updated intake form to be completed with all identifying
information of the complaining party. The intake of the complaint shall include a copy of the
individual's driver's license or other form of ID with a full name, address, and photo of the
individual. If a City worker, including a member of Code Enforcement is lodging the complaint,
then he/she identifies him/herself likewise.
844
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1093 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to amend the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to
raise Campaign Contribution Limits
Direct the City Attorney to return at the next City Council Meeting with an amendment to the City's
municipal code to raise the contribution limit to match or track that of the limits for California's
Senate/Assembly candidates.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™845
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: 12/20/2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO RAISE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
The City of Huntington Beach is the 4th largest City in the County of Orange and the 24th largest
City in the State of California, and has heavily restricted campaign contribution limits.
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 2.07.050, Campaign Contribution Limitations, limits
campaign contributions to any candidate or controlled committee of City candidate for City Clerk,
City Treasurer and City Attorney to $500 per election cycle. Since the adoption in 2013 the
consumer price index (CPI) of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Anaheim areas, the contribution
allowance is $620 per person or business to a candidate for local office.
In campaigning across such a large City, such restrictions place a burden on individual local
candidates to cover so much territory with restricted campaign budgets. This encourages third
party independent expenditures, which do not have contribution limits yet heavily influence local
elections. Local candidates should benefit from an increase in direct financial support from
individuals in the community. An increase in individual participation with individual candidates
is also an increase in the exercise of free speech.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Attorney to return at the next City Council Meeting with an amendment to the
City's municipal code to raise the contribution limit to match or track that of the limits for
California's Senate/Assembly candidates.
846
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1105 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to perform a CEQA review for the Great Pacific Air
Show
Request the City Manager to return to City Council at the first regular City Council Meeting in January
2023 with a specific and actionable recommendation for undertaking an adequate CEQA review of
the Air Show. Chief Assistant City Attorney, Mike Vigliotta’s experience in environmental legal review
will provide the leadership to retain the consultant necessary to complete the environmental review.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™847
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: 12/20/2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PERFORM A CEQA REVIEW FOR THE GREAT PACIFIC AIRSHOW
The Great Pacific Air Show is the largest event in Huntington Beach and has drawn the
attention and the interest of people from around Orange County, the State, and even the nation.
The Air Show is a special event that should be embraced by the City of Huntington Beach to
ensure success in years to come and actively supported by the City.
To secure the future of the Air Show in Huntington Beach the City should conduct a review under
CEQA to provide the City with insulation against challenges.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Request the City Manager to return to City Council at the first regular City Council Meeting in
January 2023 with a specific and actionable recommendation for undertaking an adequate CEQA
review of the Air Show. Chief Assistant City Attorney, Mike Vigliotta’s experience in
environmental legal review will provide the leadership to retain the consultant necessary to
complete the environmental review.
848
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1094 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark - Report on Homelessness, Anti-Camping and Anti
-Loitering Laws
Direct the City Manager and the Police Chief to return on January 17, 2023 to present the following:
1.A full report and accounting identifying all of the City's resources, including recently
hired/appointed City personnel, County programs present in the City, and facilities like the Navigation
Center, that have been employed or deployed to combat homelessness; and
2.A full report and accounting of the Navigation Center's use since it opened in December 2020,
including the number of beds occupied over time (utilizing monthly data), where the clients/patrons
are from (have they been Huntington Beach homeless or have they been brought in by the County or
other cities), and average length of how long individuals stay and where they go once released (e.g.,
back on the streets, County facilities, or back home); and
3.A proposal that incorporates former Police Chief Handy's 90-day plan on how HBPD will enforce
the City's and State's anti-camping and anti-loitering laws to get the City's public spaces free from the
mentioned encampments, loitering, and their related health and safety concerns; and
4.A request for the Police Chief to give quarterly updates at City Council on enforcement of anti-
camping and anti-loitering.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™849
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GRACEY VAN DER MARK, MAYOR PRO TEM
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: REPORT ON HOMELESSNESS, ANTI-CAMPING AND ANTI-LOITERING LAWS
Around 2019, the City began to appreciate a proliferation of the homeless population in
Huntington Beach as it was around Orange County. The increase in homeless individuals
sleeping on public benches, public parks, and outdoor encampments in public spaces and near
schools and playgrounds led to an increase in assaults on residents, degradation of the quality
of the City's parks and other public spaces, and health and safety issues such as filth, human
waste, drug paraphernalia, and other private property items left by homeless individuals strewn
through the City in public spaces. Many of these public spaces were, and still are, the
downtown area of Huntington Beach and beaches and parks, where children play.
