The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Councilmember Item - Councilmember Posey - November 201 LJ I TY City Council Interoffice Communication C OF HUNTINGTON BEACH To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Mike Posey, City Council Member40 Date: July 7, 2016 Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE JULY 18, 2016, CITY COUNCIL MEETING— NOVEMBER 2016 ADVISORY VOTE ON FUTURE DISPOSITION OF RODGERS SENIORS' CENTER STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On several recent occasions, the City Council has discussed the disposition of the Rodgers Seniors' Center site. In 2015, the Council issued a Request for Proposal to develop the site as residential housing with an adjacent neighborhood park, with proceeds from the sale designated for citywide park improvements only. Because of the potential unknown risks in obtaining the necessary entitlements and conducting a successful Charter Section 612 (Measure C) campaign to secure community support, multiple developers have walked away from the potential of purchasing the property from the City. The City Council held a Study Session on April 4, 2016, on the potential of continued use of the site as a community meeting/rental facility. In order to utilize the current senior center facility for this use, $290,000 was identified for first tier repairs with a second tier of repairs estimated at $570,000. Based on known demand for community rental space, specific need for the rental space was estimated, but not fully defined. In addition to a community meeting/rental facility, some are calling for creating a passive park on the site at a potential cost of over $1.5 million, not including ongoing maintenance and additional amenities. Huntington Beach has 76 parks throughout the City. The Rodgers site, although designated as park land, does not currently function as a neighborhood park. Costs to develop the two-acre parcel as a park are not identified in the Park and Recreation Master Plan. If the property were to be developed, it would need to be prioritized along with the other needed projects citywide and would cost approximately $1.5 million to develop. It is also important to consider the opportunity cost of not being able to sell the property, making the true cost of the park to the community closer to $12.5 to $17.5 million dollars. The current Park and Recreation Master Plan identifies nearly $35 million dollars in unfunded park needs, with $27 million in priority projects recommended through 2020. This estimate does not include development of the two-acre Rodgers parcel, which could cost up to $1.5 million to develop as a passive park. Additional amenities such as lighting or court surfaces could increase that cost. Based on current development activity, staff estimates that park fee revenues will total approximately $23 million over the next five years, creating a shortfall of approximately $12 million. ®va 14-0 2-7a A-) 779*`690 � Advisory Vote on Future Disposition of Rodgers Seniors' Center—for the July 18, 2016, City Council Meeting Page 2 July 7, 2016 In order to properly maintain/improve our existing 76 parks citywide, serving nearly 200,000 Huntington Beach residents, I propose a non-binding formal survey of all Huntington Beach residents in the form of an advisory vote on the November ballot, requesting input on the sale of the Rodgers site with all proceeds from the sale of the property designated for citywide park improvements. I believe that ultimately all of the residents of our City should determine the disposition of the Rodgers site. While an advisory vote is not a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote, the outcome of the advisory vote in November 2016 will help the City Council better understand the desire of all city residents. It is important for City Council to understand the residents priorities as it relates to the use of this public space, either generating significant one-time funding for citywide park improvements or prioritizing the development of a neighborhood two-acre park at a cost of approximately $1.5 million. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the City Clerk to agendize by August 1, 2016, for City Council consideration, the necessary documents to place an advisory vote on the November 8, 2016, General Election Ballot titled, "Determination of Future Use for the Former Rodgers Seniors' Center Site," with the question of, "Shall the City sell the former Rodgers Seniors' Center site for the highest and best use with all proceeds, estimated to be up to $14 million, designated to fund citywide park improvements, or shall the City expend approximately $1.5 million and commit to ongoing maintenance costs for the development of a two-acre park?" A "yes" vote shall be supportive of selling the parcel for the highest and best use and clear the way to place the item on a future ballot in compliance with Charter Section 612 (Measure C), and a "no" vote shall retain the parcel for a passive park. xc: Fred Wilson, City Manager Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: Honorable Mayor and City Council e ers From: Mike Posey, Council Member Date: July 18, 2016 Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF AGENDA 1 26 FROM THE JULY 18, 2016, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA—ADVISORY VOTE ON NOVEMBER BALLOT REGARDING FUTURE DISPOSTION OF RODGERS SENIORS' CENTER Dear Mayor Katapodis and City Council Members: I have decided to withdraw my item, No. 26, from tonight's agenda. My reasons for this decision are as follows: • To allow the the Community Services Commission additional time to determine appropriate uses for the two-acre parcel of parkland, including opportunities for open space, park amenities, and a dedicated veterans memorial hall on the property. • Additional time will likely be needed to educate the community on the options that the Community Services Commission will be recommending for City Council consideration. • It may be worthwhile to conduct townhall meeting to seek additional public input on the options. For these reasons I am withdrawing my item from the agenda. Q 0 cD iV Esparza, Patty From: anderson barbara [andyfoneforever@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 11:07 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: RE: OPPOSING AGENDA ITEM#26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1.Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument."An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use."Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center???It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials.There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100%UNACCEPTABLE! 27his ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive.Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive.This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park,or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park.Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3.While I am very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities,SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION!We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform,and not expect to sell away open space,piece by piece.This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4.Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years.The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes.In addition,we just consumed approx.5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center.This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! I attended the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed.,7113,where Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item for consideration.)was very pleased that an overwhelming majority of the Commission(8-2)voted NO on this proposal.The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above and more.They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for HB.In addition,many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, v eeting Crate: Agenda Item No. i i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 6:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 26821 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Mary Jo Baretich Description: Dear Council Members, I was very surprised to see the Agenda COUNCILMEMBER ITEM 26 without this being allowed to be discussed in a Workshop by the citizens of Huntington Beach. Before any important item such as this is brought to the City Council for an Advisory Vote, the full factual cost estimates, and all the alternatives and options should be made available to the staff and public so they can have time to do their own analysis. The citizens are the ones