HomeMy WebLinkAboutPULSE MARKETING - 2002-07-01 C- AAW, C*A jjAV
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Deniedp City Clerks gignature
Council Meeting Date: July 1, 2002 Department ID Number: CS02-025
z
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION1__
C:)
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
> ?'-
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator d2¢J
Cri
PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Service
SUBJECT: APPROVE SCOPE OF WORK RELATED TO REVISION OF
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 230.20
THEREOF PERTAINING TO PAYMENT OF PARKLAND
DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Should the city proceed with revisions to Section 230.20 of the city's
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park and recreation impact fees?
Funding Source: Revenue generation for the Park Acquisition & Development Fund from
development impact fees; $11,000 for consultant services for additional nexus study work will
be paid from the PA&D Fund, Professional Services Account#20945101.69300.
Recommended Actions: Motion to:
1. Approve the scope of work presented by Pulse Marketing for services related to the
revision of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) Section 230.20; and authorize the
Director of Community Services to expend $11,000 from the Park Acquisition &
Development Fund, Professional Services Account#20945101.69300, and
2. Direct staff to return to Council with revisions to ZSO, Section 230.20 through the Planning
Commission by September 2002.
Alternative Action(s): Do not pursue revisions to ZSO, Section 230.20, and leave the
parkland dedication in-lieu fee as is.
Analysis: In June 2002, Council approved revisions to Chapter 254 of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) pertaining to park fees paid by developers who file .tract maps.
At that time, there were Council discussions regarding the Section 230.20 fee, which pertains
to development where a tract map is not required. Such development includes infill lots, tear
down and rebuilds, and single lot development on former oil production sites.
�i ,
RNUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIN
MEETING DATE: July 1, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS02-025
Staff has reviewed the Section 230.20 fee with the City Attorney's Office and Pulse
Marketing, the city's consultant who did the nexus study to establish the new Chapter 254. In
order for Council to proceed with revisions to Chapter 230, the attorney's office has
determined that the nexus study must have additional work completed (Attachment 1). Pulse
Marketing has prepared an additional scope of work (Attachment 2) to satisfy the
requirements to change Section 230.20 of the ZSO. As explained in the City.Attorney's
memo, the city will be using AB1600, the California Mitigation Fee Act, to justify the revisions
to Section 230. It is staffs recommendation that the nexus study support the levying of the
fee on all new construction including commercial and industrial, not just residential, since
commercial and industrial construction accounts for 4 percent of all use of citywide recreation
and park facilities. It is also staffs recommendation that the fee not be tied to Chapter 254,
i.e., Quimby Act formula, but be based on a per square foot of construction, thus supporting
the use of AB1600.
Although staff anticipates that such approach would decrease the current fee from $8,900 to
$2,000 to $3,000 per unit, in the long run the fee would apply to all development citywide that
does not require a tract map, whereas the current fee only applies to residential units in the
downtown area that were,constructed prior to 1970. As the city matures and more and more
residences and businesses are reconstructed; this fee would provide a long-term income
source for the rehabilitation and upkeep of the city's park and recreation facilities. This
mitigation fee would not be used for. park acquisition, but rather for park -improvements,
rehabilitation, and replacement.
The additional cost to provide the appropriate addendum to the Park Strategy and Fee Nexus
Study in order for the city to implement the proposed revisions is $11,000. This cost would
be paid by the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Staff believes that the work can be
accomplished and the proposed revisions returned to City Council by September 2002.
Environmental Status: N/A
Attachment its):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1 June 6, 2002 Memo from City Attorney, Park In-Lieu Fee ZSO 230.20
2 June 10, 2002 Letter from Thomas Tucker, Pulse Marketing
RCA Author: RH:cr
G:\RCA\02-025 Approve Scope of Work for ZSO Sec. 230 Revision.doc -2-
6/19/2002 9:04 AM
ATTACHMENT # 1
• J.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: RON HAGAN, Director of Community Services
HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning
SCOTT HESS, Principal Planner
WAYNE CARVALHO, Associate Planner
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: June 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Park In-Lieu Fee ZSO 230.20
This memorandum is written in anticipation that a revised fee schedule,relating to fees
collected by the City pursuant to Section 230.20 of the City of Huntington.Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance ("ZSO")will be brought to the City Council for
• consideration.
• As you know,the fees collected pursuant to ZSO Section 230.20 are authorized by the
California Mitigation Fee Act as codified in Government Code Sections 66000, et seq.
Pursuant to this authority, any increase in an established fee must be accompanied by
written findings made by the City Council,which are generally supported by a report or
nexus study.
Accordingly, our office anticipates preparing a resolution containing the requisite
findings once the nexus study has been completed or finalized. Please be advised that,
prior to our office preparing such a resolution, the nexus study must identify the
following:
1. The purpose of the fee;
2. The use to which the fee is to be put;
3. The relationship between the fee's use and the type of development upon
which the fee is levied (i.e. residential);
4. The relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of
development upon which the fee is imposed;
5. The relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of public
facilities financed by the fees collected.
•
GAMu1vihi11\02Memos\11ark in L.icu Pce.doc
Ron Hagan,
Howard Zelefsky
Scott Hess
• Wayne Carvalho
June 6, 2002
Page 2
Also, ZSO 230.20 is currently levied only upon residential construction. It may be that
the nexus study supports the levying the fee on all new construction, including
commercial and industrial.
Please direct any further questions or comments to Leonie Mulvihill.
GAIL HUTTON,
City Attorney
•
•
GAMu1vihi11\02Memos\11ark in Lieu Fee.doc
ATTACHMENT #2
Jun 14 02 09: 21a PULSE MARKETING 714 505 3317 p. 2
P U L S E
1945 14overitk lane
June 10, 2Q02 Santa Min, CA 97705
voi<e: 714.505.3316
MT. Ron Hagan l a x' 71 4.5 0 5.3 317
www.pulse markct.nat
Director of Community Development L4
City of I Iuntington Beach
MAAtAFT.I.NG
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
i)ear Mr. IIagan:
Pulse Marketing is pleased to provide 'you with this proposal for planning advisory
services related to the revision of Section 230 of the City's Planning and 7.oning Code.
Section 230 addresses lees paid by developers of new residential construction, on lots
that were previously subdivided. Historically, the park fee stipulated under Section 230
was derived by using the same formula, as was used under Section 254. Now that the fcc
wider Section 254. will be based on a site-specific appraisal, using this approach .is no
longer feasible, as it produces an escalated park fee for Section 230 applicants, beyond
what is reasonable. In addition, Section 230 iivuses solely oil new construction and does
not presently address the rehabilitation of residential units or the
construction/redevelopment of industrial/commercial uses. Our scope of services would
involve the successful completion ol'the following tasks:
• Construct an economic model based on market information that supports a revision to
the manner in which the Section 230 fee is formulated.
• Examine and make recommendations as to the breath and scope of the fee's
application.
r
• Develop the necessary linkages between the. fee structure recommended and the
results of the Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study completed.
• Prepare an addendum to the Park Strategy and Fee Nexus Study that describes the
nexus in detail and satisfies the requirements of Ala 1600 the "Calilbmia Mitigation
Fee Act"
• Meet with staff and interested public/private interest groups as necessary to formulate
and or explain the methodology/approach being taken.
The professional fee 1br this assignment including all expenses is $11.000. We believe
that we can complete the work described in these tasks in approximately 10 weeks, from
the ii►ne we receive your formal authorization to proceed.
Sincerely,
PU S MARKETING
1 homas D. "1'uckcr^�~
Partner
Market Xesearcb and Strategic Planning
f
Minutes
• City Council/Redevelopment Agency
City of Huntington Beach 3I
I
Thursday, May 30, 2002
6:30 P.M. —Room E
Rodgers Senior Center
1706 Orange Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92648
f
Call to Order
Mayor Cook called the adjourned meetings of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach to order at 6:30 p.m. in Room E.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Roll Call
Present: Cook,Winchell, Bauer
Absent: Green, Dettloff, Boardman, Houchen
(City Council) Study Session ion Adjourned journed for Lack of Quorum to Discuss Overview of Park
Strategy and Fee Nexus Study— Park-In-Lieu Fees by Tom Tucker of Pulse Marketing (600.10)
Council/Redevelopment Agency Adjournment: Due to lack of quorum of the City Council and ;
Redevelopment Agency, Assistant City Clerk Ehring adjourned the meeting to Monday, June 3, 2002,
at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
City Clerk and ex-officio ClerkZf the City i
Council of the City of Huntington Beach
and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
dxm� owlod("t�= f
• City Clerk-Clerk Mayor-Chairman
CIT
( 1.
1001
City of Huntington Beach MAY 22 P 2:
Parkand
Recreation
9
4 Facilities
Demand, Conditions,
Priorities, Funding and P U L S E
Proposed Fees
MARKETING �'
Park and Recreation Demand presentation
• Current Conditions Objectives
Resident and Business Attitudes
Priorities for the Future
Funding Needs
Fundin9 Options F _
^� Park Fee Revisions
s_
■ HB 2001 population of 191 ,000
expected to rise by 1 .3 percent toN
" y 193,500 by 2006
■ HB population is slightly older than
Suit the County, with a median age of
37.5 verses 35.1
Teenagers and those between 45
and 65 are the fastest growing
population segments in HB
■ HB households are estimated to Park and
grow 1 .7 percent between 2001 and
2006 from 72,400 to 73,600 Recreation
compared to 6.1 percent for the
County Demand
i"
'P
■ HB Housing units are estimated to
grow 1 .8 percent between 2001 and
2006, from 76,000 to 77,400
. compared to 6.3 percent for the
County .
Housing build-out, aside from infill
development and reuse at higher '
densities, is projected in 2005
HB presently has 7,600 businesses
and 81 ,300 employees, about 5.0
percent of County base Park and
■ HB commercial building activity is
estimated at -3.7 million square feet Recreation
2010 between 2001 and
ma Demand
■ HB industrial building activity is
{
estimated at 2.8 million square feet
between 2001 and 2010
� About 91 percent of HB residents use Park and
the City's park facilities Recreation
■ Residents make an average of 7.4 trips
Ma— to HB parks during a typical month Demand �
■ Residents from every area of the City
use 82 percent of the City's park
acreage and nearly 30 percent of its �
■ park facilities
■ About 38 percent of HB residents
believe their families use of park
facilities will increase over the next 5
years, while 7 percent say it will
-- - decrease and 55 percent believe it will
remain the same
■ About 66 percent of business
Park and
f owners/employees use HB park
facilities '
Recreation
■ Business owners/employees overall
make an average of 6.6 trips to H B Demand
g p �
La: parks during a typical month
■ HB residents make an estimated 15.4
million trips to HB park facilities on an
annual basis, while non-resident r�
business owners and employees make
about 621 ,000 trips ,
■ Not accounting for visitors, 96 percent
of park use comes from residents, t :n
while about 4.0 percent comes from
s
non-resident owners/employees
■ HB presently has 111 park and
recreation assets including 9 mini
parks, 48 neighborhood parks, 9
community parks, 3 regional
parks, 30 park and non-park
related buildings and 12 special
_. use assets
■ Approximately 52 percent of the
rt City's park and recreation assets
were opened prior to 1980 and
more than 40 percent were
opened prior to 1975
■ Only 9 of the 69 existing parks Current
were opened in the last 16 years
a ■ The 111 park and recreation Conditions
assets comprise 906.7 acres
within the City, which includes the
land associated with every asset
leased, managed or owned.
■ Using the current planning urrent
standard of 5.0 acres per 1 ,000
-1-- population, the City currently Conditions
has 4.75 acres of park land per
1 ,000 population--WN,
1
■ Based on the current planning
standard, there is presently a
park land deficit of 48.3 acres, °
k
which with no further
acquisitions will grow to 58.3
acres by 2006
■ The school districts in
Huntington Beach control 436
x.,,. acres of unimproved recreation
area and open space
■ Park hard-scape and soft-scape
t
including plantings, turf, irrigation,
signage, shelters and lighting are Ilk
generally in good condition
■ A substantial portion of the s
-- . buildings and structures in the
portfolio are in need of at least
some rehabilitation
i
■ ISES Corporation presently
estimates that 13 of the City's park
and recreation buildings require
a
$2.9 million in rehabilitation costs current
Application of the ISES analysis to the remainder of the portfolio,
Conditions
results in an additional $2.2 million
in rehabilitation costs
■ Nearly 90 percent of HB residents
R`
believe that the physical condition of
parks citywide is good/excellentF.
x
About 93 percent of HB residents are
satisfied/very satisfied with the
number/ types of recreational r
- - -' facilities citywide
3
f
■ About 74 percent of business owners _
and employees believe that HB park
facilities make a significant
contribution toward their personal Resident
satisfaction with their work
experience in the City
and1
' About 32 percent of business owners .
and employees think that HB ark Business
p
facilities make a significant
contribution to their company's an 's abilityAttitudes
to attract and retain employees
■ Public/private group representatives
believe there needs to be stronger
degree of openness/clarity with � V
respect to decision making and
priorities
■ The substantial majority of
public/private group representatives
want any future park related fees to be
specifically "earmarked"
■ While most public/private interest Resident
group representatives recognize the
need to rehabilitate parks, some and
believe that using fees from new �
residential development is inequitable Business
because the structure is predicated on
new residents paying for projects Attitudes
created by the use of existing
residents
Resident
r
■ YSO representatives think facilities
owned or managed by the City, that are and
directed at youth sports are deficient,
particularly with respect to aquatics, Business
)
night lighting and turf conditions
■ YSO representatives think the City has
Attitudes
- put most of it's emphasis on passive
recreation as opposed to active
recreation
■ Some public/private interests groups are
troubled by what they believe is a
commercialization of the park system
and think that more emphasis should be =� �
put on urban forest and passive open
space
■ 89 percent of HB residents support Priorities
completing improvements to Central
Park, including finishing the trail for the
system and providing more parking
and picnic areas Future
■ 89 percent of HB residents support
v, r enhancing the quality and caliber of
t
- neighborhood park playground
equipment
■ 87 percent of HB residents support
making improvements to existing
i
facilities that support youth sports
■ 84 percent of HB residents support
acquiring land that can remain as open
space or urban forest
84 percent of HB residents support
Priorities
building better swimming and
.�. � for haquatic facilitieste
■ 83 percent of HB residents support Future
A - improving the Bluff Top Community
Park, making it easier/safer to
. accommodate bike and pedestrian
t
traffic
■ 82 percent of HB residents support
developing new facilities to support
youth sports
_ ■ 72 percent of HB residents support
constructing a new senior center b
■
Based on the research and the
objectives contained in the
Recreation and Community Services
F f
Element of the City's General Plan,
staff has formulated a 10 year plan
for park acquisition, development )
and rehabilitation r
■ 4 acquisition projects have been
-- identified in the period from fiscal
2001 to 2010 which include the
Edison parcels (currently leased),
the Lamb School site, the Gisler Priorities
School site and the Central Park
Wxl Encyclopedia lots, for the >
Acquisition costs for the 4 projects Future
are estimated at just under $6.4
million
■ Beyond curing the 1SES deficiencies, 27
specific development and/or rehabilitation
projects have been identified as priorities Priorities
for completion in the period from 2001 to for the
2010
Future
Pro ects identified include im rovements
� J p
i to several of the City's community and
regional parks, enhancements to tot lots
and other types of youth sports facilities,
reconstruction of the City's Senior Center,
direct grants to youth sports
organizations and remediation of
L
environmental problems associated with
several of the assets in the portfolio
The total cost of non-ISES related
development and rehabilitation projects
F over the 10 year period is estimated at
$102.8 million
-AM_
■ 1 Community
s From 2001 to 2010 y
Services is estimated to produce
$111 .4 million in operating income
and have operating expenses of
$147.6 million, accounting for an
operating deficit of $36.2 million
- From 2001 to 2010 total acquisition,
development and rehabilitation
revenue from grants, bonds, COP's,
park fees and other sources is
estimated at $87.7 million
1
■ Park fees from residential
FundingNeeds
.