In December 2020, the City responded to the homelessness proliferation in 2020 by building a
homeless shelter in cooperation with the County of Orange here in Huntington Beach (17642
Beach Bl.). As this multi-million dollar Navigation Center was being built, former Police Chief
Rob Handy had put together a 90-day plan centered on outreach to the homeless community to
inform them of the resources available through the Navigation Center and the County, and that
Huntington Beach would no longer allow homeless to remain camping and loitering in public
spaces. After the 2020 election, new City Council leadership altered this course. As a result,
the 90-day plan by Chief Handy was never implemented, and little to no enforcement of our
laws left the Navigation Center unused in large part, and our public spaces are still occupied by
homeless encampments and homeless loitering.
The City knows through many meetings with Federal Judge Carter, and by instruction from the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in the Martin v. Boise case, that having a homeless shelter, like
the Navigation Center, allows cities like Huntington Beach to legally enforce their anti-camping
and anti-loitering laws. There is no reason at this point, and going back to 2020, why the City
has not been enforcing its laws to keep the streets and public spaces healthy and safe. The
community knows this and is demanding that the City, once and for all, bring back law and
order to our City by addressing the homeless issue once and for all with the resources we
already have available to us.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Direct the City Manager and the Police Chief to return on January 17, 2023 to present the
following:
850
1. A full report and accounting identifying all of the City's resources, including recently
hired/appointed City personnel, County programs present in the City, and facilities
like the Navigation Center, that have been employed or deployed to combat
homelessness; and
2. A full report and accounting of the Navigation Center's use since it opened in
December 2020, including the number of beds occupied over time (utilizing monthly
data), where the clients/patrons are from (have they been Huntington Beach
homeless or have they been brought in by the County or other cities), and average
length of how long individuals stay and where they go once released (e.g., back on
the streets, County facilities, or back home); and
3. A proposal that incorporates former Police Chief Handy's 90-day plan on how HBPD
will enforce the City's and State's anti-camping and anti-loitering laws to get the
City's public spaces free from the mentioned encampments, loitering, and their
related health and safety concerns; and
4. A request for the Police Chief to give quarterly updates at City Council on
enforcement of anti-camping and anti-loitering.
851
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1108 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark and Councilmember McKeon - Request to Switch
the City of Huntington Beach’s (The Organization) OCPA Energy Rate to Basic Choice and
provide Recommendations to Withdraw as a Founding Member of the OCPA
We request the City Manager to present options at the next City Council meeting on the City's pursuit
to immediately switch the City of Huntington Beach facilities to OCPA's Basic Choice Option. We
also request for staff to return at a study session before the end of February 2023 to provide options,
costs and paths forward to remove/withdraw the City entirely from the Orange County Power
Authority.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™852
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GRACEY VAN DER MARK, MAYOR PRO TEM
CASEY MCKEON, CITY COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO SWITCH THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH’S (THE ORGANIZATION)
OCPA ENERGY RATE TO BASIC CHOICE AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO
WITHDRAW AS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE OCPA
In December 2020, the City of Huntington Beach was entered into the Orange County Power
Authority (OCPA) as a founding member. The OCPA is a joint powers authority with three other
founding members including the cities of Irvine, Buena Park, and Fullerton.
The City Council, in February 2022, approved the 100% Renewable Choice energy rate as the
default rate for Huntington Beach customers, including the City. This rate is the most ambitious
and aggressive plan that has the potential to impose a substantial financial burden on our
residents in their purchase of energy.
Since the City of Huntington Beach pays the highest rates from OCPA, it is irresponsible to the
taxpayer to spend more money than is necessary for a product of service. In all other contracts
with our City, the lowest responsible bid is chosen. In this case the highest rates were chosen,
yet the power comes from the same source as the lowest rate. This highly ambitious energy-
pricing plan for residents, in light of the questionable return on investment, should be corrected
by the City Council in order to protect residents. As such, the City should switch its default rate
for City facilities from 100% Renewable Choice to Basic Choice, the lowest rate that is also most
comparable to the current SCE default rate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
We request the City Manager to present options at the next City Council meeting on the City's
pursuit to immediately switch the City of Huntington Beach facilities to OCPA's Basic Choice
Option. We also request for staff to return at a study session before the end of February 2023 to
provide options, costs and paths forward to remove/withdraw the City entirely from the Orange
County Power Authority.