who will be paying for any changes to the Rogers Senior Center site. They need to be involved in this, and need to be heard. This parcel of land has been zoned as park land all these years since 1917 when Chevron leased the land to the city (for$1 a year, I understand) with a covenant that it be maintained for public or recreational use, not to be sold to a developer to build homes. After losing 5 acres of passive parkland in Central Park to build a new Senior Center, a decision to turn Rodgers into a passive park makes sense. The residents in the area surrounding the Rodgers Senior Center acreage wish to have a passive park for their children and family gatherings. The cost to turn this into a passive park is a one-time cost. Once established, the maintenance cost would be similar to the other small parks in the city. It is not like the proposal to rehab the existing structures to make it into a Veterans Community Center (one of the previous proposals). There again, no estimates were presented for that venue. Operating that facility would be an on-going expense along with the cost to rehab it. We were told at the many meetings on the new Senior Center, that this old Rodgers building was not restorable for health and safety reasons. I request you defer addressing this item until factual data on cost for the different usage options are available for the Rodgers Senior Center site. Thank you, -SUPPLEMENTAL Mary Jo Baretich COMMUNICATION 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy #23A Huntington Beach, CA Meeting Date:� Expected Close Date: July 17, 2016 Agenda Item No. „ k Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Eleanor Borkenhagen [borkenhb@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 10:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Agenda Comment; Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26, "Rogers'Park AGENDA COMMENT As an over 50 year resident of the " numbered streets", I feel quite strongly that the Rogers Senior Site should return to being a neighborhood park for downtown residents. When my children were young, we spent many hours at that park enjoying the swings, slide, etc. As the density downtown increases we have an increased need to retain the property as a park, so future residents can enjoy it the way my family did. Eleanor E. Borkenhagen 623 -131h Street Huntington Beach CA $r U Vl'-OL EP5ENTAL CC)MMUNICATION MIR etin J Date: /P Agenda Item No, . 1 Esparza, Patty From: Claudette Brunelli [cbrunelli@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:58 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: do not sell the Rodgers center to developers- keep it as open space AGENDA COMMENT I live in South Huntington and am completely opposed to selling the Rodgers senior space for development. It should be kept for all the people in the city to use whether it be park land or turning the building into something that the whole community can use. When we voted for the new senior center, we were told that the current senior center would remain for the use of the people of Huntington Beach. I would have never voted for it if i thought there was any chance that it was going to be sold to developers. The way the advisory ballots is written is deceptive but maybe that is they type of council we have since we were told that the land was going to remain for the community in the original measure. Please keep your word and keep the land for the community of Huntington Beach, thank you, Claudette Brunelli W,F-A L9 N�C A T1 �,63,13fing Cate. Agenda Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Ed [ekbush@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 3:50 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fw: Rodger's Senior Center Property AGENDA COMMENT From: ekbushCcbhotmail.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 03:46 PM To: city.councilCabsurlcity-hb.org Subject: Rodger's Senior Center Property City Council Members: It again appears to be folly to expect promises made by City Council members, whether past, present or future, to be kept. Mr. Posey, at least, seems to go along with so many other politicians of the day, who believe his desires are more important that those of the citizens who live in proximity of the old center. Citizens of Huntington Beach had to give up five acres of prime parkland to accommodate the new senior center, and that was based on the political promises that the old center would become a park. Mr. Posey has the audacity to insert his will by suggesting that the park is no longer necessary because it is so near the beach. In lieu of a park, Mr. Posey seems to think we need more cliff-dwelling like structures to congest an already heavily congested area. It is irresponsible thinking like this on the part of politicians, that make citizens regurgitate at the thought of irresponsible governing bodies. I urge you to VOTE NO, on Mr. Posey's proposal. Ed Bush 6182 Moonfield Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/842-4954 ty yNPtx P$ $J }/?§ COMMUNICATION �! `iing Date: 0 r iV;C� av Agenda ;,i Item o®_i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 8:21 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT From. Sylvia Calhoun [mailto:skc347@vahoo.com] Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 10:35 PM To: agenda@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Fikes, Cathy; iflynn@surfcity-hb.org; CITY COUNCIL; Erik Peterson Subject: Agenda item 26 Dear Mayor Katapodis and City Council members. I am so grateful to live in a town which has a City Council that I can trust and feel are standing behind us citizens. Please keep the promise that was made to us about keeping the Rodger's Senior Center downtown. Really and truly, we constituents who take an active interest in supporting you in your campaigns by committing time and money and countless hours of volunteer work, all we want is to have basic governance, as simple and limited as possible. It makes us incredibly weary to have to fight every battle twice or more times. I OPPOSE agenda item 26. Thank you. Sylvia Calhoun C A `„IO 1 Esparza, Patty From: pastable@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:35 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Opposition to Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Ballot Measure T passed in 2006 was promoted with the pledge that, "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." To reverse that commitment under the latest guise of(again) misleading Huntington Beach with a promise of more parks is reprehensible! There is a core of several thousand citizens of H.B. who ARE paying attention to the ongoing game-playing done by some of the city council and I assure you that it will be remembered and dealt with in future elections. Developers may fund some of you but they don't reside in H.B. We do. And we vote! This is to advise I strongly oppose Agenda item 26 and urge your'NO' vote. David Cicerone NUMICATION k"ydy!' �an C)atei. Aq gar)d,P, Item 1 Esparza, Patty From: Elizabeth Clifford [eclifford@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:54 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT I oppose agenda item 26 STOP any further high density development! ! Sent from my iPhone N F A L FAHAIPMCATION Esparza, Patty From: T456mac@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:02 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Oppose Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Council Members, I am writing to OPPOSE Agenda Item 26. Please save our parks! Thank you,, Mark Cohen Huntington Beach T456mac(c aol.com 714-425-1064 t.