development are estimated at $7.3
million, of which $6.2 million is
expected by 2005
From 2001 to 2010 AD&R
��..� FundingNeeds
ex � acuienses for debt sitions and
p q
project costs are estimated at $157.6
million. • �'
■ The AD&R deficiency over the 10
year period is estimated at _
j approximately $69.9 million funding -
The total
■ g deficiency e cy from
operations, acquisitions, development
and rehabilitation is estimated at $106
million for the 10 year period ending
2010
f
■
77 percent of HB residents support
increasing the number of corporate
sponsorships, whereby the City receives Funding0 tIOnS
. p
money in exchange for naming rights or
advertising in park facilities
■ 72 percent of HB residents support
p pp
increasing the present park fees paid by -
developers of new residential projects
J` 62 percent of HB residents support
assessing an impact fee on new y
commercial/industrial development to fund
park and recreational facilities ••. •_;,::
57 percent of HB residents support -1
forming a park district, where residents _ • •'
9 vote to approve a specific agenda of '
- projects and then share equally in their
i
costs
45 percent of HB residents support a
transfer tax so that each time a home is
sold in the City, a small amount is
assessed on the sale and put into a
park, recreation or cultural fund
■ 35 percent of HB residents support l
having citywide recreational user fees, -
whereby users of major recreation
assets are charged an annual fee to use
the facilities
■ Residents under age 60 and those with
children are most supportive of the
funding options mentioned generally
FundingOptions
gResidents a e 60 or older, HB residents
with no children and residents of
Planning Area 1 are the least supportive
of the funding options mentioned
generally
a
■ Update the City's current park fee
ordinance affecting subdivisions Funding
■ Use the authority provided by AB
1600, the Mitigation Fee Act, to
r--
impose development fees on I
residential commercial and industrial
development for park and recreational
facilities
■ Form citywide park district/sub-
districts where there could be a
specific agenda of projects that are
Planning Area specific and for which - }
residents could vote to support and s
-� share equally in the cost
■ Formulate a system of user fees that
could involve creating a citywide
® recreation card instituting� ec e g entrance
R fees for major assets and expanding
parking fees
■ Establish a private foundation which
could assist in fundraising,
acquisitions, securing donations and
trusts and provide community
leadership in the area of grants,
programming and scholarships
■ Aggressively pursue corporate
. FundingOptions
sponsorships and ublic/ rivate
p p S
partnerships in which the City would
receive substantial revenue in return
for promotional opportunities,
,f advertising, naming, branding and
vending rights
■ The City has presently two ordinances that
provide for the payment of park fees.
Section 254 deals with subdivisions and Park Fee
Section 230 deals with new construction on
lots previously subdivided Revisions
p Y
■ Historically, the formula for calculating the }
_ fee due under Section 254 has been used ; . �
to calculate the fee due under Section 230
x
.F4
-- The dedication/fee due is equal to the
' density factor, multiplied by the number of
units, multiplied by 5 and divided by 1000
■ The legislative intent of the Section 254
formula was to create a standard formula
- that could be used for multiple unit
subdivisions not individual lots.
- - - Lower land valuations mask the financial
impact of using the Section 254 formula on
individual lots
■ Use a site specific valuation of the land
involved as opposed to an average of
all residential land
■ Use a density based formula as _
opposed to a unit/bedroom based ,
formula
-- Revise the density factor based on
current census information
■ Enhance the reporting and
accountability requirements associated Park Fee
with Community Services Department
activities and Park Fund expenditures Revisions
■ Institute a more defined decision and
appeals process
U
■ Separate the fee formula provided for Park Fee
under Section 230 from the fee formula
provided for under Section 254 Revisions
■ Keep the Section 230 fee the same
Mw pending further study
Look at applying Section 230 to 10
_v_ ___ year need giving it broader application
to park use
■ Allow property owners who want to
split one lot into two lots and who have
owned the lot being split for 5
consecutive years, to pay the fee -�
provided for under Section 230
■ Provide an exemption to Section 254
fees for affordable housing projects
Summaryof
Park Fee
Revisions
44,
:. . ._ Section 254 Section 230
...........
ay;.
■ New Subdivisions ■ New Construction on Existing Lots
■ Multiple unit impact ■ Single unit impact
■ 5.0 Acres per 1000 Formula ■ Uses Section 254 Formula to calculate fee
■ Present formula uses 60 % of average ■ Present formula uses 60% of average
■ Assumes land cost of $11.94 ■ Change to site specific produces high fee
■ Changes to site specific value ■ Stays the same pending further study
Lowers density factor based on census n Look at in terms of relationship to need
■ Single lot splits come under 230 ■ Look at in terms of wider application
K.... ■ . Updates administrative procedures
DRAif
ORDINANCE NO.
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT'
Chapter 25.4 Dedications`and Reservatlons
Sections:
254.02 Dedication of Streets, Alleys, and Other Public
Rights-of-Way or Easements
254.04 Waiver of Direct Access Rights
254.06 Dedications
254.08 Parkland Dedication
254.10 School Site Dedication —
254.12 Reservations =C--s . w
254.14 Local Transit Facilities
254.16 Bridges and Major Thoroughfares
254.18 Supplemental Improvement Capacity rQ
254.20 Drainage Fees N c-:
254.22 Solar Access Easements ni`D
254.24 Other Public Facilities ,h v
N.)
l.J n
r D
254.02 Dedication of Streets,Alleys and
Other Public Rights-of-Way or Easements
As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall dedicate, or make an irrevocable
offer to dedicate, all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for required
improvements, including access rights and abutters'rights. In addition, the subdivider shall constnict
or agree to construct all required improvements in accord with Chapter 255.
254.04 Waiver of Direct Access Rights
The City may require as a condition of approval of a tentative map that.dedications or offers of
dedication of streets include a waiver of direct access rights to any such street from any property.
within or abutting the subdivision. Upon acceptance of the dedication, such waiver shall be reflected
.in an appropriate title document, which shall be recorded, and shall become effective in accordance
with its provisions.
254.06 Dedications
All dedications of property to the City for public purposes shall be made in fee title, except that, at
the City's discretion, the grant of an easement may be taken for the following purposes: open space
easements, scenic easements, street easements or public utility easements. All dedications in fee and
grants of easements shall be free of liens and encumbrances except for those which the City, in its
discretion, determines would not conflict with the intended ownership and use. The City may elect to
accept an irrevocable offer of dedication in lieu of dedication.
1egisdrft/zoning/254LD/5/14/02 (J 1
254.08 Parkland Dedication
A. General. This Section is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by.the Subdivision
Map Act and the general police power of the City including the power to zone
and the power to implement open space and recreational elements of.
the General Plan.
Gity:This Section is a opted to imp ement the provisions of the Quimby
Act which authorizes the City to require the dedication of land for ark
and recreational facilities or payment of in-lieu fees incident to and as a
condition of the approval of a tentative tract map or tentative parcel
map for a residential subdivision. The.park and recreational facilities for which
dedication of land and/or payment of a an in-lieu fee•is as required by this ehapler
Section are in accordance with the policies, principles and standards for park, open
space and recreational facilities contained in the General Plan.
The general purposes and objectives of this Section are:
1. To preserve, enhance and improve the quality of the physical
environment of the City of Huntington Beach;
2. To provide a procedure for the acquisition, development and
rehabilitation of local park and recreational facilities;
3. To secure for the citizens of Huntington Beach the social and physical
advantages resulting from the provision of orderly park, recreation
and open space facilities;
4. To establish conditions which will allow park and recreational
facilities to be provided and to exist in harmony with surrounding and
neighborhood land uses;
5. To ensure that adequate park and recreational facilities will be
provided;
6. To provide regulations requiring five usable acres,or the
proportionate share thereof, having a grade not exceeding two
percent, for each 1,000 persons residing within the City to.be supplied
by persons proposing residential subdivisions.
B. Requirements. , the
The requirements of this Section shall be complied
with by the dedication of land, payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at
the option of the City, for park or recreational purposes at the time and according to the
standards and formula contained in this Section. The amount and
location Of land dedicated or the fees tbepaid, or both, shall be used for
acquiring, developing new or rehabilitating existing community and
Iegisdrti/zoning/254LD/5/14/02 2
neighborhood parks and other types of recreational facilities in such a manner
that the locations of such parks and recreational facilities bear a reasonable
relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of
the subdivision generating such dedication or fees, or both. Dedications for trails shall
not be included as part of any requirements for park or recreational dedication.
Lands to be dedicated or reserved for park and/or recreational purposes shall be suitable
in the opinion of the Director and the Director of Community Services in location,
topography, environmental characteristics and development potential as related to the
intended use. The primary intent of this Section shall be construed to provide
the land for fd~�passive and active recreation
sen4ee, including but not limited to: tot lots, play lots, playgrounds, neighborhood
parks, playfields, community or regional distr-iet parks, lakes, picnic areas, tree
groves or urban forests, and other specialized recreational facilities that may serve
residents of the City Principal
consideration shall be given therefore to lands that offer:
1. A variety of recreational potential for all age groups;
2. Recreational opportunities provided and maintained in a manner that
will permit the maximum use and enjoyment by residents of the
City of Huntington Beach-within walking dirt nee f em f sidents' i,,..;..es;
3. Possibility for expansion or connection with school grounds;
4. Integration with hiking, riding and bicycle trails,natural stream reserves and
other open space;
5. Coordination with all other park systems;
6. Access to at least one existing or proposed public street.
C. General Standard. It is hereby found and determined that the public interest,
convenience, health, safety and welfare require that five acres of property for each 1,000
persons residing within the City be devoted to local park and recreational purposes.
D. Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land. Where a park or recreational facility has
been_designated in the General Plan and is to be located in whole or in part within the
proposed subdivision and is reasonably related to serving the present and future needs of
the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for park and recreation
facilities sufficient in size and topography to meet that purpose. The amount of land to be
provided shall be determined pursuant to,the following standards and formula:
A =5.0 (DF x No. DU)
1000
1. Definitions of terms:
a. A - the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be
appraised for in-lieu fee payment for the subdivision.
legisdrt'dzon ing/254LD/5/1 4/02 3
b. DF - density factor
vision as determined pursuant to ection
5Z 8(E).
C. 5.0 -number of acres per one thousand persons.
d. No. DU-number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision.
2. When a proposed subdivision contains dwelling units with different density
factors, the formula shall be used for each such density factor and the results shall
be totaled.
3. Dedication of parkland shall not be required for parcel maps or
subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less; except that when a
condominium project, stock cooperative or community
apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land
may be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may
be less than 50.
E. Density.
The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon residential density,
which is determined on the basis of the approved tentative map and the average number.
of persons per household.'The average number of persons per household by unit in a
structure shall be established by City Council resolution and be ebtailled
€rem derived from the most recent available federal census or state or City
population and housing data.
The number of dwelling units in a subdivision shall be the number proposed for
construction. When the actual number of units to be constructed is unknown, it shall,
be assumed for the purposes of this chapter that the maximum number permissible by
law will be constructed.
Tl,e ,.,b,e e f bed« eea..1, , a it 9f a 0 i e p e ed 6„bd:. —efl- S1,.,11 b-e date i ed
on the plans, ether-than living e e fand beAfeems,
bdr-eems .,tt.-:1.,,,table to a :t shall ebade et e„ly these afeas a labeled „ the-
W Lilt
e de ll in a unit , beea4see
le iV eC.tie„j f G:IT:tILA, e«'relationship to other-afeas eF_tTe dwelling unit, is deemed
u - .
divisible s s to a e..te aer-mer-e .,dd:t:ena bed«eems
F. Standard Im rovements. The dedication of land for park and
recreational purposes s all not be deemed to waive any other
rejuirements that may be imposed by the City. The subdivider may,
at he time of the approval o the tentative map, be obligated by
condition to said map to provide curbs, gutters, sidewalk, drainage
facilities, street lighten stop lights, street signs, matching pavement
and street trees to full City standards, to stub-in requested standard
improvements required for residential property plus initial on-site
grading.required Tor developing the park facility. In lieu of making
said improvements and upon approval of the Planning Commission or
1egisdrft/zoning/254LD/5/14/02 4
r,
City Council, whichever acts last on the tentative map, the subdivider
may pay a sum as estimated by the Director of Public Works
sufficient to cover the cost of said,improvements. The environmental
condition of any land dedicated pursuant to this Section shall satisfy
all federal, state and local requirements applicable to parkland and
recreational facilities.
G.F-. Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication.
1. General Formula. if there is ne a-a4ienal faeflity designated in the
serve the immediate a-ad Patur-e needs of the residents of the subdivision,
Whenever the requirements of this Section are met solely on the
basis of the payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication, the
subdivider shall, , either-dedieate land in the ameunt
pay a fee in lieu of dedication equal to the value
of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 254.08(D) and in an amount
determined in accord with the provisions of Section 254.08(14I).
2. Fees in Lieu of Land - 50 Parcels or Less. If the proposed subdivision contains
50 parcels or less-and has no park or recreational facility, the subdivider shall pay
a fee equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities
required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision as
prescribed in Section 254.08(D) and in an amount determined in accordance with
the provisions of Section 254.08(14I). When a condominium project,
stock cooperative or community apartment project exceeds 50
dwelling units, dedication of land may be required
notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
3. Use of Menev Fees. The money eelle ed fees paid to the City pursuant
to this Section and the interest accrued from such fees shall be used,
in accordance with the schedule developed pursuant to Section 254.08(KM), for
the purpose of acquiring, developing new or rehabilitating existing
neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities reasonably related to
serving the subdivision, including the purchase of necessary land and/or
improvement of such land for park or recreational purposes. All fees
collected pursuant to this Section shall be transferred for deposit
into a separate fund and used solely for the urposes specified in
this Section. All monies deposited into the fundpshall be held
separate and apart from other City funds. All interest or other
earnings on the unexpended balance in the fund shall be credited
to the fund. The money deposited in the fund account shall be
committed to the partial or full completion of necessary purchases or
improvements within five years after payment thereof or the issuance of building
permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later.