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1110 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Van Der Mark and Councilmember McKeon - Request to Pause
the Main Street Redevelopment Project and Solicit Additional Community Feedback Prior to
Reconsidering the Project
Request the City Manager to pause the work of Studio One Eleven architects and re-engage the
community. Return to the City Council in February 2023 to share the feedback received from the
community and engage in another discussion on whether to pursue the Main Street redesign. If
direction is given to proceed, Council and staff will discuss various options for the redesign of the
first, second, and third blocks of Main Street.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™865
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GRACEY VAN DER MARK, MAYOR PRO TEM
CASEY MCKEON, CITY COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PAUSE THE MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND SOLICIT
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY FEEDBACK PRIOR TO RECONSIDERING THE PROJECT
On November 16, 2021, the City Council provided direction to staff to undertake a redesign of
the first, second and third blocks of Main Street in Downtown Huntington Beach. On November
1, 2022, the City Council directed staff to proceed from the resultant schematic design to design
development drawings for the Main Street Streetscape design for the first, second and third
blocks of Main Street.
In between these two actions, the City introduced the Downtown Dreamin’ process in August
2022, which added a new level of community engagement in the redesign process for Main
Street. Prior to this, and to this day, comments from the community include that many don't
like the idea of redesigning Main Street at all, while others have insisted that there is a need for
more opportunities in order to develop consensus on the Main Street redesign. While much
work has occurred to date and before additional investment in planning and design occurs, it is
important to take a pause and resume community engagement to ensure that a) the
community supports the idea of a Main Street redesign, and b) that whatever proposal for
redesign of Main Street reflects a consensus of downtown businesses and property owners, as
well as Huntington Beach residents. While not everyone will be completely satisfied with the
resultant Main Street streetscape redesign, it is important the process was inclusive and
engaged people in a consensus oriented way.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Request the City Manager to pause the work of Studio One Eleven architects and re-engage the
community. Return to the City Council in February 2023 to share the feedback received from
the community and engage in another discussion on whether to pursue the Main Street
redesign. If direction is given to proceed, Council and staff will discuss various options for the
redesign of the first, second, and third blocks of Main Street.
866
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1095 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Subject:
Submitted by Councilmember Burns - Request for HBPD Crime Statistics and Enhanced
Public Safety Enforcement Activities
Recommended Action:
1. Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Chief and return on January 17, 2023 with a report
on crime statistics over the past year, particularly regarding theft from or damage to our local
businesses and home invasion burglaries throughout the City; and
2. Return on January 17, 2023 with a report on what measures (without reporting/revealing tactics
that should be kept confidential) that the HBPD will take in 2023 to increase public safety and law
enforcement; and
3. Return quarterly with crime statistics and include explanations of the HBPD’s increased efforts to
fight crime; and
4. Direct the City Attorney to return on January 17, 2023 with any recommendations to increase
prosecutorial support of the HBPD, if any.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™867
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PAT BURNS, CITY COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: 12/20/2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR HBPD CRIME STATISTICS AND ENHANCED PUBLIC SAFETY
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
There is concern in the community that the City of Huntington Beach should be doing more to fight
crime and/or address an increase in certain crimes. For example, there is an increase in shoplifting
from shops in Huntington Beach in broad daylight. These crimes are often treated as misdemeanors
that cannot be dealt with adequately by the criminal justice system, yet many of these kinds of crimes
can be presented to a prosecutor not simply as petty theft, but as a higher charge of burglary, in order
to get greater penalties. In another example, there has been a measurable increase in home
burglaries both on Edwards Hill and in the Huntington Harbour area. In fact, Huntington Harbour has
seen nearly 30 in-home burglaries from January 1, 2022 to November 30, 2022.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Chief and return on January 17, 2023 with a
report on crime statistics over the past year, particularly regarding theft from or damage to
our local businesses and home invasion burglaries throughout the City; and
2. Return on January 17, 2023 with a report on what measures (without reporting/revealing
tactics that should be kept confidential) that the HBPD will take in 2023 to increase public
safety and law enforcement; and
3. Return quarterly with crime statistics and include explanations of the HBPD’s increased
efforts to fight crime; and
4. Direct the City Attorney to return on January 17, 2023 with any recommendations to increase
prosecutorial support of the HBPD, if any.