�y s fit ire "� N W ABC' T 10 N 1 Esparza, Patty From: Carol Comparsi [CAROLCOM714@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 11:59 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 "Rogers' Park AGENDA COMMENT Hello, I am a long time resident of downtown Huntington Beach. The Rogers Senior Center has been a great neighbor for the 30+ years I have lived across the street at 16th and Orange. Now that I am a senior, I am very pleased about the new site on Goldenwest. A promise was made of a park on the block where the center had been. Selling this property to the highest bidder is not what should happen. Can the council members assure that homes would not be built on this block adding to the residences and traffic density in downtown? The thought of anything beyond the maintenance cost for a two-acre park is unfair. Sincerely, Carol Comparsi Sent from my iPad MM � Y � ' vleet;ing D�estp: _Z�� __ Agenda Qem Esparza, Patty From: Adele Crawford [crawfordadele5@g mail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:51 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy-, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park" AGENDA COMMENT Dear Council members, As residents of Huntington Beach who live very near the proposed Rodgers' Park we STRONGLY OPPOSE PUTTING THIS ISSUE ON THE BALLOT AGAIN. We voted for a park before. The Council members should honor the wishes of the resident voters. Adele Crawford 609 16th Street Huntington Beach S. PPLE T Meeting Date: zo Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Mike .Daly [hbsurfer@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 3:16 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: A message for the city council AGENDA COMMENT Mike.Da►y <hbsurfer(�,t!mail.com> t0 CIty'.C'o"niCt I,X 5• Good afternoon Mayor Katapodis and Council, I am writing you in regard to the agenda item to put Rodgers property on the ballot. First off,I want to say,that if you have not read Can Swan's elaborate email,please do so.I would like to mirror every word,sentence,letter,number,and punctuation of her email.._so please make note of her email if you have not done so yet. I have lost faith in this city government,for the more I learn,the more my heart hurts for the people of Huntington Beach.We have a city administration that is mostly composed of non-residents.We have groups of interests that do not represent the city,but large business here in HB,such as Rainbow.(I am talking to you Posey and DelGleize)It is time to STOP representing these business connections,and representing the PEOPLE to whom you have been obligated to represent.I will NOT sit back and watch this city obsessively sell off PUBLIC property to developers.I will make sure that every member of the Huntington Beach Community Forum knows the dirt on your hands when you put developers in front of integrity.This election is an important one,and people will know you did this,I promise!(Mayor Katapodis,Pro-Tem Sullivan) I find it IRONIC that you are attempting to make up some convenient wording to place on the SAMPLE BALLOT that was used to deceive the people of Huntington Beach in the first place in 2006.The senior center was passed by 5 1%,on the bargaining of- 1,The funding from developer fees from Pacific City.-LIE,(you built it anyway). 2.That the Rodgers property would be kept for all of down town resident use.LIE(now you want to take that away) This is COMPLETE disrespect to the office which you have been elected,to follow the will of the people whom you REPRESENT.This will not be forgotten,and I will make sure of this!I am outraged by your agenda item Michael Posey!I am not sure who's orders you have been following(Chamber of Commerce/developers/Garofolo/Travis Allin?)but you are WRONG,and everyone who goes with this agenda item is wrong as well!(Barbara).I implore you to listen to the words of the people on Monday,listen to Councilwoman Hardy,Councilman Peterson.Public land does not belong to you,it belongs to all of us.It is our responsibility to protect that land,and all public land for future generations,that they may have the same love for this city as we have,and generation past.I am beyond disappointed with this obsession to sell public land,and you should be ashamed Michael Posey.You have sold your soul to your big business friends.I don't know where Councilman O'Connell stands,but I would hope that he would continue to be concerned with this city selling Public property as he has in the past year and a half. Councilman Sullivan,in 2006 you fought to bring this city this beautiful senior center,and I applaud your efforts,and we can all benefit in the future for it....but the vote passed by 5 1%,now make good on your promise of keeping that land for downtown residents use as you did to win that 5 1%. I guarantee if you told the voters that they would be paying the bill,and selling the Rodgers site,you would have lost miserably and that new senior center would not exist.I am holding YOU to your promise.Do the right thing! Thank you Councilwoman Hardy,your defense of public land is VERY admirable! Even our children's children will appreciate it. Councilman Peterson,I trust that you will keep your ears and heart open to the people as usual.Thank you. My email is very unprofessional,and unedited,but from the heart. I mean every word,and stand behind ever bit of it. Thank you for your consideration, Michael Daly(that HBCF guy) C, 714878443Iz' :, �IwysI ,19 Ai if:�. 'sty,�;�� Es arza, Patty From: M Dardis[mdardis@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:05 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: City Council Agenda Item 26 , a IEq •�'' i'is ert"� AGENDA COMMENT Highly Distinguished Mayor and Members of the HB City Council: There comes a time when it is necessary to listen to the voice of the people in reference in selling the Rogers Senior Center property and converting the area into High Density Development. • Originally the land deed specified that in case of closure of the Senior Center the land would be converted to a park. That was the intent of the original owners. Converting this land to High Density Development was not specified in the deed. The land should belong to all the people of HB and not to a few. • It is my understanding that there is a building debt owed to the American Legion Post. They gave up their building with the promise of equal treatment under the law of having a new building built by the city of HB • Suggest that the newest building structure be considered and upgrade to fulfill the promise made to the American Legion whose members contributed to defending and supporting the citizens of HB. • In addition, you would be establishing a precedent where every park in the city could be closed and High Density Development be built. • The city of HB is known as the city of parks and now you want to convert them to High Density Development to benefit a certain few and remove another benefit for living in HB. • To this date, we do not even know how the $100,000.00 was spent for the Bicentennial and its 16 years later and still no accounting by the HB City Council. • Now you want the taxpaying citizens of HB to trust that $15M to $25 Million will be spent on park upgrades. 1 For once, listen to the taxpaying citizens and convert this property into a park. We simply. do not have the infrastructure in place to tolerate any more High Density Development. Please take this under consideration and vote to return Rogers Senior Center into a park to serve the community. Milt Dardis 22052 Capistrano Lane Huntington Beach Ca 92646 z Esparza, Patty From: Jonathan Fuchs Omfstrat@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 4:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 "Rogers Park" AGENDA COMMENT My concern is that the council is about to reconsider(again) what was previously decided regarding the future status of the Senior Center/Rogers Park. Apart from the original covenants of the Chevron Deed which would be violated by density development[and I would suspect subsequent lawsuits/legal action to preserve such covenants] to assert that the 'beach is nearby' is beyond credibility to void the intent. Many parents would not go to the beach with the children....particularly in winter, and a park would be far more suitable....particularly if you don't want excessive sun exposure. Further, not everyone has ready access to transportation and a local based park would be most welcome. While enticing to add to the tax base, additional density in this area would be unwelcome. Jonathan M. Fuchs, FACHE 18th Street, H B 92648 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Gate: Agenda Item No.�Y i Esparza, Patty From: Bill Gailing [Billg@socal.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 2:12 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: STRONGLY Oppose Item 26 on the Agenda. (Your proposed sale of Hunt Beach Sr. Center Property) Importance: High AGENDA COMMENT WE THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WERE PROMISED A PARK... We expect a park and will fight this proposal no matter how many times Posey puts it on the agenda !!!! Bill & Elaine Gailing 505 17th Street COMMUNICATION Meeting Late:- Y Agenda Item No._ i Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 26802 Entered on: 07/14/2016 9:25 PM Customer Information Name:Leslie Gilson Phone:(714) 841-1942 Address:6062 Summerdale Drive Alt. Phone:(714) 335-5051 cell Huntington Beach, CA Email:lesliegilson@hotmail.com 92647 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Please vote no on the item 26. Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments has been entered into the Pipeline system and will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Sincerely, Johanna Dombo Executive Assistant Date Expect Closed: 07/21/2016 Date Closed: 07/15/2016 08:29 AM By: Johanna Dombo Enter Field Notes Below Notes: MIUMCAMN Olate: ZZ 1^:i d ii a Item No, Notes Taken By: Date: �I http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=2780957&type=0 7/15/2016 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 3:02 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Roger's Senior Center site AGENDA COMMENT From:Jennifer Goger [mai Ito:iengoger@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 13, 2016 2:59 PM To: Dominguez, David; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Roger's Senior Center site I ask the city council to please keep the promise to return the Senior Center (Rodger's Sr Ctr site) to the residents of HB as a community space and/or park. Your current recommendation to hold a non-binding advisory vote is still advocating for breaking the promise made to the voters of Huntington Beach. This is a very important issue for me and my family. Jennifer Goger 622 16th St Huntington Beach 92648 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /I Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Judy Gustafson 0udygustafson@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 4:58 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: I Oppose Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to oppose agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. Citizens already voted on and passed ballot Measure T which contained language promising a park in its ballot argument in 2006. 2. To ask the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be lose their park to maintain funding for the rest of the city is divisive. It would enable any neighborhood's park to be destroyed if the rest of the city wanted to sell it to the highest bidder. Soon we'd have no parks left in our city as neighborhood is pitted against neighborhood in a divisive battle. 3. To sacrifice our green spaces and recreational areas for a one time increase in revenue is irresponsible because once sold, we can never recover our park lands. i udyg ustafson na.verizon.net SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Agenda Item Fla. - T,.._.... i Esparza, Patty From: oceanhb@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 12:14 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers Senior Center park AGENDA COMMENT Dear City Council, I vehemently opposed the idea of selling the Rodgers Park land to be sold and developed into homes. Selling off existing land to pay current debts in NOT the way to go. When will the madness stop? When we run out of green/open spaces. 10 years ago in 2006 Ballot measure T was approved for the New Senior Center with the promise to keep the land for public use. Is this City Council reneging on that passed ballot measure? There is a major outcry of the citizens of HB to Save Rodgers Park and if it is not saved changes will be made when We The People go back to the polls. Cathy Haro 9531 smokey Circle HB 92646 Sent from my iPad S,UPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No,----21k i Esparza, Patty From: Eileen Harris [eharris@windes.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:22 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: I oppose Agenda Item 26 - STOP High Density development! AGENDA COMMENT Dear Council Members: I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. High Density is destroying the community I love. 2. Traffic has increased tremendously. 3. A promise was made to the community and we expect promises to be kept. 4. We need more open space and more parks. 5. Selling park space is never the solution. Save our parks and stop high density! Thank you, Eileen Harris Huntington Beach resident CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney-client, accountant-client, or other privileges as to this communication or otherwise. If you have received this communication in error,please contact us by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. CMMICAT I I'1A ;� Cale: d' Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Nancy harris [nancyharrishb@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:33 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT I oppose Agenda Item 26. STOP any further High Density Development in Huntington Beach. Nancy Harris (714)846-0916 18002 Hartfield Circle Sent from Windows Mail SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: t 6 Agenda Item Noe- i Esparza, Patty From: Ty Hatfield [parentingheart@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 11:06 PM To: Agenda Comment; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers' Park Aggenda#26 AGENDA COMMENT Please do not approve that this go to vote. This is a very unethical maneuver. Who gets to say that one area can't have a park at the expense of paying for other areas. You each know that the earlier ballot language was very clear to trade parkland for the senior center for Rodgers' Park. WE and our neighbors our furious over this desperate behavior. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." —Martin Luther King Jr. Ty& Linda Hatfield 313 20th Street Linda &Ty Hatfield www.ParentingFromTheHeart.com (714) 969-2045 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date 4 Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Judith Hendler Uhendler@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: agenda item 26, "Rodgers' Park" AGENDA COMMENT Please uphold the decision of the voters to keep Rodgers park as an open recreational space.This is public land and should remain so. Once you start overturning voters decisions on the use of public property for private use, all public property is endangered. Please be a council person of integrity and carry out what the public consensus was regarding the new senior center and the return of Rodgers park as a public open space for all Huntington beach residents Thank you, Judith Hendler SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:�—�/ �/�lo Agenda Item No, Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:41 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL . Subject: FW: Save Rodgers Park AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Dolores Hill [mailto:hillslifeRsocal. rr.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 9:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Save Rodgers Park We live in The Peninsula in HB. . .we want to see more parks, not less. More of Central Park was taken up by the new Senior Center. . .the decision has already been made to transform the old Senior Center into a park. . .so stick to your word. We have way to many new multilevel structures in HB lately. . .traffic is getting ridiculous We don't need another ballot measure . . .quit wasting time and money and stick to your original commitment Dolores Hill 6537 Fremont Circle HB '4'l�.4 i', T 0 1 Esparza, Patty From: Karen Jackle karen ackle.com , Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 6:29 PM �s, Nun A To: Agenda Comment �` �„ , � y Cc: citycouncil@surfcity-hb.org; Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 Rodgers Senior Center Park k Y„.�,r�t;��V na [)ate: AGENDA COMMENT r't ; Item No,, Dear City Council: After attending the Community Services 7/12 meeting and hearing discussion both from the public and those on the Community Services it was clear that open space zoning should remain for the Rodgers Senior Center site. We lost 5 acres in Central Park, must we lose this acreage for park space as well? As President of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, I can report we have supported retention of the current zoning for this property. Now for my personal comments. If$1,500,000 is needed to keep Rodgers for park space and community use, while more is needed to do more with the site, we must find a way to fund retention of the site. It is not right to sell off park space to fund the rest of the parks. Once sold, it is gone. Here are some thoughts from me after attending the 7/12 meeting: 1. It is correct for an appointed representative on a board or commission to bring forth an item for the agenda and I do hope one will appear on their future agenda related to Rodgers Senior Center Site with suggestions for it to City Council. For that reason I request you defer addressing this item until they have an opportunity to do so. 2. It is correct for a council member to bring forward an item on the council agenda but the timing of when that item is heard is affected by when staff has enough information to present the item properly. Since there was no presentation at the Community Services meeting, I am assuming there is also not sufficient data yet to assess costs for Rodgers other than we know there are carrying costs,that there would be demolition costs if city were to remove all or part of the buildings and/or paving in order to provide more landscaped and less paved open space. My request is that you delay hearing this item until the public has time to review costs as well as our elected representatives on the City Council. If you had the information, why was it withheld at Community Services? 