If the money is not committed, it shall be distributed and paid to the then record
owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of each lot bears to
the total area of all lots in the subdivision. Any requests for refunds shall
be submitted to the Director in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Section 254.08(P).
legisd rtl/zon ing/254 LD/5/14/02 5
4. Standard Im rovements. When the requirements of this Section
are met solely on the basis of the payment of a fee in lieu of land
dedication, in addition to the in-lieu fee, the subdivider shall also
pay an amount equal to 20 percent of the in-lieu fee to provide.
curbs, gutters, drainage facilities, street lighting,stop lights,
sidewalks, street signs, matching pavement and street trees to full
City standards, stubbing in of utility line services to the park
facility, and all standard improvements required by the City for
residential subdivisions.
H. G Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee. If the proposed subdivision contains
more than 50 lots, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu of
dedication in accordance with the following:
1. When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the General Plan
as the site for a local park or recreational facility, such portion shall be dedicated
for local park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section
254.08".(I) shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required
to be dedicated pursuant to Section 254.08(D).
2. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired
by the City and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to
complete the site, such ortion shall be dedicated, and a fee, computed according
to Section 254.08" (�-shall be paid in an amount equal to the value of the land
which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated according to Section
254.08(D)..
3. The fee shall be used for the improvement of the existing park or recreational
facility or for the improvement of other neighborhood or community parks and
recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision.
1. 14. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in
lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value for each
acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D.;
0
43,if sueh land wer-e net used
Fair market value of the land shall
be.determined by a qqu�alified real estate appraiser that has been selected and
retained by the City at the expense of the subdivider and is a member
of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers ("Qualified Real
Estate Appraiser"). The fair market value of the land shall be based
on the average acre value of the property to be subdivided at the time.
of the.recording of the final subdivision map, adjusted to reflect the
value of such acre of property rough graded to a maximum two
percent slope. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of
the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of
payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08L.
If the subdivider objects to the fair market value as determined.by the
Qualified Real Estate Appraiser, the subdivider may= at his own .
expense, retain another ualified Real Estate Appraiser to complete a
second appraisal. If the ity disputes the fair market value as
legisdrfl/zon ing/254LD/5/14/02 6
determined by the second appraisal, the matter will be submitted to
binding arbitration at the expense of the subdivider.
Subdivisions Consisting of Three or Fewer Parcels. If the proposed
subdivision contains three or fewer parce s, t e Director shall
determine the fair market value of the property to be subdivided
based upon the fair market value of ad acent parcels in consideration
of site characteristics of the property. If the subdivider objects to the
determination of the Director the subdivider may retain,'at his or her
own expense, a Qualified Reai Estate Appraiser to provide the fair
market value of the property to be subdivided. In the event the
Director's determination of the land value exceeds the Qualified Real
Estate Appraiser's appraisal by more than $5,000.00, the average of
both determinations shall be established as the fair market.value.
1 .1. Determination of Land or Fee. Whether the City accepts land dedication, or elects to
require the payment of a fee in lieu of, or a combination of both, shall be determined by
the Director after consideration of the following:
1. Policies, standards and principles for park and recreational facilities in the .
General Plan;
2. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for
dedication;
3. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication;
4. Feasibility of dedication;
5. Compatibility of dedication with the General Plan;
6. Availability of previously acquired park property.
The determination by the City as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee
shall be charged, or a combination of both, shall be final and conclusive.
K.1. Credit for Improvements and Private Open Space. If the subdivider provides park and
recreational improvements to the dedicated land other than those referenced in
Section 254.08(F), the value of the improvements together with any equipment
located thereon shall be a credit against toward the payment of fees or dedication of
land required by this Section.
Common interest developments as defined in Sections 1351 of the
California Civil Code shall receive partial credit, not to exceed 50 percent, against
the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed,pursuant
to this Section, for the value of private open space within the development, which is
usable for active recreational uses; if the City Council, on the recommendation of the
Community Services Parks and Reerea4ie Commission, finds that it is in the
public interest to do so, and that the following standards are met.
1. That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required by Titles 20-24
(Zoning) shall not be included in the computation of the private open space;
legisdrtt/zoning/254LD/5/14/02 7
2. That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately
provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance, or restrictions;
3. That the use of the private open space is restricted to park and recreational
purposes by recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future
owners of property, and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the
consent of the City or its successor;
4. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and
recreational purposes; taking into consideration such factors as size, shape,
topography, geology, access, and location; and
5. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accord with the
provisions of the General Plan.
L. K.Procedure.
1. At the time of the recording of the final map or.parcel map, the subdivider shall
dedicate the land and/or pay the fees as determined by the City pursuant to
this Section. , fees may be paid pr-ief te
2. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted
to the City prior to approval of the final map or parcel map and, if approved, shall
be recorded concurrently with the final map or parcel map.
M. L.Schedule of Use. At the time of the approval of the final map or parcel map, the City
shall make a preliminary determination of how, when, and where it will use the land or
fees, or both, to develop or rehabilitate park or recreational facilities to serve the
residents of the subdivision. Final scheduling of improvements to these new or
rehabilitated parks or recreational facilities shall be made as part of the.City's capital
improvement program.
N. �k.-Not Applicable to Certain Subdivisions. The provisions of this Section do not apply
to: (1) commercial or industrial subdivisions; or (2) to condominium projects or stock
cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment
building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units.are added.
O. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempt from the
payment of fees pursuant to this Section:
1. Development of real property into-housing units that are either
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, and
Iegisdrfdzoning/254LD/5/14/02 8
provided that the applicant executes an agreement, in the form of
a deed restiction, second trust deed, or other legally binding and
enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and
binding on the owner and any successor-in-interest to the real
property being developed, guaranteeing that all of the units
developed on the real property shall be maintained for lower and
very low income households whether as units for rent or for sale
or transfer, for the lesser of a period of thirty years or the actual
life or existence of the structure, including any addition,
renovation or remodeling thereto.
2. Subdivision of a 50-foot wide parcel into two lots provided that
the parcel has been held under common ownership for a minimum
of five consecutive years.
P. Appeals. Any person may appeal a determination of the City regarding
the interpretation and implementation of this Section. Any such appeal
shall be filed with the Director consistent with the requirements of
Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach City Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance.
Q. Refunds. Requests for refunds of in-lieu fees paid pursuant to this
Section may be directed to the Director at any time. The Director
may approve of a refund or a partial refund of park fees paid or
release of security instruments when the following has been verified:
1. That the refund amount requested corresponds to the amount of
fees actually deposited in the fund account established pursuant
to Section 254.08(G)(3) for a given number of dwelling units; and
2. That the local park requirement for the dwelling units in
question had been met_by�actual Council acceptance of park
land, or by an irrevocable recorded offer to dedicate a park land
on a final tract map or parcel map; or
3. The subdivision or building permit approval for which fees were
required has been withdrawn or is otherwise no longer valid.
254.10 School Site Dedication
A. General. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, a subdivider who develops or
completes the development of one or more subdivisions within one or more school
districts maintaining an elementary school shall dedicate to the school district or
districts such lands as the City Council shall deem to be necessary for the purpose of
constructing thereon elementary schools necessary to assure the residents of the
subdivision adequate public school service.
Iegisdrtl/zoning/254LD/5/l4/02 9
B. Procedure. The requirement of dedication shall be imposed at the time of approval of
the tentative map. If within 30 days after the requirement of dedication is imposed by
the City Council the school district does not offer to enter into a binding commitment
with the subdivider to accept the dedication,the requirement shall be automatically
terminated. The required dedication may be made any time before, concurrently with,
or up to 60 days after the filing of the final map or parcel map on any portion of the
subdivision.
C. Payments to Subdivider for School Site Dedication. The school district shall, if it
accepts the dedication, repay to the subdivider or his or her successors the original cost
to the subdivider of the dedicated land, plus a sum equal to the total of the following
amounts:
1. The cost of any improvements to the dedicated land since acquisition by the
subdivider;
2. The taxes assessed against the dedicated land from the date of the school district's
offer to enter into the binding commitment to accept the dedication;
3. Any other costs incurred by the subdivider in maintenance of such dedicated
land, including interest costs incurred on any loan covering such land.
D. Exemptions. The provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) shall not apply to a
subdivider who has owned the land being subdivided for more than 10 years prior to
the filing of the tentative map.
254.12 Reservations
A. General. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall reserve
sites, appropriate in area and location, for parks, recreational facilities, fire stations,
libraries or other public uses according to the standards and formula contained in this
Section.
B. Standards for Reservation of Land. Where a park, recreational facility, fire station,
library, or other public use is shown on the General Plan or an adopted specific plan,
the subdivider may be required by the City to reserve sites as so determined by the City
in accordance with the policies and standards contained in the General Plan or the
adopted specific plan. The reserved area must be of such size and shape as to permit
the balance of the property within which the reservation is located to develop in an
orderly and efficient manner. The amount of land to be reserved shall not make
development of the remaining land held-by the subdivider economically infeasible.
The reserved area shall be consistent with the General Plan or the adopted specific plan
and shall be in such multiples of streets and lots as to permit an efficient division of the
reserved area in the event that it is not acquired within the prescribed period.
C. Procedure. The public agency,for whose benefit an area has been reserved shall, at the
time of approval of the final map or parcel map, enter into a binding agreement to
acquire such reserved area within two years after the completion and acceptance of all
improvements unless the period of time is extended by mutual agreement.
D. Payment to Subdivider. The purchase price for the reserved area shall be the market
value thereof at the time of the filing of the tentative map plus the taxes against the
legisdrft/zoning/254LD/5/14/02 10 ,
reserved area from the date of the reservation and any other costs incurred by the
subdivider in the maintenance of the reserved area, including interest costs incurred on
any loan covering the reserved area.
E. Termination. If the public agency for whose benefit an area has been.reserved does not
enter into a binding agreement in accordance with this Section, the reservation of the
area shall automatically terminate.
254.14 Local Transit Facilities
As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall dedicate, or make an irrevocable
offer of dedication, of land within the subdivision for local transit facilities such as shelters, benches,
bus turnouts, park-and-ride facilities and similar items which directly benefit the residents of the
subdivision, if. '(a) the subdivision as shown on the tentative map has the potential for 200 dwelling
units or.more if developed to the maximum density shown on the General Plan or contains 100 acres
)or more; and(b if the City finds that transit services are or will be, within a reasonable time period,
made available to the subdivision.
254.16 Bridges and Major Thoroughfares
The subdivider shall be required to pay a fee for the impacts of their proposed development on the
city transportation system in accordance with Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code.
254.18 Supplemental Improvement Capacity
A. As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the City may impose a requirement that
improvements installed by the subdivider for the benefit of the subdivision contain
supplemental size, capacity, number or length for the benefit of property not within the
subdivision and that those improvements be dedicated to the public. However, when
such supplemental size, capacity, number or length is solely for the benefit of property
not within the subdivision, the City shall, subject to the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act, enter into an agreement with the subdivider to reimburse the subdivider for
that portion of the cost of such improvements equal to the difference between the
amount it would have cost the subdivider to install such improvements to serve_ the
subdivision only and the actual cost of such improvements.
B. The City Council shall determine the method for payment of the costs required by a
reimbursement agreement which may include but is not limited to the establishment
and maintenance of local benefit districts for the levy and collection of such charge or
costs from the property benefited.
C. No charge, area of benefit or local benefit district shall be established unless and until a
public hearing is held thereon by the City Council and the City Council finds that the.
charge, area of benefit or local benefit district is reasonably related to the cost of such
supplemental improvements and the actual ultimate beneficiaries thereof
D. In addition to the notice required by Chapter 248,written notice of the hearing shall be
mailed to those who own property within the proposed area of benefit as shown on the
last equalized assessment roll, and the potential users of the supplemental
1egisdrfdzoning/254LD/5/I4/02 11
i
improvements insofar as they can be ascertained at the time (10 days prior to the date
established for the hearing).
254.20 Drainage Fees
The subdivider shall be required to pay a fee for the development of drainage facilities in accordance
with Chapter 14.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
254.22 Solar Access Easements
As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the City may impose a requirement that the subdivider
dedicate easements for the purpose of assuring that each parcel or unit in the subdivision shall have
the right to receive sunlight across adjacent parcels or units in the subdivision for any solar energy
system. In establishing such easements, the City shall consider the feasibility, contour, configuration
of the parcel to be divided, and cost. Required easements shall not result in reducing allowable
densities or the percentage of a parcel which may be occupied by a building or a structure under
applicable planning and zoning provisions in force at the time such tentative map is filed.
At the time of tentative map approval, the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, as
may be the case, shall specify: (1) the standards for determining the exact dimensions and locations.
of such easements; (2) any restrictions on vegetation, buildings an other objects that would obstruct
the passage of sunlight through the easement; and (3) conditions, if any, under which an easement
may be revised or eliminated.
This Section is not applicable to conversion projects.
254.24 Other Public Facilities
As a condition of approval of a tentative map, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate land,pay
fees, or both, for fire stations, library sites, child day care, public art or any other public facilities
pursuant to, and in order to implement, the provisions of the General Plan regarding such facilities.
legisdrtbzoning/254LD/5/14/02 12
ANOF .
F �
kftM
• a�
To ,e -
' � v Z
a� e
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING A
POPULATION DENSITY FACTOR TO
BE USED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF LAND TO BE _
DEDICATED BY DEVELOPERS FOR PARK PURPOSES ^'
WHEREAS, Section 245.08 of the Huntington Beach City Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance provides that the population density to be used for the purpose of determines CDC:)
the amount of land to be dedicated by developers for park purposes shall be establishedDn m
the basis of the most recent data available in the form of Federal or State census or reels
of the City of Huntington Beach; and
S� D
On August 16, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5072 establishing
the population density factor to be used to determine the amount of land to be dedicated by
developers for park purposes;
On the basis of current census records, it is the desire of the City Council to amend
Resolution No. 5072 and update the population density factors in light of the more recent
data now available in the form of Federal or State census or records of the City of
Huntington Beach.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach as follows:
SECTION 1. On the basis of the most recent data found in the Federal or State
census (or the records of the City of Huntington Beach), 2.68 shall be established as the
population density factor for the purpose of determining the amount of land to be dedicated
by subdividers for park purposes pursuant to City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Section 254.08(D).
SECTION 2. The Director of Planning is hereby authorized to modify the density
factor in circumstances where modification is warranted due to the average number of
persons occupying each proposed dwelling unit.
SECTION 3. Resolution No. 5072 and any other resolutions in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed.