868
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1096 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Subject:
Submitted by Councilmember McKeon - Oppose RHNA Mandate and Adopt an Ordinance to
Ban Builder’s Remedy Developments
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Attorney to:
1. Challenge the State‘s RHNA mandate for Huntington Beach, including its validity and any laws in
support of such a mandate over the City as a Charter City, by taking whatever legal action is
required; and
2. Return to City Council at the City Attorney's earliest convenience with an ordinance banning
"Builder’s Remedy" developments from taking place in Huntington Beach. Development without
proper approvals is already not legal in the City, but this Ordinance is essential to make it clear to the
entire community that Huntington Beach will fight any developer that seeks to develop pursuant to
"Builder’s Remedy" laws.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™869
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CASEY MCKEON, CITY COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: OPPOSE RHNA MANDATE AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO BAN BUILDER’S
REMEDY DEVELOPMENTS
Since 2018, the State has passed a flurry of housing laws that not only seek to commandeer the
City's local ability (local control and discretion) to zone its territory, but the State also imposes a
host of heavy burdens, unfunded State mandates, and zoning mandates. This includes the 2021
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) mandate for Huntington Beach to zone 13,368 units
via the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Many have expressed that the "fix" to fight these State
mandates is in Sacramento, i.e., to fix State laws by the Legislature. While this is not untrue, the
fight for local control can still, also be had in the courts.
For perspective, if the City were to honor this 13,368 RHNA by zoning for, and eventually
building for that quota at a 20% affordable threshold, then that would mean that approximately
30,000 new total units of high density housing would be built. This would increase the City’s
current housing inventory by approximately 36 percent. These mandates, and the State's
intrusion and commandeering are reckless and unsustainable - both for the City's residents'
livability and the tax and strain on its infrastructure that is all designed and maintained for its
current housing levels.
The 13,368 RHNA is really no mandate at all. It is flawed. While the State claims that its housing
laws have preemptive effect, even over Charter cities, no preemptive effect can be upheld by
laws that are demonstrably flawed and unsupported by evidence, supported by a rational basis.
Earlier this year the California State Auditor released a scathing report that the "The Department
of Housing and Community Development Must Improve Its Processes to Ensure That
Communities Can Adequately Plan for Housing”. This scathing report indicates that HCD’s
methodology is flawed. This is precisely what the City Attorney had argued to City Council in
2020, that when SCAG/HCD made its RHNA determination for Huntington Beach of 13,368 units,
the State agencies violated their own State laws in their methodology and their application to
Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach is a Charter City and according to the California
Constitution, local zoning has historically been a "municipal affair" subject to Home Rule Charter
City authority. While that local right has eroded over the years with additional invasive State
legislation and unfavorable court rulings, the California Constitution remains and Huntington
Beach's Charter City status must be defended and asserted.
870
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize the City Attorney to:
1. Challenge the State‘s RHNA mandate for Huntington Beach, including its validity and any laws
in support of such a mandate over the City as a Charter City, by taking whatever legal action
is required; and
2. Return to City Council at the City Attorney's earliest convenience with an ordinance banning
"Builder’s Remedy" developments from taking place in Huntington Beach. Development
without proper approvals is already not legal in the City, but this Ordinance is essential to
make it clear to the entire community that Huntington Beach will fight any developer that
seeks to develop pursuant to "Builder’s Remedy" laws.
871
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, CA
92648
File #:22-1109 MEETING DATE:12/20/2022
Subject:
Submitted by Councilmember McKeon - Request for Information and Actions Related to the
RWG Report
Recommended Action:
1. City Council vote tonight to waive the attorney-client and Closed Session confidentiality privileges
for the 10 Closed Session Meetings on the Moore v. City, Gates lawsuit for the sole purposes of
allowing Mr. Gates to give his side of the story - to return to City Council with a public presentation on
what was discussed and decided (by Councilmember votes) in those 10 Closed Sessions, and
2. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other confidentiality
privilege on any and all communications between Councilmembers and Craig Steele and his
attorneys regarding this "investigation," and
3. Direct the City Manager to work with IS to preserve all emails/texts/communications between City
Council Members and Craig Steele and Richards Watson Gershon (RWG) and between former City
Manager Oliver Chi and RWG, and
4. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other confidentiality
privilege on any and all RWG invoices for the work they have done on this "investigation" (going back
to 2020) and to have those invoices, all of them, sent by the Finance Director and City Manager to
Mr. Gates for review to make determinations as to the propriety of the work by RWG and to see if a
new investigation should be undertaken to analyze the propriety of RWG's investigation of Mr. Gates
in the first place, and the propriety of the taxpayer dollars spent on the Steel "investigation," and
5. Direct the City Manager to remove the RWG report from the City's website - so that there are no
links and no availability on the City's website whatsoever. If any member of the public wants a copy,
they can send a request to the City Attorney's office to produce public records under the CPRA, and
6. Direct Mr. Gates, after review of the aforementioned communications and invoices, to return to
City Council with recommendations if any further action could be taken to correct the actions of RWG
and the City Council retainer of RWG and the spending of taxpayer moneys on such an
"investigation" behind closed doors and away from the public visibility and accountability.