3. 1 believe the people who would use the parks downtown would volunteer to assist with improvement of Rodgers site, to donate to a fund to assist with costs to improve it,possibly with 1:1 matching from general fund. Let's ask them and ask our community. 4. By encouraging a mix of families, retired persons, apartment residents and businesses downtown, we are more likely to keep the area vital and quality of life for residents means having open space. We will have less police issues if we have strong sense of community downtown which includes having parks and places to meet in the community. 5. More information is needed on possible use of Rodgers for veterans before something is brought forward for even an advisory vote. 6. There is a cost to put items on the ballot and if they are put there they need to be simple, straightforward and not ask multiple questions Since I have served on several bodies that addressed infrastructure, I know parks are a lower priority for spending infrastructure funds and that fees for development or redevelopment are not sufficient to fund parks. Therefore, other funding sources need to be found. We have parks throughout our city and we also have some maps that divide our city into sections. These maps were referred to when there was discussion of community facilities districts, for various items like quicker paving in some neighborhoods if they were willing to pay for it as an example. Although nothing has yet to come of those discussions, it is now time to discuss how to fund our parks. Make a map of where the parks are located, what areas they serve and what it costs to maintain each of these parks,that is transparency. A future proposition could 1 be related to funding the shortfall of 12 million for our parks and how and why these funds would be apportioned. Do we go for a bond? Do we go for a parcel tax?Or do we raise funds independent of city government? Karen Jackie Karen@piackle.com 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:37 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rodgers Park AGENDA COMMENT From:Jeff jacobs [mailto:bigiiacobs@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 13, 2016 2:25 PM To: Dominguez, David; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers Park To: Community Services Commission and the City Council: We are asking you to please honor the commitment that was made to the residents of Huntington Beach. Do not sell Rodgers Park. Sincerely, Jeff and Nancy Jacobs Sent from Mail for Windows 10 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Cate: ld6 A Agenda Item Xrf i Esparza, Patty From: Catherine Johnson [catherineannjohnson@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:32 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Hi Mayor Katapodis and City Council, I'm writing today to let you know that I am strongly opposed to Agenda item 26. I feel that the proposed ballot language is deceptive, that such a vote will be divisive for our city, and that the residents (from all over the city) have already spoken on this issue. Numerous times. A promise was made. It is your duty as an elected official to keep it. Thank you. Catherine Johnson Sent from my iPhone COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:�r Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Chuck Johnson [chuck.johnson@associa.us] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:48 PM To: Agenda Comment Fikes, Cathy-, CITY COUNCIL P F,t_U Cc: E J V Subject: Agenda Item 26 - Rodgers Park COMPAUMCA"TiOla AGENDA COMMENT �� ,+��,; r, � � /�� Agenda Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Agenda Item 26 Regarding the sale of Rodgers Senior center. As you are well aware, the land was deeded to the city by what is now Chevron with a Covenant that stated that it would be used for recreation in perpetuity.The fact that the city usurped the deed by dubious means does not cancel the ethical responsibility to do as the organization that made the gift insisted. Selling the property and dedicating the funds to other parks was not what was intended. It was meant for public recreational use in the location that it occupies. The residents of this City are already expecting that if the City were to be successful in this misguided plan, that City Administrators would simply deposit the funds in the account for Parks and recreation and then shift existing funds to the general fund for whatever you choose to do with it.You will be heavily monitored in this event. Don't even go there. Councilmember Posey's insistence that we will "Lose" 14 million dollars is ludicrous. If Councilmember Posey inherited a 2 million dollar house and decided to live in it rather than sell it would he "Lose" 2 million dollars?What kind of logic is this? But then again it is expected from a councilmember that no longer feels any responsibility to the electorate .That situation may be rectified very soon. Keep up the intransigence and continue to thumb your nose at the people who got you elected and you will find that all the Chamber resources in the world wont stop an effort to toss you off the council. We are well past the halfway point to enough contacts, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of verified residents of this city that will support your ouster. Another 45-60 days of effort will complete that project. Councilmember Delglieze, please stop being a mouthpiece for the Chamber of Commerce and backing every development scheme, good or bad that comes along.Your council seat is also at serious risk. It would be a tragedy for someone who tried multiple times to win a seat, only to be rejected repeatedly. Don't let the next vote on your behalf be an up or down vote that results in yet another absolute rejection. Councilmember Sullivan's pathetic flip flop will only trash his legacy.The perception is now that Dave Sullivan has no integrity anymore and is not a man of his word. Dave, reconsider. Is this how you wish to be rememebered... Mayor Katapodis... you continue to be an enigma.You did the right thing with regards to the FIDD MAND. This demonstrates your common sense. Please don't stop now.... I will personally sue to stop the leading verbiage that you have specified in your resolution. I have the timetable printed and taped above my desk highlighted in yellow..l will wait till the absolute last second so I burn as much time off of your timetable and stop this stupid idea from getting on the ballot. Are you ready for another long night? I am personally tired of you screwing up my Monday nights so that I can come down and fight this stupid thing. But no doubt, the lines will be out the door with outraged people asking you to stop this crap. When are you going to start listening? Thank You, Chuck Johnson. 2 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 26849 Entered on: 07/18/2016 12:44 PM Customer Information Name:Lori Kamola Phone:(714) 642-1058 Address:613 10th St Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach, CA Email:lorimkamola@gmail.com 92648 Request Classification Topic:City Council -Agenda & Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Agenda Alerts Entered Via:Web Description Please keep our Rodgers Park a park and do not sell it off! We need our open space downtown to have a place for our kids to play! I know this will be discussed at tonight's city council meeting. I can't make it to the meeting but I want my voice heard on this issue. The promise should be kept to return the old senior center site to a park. Reason Closed Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments has been entered into the Pipeline system and will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Sincerely, Johanna Dombo Executive Assistant Date Expect Closed: 07/28/2016 Date Closed: 07/18/2016 12:46 PM By: Johanna Dombo Enter Field Notes Below Notes: s"0that IVNI U F Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=2784933&type=0 7/18/2016 Esparza, Patty From: Lisa Kemp [lisakemp@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT I am a local citizen living in the downtown area. I oppose Agenda item 26. The old Rogers Senior Center was relocated with the promise that the existing center would remain a park. Measure "T" was only passed because of this assurance. This type of "bait and switch" behavior only causes more distrust of our city council. Please allow the land to become a park as originally promised. Lisa Kemp Concerned citizen Sent from my iPhone MN"I U N 'IF 10 N t?