7)1
Je
G:\RESOLUTN\2002\densityfactor.doc 1
S • •
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: . APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Administrator City Attorneyl%,L 6,A/
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Director of Planning
GARESOLUTN\2002\densityfactor.doc 2
RAF'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SETTING
THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE PARKLAND
DEDIDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AUTHORIZED BY ZONING
AND. SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION 230.20
o �
WHEREAS, Section 230.20 of Chapter 230 of Title 23 of the City of HuntingtV
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance ("City Zoning and Subdivision Code") provides q)
N
that all single family and multi-family housing projects, mobile home parks and any other CE).-,,�;';
residential units not covered by Chapter 254 of Title 25, of the City Zoning andT
Subdivision Code shall pay a park in-lieu fee in accordance with the requirements of y
Chapter 254 and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution an
paid at the time a building permit is issued; o
The City Council hereby intends that unless and until another fee is determined to
be authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act and adopted by City Council resolution, the
current fee schedule for the Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee, as levied on residential
development pursuant to City Zoning'and Subdivision Code Section 230.20, shall remain
applicable notwithstanding that the in-lieu fee calculated pursuant to Chapter 254 may be
amended or become based on a site-specific appraisal.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes the following fee .
schedule for fees to be paid for residential development pursuant to Section 230.20:
TYPE OF UNIT $FEE/UNIT
Single Family 8,918
Multiple Family:
1. Single/Bachelor 3,042
2. One Bedroom 4,082
3. Two Bedrooms 6,188
4. Three Bedrooms+ 7,228
Mobile Home 4,394
SECTION 2. Exemptions. A developer subject to the park fee pursuant
Section 230.20 may apply to the Director of Planning for a reduction, adjustment or waiver
of the fee. Circumstances that may justify a fee adjustment include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
A. Alteration or expansion of an existing building in which no additional
dwelling units are created, provided that sufficient information about its
prior use is available to determine whether in-lieu park fees were previously
paid. C,
GARESOLUTN\2002�230 Fee.doc
B. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure
with a new building or structure of the same size and use. ,
C. The construction of accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not
increase the number of bedrooms over and above those produced by the
existing building or use of the land.
Any appeal of the Planning Director's determination as to exemptions shall be filed
pursuant to Section 248.24 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance.
SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council hereby
finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Code of Regulations,
commonly known as the.CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption
applies because there is no reasonable possibility that the modification of the parkland in-
lieu fee:could negatively affect the physical environment. To the contrary, the Fees will be
collected to mitigate the environmental impacts of new development on the City's park and
recreational facilities. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that
maybe undertaken with Fee proceeds will be assessed as each project is formulated.
SECTION 4. Resolution No. 6226 and any other resolutions in conflict herewith
are hereby repealed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach as follows:
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at
a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2002.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO F RM:
City Administrator Cit 7�y-,ar
7 `
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Director of Planning
GARESOLUTN\2002\230 Fee.doc 2
FSaturday.,May 25,2002 11:1 3 AM To: uncil From:William K.Vogt/De Figueroa,(714)969=5699 Page:2 of 3
William K Vogt
314 22nd Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 o c
o
Phone(714)969-0255 Fax: (714)969-5699 ='
N CD
Date: May 25,2002 CO Ems, J
D
To: City Council
From: William K.Vogt C p >
Subject: Downtown Area Land Owners and Park In-lieu fees under section 230.20.and section
254.08
As related to Nexus study and City Staff recommendation
First,allow me to thank you-for the foresight to hold a round table discussion regarding the Park In-
lieu Fee increase proposed by City Staff on May 30th prior to the Council vote June 3rd. As
disclosed in previous study sessions and the most recent public hearing held by the Planning
Commission,the City Staff recommends an increase of the Park In-Lieu fees. The fee increase from
approximately$8,000 to$64,000 will affect local land owners building a new residence,including
those remodeled by 50%or falling victim to fire in the exempted subdivision tracts downtown.
In this regard,City Council should carefiilly review the proposal of Staff and the Nexus Shady.
Council should question City Staff, since they base their position for the fee increase on this study that
has yet to.prove statistically valid.
After glancing at the Nexus Study, I found it contained a composite of information,which basically
falls short of representing the true situation as it relates to the Park In-Lieu fees. The study is a.
collection of some good information, some misinformation mixed with unsupported data from
unverified sources,and distorted conclusions based on bad information.
Reading this study as well as the City Staff declaration, significant mathematical errors that.always err
in the direction of supporting an increase of the Park In-Lieu fees are discovered. The study itself is
prejudiced by the type and nature of the population sampled,the questions asked,and the regional
parks referenced as community parks in the survey. To have sampled 400 residences that were not
randomly selected,but targeted,from the 191,000 residents of Huntington Beach,falls short of a.valid
statistical sampling. This is further compounded considering the error introduced by the group
performing the study. The error of including park land,which can neither be used by a resident fanuly
without a horse or golf cart,is exclusive in nature and does not represent the community. At best they
are regional in nature and should have been excluded from the study,as well as,all public and state
beaches in the calculation of park land per capita.
Calculation errors are throughout the study. The current census shows approximately 191,000
residents in Huntington Beach with approximately 76,000 households.This would yield 2.5 residents
per household not the 3.5 number the City Staff wants to use as one multiplier factor in the equation.
1 commwic#- TT-o1J 5 e
MAY-25-2002 11:03 7149695699 92% P.02
Saturday,,+,day 25,2002 11:13 AM To: uncil From:William K.VogVDe igueroa,(714)969-5699 Page:3 of 3
Using the same numbers in the study corrected for subtraction error,the city parks calculations would
yield a ratio of 3.15 acres park land per 1000 residents not the 5 acres per 1000 the City Staff wants to
use as-the second multiplier factor in the formula for dedication land. One would logically conclude
that Huntington Beach enjoys an excess of parks,not a shortage.The overall need for parks,and
therefore,park in-lieu fees should have included an adjustment to account for the percentage
Huntington Beach City is built-out(97.5%per city documents). Laguna Hills,La Habra Heights,
Lake Forest,and Villa Park charge no park fees as they are 100%built-out. A comparison to these
cities could help determine a more accurate conclusion as to what constitute a reasonable allocation of
land to parks. Huntington Beach is 47.5%built-out suggesting a reduction in Park In-Lieu Fees
rather than an increase.
Finally,the questions used in the survey were leading in nature. One does not have to imagine how a
Huntington Beach resident would respond a telephone call asking which option they would choose:
1. Paying increased taxes for parks.
2. Having builders pay for parks as part of construction cost.
One can reasonably conclude the Nexus study to be prejudicially prepared to support an increase of
the Park In-Lieu fees. The City Staff declaration based on this study would,therefore,be called into
question.
In conclusion and because of the aforementioned reasons, I am writing to you at this time. The City
Council needs to read this study with an open mind and ask itself
1. Why is there a need to substantially increase Park In-Lieu fees when the city is 97.5%built out?
2. Why Park In-Lieu fees have been collected for years from downtown land owners when they were
clearly exempted from the Park In-Lieu Fee of the Quimby Act?
3. Why the City Staff is proposing that the valuation of parkland he assessed at the value of property
subdivided nearly one hundred years ago in the downtown tract, when raw property not yet
subdivided is valued at 1/8 the value of the downtown tract property?
Furthermore, I see this proposal,as w7itten,if passed,being contested in court because it is predicated
on unreasonable increases in fees to an already over taxed community.
MAY-25-2002 11:03 7149695699 92% P.03
A, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DATE: September 19, 2001
TO: Pulse Marketing ATTENTION: Thomas D. Tucker
Name
1945 Maverick Lane DEPARTMENT:
Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705 REGARDING: Amendment No. 1
City,State,Zip
See Attached Action Agenda Item E-14 Date of Approval 9/17/01.
Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item.
Remarks:
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
Attachments: Action Agenda Page x Agreement x Bonds Insurance x
RCA Deed Other
CC: R. Hagan Com. Serv. x x x
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
C. Mendoza Risk Mgmt. x x
Name Department RCA Insurance
(Telephone:714-536.5227)
ATTACHMENT
# 1
— RJAbAIV) q)P,*J,
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
"" proved ❑ Co itionally Approved ❑ Denied .D:A Cle Signature
Council Meeting Date: September 17, 2001 Department ID Number: CS01-055
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION a c
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorcPPOl — CI,
PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services Departmen o r`,c.,,;�c
SUBJECT: APPROVE ADDING SUBCONSULTANTS TO THE PULSA _
MARKETING CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICESvFOR THE
PARK NEXUS STUDY
Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments)
Statement of Issue: There is a need to perform additional tasks for the Park Nexus study
to insure that a full analysis is made of alternative funding sources for Council consideration.
Fundinq Source: Park Acquisition and Development Fund Professional Services account
#20945101.69300 for $43,500.
Recommended Action: Motions to:
1. Approve Amendment No. 1 for professional services contract with Pulse Marketing for
subconsultant ISES Corporation to perform an analysis of thirteen Community Services
facilities at a cost of $22,840, and subconsultant Claritas, Inc. to perform a telephone
sampling survey of businesses at a cost of $15,000, plus contingencies of $5,660, for a
total expenditure of$43,500; and authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign same, and
2. Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to transfer $43,500 from the Park
Acquisition and Development Fund Professional Services account #20945101.69300
into Contractual Services account #20945101.69365 for the addition of subconsultants
to the Pulse Marketing contract.
3. Waive the professional liability requirement for both subconsultants.
Alternative Action(s): Do not expand Pulse Marketing's scope of services which would
limit the effectiveness of the overall analysis and nexus study.
Analysis: Council approved hiring a consultant to prepare a nexus study that could be
considered a legal basis in support of an increase in the city's park-in-lieu fee. The original
scope of work included reviewing the city's Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 254
Dedications and Reservations; surveying other cities' fees and enabling ordinances;
preparing findings to establish the appropriate park-in-lieu fee for Huntington Beach; and,
researching other possible methods of establishing revenue sources for the Park Acquisition
& Development Fund. Attachment No. 1 is a status report from Pulse Marketing showing the
work that has been completed to date. Attachment No. 2 is a letter from Pulse Marketing
outlining the need to add two additional subconsultants to complete the nexus study.
'DREQU ST E FOR COUNCIL NCIL AM0 N
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS01-055
During the research portion.of the nexus study, the consultant had to identify all of the unfunded
park acquisition and development needs as well as future maintenance needs of the existing
park and recreation facilities. These studies are needed to legally support the adoption of a fee
to pay for park acquisition and development rehabilitation. In doing this work, staff realized that
neither Pulse Marketing nor city staff had the expertise to review, inspect, and estimate the costs
associated with building-related upgrades, rehabilitation, and long-term maintenance. Pulse
Marketing is recommending that it subcontract this work to ISES Corporation, an Atlanta-based
architectural-engineering firm, specializing in strategic planning and cost analysis for building
facilities, to evaluate the Community Services Department's thirteen buildings/facilities. The cost
for this subconsultant would be $22,840.
Also during the research portion of the study, looking at alternative sources of revenue for the
Park Fund, Pulse Marketing has come up with five additional options beyond the park-in-lieu
fees. These options include:
1. Using AB 1600 to assess development fees on commercial and industrial development;
2. Establishing a membership fee for using city facilities;
3. Establishing a nonprofit foundation to solicit donations and develop a Friends of the Parks
. Program;
4. Establishing a Community Services Facilities District to assess fees for specific park projects;or
5. Developing a fee in tandem with park-in-lieu fees to offset the impact of commercial,
industrial, and residential development on park and recreation facilities.
In order to determine the need and thus legally justify the findings for any of the proposed funding
sources, the law requires a survey be done that directly establishes the need for the benefits to
be funded by any of these funding sources. Pulse Marketing recommends that a survey be
conducted by Claritas, Inc. of 400 businesses and 400 residences randomly selected to establish
the legal nexus for these proposed fees. The cost for this subconsultant would be $15,000.
In summary, staff is recommending that Council appropriate $43,500 of Park Acquisition &
Development Funds for an analysis of the thirteen Community Services buildingstfacilities, and a
survey of businesses and residents to. establish a legal basis for Council to adopt a nexus study
that will enable the city to justify fees that it plans to adopt for the park acquisition, development
and rehabilitation program. Without additional work, the nexus study to change or implement
new fees may not. be legally defensible. Staff also recommends professional liability
requirements for both sub-consultants be waived as their work is simply gathering information,
not design, and creates no liability risk for the City. Staff anticipates that the study will be
completed by October with a presentation to Council in November. A Council study session has
been set for October 15 on this item.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
' .g- NumberDescription
.......................................... ........
...................................................
...................................................
1. Pulse MarketingStatus Report dated August 0 00 S rt 1 2 1
p 9
2 Pulse
Ma
rketing Letter proposal dat
ed August 10 2001
..
3 Agreement
01-055 Additional Services-for Park Nexus Study.doc .2. 09/10/01 10:54 AM
Rug 14 01 03; 28a PULSE MARKETING 714 .505 3317 p. 1
A V L S X
r
"'ARK k r-I N G PULSE MARKETING MEMO
To: Ron Hagan
Sin Engle
Fron:: Ton: Tucker,Pulse Marketin;_;
Re: Park Finance and Nexus Study—Status Report
Date:Aulust 10, 2001
Based on our discussion, T wanted to give you a summary update on the status of the park
finance and nexus study.
e The community outreach portion of the project as outlined in Task 1 has been
completed, aside ftom three interviews that are still open (two with youth sports
organization representatives and one with a representative of the Huntington Beach
seniors group). In total, 32 interviews were completed with representatives of public
and private interest groups, clectcd/appointed city officials, youth sports group
representatives and school district mprescutatives. During the course; of the
interviews, which generally lasted between 30 =d 60 minutes, our objective was to
develop an in-depth understanding of community attitudes/preferences, with respect
to park and recreation.poliey, lundinb, pYionties, programs and facilities. Two strong
wide spread attitudes are apparent from the interviews, which cut across the spectrum
of political and special interest boundaries. First, interviewees are desirous of a well
conceived and articulated near term plan that establishes the City's park and
recreation priorities. Second, interviewees want any fees/assessments paid either
currently or in the future to be "e trinarked" and used solely for the purposes stated in
the plan, ax�laccounted for openly/independently.
At this point, we have visited all 111 of the park and recreation assets (69 parka, 30
buildings and 12 special use facilities), which are owned, leased or controlled by the
City of Huntington Beach and have developed a comprehensive database and
inventory of these facilities. The City presently has approximately 906.7 acres of park
and recreation land counting; all owned, leased and controlled assets (parks, non-park
buildings, city owned/leased beach, Meadowlark Golf Course and other special use
facilities). Using an estimated 2000 population of 196,293 (Claritas estimate), the
City now has 4.62 acres of park/recreation land per 1000 population compared to an
adopted planning standard of 5.0 acres per 1000 population. This means that without
any adjustment for land under non-park buildings, the potential loss of leased assets,
restricted use for some special use assets, etc., the City presently has about 74.8 acres
less than what is needed to meet the adopted planning standard. With no further
acquisitions this deficiency is projected to grow to 115.7 acres by 2005, when the
City's population is estimated to be 204,491.