City of Huntington Beach Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™872
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CASEY MCKEON, CITY COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND ACTIONS RELATED TO THE RWG REPORT
A lawsuit was brought in early 2018 by attorneys Neal Moore and Scott Field against the City of
Huntington Beach and our City Attorney, Michael Gates. That case was centered on age
discrimination allegations because they were written up and/or demoted for their poor
performance. For three years, 2018, 2019, and 2020, the City Council spent sums of taxpayer
money preparing that case for trial. As many have said before, City Council met with handling
attorneys, including outside attorneys from Greenberg Gross in Closed Session on
approximately 10 occasions over the course of those 3 years of litigation preparing that case for
trial. As many have said, the prior, 2018 City Council viewed this lawsuit as a frivolous suit, else
the City Council would not have met in Closed Session 10 times to direct the handling attorneys
for three years to prepare this lawsuit for trial.
In any event, notwithstanding the clear City Council decisions and control over the lawsuit, the
later City Council after the 2020 November election decided at the very last minute to settle the
lawsuit. Then, that same City Council improperly retained attorney Craig Steele of the law firm
of Richards Watson Gershon behind closed doors and away from the view of the public to
investigate our City Attorney, Mr. Gates, regarding the handling of the 3-year litigation by
outside attorneys from Greenberg Gross. The City Attorney is THE designated attorney of the
City by the people. The City Charter is clear about this, and City Council was not at liberty to
hire their own attorney behind closed doors to conduct any investigations or do any legal
work. This, in my view, was nothing more than a political witch hunt - all done in secret. Mr.
Steele was a friend of the Kalmick family, he had worked for Dan Kalmick’s father in Seal Beach
for years. The Council's secret hiring Mr. Steele in violation of the City Charter and without
having gone out publicly for a new RFP, and hiring Mr. Steele outside of the normal public
contracting processes reeks of impropriety and sheer politics. More shocking - Mr. Steele never
interviewed Mr. Gates, the person at the center of this sham investigation, nor did Mr. Steele
interview anyone from Mr. Gates's office, any of the Greenberg Gross attorneys, and he did not
interview anyone of the Councilmembers who were actually present in the 10 Closed Session
meetings who made the decisions and witnessed first hand Mr. Gates's role and conduct in the
handling of the case.
This kind of highly suspect, politically motivated "investigation" cannot stand in Huntington
Beach. We are far better than that. We must demand the truth about what actually happened.
873
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. City Council vote tonight to waive the attorney-client and Closed Session confidentiality
privileges for the 10 Closed Session Meetings on the Moore v. City, Gates lawsuit for the sole
purposes of allowing Mr. Gates to give his side of the story - to return to City Council with a
public presentation on what was discussed and decided (by Councilmember votes) in those 10
Closed Sessions, and
2. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other
confidentiality privilege on any and all communications between Councilmembers and Craig
Steele and his attorneys regarding this "investigation," and
3. Direct the City Manager to work with IS to preserve all emails/texts/communications
between City Council Members and Craig Steele and Richards Watson Gershon (RWG) and
between former City Manager Oliver Chi and RWG, and
4. City Council to vote tonight to waive the claimed attorney-client and any other
confidentiality privilege on any and all RWG invoices for the work they have done on this
"investigation" (going back to 2020) and to have those invoices, all of them, sent by the Finance
Director and City Manager to Mr. Gates for review to make determinations as to the propriety
of the work by RWG and to see if a new investigation should be undertaken to analyze the
propriety of RWG's investigation of Mr. Gates in the first place, and the propriety of the
taxpayer dollars spent on the Steel "investigation," and
5. Direct the City Manager to remove the RWG report from the City's website - so that there
are no links and no availability on the City's website whatsoever. If any member of the public
wants a copy, they can send a request to the City Attorney's office to produce public records
under the CPRA, and
6. Direct Mr. Gates, after review of the aforementioned communications and invoices, to
return to City Council with recommendations if any further action could be taken to correct the
actions of RWG and the City Council retainer of RWG and the spending of taxpayer moneys on
such an "investigation" behind closed doors and away from the public visibility and
accountability.
874