Aug 14 01 09: 28a PULSE MRRKETING 714 505 3317 p. 2
• For each of the 69 park assets in the portfolio, we completed a subjective evaluation
that considers 7 different attributes, including turf condition, landscape condition,
hardscape condition, maintenance condition, lighting condition, play equipment
condition and SSBT condition (sign age, shelters, benches and tables). During the
course of our evaluation, it became obvious that while the parks themselves are in
relatively good condition, many of the 30 existing park and non-park related
buildings (not including restroom facilities) have a significant amount of outstanding
deferred repairs/maintenancc or improvements and some buildings may in fact be
beyond their useful life (not worth any further improvement).
It is our opinion that the cost of making the needed improvements could have a
substantial impact on the City's longer-term park and recreation finance
requirements. To evaluate this situation, estimate the costs involved and make
recommendations with regard to improvement priorities, we recommended that the
City have at least the older major buildings in the portfolio professionally evaluated
by ISES Corporation, an Atlanta based architecturc/engincering Iron that specializes
in this area. iSES is cun-ently in the process of evaluating 13 of the buildings and we
expect their report to be available by the end of August.
• We have worked closely with the City's building and planning department's to
analyze the remaining life expectancy and volume of Quimby enabled fees based on
expected development patterns in the City. This analysis is now complete and it is
estimated that between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2010, Quimby related fees would be
about $7.3 million barring any unforeseen major events, affecting the size and scope
of the development now being planned.
• We have completed a full demographic analysis of the City as part of our work,
including an evaluation of the demographic characteristics associated with. four
separate sub-areas/planning areas that have been developed around certain geographic
boundaries. For comparison purposes, the defined planning areas are consistent in all
aspects of the study including the inventory and the survey analyses.
• We are currently in the process of developing and implementing telephone surveys,
with residential and business users of the City's park and recreation facilities. In total
800 surveys will be completed (400 surveys each group). The residential sample that
is being utilized has been tagged with the requisite demographic, lifestyle and
planning area codes for tracking purposes. The objective of the surveys are to analyze
use patterns, measure satisfaction, test options with respect to future priorities and
evaluate the desirability/acceptanec of potential hinding/finance alternatives.
The park fee/Quimhy related ordinances for about. 10 Southern California cities have
been obtained and interviews have been completed with local staff, covering related
policy and implementation issues. We are currently using the data collected to build
comparative tables for analysis. In addition, these ordinances have been provided to
the City Attorney's office for legal review and analysis. We anticipate that this effort
will result in a reconunendation that the cty's present ordinance be updated.
Rug 14 01 09: 20a PULSE MARKETING 714 505 3317 p. 3
• We have now completed our national best practices review of potentially viable park
and recreation finaneing/Funding sources. As part of this cfi'ort, materials were
gathered from and interviews were conducted with, more than 15 municipalities, who
have been recognized for their innovative approaches to park/recreation finance. In
addition, a substantial amount of trend research was conducted using both print and
on-line sources. This research in combination with the other tasks discussed forms the
basis of our recommendations, with respect to funding/financing options.
• Currently we are refining what we believe are the live most viable funding/finance
options, including: updating the existing ordinance, using the enabling power under
AS 1600 to assess development fees on comniercial/industrial development,
formation of a special district with the same boundaries as the City, formation of a
city-wide recreational membership/user program and,formation of a non-profit park
foundation. Each of these options is presently being reviewed with respect to the legal
opportunities/constraints involved by the City Attorney's office.
• We are in the final stages of reFning a schedule of park and recreation priorities for
the ten-year period ending 2010, which provides a preliminary estimate of related
costs and suggested timing. The schedule has been Formulated in consideration of the
priorities set forth in the recreation clement of the City's general plan and generally
augments/supplements adopted initiatives presently underway. Priorities as Set forth
in the schedule will be tested community-wide, as part of the survey research
completed.
• Using historical information with respect operating revenues and expenses and the
cost data/timing formulated with respect to acquisition, development and
rehabilitation, we have developed a ten-year sources and uses of funds schedule for
the period 2001 through 2010, which illustrates the potential financial shortfall
involved.
• -presently, we are drafting our final report and preparing materials for a community
workshop currently scheduled for September 12, 2001.
ATTAC HM E N T #2
Hug 14 01 02:01p PULSE MHRKETING 714 505 3317 P. I .
P U L 5 F.
a1� 1945 Move fit k Lune
Sunra Ana. (A 921U5
vo�cc: 714.505-3316
fox: 114.5U5.3317
WWa.pulseunnkPf.Al1
August 10, 2001
MARKFfiNr:
.Ron pagan
Director Community Services
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Y.O. Box 150
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
RE: Recommended Additions to Scope of Services
Dear Ron:
Based on our conversation, 1 wanted to provide you with some hackground on the two
scope of services additions we have recommended. The first scope change is related to
having the major older buildings in your portfolio prolbssionally evaluated by an
arch itectural/enginecring firm. The second scope change is associated with creating the
necessary research foundation/nexus for imposing a park relatcd dcvelopmari fee on
commercial/industrial construction.
When we started the project, we anticipated that we might ncod limited support from a
landscape architect, who could provide us with the estimated cost of remedying any
deferred maintenanecleapital improvements identified, related to hndscape, softscape,
etc. and this cost was inciculed in the initial project budget. Alter we conducted our
review of existing parks however, it became obvious that while the parks themselves are
in generally good condition, there are potentially significant maintcnanec/improvement
issues related to park and non-park buildingS/Stncctures. While we are not qualified to
ascertain the complexities or costs associated with building related issues, we recognize
that the costs involved could he substantial and that they could have significant long-term
financial implications for the City. Accordingly, we investigated potential firms who
could assist in this area and recommended that the City retain 1SL•S Corporation, an
Atlanta based architectural/engincering. firm to evaluate 13 buildings in the portfolio,
which comprise the majority of the square footage involved. file 1Sf:S contract has an
associated cost of$22,840.
During the course of our research on park and recreation finance options we discovered
that some California cities are using their enabling power under A131600, to assess
development fees on cotnmercial/industrial development, for purposes of park
acquisition, development and rehabilitation. We also found that studies supporting the
adoption of these ordinances contain substantial research, directed at demonstrating a
nexus between cotnntcrcial/industrial development and park use.
Markel Keveareb and Strategic Planning
Rug 14 01 02: 01p PULSE MARKETING 714 505 3317 p. 2
Since we had no indication at the beginning of the project that revenue from
commercial/industrial de:volopment could be a potential solution, our scope did not
include any research aimed at investigating a nexus in this area. Clearly, even when the
research is completed, there is no guarantee that the findings will support such a nexus or
that even if a nexus is apparent that it will be substantial. Intuitively however, we believe
that commercial tourist serving uses especially, are directly benefited by the City's park-
and recreation assets (e.g., beach, pier, pier plaza. Central 'ark). To establish factual
research suitable for establishing a nexus between corritnercial/ix,dustri.al development
and park uSehmpact require% statistically valid survey data. To accomplish this objective,
we have proposed that the City aLahorixe it's to complete a telephone Survey of 400
businesses in Huntington Beach, to assess use patterns and trips. The cost of this survey
is estimated to be $15,000, including preparation, implementation and analysis.
Ron, if you have any questions or need further information, about the proposed scope
changes,please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sin �r ly,
:P;4 kJEM A WING
. Tucker
Partner
ATTACHMENT #3
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
THOMAS D. TUCKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS
PULSE MARKETING FOR AN ANALYSIS,NEXUS STUDY
AND STRATEGIC PLAN REGARDING THE CITY'S PARK
IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the"Amendment") is made and entered into this 17th day
of September , 2001,by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and THOMAS D.
TUCKER, individually and doing business as PULSE MARKETING, hereinafter referred to as
"CONSULTANT."
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT are parties to that certain agreement, dated
February 20, 2001, entitled"Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach
and Thomas D. Tucker, Individually and Doing Business as Pulse Marketing for an Analysis,
Nexus Study and Strategic Plan Regarding the City's Park In-Lieu Fee Ordinance,"which
Agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Agreement," and
CITY and CONSULTANT wish to extend the scope of services of the Original Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows:
1. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide the additional services set forth in Exhibit"A", which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The additional services set forth in
Exhibit"A"will be provided by subconsultants of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT intends to
subcontract with ISES Corporation for it to perform an analysis of thirteen(13) CITY Community
Services facilities. CONSULTANT intends to subcontract with Claritas, Inc. to perform a
telephone sampling survey of businesses to establish factual research suitable for establishing a
nexus between commercial/industrial development and park use/impact. CONSULTANT shall
provide written reports detailing the scope of services, analysis and conclusions of the additional
services provided by both subconsultants.
2. COMPENSATION
In consideration of the performance of the additional services described herein, CITY
agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Thirty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Forty
Dollars ($37,840.00). Twenty-two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Dollars ($22,840.00) of that
amount is intended to cover the subconsultant services of ISES Corporation and Fifteen Thousand
Dollars ($15,000.00) is intended to cover the subconsultant services of Claritas, Inc. CITY shall
not be obligated to pay CONSULTANT for any of these additional services until thirty(30) days
after receiving and approving the written reports set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment.
1 '
0l agree/jmVPulse amend 9/7/01
3. CITY'S CONSENT OF SUBCONSULTANTS
Section 14 of the Original Agreement prohibits any subcontracting of CONSULTANT's
services without the prior written consent of CITY. CITY hereby gives its consent to
CONSULTANT to subcontract the additional services set forth in Exhibit"A"to this Amendment
to ISES Corporation and Claritas, Inc.
4. SUBCONSULTANTS' INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS
CONSULTANT shall ensure that both subconsultants shall comply with all of the
insurance requirements for professional services contractors set forth in CITY Resolution No. 97-
20, as if those subconsultants were directly contracting with CITY, except those requirements
expressly waived by CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide the insurance certificates and
additional insured endorsements required of both subconsultants prior to execution of this
Amendment. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that its obligations to CITY set forth in
Section 8 (entitled "Hold Harmless") of the Original Agreement shall extend to and cover the
additional services provided by both subconsultants under this Amendment.
5. REAFFIRMATION
Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written.
THOMAS . TUCKER, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a
individu and doing business municipal corporation of the State of
as PUL TING California
By:
Th s D. Tucker Ma or
ATTEST:
d-,- %l kZ
t,ity Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO.FO
City ministrator Cit A rney A0
INITIA PROVED:
Direc of Community Services
2
O1 agree/jmf/Pulse amend 9/7/01
EXHIBIT. "A "
flue 14 01 02: 01P PULSE MARKETING 714 505 3317 p. 1
P Q
1?45 N.ave,itk Lune
Stwo Ana. to 92/U5
vc,cv: 714•SOS-3316
fax: I14.5U5.3311
tvww.pul�„mn,krt.aet
ALLbLLSt 10, 2001
MARKf, rrNr:
Ron Hagan
Director Community Services
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 150
Huntington Beach. CA. 92648
RE: Recommended Additions to Scope of Services
Dear Ron:
Based on our conversation, I.wanted to provide you with some background on the two
scope of services additions we have recommended. The first scope change is related to
having the major older buildings in your portfolio professionally evaluated by an
architectural/engineering fine. The second scope change is associated with creating' the
necessary research foundationInexuti for imposing a part; related development Fee on
commercial/industrial construction.
When we started the project, we anticipated that we might need limited support from a
landscape architect, who could provide us with the estimated cost of remedying any
deferred maintenance/capital improvements identified, related to hardscape, softscape,
etc. and this cost was inclLE&d. in the initial project budget. Alter we conducted our
review of existing parks however, it became obvious that while the parks themselves are
in generally good condition, there tare potentially significant maintcnance/improvement
issues related to park and non-park buildingslstructures. While we are not qualified to
ascertain the complexities or costs associated with building related issues, we recognize
that the costs involved could be substantial and that they could have;significant tong-term
financial implications for the City. Accordingly, we investigated potential firms who
could assist in this area and recommended that the City retain 1SL•S Corporation, an
Atlanta based architectural/engineering firm to evaluate 13 buildings ui the portfolio,
which comprise the majority of the square footage involved. fife ISrS contract has an
associated cost or$22,840.
During the course of our research on park and recreation finance option% we discovered
that some California cities are using their enabling power under AB1600, to assess
development fees on commercial/industrial development, t:qr purposes of park
acquisition, development and rehabilitation. We also found that studies supporting the
adoption of these ordinances contain substantial research, directed at demonstrating a
nexus between cotnniercial/industrial development and park use.
Market Meseareb and Strategic Planning
Exhibit A
P.
Aug 14 01 02: 01p PULSE MRRKETING 714 505 3317 2
Since we had no indication at the beginning of the project that revenue from
commercial/industrial dewclopment could he a potential solution, our scope did not
include any research aimed at investigating a nexus in this area. Clearly, even when tlic
research is completed, there is no guarantee that the findings will support such a nexus or
that even if a nexus is apparent that it will be substantial. Intuitively however, we believe
that commercial tourist serving uses especially, are directly benefited by the City's park-
and recreation assets (e.g., beacb, pier, pier plaza, Central !'ark). To establish factual
research suitable for establishing a nexus between conimercialYindusttial development
and park usehrnpact requires statistically valid survey data. To accomplish this objective,
we have proposed that the City authorize Its to complete a telephone survey of 400
businesses in Huntington Beach, to assess use patterns and trips. The cost of this survey
is estimated to he $15,000, including preparation, implementation and analysis.
Ron, if you have any questions or need Further inlbrmation, about the proposed scope
changes,please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sin �r ly,
al—E A TING
"rucker
Partner
Exhibit A
uli24/U1 WED 15:17 FAX 310 63U 0354 AGENCY FIELD EXEC. 10002
• CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE i! �RF4
0This certifies that ❑ STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Bloomington, IllinoissrArr rAeM ® STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois
❑ STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Scarborough,Ontario �I,g� )D
JL_ ❑ STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,Winter Haven, Florida IA
INSURANCE ❑ STATE FARM LLOYDS,Dallas,Texas
i owing policyholder for the coverages indicated below:
Name of policyholder TOM TUCKER s KIM ROYSTER
Address of policyholder 1945 MAVERICK LANE, SANTA AKA, CA. 92705-2562
Location of operations
Description of operations MARKET RESEARCH
The policies listed below have been issued to the policyholder for the policy periods shown. The insurance described in these policies is
Subject to all the terms exclusions, and conditions of those policies. The limits of liability shown may have been reduced by any paid
claims.
POUCY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY
POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date : ExpIrgim Dabs (at beginning of policy period)
Comprehensive BODILY INJURY AND
Business Liability PROPERTY DAMAGE
.........-•--- --- - ---- -a----- --- .. .....................................
C
This insurance includes Products o..mp. leted.....-Operation
Operations
❑Contractual Liability
❑Underground Hazard Coverage Each Occurrence $
❑ Personal Injury
❑Advertising Injury General Aggregate $ 1
❑Explosion Hazard Coverage
❑Collapse Hazard Coverage Products-Completed $
❑ Operations Aggregate
POLICY PERIOD BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
EXCESS LIABILITY Effective Date ; EupintNon Date (Combined Single Limit)
71-K3-7581-6 ®Umbrella 01/10/01 01/10/02 Each Occurrence $
❑Other Aggregate $ 1000000
I S' TC r ORIR Part 1 STATUTORY
GA1L h1i1i"1 L, City AttQrnee Part 2 BODILY INJURY
rEach Accident $
Disease Each Employee $
Disease-Policy Limit $
POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY
POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date ; Expiration Date (at beginning of policy period
71-KD-7561-6 HOMEOWNERS 01/10/01 01/10/02 3000000
THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY
AMENDS,EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE APPROVED SY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
If any of the described policies are canceled before
its expiration date, State Farm will mail a
written notice to the certificate holder 30 days before
Name and Address of Certificate Holder cancellation.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
ITS AGENTS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
2000 MAIN STREET - h0A
HUNTINGTON, CA. 9264E 1 & q;;Z
Sig epre6ent9Ive
lof
AGE 08/08/00
Title Date
Agent's Cede Stamp
-
594 556 a.3 047999 Printed In U.SA. AFO Code 77 61W#o W OODE MU8
F776N
PULSE MARKETING 714 505 3317 P. 2
Jan 31 O1 09: O1 a p•e2 �} c��1�
• ----, .,. ......u.a atNt Rseacn • (1, IT
Ix
2000 Main Street �6M )o
,mm��eraN se�cw CaliforniaCatiroeatia 92648
DECLARATION of NON-EMPLOYER STATUS
In order to comply with City Council Resolution No.97-20, you are required to provide proof of
Workers' Compensation insurance. If you have no employees, this form trust be signed and returned
to:
City of Huntington Beach
Risk Management Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 9264E
I certify that in the performance of the activity or work for which this permit is issued, I shad not employ
any person in any manner so as to become subject to California Workers' Compensation insurance
requirements.
I authorize the City of Huntington Beach to immediately and retroactively revoke► the license or permit
issued under this declaration if I hire any employee(s) or become subject to the provisions of the laws
requiring Workers'Compensation Insurance.
Applicant/Company Name:
Address_ I 1k,0�3: / L "
Applicant's Signature: Date: t Q•O/
Title:
Location signed: 40,/9.
Telephone Number 7:AOh• r
V
G:1Ri5kMCrnACert-Ins1WC-Wvr.Doc -rcTAL P.02
• i
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Services
SUBJECT: Approve Adding Subconsultants-to;the.Pulse.Marketing
C'ontraerfo�Ad'ditionaf Services for Park Nexus SStad-`-
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2001
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk
EXPLANATION-FOR RETURN OF-ITEM.--
I
/'v. _ - ,aJ
(Below • . • Only)
RCA Author: Ron H80,
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HiiNTIl\rGTON BEACH
DATE: March 13, 2001
TO: Pulse Marketing ATTENTION: Thomas D. Tucker
Name.
1945 Maverick Lane DEPARTMENT:
Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705 REGARDrgG: Professional Services
City,State,zip Contract re: park in-lieu fee ord.
See Attached Action Agenda Item F-8 Date of Approval 2-20-01
Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item.
Remarks:
Connie Brockway
City Clerk
Attachments: Action Agenda Page x Agreement x Bonds Insurance x
RCA Deed Other
CC: R. Hagan Com. Serv. x x x
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other
C. Mendoza x x x
Risk Management Dept. Insurance
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
THOMAS D. TUCKER,INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
AS PULSE MARKETING FOR AN ANALYSIS, NEXUS STUDY
AND STRATEGIC PLAN REGARDING THE CITY'S PARK
IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE
Table of Contents
1 Scope of Services.....................................................................................................1
2 Designated Contacts.................................................................................................2
3 Time of Performance ...............................................................................................2
4 Compensation ..........................................................................................................2
5 Extra Work...............................................................................................................2
6 Method of Payment..................................................................................................3
7 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents ...........................................4
8 Hold Harmless .........:...............................................................................................5
9 Workers' Compensation Insurance............................................................................5
10 General Liability Insurance......................................................................................6
11 Certificates of Insurance ..........................................................................................7
12 Independent Contractor............................................................................................7
13 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8
14 Assignment and Subcontracting...............................................................................8
15 Copyrights/Patents....................................................................................................8
16 City Employees and Officials ..................................................................................8
17 Notices .....................................................................................................................9
18 Modification.............................................................................................................9
19 Captions ...................................................................................................................9
20 Section Headings .....................................................................................................9
21 Interpretation of Agreement.....................................................................................10
22 Duplicate Original....................................................................................................10
23 Immigration..............................................................................................................I I
24 Legal Services Subcontracting.................................................................................11
25 Attorney's Fees.........................................................................................................11
26 Entirety.....................................................................................................................11
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
THOMAS D. TUCKER,INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS
AS PULSE MARKETING FOR AN ANALYSIS, NEXUS STUDY
AND STRATEGIC PLAN REGARDING THE CITY'S PARK
IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE
THIS Agreement is made and entered into this 20th day of February
2001
,by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the
State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and THOMAS D. TUCKER,individually
and doing business as PULSE MARKETING, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to perform an analysis,
nexus study and strategic plan regarding the CITY's park in-lieu ordinance; and
Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service
contracts have been complied with; and
CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
A description of the various services to be performed by CONSULTANT, the
estimated schedule for performance, CONSULTANT's total fee for professional services
rendered, and a payment schedule, are all set forth in that certain letter dated October 3, 2000 to
CITY from CONSULTANT; a copy of which letter is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by reference.
1
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
2. DESIGNATED CONTACTS
CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the
performance of this Agreement.
CONSULTANT hereby designates Thomas D. Tucker,who shall represent it and
be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this
Agreement.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE
Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services of CONSULTANT are to
commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement and all tasks specified in
Section 1 shall be completed no later than twenty-four(24) weeks from the date of this
Agreement. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for
performance of the tasks identified in Section 1 are generally to be shown in the Scope of
Services on the Work Prograin/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the
PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT.
4. COMPENSATION
In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees
to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed Eighty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($89,500.00).
5. EXTRA WORK
In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Section 1, or
changes in the scope of services described in Section 1, CONSULTANT will undertake such
work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional compensation for such
extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained.
2
2001 agree/RMPULSEM/01
6. METHOD OF PAYMENT
A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to his retainer and subsequent progress
payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment
schedules set forth in Section 1.
B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report,
calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to
demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on
any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any
such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed
accepted.
C. Except for his retainer, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice
for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall:
1) Reference this Agreement;
2) Describe the services performed;
3) Show the total amount of the payment due;
4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's
firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement; and
5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work
completed.
Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is
making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement,
CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty
3
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/O1
(30) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the
reasons for non-approval within seven(7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the
schedule of performance set forth in Section I-shall be suspended until the parties agree that past
performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this
Agreement is terminated as provided herein.
D. Any billings for extra work or additional-services authorized by CITY
shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required
above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such
invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work
or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and
costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute
between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart
from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this Agreement.
7. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
CONSULTANT agrees that all materials-prepared hereunder, including all
original drawings, designs, reports,both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda,
letters and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this Agreement or
upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this Agreement is
terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it
otherwise-sees.fit. .Title to said materials shall pass.to CITY upon payment of fees determined to
be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT,
4
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared
hereunder.
8. HOLD HARMLESS
CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save.hold harmless CITY,
its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage,
expenses, costs (including without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising
out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this Agreement or its failure to
comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement by CONSULTANT, its officers,
agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of CITY. CITY shall be reimbursed.by CONSULTANT for all costs and
attorney's fees incurred by CITY in enforcing this obligation.
9. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE
Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges
awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured
against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with
such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder; and shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless CITY from and against all claims, demands, payments, suit, actions,
proceedings,-and judgments of every nature and description; including attorney's fees and costs
presented, brought.or recovered against.the CITY, for or on account of any liability under any of
said acts which may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by CONSULTANT
under this Agreement.
5
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of
not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each
occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)bodily injury by disease, each employee,
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000)bodily injury by disease, policy limit.
CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers'
compensation insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish
to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation
insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation.
10. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT's
covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of
general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT.
The policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees,while acting
within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with
the PROJECT,..and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined .
single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed-operations liability
and blanket contractual liability, of$1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a
form that includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must.be no less than
$1,000,000 for this PROJECT. The policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees
and volunteers.as.Additional.Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance
coverage:which may applicable-to-the PROJECT shall be deemed.excess coverage and,that
CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary.
6
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
Under no circumstances shall the above-mentioned insurance contain a self-
insured retention, or a"deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required
coverage.
11. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE
Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall
furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the
foregoing insurance coverages as required by this Agreement; the certificates shall:
A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy;
B. state that the policy is currently in force; and
C. promise that such policies shall not be suspended, voided or canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30) days'
prior written notice; however, ten(10) days' prior written notice-in the
event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium.
CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until
the work under this Agreement is fully completed and accepted by CITY.
The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate
from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the Agreement.
CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to.demand the original or a copy of all
said.policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the
premiums on all insurance hereinabove required.
12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this
Agreement as an independent contractor herein and not as an employee of the CITY.
7
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all
taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and
other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all
business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder.
13. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike
manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without
cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this Agreement by
CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as
.provided herein. In the event of termination, all finished and unfinished documents, exhibits,
report, and evidence shall, at the option of the CITY, become its property and shall be delivered
to it by CONSULTANT.
14.- ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
This Agreement is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder
shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the express
written consent of CITY.
15. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS
CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material
produced as a result of this Agreement.
16. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS
CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor.any regular CITY employee
in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of CITY shall have
8
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
any financial interest in this Agreement in violation of the applicable provisions of the California
Government Code.
17. NOTICES
Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this
Agreement shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as designated
in Section 1 hereinabove) or to CITY's Director of Community Services as the situation shall
warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same
in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows:
TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT:
Mr. Ron Hagan Mr. Thomas D. Tucker, Partner
Director of Community Services Pulse Marketing
City of Huntington Beach 1945 Maverick Lane
2000 Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92705
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
18. MODIFICATION
No waiver or modification of any language in this Agreement shall be valid
unless in writing and duly executed by both parties.
19. CAPTIONS
Captions of the sections of this Agreement are for convenience and reference
only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid
in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement
20. SECTION HEADINGS.
The titles, captions, section, paragraph, subject headings and descriptive phrases
at the beginning of the various sections in this Agreement are merely descriptive and are
included solely for convenience of reference only and are not representative of matters included
9
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
or excluded from such provisions, and do not interpret, define, limit or describe, or construe the
intent of the parties or affect the construction or interpretation of any provision of this
Agreement.
21. INTERPRETATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a
whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties. If any
provision of this Agreement is held by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction to be
unenforceable, void, illegal or invalid, such holding shall not affect the remaining covenants and
provisions of this Agreement. No covenant or provision shall be deemed dependent upon any
other unless so expressly provided here. As used in this Agreement, the masculine or neuter
gender and.singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the other whenever the context
so indicates or requires. Nothing contained herein shall be.construed so as to require the
commission,of any act contrary to law, and wherever there:is any conflict between any provision
contained herein and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to which
the parties have no right to contract, then the latter shall prevail, and the provision of this
Agreement which is hereby affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to
bring it within the requirements of the law.
22. DUPLICATE ORIGINAL
The original of this Agreement and one or more copies hereto have been prepared
and signed in counterparts as duplicate originals, each of which so executed shall, irrespective of
the date.of its execution and delivery,be deemed an original. Each of the parties hereto shall
retain an originally signed copy hereof. Each duplicate original shall be deemed an original
instrument as against any party who has signed it.
10
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
23. IMMIGRATION
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration
and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions
of the United States Code regarding employment verification.
24. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED
CONSULTANT and CITY agree that..CITY is not liable for payment of any
subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside
the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to
Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for
CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by
CONSULTANT.
25. ATTORNEY'S FEES
In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of
this Agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees.
26. ENTIRETY
The Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties respecting the
subject matter of this Agreement and supercedes all prior understanding and agreements whether
oral or in writing. The foregoing sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties.
SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
11
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written.
THOMAS D. TUCKER, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a
individually and doing business municipal corporation of the State of
as P E MARKETING California
y:
Tho . Tucker, Partner
Mayo
ATTEST
City, Clerk ar 17-01
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cit dministrator 3,ly,aC ity Attorney y ot o
INITIAT AP ROVED:
Director of Community Services
12
2001 agree/RJW/PULSE2/8/01
EXHIBIT A
OP U L S E
s 1945 Maverick Lane
October 3, 2000 Santa Ana, (A 92705
voice: 714-505-3316
fax: 714-505-3317
Mr. Ron Hagan net:pulse2@ix.netcom.com
Director of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach MARKETING
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Pulse Marketing is pleased to provide you with this proposal for market research and
strategic planning services in connection with an analysis of the City's park in-lieu fee
ordinance. This proposal outlines our understanding of your objectives, our proposed
scope of services and our team's qualifications to conduct this assignment, as well as our
estimate of project timing and the professional fees involved.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Based on our meeting and our review of the materials provided, we understand that the
City of Huntington Beach is presently reviewing its options, with respect to revising its
park in-lieu fee ordinance. While the City is approaching build-out, the current ordinance
is predicated on using new development to fund the bulk of park acquisition and
maintenance costs. Certainly, as the level of new development subsides, the funds
generated will not be sufficient, to effectively manage the 80 plus park and recreation
assets now operated by the City. In addition, issues have been raised with respect to
whether the City's ordinance is in compliance with the State's enabling legislation and
the fairness of using the funds generated for community-wide projects, as opposed to
neighborhood specific projects. To address these issues and craft a fair/equitable
ordinance that provides for the City's future needs, you are interested in undertaking a
comprehensive study of the alternatives/solutions available.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our proposed scope of services involves the successful completion of the following tasks:
Task 1: Background Review and Park Asset Assessment
As a point of departure, we will review any available background documents for the
project, including the legislative history of the existing ordinance, pertinent meeting
minutes, public policy related correspondence from interested parties, the park element of
the City's General Plan, estimates of residential build-out, recent City parks and
recreation budgets, documents outlining planned and proposed projects,
manpower/human resource schedules, statewide enabling legislation, etc. Part of this
background review will include the development of a historical summary of park fee
income and expense. We will also interview key recreation and parks management
Market Research andltrategic Planning
personnel, elected officials and community/industry representatives, who have an
interest/been involved in park fees as a public policy issue. A total of approximately 15
interviews are anticipated.
In addition to the background review and personal interviews, we will visit each of the
City's park assets to develop a detailed understanding of the factors associated with
managing/operating the portfolio, as well as its overall condition. Our portfolio review
will also consider planned and proposed park projects within the City, to better
understand issues related to portfolio growth/operations over the next five-year period.
Task 2: Comparative Review of Regional Park Fee Ordinances
During the course of this task we will analyze the park in-lieu ordinances and park fee
policies and ordinances of other Southern California cities, which have similar
dynamics/context to Huntington Beach. In terms of park in-lieu ordinances we will give
primary attention to the faster growing areas of the region and to those areas, which have
coastal lands/beaches within their jurisdiction. As part of our review, we will assess
how/if these coastal lands/beach areas are treated/managed, as part of the jurisdiction's
park portfolio. With respect to our analysis of other types of park fees/funding
mechanisms, we will focus our attention on urban areas, where there is mainly in-fill
residential development and/or mixed-use development occurring at higher densities. The
review will allow us to advise you with regard to the park land per population ratios of
other jurisdictions, policies related to in-lieu fees, the formulas utilized to calculate in-
lieu fees and the resulting per unit fees themselves. The review will also enable us to
advise you with respect to other types of park funding mechanisms that are being utilized
in higher density urban areas, that can no longer rely on Quimby type assessments, to
satisfy park acquisition, development, operational and rehabilitation costs.
Task 3: National Review of Park Funding Practices
Using a combination of primary and secondary research we will investigate national
trends and the evolution of policy development in the area of park/open space funding
mechanisms. As part of our work in this task we will identify and review published
information available from national associations, governmental entities and academic
sources, who have completed research in the area. As needed we will supplement this
effort, by conducting personal interviews with those responsible for developing the
research materials. In addition to our public policy research, we will investigate the park
funding policies of four to six cities nationally, which are recognized for their innovative
park development, operations and rehabilitation efforts and prepare a series of case
studies. The case studies will provide a summary understanding of the city's park
portfolios, discuss the types of funding mechanisms utilized and critique related public
policy issues. As part of this effort, we will also discuss the applicability/appropriateness
of the funding mechanisms being utilized, as potential solutions/alternative for
Huntington Beach.
Market Research andjSt'rategic Planning
Task 4: Develop Rehabilitation, Build-Out and New Operations Cost Model
Aside from developing a detailed capital improvements program that considers each
individual park asset, we believe that the only reasonable mechanism for estimating park
rehabilitation costs over an extended period is an economic model, which relies on an
audit style sampling approach. Our suggestion is that a five year model be built, which
uses the estimated/calculated rehabilitation costs associated with a cross section of park
assets, to extrapolate an estimate of total portfolio rehabilitation costs during this period.
The sample would be derived based on our review in Task 1 and using the City's park
classification system. Representation in the sample from each park class would be
assured and other criteria would added to the sampling methodology such as size, age,
type of improvements and level of improvements. While we would establish the sampling
criteria and select the sample, we would rely on Nuvis to establish actual rehabilitation
costs. The model would then be developed to estimate period rehabilitation costs for
categories of assets and the portfolio overall. To the extent it is desirable, the model could
be supplemented with the actual costs of planned and proposed park related projects
within the City and with adjusted historical/planned costs, as they relate to
planned/proposed operations. The result would be an estimate of the City's projected
total direct costs to manage new park operations, complete future development and
address any needed rehabilitation over the next five-year period.
Task 5: Coordinate with Legal Counsel/Staff to Evaluate Policy Alternatives
Based on the work completed in Tasks 1 through 4, we would be in a position to work
with the City's legal counsel/staff to evaluate the legal merits and potential of
implementing various solutions/alternatives in light of state enabling legislation and
existing City policies/ordinances. As part of this effort we will assist in drafting any
materials necessary to implement a given solution/alternative. We would also be in a
position to advise counsel with respect to any operational/policy issues that may be
relevant, in formulating an opinion as to whether the City's existing ordinance is in
compliance with the Quimby Act.
Task 6: Produce Final Report and Summary Presentation
At the conclusion of Task 6 we will produce a final report for the project, which contains
the following elements:
• A summary of our background review, including the presentation of any
information, materials or tables that may be helpful in understanding or
establishing a foundation for our findings.
• A discussion of our interviews with management, elected officials, industry
representatives, community group representatives, etc., including a review of
concerns, objectives, suggestions, etc.
Market Research and c\irategic Planning
• A summary- of our asset review including the development of a schedule of
existing/proposed assets by classification.
• Our findings related to our analysis of regional park in-lieu fees and park impact
fees, including a comparative discussion of the policies/ordinances of
communities with similar dynamics to Huntington Beach.
• A summary of the national funding practices research conducted, including a
discussion of the funding options/alternatives, which have potential for
implementation within the City of Huntington Beach.
• A presentation of our five-year economic model, including the bases of any
assumptions employed, along with an estimate of the City's projected total direct
costs for new park operations, future development and any rehabilitation
necessary over the next five-year period.
Aside from the report discussed, we would also prepare any summary materials that may
be needed for either distribution or presentation.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
Thomas D Tucker will be directly responsible for managing this assignment. Mr. Tucker
has more than 20 years experience in providing market research, strategic planning and
management advisory services to both corporate and public sector clients. His knowledge
of sports/recreation facilities, land-use/community planning, economic development and
public policy research from hands-on management experience in projects internationally
enables him to offer clients sound business and development planning advice. Mr.
Tucker's areas of specialization include: market, economic and survey research, analyses
designed to identify the potential for new/renovated sports/hospitality facilities, financial
analyses of development programs and business strategies, project concept
definition/refinement and public policy development and analysis. Prior to forming Pulse
Marketing, Mr. Tucker spent 15 years as a management consultant with Arthur Andersen
& Co. and Laventhol and Horwath, where he managed a wide variety of real estate and
hospitality assignments both nationally and internationally. Mr. Tucker received his
Masters degree in Urban Planning from the University of Oregon and his Bachelors
degree in economics from St. Michael's College.
IUm M. Royster will also provide management support for the project. Ms. Royster has
more than 15 years experience in market research and strategic planning for both
corporate and public sector clients, in the areas of sports/recreation and hospitality. Ms.
Royster's areas of specialization include: analysis of development concepts/plans to
determine market acceptance, development of business and public policy strategies;
studies and analyses to determine the market potential for new/renovated sports,
recreation and hospitality concepts, including: identification of competitive strengths and
weaknesses, market positioning, analyses of market demand/share and business/consumer
Market Research and�St`rategic Planning
surveys. Prior to forming Pulse Marketing, Ms. Royster spent 10 years as a management
consultant in the real estate, sports and hospitality practices of Coopers & Lybrand and
Laventhol & Horwath. Ms. Royster received her Bachelors degree from the University of
Illinois in Leisure Studies/Parks and Recreation and her Masters in International
Management from the American Graduate School of International Management
(Thunderbird - Highest Honors).
TIMING AND FEES
The professional fee for this assignment including all expenses is $80,000. We believe
that we can complete the work described in these tasks in approximately 20 to 24 weeks,
from the time we receive your formal authorization to proceed and excluding time needed
for your deliberation with respect to our findings. It is our firm's policy to require a
retainer prior to commencement of any engagement. The amount of the retainer for this
engagement is $20,000. Additional payments are required based on the following
schedule:
♦ Project Week 4 $10,000
♦ Project Week 8 $10,000
♦ Project Week 12 $10,000
♦ Project Week 16 $10,000
♦ Project Week 20 $10,000
♦ Project Completion and Delivery $10,000
To better understand park user patterns within the City of Huntington Beach and address
issues related to neighborhood verses community-wide use, you might also want to
consider a survey of residents as an additional service that can be provided. Specifically,
we would develop and implement a telephone survey of 400 households from various
sections of the City, which covers issues such as the number/locations of parks used, the
types of parks used, frequency of use and satisfaction with availability/facilities. Limited
demographic information would also be collected as part of the survey to allow for
relevant cross-tabulation. Using survey data we would be able assess park user patterns,
better understand distances traveled/facilities utilized and measure the overall level of
park use/satisfaction within Huntington Beach. Survey findings would be statistically
valid at a 95 percent confidence level plus or minus 4.9 percent and capable of being
extrapolated to the overall population. This information would allow us to establish levels
of neighborhood/community use for different types of park assets, by area of the City.
The additional cost of the survey would be $9,500.
Market Research and'St'r"ategic Planning
FEB-13-2001 11:36A FROM:ACIS HDI 7145930894 TO:93741708 P:2/3
• Polity NUMLIS 72 SEA LU7312-1
a o D. CERTIFICATE of LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE 1012 2000)
1o/2r2D0D
PRWU ISU INSURANCE SERVICES
THE ARROW COMMERCIAL AGENCY ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
18692 Beach Blvd., Suite 235 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
(714)593-1116 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURED pulse Marketing C i I I['x INSURERA PIA RARTrDItD INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Tucker l^� 6 10 INSURERS:1945 Maverick Lane f- INSURER
Santa Ana, CA 92705 ��• INSURER Ct
INSURER E
YERAGE
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN.THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SU EJECT TOALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POUCIES.AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
MUG CARMHUN
Im LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POUCYNUMBM DATE(MMM7DlYY) DATE(MMNDDIYY LIMITS
GENEIRALUABILITY EACHOCCURRENCE $1,000,000
COMIMERCIN.GINERALLIABILITY 72 SEA LN 7312-1- 10/1/2000 10/1/2001 FIRE ONMAGE(My RUs&0 $300,000
CLAIMS MODE OCCUR MID EV(Anywwpaswo E 10,0000
PERSONAL a ADV INAIRY $1,000,000
UENERAL AGGREGATE s2,000,000
GBPLAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIGS PER PRODUCTS-COMPIOPAGG E 1,000,000
POLICY n M 71 LOC
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT E
ANY AUTO (Ea sa Atrd)
ALLOWNEOAUTOS SODILYINJURY E
SCHEDULED AUTOS (R'a'ps—)
HIREDAUTOS
BODILrIWURv E
NON-OWNEDAUTOS (Pa acd*lt)
` PROPERTY DAMAGE E
t I cIA3Taxgerq
GARAGE UABILJTY AUTO ONLY.EA ACCIDENT II
ANY AUTO I OTHER THAN FA ACC S
AUTOONLY' AGG E
EXCESSLIAMUTY EACH OCCURRENCE E
OCCUR l CLAIMS MADE i AGGREGATE s
i E
I
DEDUCTIBLE I E
RETENTION E
WONUM COMPENSATION AND I TORYLIMITS ER,
EMPLOYERS'LIAGIM f
Et EACHnCCIDENT E
EL.OISEASE•EAEMPLOYEE S
EL.OSEASE•POLICY UMIT S
OTHER I
DESCWM0NOFOPERATIONSAACATIONSIVME ESEXCWSONSAD0ED YENWRSEMBRiSPECIALPROVISIONS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:!
GATT, H TTON, City Attorney
By: ('"41 4- (I 3 1 o
GERTIFIGATEHOLDER ADDITIONAL INSURED;INSUIER LETTW, CANCELLA SQQAC: V
City of Huntington Beach, It's agahts,orrico I.FummANYOF THE AsOVEDE MEDPO CANCELLED BEFORETHEE)IPIRAT10H
DATE THEREOF,THE ISSUING INSURER IM�TO MAIL 30 DAYS wRmBN
and employees NOTICE TO THE CERTGICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT.
row/w
Bills
AUTHORpEDREPRE9 A
len Hills
IMPORTANT
If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. A statement
on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
if SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may
require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate
holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
DISCLAIMER
The Certificate of Insurance on the reverse side of this form does not constitute a contract between
the issuing insurer(s)..authorized representative or producer, and the certificate holder, nor does it
affirmatively or negatively amend, extend or after the coverage afforded by the policies listed thereon.
£�£�d 80LSbL£6:01 t;P680£6GVTL IOH SIOti:WOad d6S:20 T002-t12-Wr
01/24/01 WED 15:17 FAX 310 630 0354 AGENCY FIELD EXEC. 10002
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE •
This certifies that ❑ STATE FARM FIRE AND.CASUALTY COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois
STATE FARM. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois
[� STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Scarborough, Ontario
❑ STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY,Winter Haven, Florida
INSURANCE ❑ STATE FARM LLOYDS. Dallas,Texas
if owing policyholder for the coverages indicated below.
Name of policyholder TOM TUCKER to KIM ROYSTER
Address Of policyholder 1945 MAVERICK LANE, SANTA ANA, CA. 92705-2562
Location of operations
Description of operations MARKET RESEARCH
The policies listed below have been issued to the policyholder for.the policy periods shown. The insurance described in these policies is
pubjed to all the terms exclusions, and conditions of those policies. The limits of liability shown may have been reduced by any paid
claims.
POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY
POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date ; EXpIr#MC0 Data at beginning of policy period)
Comprehensive BODILY INJURY AND
Business Liability PROPERTY DAMAGE
---------------------------- -- ---- ------•---------•-• --.........................----------
This insurance includes: Products Completed Operations
❑Contractual Liability
❑ Underground Hazard Coverage Each Occurrence $
❑ Personal Injury
❑Advertisino Injury General Aggregate $ 1
❑ Explosion Hazard Coverage
❑Collapse Hazard Coverage Products-Completed. $
❑ Operations Aggregate
El
POLICY PERIOD BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE
EXCESS LIABILITY Effective Daft : Expliatlon Date (Combined Single Limit)
71-K3-7581-6 Umbrella 01/10/01 . 01/10/02 Each Occurrence $
Other Aggregate $1000000
A PRO IED I S 10' FORM: Part 1 STATUTORY
GAIN HI_VIPT il, City Attdrney Part 2 BODILY INJURY
By:, ... .
Each Accident $
II�1410/ Disease Each Employee $
Disease-Policy Limit $
POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY
POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effedive Date ; Expirdion Ode (at beginning of policyperiod)
• 71-KD-7561-6 HOMEOWNERS 01/10/01 01/10/02 3000000
THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY
AMENDS,EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE APPROVED BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
If any of the described policies are canceled before
its expiration date, State Farm will mail a
written notice to the certificate holder 30 days before
Name and Address of Certificate Holder cancellation. _
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
ITS AGENTS, o£YICERS AND EMPLOYEES
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON, CA. 92648 S
AGE 08/08/00
Tide Date
Agerva Code Stamp
AFO Code 776"CKM(ME
sse3sa.:s oa-,aes Printed in USA
t : :- F776
I°• � —
Jan 31 01 09:01 a PULSE 714 505 3317 MARKETING p,02
JHN-spa-jai i>:14 0 --,.? twaCft ,
ZOOO Main Sttreet
mu� Catlrorria 92648
DECLARATION of NONAMPLOYER STATUS
1n order to comply with City Council Resolution No.97-20, you are required to provide proof of
Workers' Compensation insurance. If You have no employees, this form must be signed and returned
to:
City of Huntington Beach
Risk Management Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
1 certify that in the performance of the Ktivity or work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ
any person in any manner so as to become subject to California Workers' Compensation insurance
requirements.
I authorize the City of Huntington Beach to immediately and retroactively revokes the license or permit
issued under this declaration if 1 hire any employee(s) or become subject to the provisions of the laws
requiring Workers'Compensation Insurance.
Applicant(Cornpany Name:
Address: l Q d5;C/ L
Applicant's S+gnature: Date: ff • '�D •O J
Title:
Location Signed: V 9.
Telephone Number l • r�ioj;,- S-4 i
v
G:XRiskMgmtkCert-Iris%WGWvr.boc .rcaTAL P.02
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 02- 20-0)
Deferred/Continued to:
A proved ❑ Conditionally A proved ElDenied -C Cle Signature
Council Meeting Date: ebruary 20, 2001 Department ID Number: CS01-004
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
cz 7 =•
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator eft
PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONTRACT WITH PULSE MARKETING FOR PREPARATION
OF ANALYSIS, NEXUS STUDY, AND STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE
CITY'S PARK-IN-LIEU FEE
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(si,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Should the city enter into a contract with Pulse Marketing and
appropriate $98,500 from the Park Acquisition and Development Fund for an analysis, nexus
study and strategic plan regarding the city's park in-lieu ordinance?
Funding Source: Unappropriated, undesignated Park Acquisition and Development Fund;
(Pulse Marketing Contract - $89,500; Contingency of 10 percent - $9,000), total $98,500.
Recommended Action: Motions to:
1. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services
Contract with Thomas D. Tucker, individually and doing business as Pulse Marketing for
an analysis, nexus study, and strategic plan regarding the city's park-in-lieu fee ordinance;
2. Authorize the Director of Administrative Services to appropriate $98,500 from the
unappropriated fund balance of the Park Acquisition & Development Fund into
Contractual Services Account #20945101.69365 for an analysis, nexus study and
strategic plan for the park in-lieu ordinance, and
3. Waive the professional liability insurance requirement.
Alternative Action(s): Do not proceed with an analysis, nexus study, or strategic plan for
the city's park in-lieu fee immediately, and direct staff to budget funds in 01/02 or 02/03.
Analysis: When City Council revised the current park-in-lieu ordinance (Attachment 1), it
directed staff to prepare a scope of services to analyze park-in-lieu ordinances, prepare a
nexus study for park-in-lieu fees, and to develop a strategic plan for the city's park-in-lieu
ordinance. Staff prepared a request for proposal based on the following tasks:
1) Background review and park asset assessment
2) Comparative review of original park fee ordinances
3) Review of national park funding practices
4) Develop a rehabilitation, buildout, and new operations cost model for future park projects
5) Analysis with legal counsel to evaluate policy alternatives
6) Develop a final strategic plan and presentation to Council regarding recommendations
for the city's park-in-lieu fee ordinance 0�� lJ
1EQUEST F O R COUNCIL ACWN
MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS01-004
In 2000, proposals were solicited to three firms: Pulse Marketing, Deloitte & Touche, and
RSI, Inc. Pulse Marketing was the only response received. Total cost to complete the study
is $89,500, plus a 10 percent contingency for unforeseen expenses of $9,000 for a total of
$98,500. The study will take approximately six months. Council asked staff to return with
this proposal for two reasons:.First, as the city reaches buildout, the park-in-lieu fee from
developers will continue to decrease, thus providing dwindling resources for the city to
rehabilitate, acquire, or reconstruct its park system. Second, the Building Industry
Association (BIA) raised questions on the city's legal nexus between charging a development
fee and the actual impact of development on the park system. BIA would like to see the city
move toward an impact fee versus a set fee per population, as is now the case.
There are only a few remaining large parcels of development in Huntington Beach. Future .
park-in-lieu fees will usually be related to projects under fifty units. This means that the city
must ultimately accept in-lieu fees instead of land dedication. Consequently, it is important
for the city at this point in its development, to reassess the impact that redevelopment has on
the city's park system and develop a strategic plan to insure appropriate park-in-lieu fees are
paid to offset the cost for future park acquisition, rehabilitation, and improvement.
Funds were not appropriated in FY00/01 to accomplish this study. If Council is desirous of
proceeding immediately, a new appropriation is required. If Council wishes to wait until
FY01/02, the cost of this study could be budgeted then. Two major projects that would be
affected by the outcome of this study are the 31 acre project between 'Huntington and First
along Pacific Coast Highway, and the property along Pacific Coast Highway from
Goldenwest to Seapoint. The city should have this study and strategic plan completed
before developers submit these parcels to insure adequate park-in-lieu fees are obtained.
Presently, it is unknown when These projects will be submitted for development. Staff is
recommending Council appropriate the funds now and proceed with the proposed study.
In addition, staff is recommending Council waive the requirement for professional liability
insurance since the consultant will only be providing financial planning services where there
is no design liability or service that could result in the city being sued for professional liability.
Attachments :
City Clerk's
Page Number . Description
1. RCA of June 19, 2000
2. Contract with Pulse Marketing
3. FIS
z
Pulse Marketing for Park in Lieu Study -2- 02/12/01 8:31 AM
•
•
� ATTACHMENT # 1
V0N�N�
Council/Agency Meeting Held: fo— 00 %�)(f�V1
Deferred/Continued to:
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denie OE4 . Ity Cle 's Signature
Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: PL 00-36
CITY
ITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RRQU ST F�R ACTION
�-5- [ � yla)14�uF l�. �b� 6
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SZ
SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City AdministratorRe
PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning /
n
SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (FEE IN-LIEU:bF
PARKLAND DEDICATION)(Continued from the May 15, 2000
meeting). M . No- 34 b GtQ. rA, 316b 6
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysts,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 99-4, a request by
the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services to amend the Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method for determining fees in-
lieu of parkland dedication. The item was continued from the May 15, 2000 Council meeting
to allow a Council subcommittee to meet with representatives from the Building Industry
Association (BIA) and Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce. A meeting was held on
June 8, 2000 with members of the City Council, Planning Commission, BIA, Chamber and
staff to discuss the proposed ordinance.
The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ZTA with modifications
(Recommended Action - A) in order to address issues raised by several developers and
consultants. They recommend a two-phase approach: 1) the ZTA be approved establishing
a method for fees based upon 50% of the average value per acre of citywide parkland; and
2) direct staff to complete a comprehensive study identifying costs associated with build out
of the masterplan of park improvements.
Staff is recommending approval of the ZTA as directed by the City Council on November 1,
. 1999 which requires a site specific appraisal to be submitted to determine the exact park in-
lieu fee (Recommended Action - B).
• REQUEST FOR ACTION •
MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-36
Recommended Action:
A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with modifications with findings for approval
(ATTACHMENT NO. 4) and adopt Ordinance No. ;fQ t� (ATTACHMENT NO. 5)."
Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000:
THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 99-4, WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
(ATTACHMENT NO. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: SHOMAKER, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SPEAKER
NOES: BIDDLE, KERINS, CHAPMAN
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
(MODIFICATION IS 50% OF THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE)
MOTION PASSED
B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT
NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. 3" (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)."
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial"
2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly."
Analysis:
The June 8, 2000 meeting with the Council subcommittee gave representatives from BIA
and Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to explain their opposition to the draft ordinance.
The representatives stated that there was no nexus between the increase in fees and the
master plan buildout for parks. Although the BIA and Chamber representatives agreed that
the current fee was low in comparison with current land values, they felt that until the City's
ultimate park needs were assessed, it was unfair that builders, developers, and new
homeowners assume the costs for funding the City's park fund. They felt that a study
PL00-36 -2- 06/08/00 5:06 PM
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: June 19,.2000 DEPARTMENT 1D NUMBER: PL 00-36
identifying the costs associated with buildout of the City's park master plan, as well as
analyzing methods for funding the park fund after buildout of the residential districts in the
City would help identify and justify costs imposed on new development.
Staff maintains the recommendation to require a site specific appraisal for determining the
park fee. The staff analysis is provided in the May 15, 2000 Council staff report (Attachment
No. 7).
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501,
Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk's
Page
1. Findings for Approval (Staff Recommendation).
2. Ordinance No. 31 b (Staff Recommendation)
3. Legislative Draft (Staff Recommendation)
4. Findings for Approval (PC Recommendation).
5. Ordinance No. 3Nn (PC Recommendation)
6. Legislative Draft (PC Recommendation)
7. City Council RCA Staff Report dated May 15, 2000
8. Letter from BIA dated May 15, 2000
RCA A�u hor H gb 96615nd111V
r
PL00-36 -3- 06/08/00 5:06 PM
0 N Cori Q,,,
ORDINANCE NO. 3468
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY
AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES
WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly
noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 ,which amends
Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in-
lieu fees; and
After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Commission and all other evidence presented,the City Council finds that the aforesaid
amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan,
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows:
H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be
paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be-equal to an amount for each.
acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section
254.08D,which amount is sixty percent(60%) of the average fair market value
per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such
land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair
market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser.
Such appraisal shall exclude improvement.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty 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 5th day of July ,2000.
. dk"
Mayor �—
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
w
City Clerk ity Attorney �.
-�-�
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IIVITIA ED AND APPROVED:
City A�strator ector of Pla&tihg
g*990rdinance:parkfees#2
RI a nn-474
Ord. No. 3468
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 ordinance was read to said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of June,2000, and was again read to
said City Council at a re ular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of July,2000, and
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members
of said City Council.
AYES: Julien,Harman, Garofalo, Green,Dettloff Bauer
NOES: Sullivan
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
L Connie Brockway Crry CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Coon%
do hereby ce*that a synopsis of this ordinance has been
published in the Independent on
2000
In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-off cio Clerk
Connie Brockway. City Clerk of the City Council of the City
Dguty city clerk of Huntington Beach, California
gJordinanc/ordblpg.doc
7/12M
•
•
� ATTACHMENT #2
ATTACHMENT #3 -
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA TION
To: Ray Silver, City Administrator
From: Clay Martin, Acting Director of Administrative Services
Subject: FIS 2001-15 Approve Contract with Pulse Marketing for
Preparation of Analysis, Nexus Study, and Strategic Plan for the
City's Park in Lieu Fee
Date: January 3, 2001
As required by Resolution 4832, this Fiscal Impact Statement has
been prepared for "Approve Contract with Pulse Marketing for
Preparation of Analysis, Nexus Study, and Strategic Plan for the
City's Park in Lieu Fee."
If the City Council approves this request (total appropriation $98,500),
the estimated unappropriated, undesignated Park Acquisition and
Development Fund balance at September 30, 2001 will be reduced to
$1,126,000.
Clay M in,
Acting Director of Administrative Services
y
RCA -ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: APPROVE CONTRACT W/PULSE MARKETING FOR
PARK-IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE STUDY
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 20, 2001
................................................................................. .......... ................_ ..........................................................................................................................
RCA..ATTACHM.ENTS .:: S.TATUS' .........
....... ........ ..................... _ . . ..... _.
.................................................................. .......... _.-. -........................ ................._........ ........ ......................................._...................................................
....... ........ ................. _ .... ..... _ ... ........
Ordinance w/exhibits,& legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location.Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorne Attached
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached
Financial Impact Statement Unbudget, over $5,000 Attached
Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable .
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
. ................................. .
EXPLANATION.F:OR<MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED .......RE.T.U.RN.E.D. ........ .FORWARDED
........ ......
Administrative Staff 7
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator Initial
City Clerk
EXPLANATI FOR.....................................
ETI)R:N O,F ITEM
/ awo
Only)jM:7-2'M[Space For City Clerk's Use
eof
RCA Author:
r
,' _, \.. .:.-: .:.."..... .... .... .i..:� .�:�. •. - - .' .mot';' ,i iN� -
.J
-
4
. �--ti�lt'li ':`t: •h:i+i.. _ �b w°vaZC ��"�•�•� +:�.
NEXUS
STUDY
AND
+.:fit:�':: ::......•ir=' yt•.•-;.:!�`.:'.':�':_i':�` ,
ST ERA PLAN
FOR .......
CITY' S
PARK71N�LIEU FEE
i
2/19/2001
w
+• '..> _. ... .. :...,.:..._.::.:.....,.:.:. ..` yr 'J. - ... �� ;.i.;:
......... r - _ _
�.•
'?soar_. 46
• Current Park-In-Lieu fee is 60% of
appraised land value of required land •
dedication for park and recreation
purposes.
• Only applies if there is no other
development agreement with developer
• City accept t in-lieu fee if
p
development is less than 50 units
• Projects of 51 units or more city has
choice of land or in-lieu or a combination
2/19/2001 2
J!.
P{
:iu..•:fte•;i•t. _`,•i'kti— .lT : •. .1'.•4.4:'- __ .. f — _
4,0
.... ,.... ... r L. _. _ .... ...-.•i—.::J.' +tip_-- - ._. •. — .
• There are only a few large projects left
for development in Huntington Beach •
• As the city approaches build-out
development fees will decrease
• Burden for rehabilitation and •park
development will fall on in' -fill 1
ro'ects
p
rehab and multi-familprojects
projects multi-family
• A study is needed to plan for the future
2/19/2001 3
- _
.4
u
'Y
W
•++yam•
- r -
- cS
`9��
.. ...-.. .. "'.'... -- ... ... very'.,::•.':'' •i•. :�_:_lr 4`^i( .':.• :`�_.s �- `--+ --'•/-"Y
SCOPE OF WORK.
• Background review and park asset assessment
• Comparative review of original park fee ordinances
• Review of national park funding practices
• Develop a rehabilitation, build out, and new operations cost
model for future park projects
• Analysis with legal counsel to evaluate policy alternatives
• Develop a final strategic plan and presentation to Council
regarding recommendations for the city's park-in-lieu fee
ordinance for the future f.
2/19/2001 4
r - :,;< _ f Fy,- �J ,:ram _ --� •tea -`--t k� r t
�!�,• ' .� •`�,::.. _ �•y :f :f � •tea,; .
r �•
to ,.,,r:...•t,. '>a' - � -.i.-}'�"'^ �_- ,.Y�`�r
Cost •
Consultant Contract $89,500
10% Contingency 99000
Total $982500 w
Fundinq- Source
Park Acquisition & Development Fund
_:....:...
2/19/2001 5
i
_ 17
71:
- i
' T
I - r_r+ s
•l -J
+. n
} svF •Y
l'v.4 I !�
Recommendation.
1 . Appropriate $98,500 for the stud
y
2. Approve consultant contract
3. Waive professional liability insurance
requirement
Alternative Recommendation
1 . Wait until- next year to do the study and budget
for the study in the 2001 -2002 budget; or
2. Hire a full time analyst position and do the study
in-house
2/19/2001 6