%]r';pting Dal-: 6 Agenda iter-n a„4v„.� 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:46 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rogers Park AGENDA COMMENT From:Jeff Kessinger [mailto:ikessingerPearthiink.net] Sent:Wednesday,July 13, 2016 2:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rogers Park Please note That I am opposed to any action, wording of a ballot, or any other posturing with regard to the Old Rogers Senior center property that could lead to any disposition other than to perpetuate this property as park space for the people of Huntington Beach. This includes any sale of the property. I am highly concerned that this is even up for discussion as the perpetual intent of this property has already been determined by the people. The use of distorted and incomprehensive ballot language has already been observed, is clearly unethical, and is revealing as to the nature of our community leaders. I will be watching and sharing with my community. Jeff Kessinger Huntington Beach Resident ULETL COMMUNICATION Ieetirg Late: i L16 Agenda Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: James F Kirk Uimkirk4patents@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 1:51 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: I Oppose Item 26 on the Agenda. (Your proposed sale of Hunt Beach Sr. Center Property) AGENDA COMMENT Land in the down town area is in short supply and the property was promised for continued use of the down town area and residents. Do you have an area in which a helicopter can be landed? Probably not since Huntington Beach does not have an airport. That site might be useful for the occasional emergencies that the such as fire, police, medical, (maritime, beach control) services might need it for in the area. That area is a long distance from a freeway so its use for emergency support could be important. The beach area is not that far from it and there is a lot of activity on the beach in that area at times for which support from a local landing site could be important. In the not too distant past, it is also a site that has benefited the local seniors with volunteer training in courses in fields relating to computers without the high cost that is now being imposed in the Adult Education area with paid instructors. Those volunteer courses were usually filled when I went to sign up so they were well used. So that facility and area could find further use as a center for training for adults or for those unemployed who are interested in production or construction skills not available at low cost. Jim Kirk Retired resident of Huntington Beach 16411 Ladona Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-2133 (714) 840-1403 Pilot who used a multi-altitude motor vehicle to commute to work for 8 years, (1990 - 1998 using KLGB) after the closing of Meadowlark Airport in 1988.. There is no shortage of space for new high density housing on the old El Toro Airport where the folks in Irvine can enjoy the added traffic of their new neighbors that sold the 4400 acres for 114 Million. VI 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:13 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rodgers Senior Center AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Alan Kornicks [mailto:akornickspaol.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers Senior Center Huntington Beach City Council: As a citizen of Huntington Beach I am scratching my head and wondering what you are thinking, when it comes to the Rodgers property. Especially with some of the ridiculous statements made about the beach being our park! As Council members, it appears that you are shucking your responsibility to the community. Can you say the prior vote on this property? I question any money matters that maybe used, after all, you have approved the traffic, and density issues on Edinger! ! ! Perhaps the developers should have contributed more to our city. Let's not forget the affordable housing issue that's been created. Perhaps the developers should of allocated units for this matter. Less I have regressed! ! Oh, what about the private Overlook street that we maintain, yet it's closed at one end! Finally, I ask you to not allow any more density in this area, and to do the right thing, and put a park in, even if it requires a small assessment! It's time the Council listen to the residents, and not the developers that only care about themselves. We have had enough of traffic congestion! Thanks for taking the time to have read this email, and vote no on any further development, and create a park for all of us in the city. Sincerely, Alan Kornicks "yS an , 407 19th Street _::,r , ,,.. u Sent from my iPhone llf4 ,i.ltyii si;., 1 Esparza, Patty From: Paul Makris [p_makris@msn.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 8:10 PM To: Agenda Comment; city-council@surfcity-hb.org Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 "Rogers' Park" AGENDA COMMENT I live on 18th Street in downtown Huntington Beach. My grandkids do not have a park nearby and it is often difficult or inappropriate to bring them to the beach. We need space for our children to grow, be active and safe. We need the park originally intended for the Rogers Senior Center site. I understand the property was originally deeded to the City for that purpose and that request should be honored. In addition there is insufficient parking in this area during the summer. I often go to work on Saturdays and when I come home cannot find a parking space as the beach parking takes over. Adding housing on this site will only add to the problem. Do not be mislead by the allure of some short term easy money. There is no other site for a park in this area. Quality of life will degrade. Subverting the intent of the donor sends a horrible message to the community. Do you really want that? Paul Makris 326 18th street Very truly yours, Paul E. Makris Direct Dial: (714) 856-3210 This e-mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipients, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Dater Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 8:34 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rodgers Park AGENDA COMMENT From: Stephen or Michelle Marciniec [mailto:marciniecs@verizon.net] Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 8:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Catherine Johnson' Subject: Rodgers Park Dear Council Members, I'm writing to express my disappointment and frustration at agenda item 26 for the July 18 meeting. Looking at my notes from the April 18 meeting, it appeared that you directed CSC to get the whole community involved by determining the most urgent recreational needs as expressed by the community. Thank you to Erik,Jill and Dave for your positive comments about pubic use and honoring the original spirit of the deed. Last night, CSC voted down an agenda item similar to item 26 and their comments were exceptionally logical and reasonable—you don't sell public parkland to pay on-going expenses as a method to balance city spending, especially in an area where there is no local open space for children or adults to enjoy. Also, the ballot measure as written is not a yes or no question; it is an A or B question designed to confuse voters as well as set neighborhoods against each other. This is after a previous 2006 vote in which a few people voted for the senior center as long as the old Rodgers site would continue on for downtown residents and every citizen. Please do not fall for the fallacious and ridiculous argument that selling parkland is fiscally responsible. It is just a devious way to raise revenue while hurting taxpayers that you promised would not pay a cent for the new senior center. Please vote no for item 26. Yours truly, Michelle and Stephen Marciniec 327 181h Street x :� ��'r a�`tv 3d' s9a 9v��a Z 1-1-1k. i Esparza, Patty From: ANNE [annesmail@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 9:05 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Ballot measure T SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION AGENDA COMMENT -------- Original Message -------- Meeting Date: Subject: Ballot measure T From: ANNE <annesmailosocal.rr.com> Agenda Item No. Sent: 8:58pm, Friday, July 15, 2016 g To: city.councilosurfcity-hb.org CC: Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1.Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument."An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use."Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center??? It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials. There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2.This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive. Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive. This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park. Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3.While I am very clear that H.B. struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION! We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece. This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4.Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years. The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center. This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking H.B. in the WRONG direction! I did not attended the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed. - 7/13, but I am aware that Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item up for consideration. I was very pleased to learn that an overwhelming majority of the Commission (8-2) voted NO on this proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above and more. They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for H.B. In addition, many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Anne McGuire 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 5:16 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rodger's Park AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Lois McKay [mailto:silvertabby(@rocketmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 4:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodger's Park Please do not break the promise to the voters to create Rodger's Park. Very truly yours Lois McKay Sent from my iPad S,UPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Ieeting Cate: LA Agenda Item No. Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:58 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rogers Senior Center Park- Keep your Promise AGENDA COMMENT From: Hotmail-Kirk [mailto:kirk nason@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 13, 2016 1:37 PM To: Dominguez, David; CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Mary Nason' Subject: Rogers Senior Center Park- Keep your Promise City Council, I continue to favor keeping the downtown old Rogers Senior Center land as a park. We have very little free space downtown and oppose selling this property for home or business use. It is key for residents of all ages to have open land to enjoy!! A promise was made to keep this a park, don't break your promise!! Regards, Kirk 3. Nason & Mary L. Nason 714 321-7298 (c) kirk nasonphotmail.com First recipient of the "HB Goes Green" home award SHUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Wetirrg Date: IT 16 Ares Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Lauren Perkins [mslsheehan@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 3:05 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT I strongly OPPOSE agenda item 26! Please put a stop to High density developments! Sincerely a concerned H.B. resident, Lauren Perkins COMMUNICATION Meeting Gate: Agenda Itern NO. !� 1 Esparza, Patty From: Pat Pitts [ppitts@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 1:54 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: City Council Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT I oppose Agenda Item 26. STOP any further High Density development. Patricia Pitts 42 year HB resident. i Y G'" - AVA E NIN5 T A L f p e Yeiinv/� Date:��. e.•..sue« 4y Aranda Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:11 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT From: Linda Polkinghorne [mailto:lapolkinghorn@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,July 18, 2016 10:07 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject:Agenda item 26 So after you promised to keep the land that the old senior center was on now you want to sell it !!!!! What's wrong with some of you....oh yeah your selfish politicians who don't ever think of the people who live here. Sell it for what....more of your stupid high density housing. You guys need to stop destroying our city any more than you already have. @@ !6,/V�'y'""�P �r�i �' %gy,,,1�4e.. COMMUMCATI Meeting Agenda 's-i,—n �d tra 1 Esparza, Patty From: Barbara Robinson [barbarakrobinson@hotm ail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 7:52 PM SUPPLEMENTAL To: Agenda Comment COMMUNICATION Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: I urge you to vote no on Item 26 //� Meeting Date: 7 AGENDA COMMENT Agenda Item P3ae My name is Barbara Robinson. I've lived in HB 38 years, more than half of my life. I urge you to vote 'no' on item 26. This issue does not need to be placed on the ballot, again. It was on the 2006 ballot. The voters have spoken. It is now up to the City Council to abide by the decision of the voters. In essence, the 2006 ballot said, 'if you give us 5.5 acres for a new senior center we'll give you back 2.2 acres for a public park'. This was never a fair exchange, but it passed. You can't go back now and say, "We got what we want, now we're going to renege on what we promised to give you in exchange." That vote barely passed, at 49.1%to 50.9%. Is there anyone anywhere who believes it would have passed at all without that promise to retain the site of the former Rodgers Senior Center for it's true highest and best use - that of a city park for public use? If by some miscarriage of justice this issue ends up on a ballot, the egregiously biased wording must go. "Highest and best use"? Who says selling a public park is its highest and best use?That may be your highly subjective opinion but it is not an objective fact and should not be used to imply to voters that it is fact. How is the sale of this public property the best use of this park space? If it is sold, it would be gone forever. Gone. Final. What happened to "Parks Make Life Better"? Does that motto only apply when it's convenient? The ballot should read, "Should voters expect their elected representatives to abide by their, that is the voters', decisions?" Or perhaps, "Should voters give their elected representatives another opportunity to redirect even more funds rather than keeping their promises?" And it should not read, "Do you want money in to our budget for the sale vs. money spent to create a park?" either. That is overly simple, omitting many of the important issues. Will voters be reminded of the other instances when promises for the use of income have been re-directed once another need arises? At last Wednesday's meeting, I heard a CSC commissioner refer to this plan as "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and that is exactly what it is. Will the ballot materials explain to voters that once one city park is sacrificed, no other park grounds in the city will be safe from development? Will this be just the first of many such sales, until every square inch of public land in HB is built up? As long as the sale of each park is presented one at a time, each area will be pitted against the rest of the city's voters for the city's severely limited funds. After all, now that all city classes and activities have been moved to the new senior center, as evidenced by the latest Community Sands catalog, why do we need any other parks or facilities? Why is it that there is no Hippocratic oath for politicians? Shouldn't there be an expectation of'First, do no harm' for the public good? When it's too late for 'first, do no harm', the best we can hope for is 'do no further harm'. Vote NO on this item. 1 Thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts on this issue, Barbara Robinson 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:06 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Agenda item 26 "Rodgers' Park" AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Mail [mailto:rrrpsybus(@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:26 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item 26 "Rodgers' Park" We have voted on this before. Why is it still unclear that we want & expect the council to honor their promise to make this space a city park? Did some council members not get the response they wanted and expect that asking for repeated votes will wear us down and allow them to do what they want without our approval? Ray Robinson 511 Seventeenth Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sent from my iPhone 1 Esparza, Patty From: Tina Ruiz [christinaruiz4@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:18 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSE Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument. "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center??? It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials. There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2. This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive. Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive.This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park. Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3. While I am very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION! We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece. This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4. Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years. The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center. This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! I attended the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed., 7/13, where Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item for consideration. I was very pleased that an overwhelming majority of the Commission (8-2) voted NO on this proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above and more. They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for HB. In addition, many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Christina Ruiz �a�3�daC „ �41 1 Esparza, Patty From: NRDKMOM@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:07 PM To: Agenda Comment; Fikes, Cathy Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: AGENDA ITEM 26 AGENDA COMMENT I am opposed to agenda item 26 and reject any further building on that property. It should be a park for all to enjoy. Our city does not need anymore high density building. What we have has already created a blight on our once beautiful beach community. Please to do force anymore structures on us. We need parks much more than buildings. Barbara Shepard 46 year resident of Huntington Beach RJ E T A,. c Item No. . 1 Esparza, Patty From: Barbara Smith [basmith10@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 2:48 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Senior center property AGENDA COMMENT "I oppose Agenda Item 26. STOP any further High Density development! SdUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item N0. !.. i Esparza, Patty From: Ann Sparks [annmariehsparks@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 4:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Save Rodgers' Park! AGENDA COMMENT Please vote no on Agenda item 26! The residents of Huntington Beach have already proven they want and need a park. It's a waste of time and money to have any vote. Like commmunity services says, parks make life better. Respectfully, Ann Sparks 50 year resident tvl�A etlpig 1)2#e Agjaan a !tern No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cari Swan [cswanie@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:47 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument. "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center??? It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials. There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2. This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive. Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive. This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park. Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3. While I am very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION! We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece. This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4. Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years. The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center. This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! I attended the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed., 7/13, where Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item for consideration. I was very pleased that an overwhelming majority of the Commission (8-2) voted NO on this proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above and more. They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for HB. In addition, many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, EAU P ` . EMENT L Cari Swan COMMUNICATION 13,e"ing Date. Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Deanne Thompson [deannewthompson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 2:14 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fwd: Vote No on Agenda Item#26 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION AGENDA COMMENT Meeting Date: 74 1 //,C Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council Members, Agenda Item No. To say I was dismayed when I read Agenda Item 26 on next week's council agenda would be an understatement. Councilman Posey's proposal to request a Ballot Measure to determine whether or not to sell the land occupied by the Rodger's Senior Center is not just tone-deaf, it is completely contrary to what the voters were promised when we voted to build the new senior center. The residents of Huntington Beach have already made their voices heard on this proposal. To review: 1. The 2006 ballot measure to build the new senior center, which the voters approved, included this language: "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." In effect, the residents have already voted to keep this property as a public resource. 2. When a similar proposal was discussed at a council meeting earlier this year, the residents spoke out overwhelmingly in opposition to any plan that allowed development of that land. We were led to believe that the developer walked away from the project because of the fierce public opposition, not wanting to fund a ballot measure that was doomed to fail. It now appears that the same forces are aligned once again to approach the issue with a different tactic and reward the patient developer who will avoid having to fund the ballot measure. 3. The Community Services Commission considered a similar proposal earlier this week, and an overwhelming majority of the members voted No. There was, once again, vocal opposition from the public and many of the Commission members echoed those same sentiments when casting their votes. In addition, the language of the proposed Ballot Measure is misleading and divisive. "Shall the City sell the former Rodgers Seniors' Center site for the highest and best use with all proceeds, estimated to be up to $14 million, designated to fund citywide park improvements, or shall the City expend approximately $1.5 million and commit to ongoing maintenance costs for the development of a two-acre park?"" 1 "Highest and best use" is subjective language, and is misleading. Asking people if they want to sell open space in someone else's neighborhood so that the city can fund park improvements in other parts of the city is disingenuous and unfair. Posing the question as if it is a choice between realizing a net gain that benefits the city at large, or investing money in one location that will incur additional maintenance costs, is deceptive and calculated to minimize the impact of selling open space in one of the city's most densely populated neighborhoods. No one disputes that the City is facing significant financial challenges. We all understand that the city must grow its tax base and maximize revenues wherever it can, but over development is not the answer. Selling our city, parcel by parcel, to the highest bidder is not a long term solution for financial solvency. It is instead shortsighted, benefits only a handful of developers and investors, and further burdens our already limited city resources and infrastructure. I urge you to vote No on Agenda Item Number 26. This issue has already been decided by the voters, and we need to respect that vote. Sincerely, Deanne Thompson 20802 Sparkman Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:13 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Agenda item26,Rodgers' Park AGENDA COMMENT From: Bill Tomsic [mailto:billtomsic@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday,July 17, 2016 4:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item26,Rodgers' Park Why can,t you politicians keep your word and promises? Why upset the residents again? How many times will the same old story have to be told? 0 Billtomsic@ ,�mail.com tad; thin g A , nda Item No.— !� 1 Esparza, Patty From: Janice Ugland Danugland@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 10:28 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Agenda Comment; Fikes, Cathy-, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Vote No; Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear City Council: I'm writing to state my opposition to Agenda Item 26 concerning Rodgers Park. Please, find it within yourselves to vote no. You're elected to represent the needs and desires of the residents within the city of which you serve. The residents have spoken loud and clear as to what is direly needed; taxpayers have spoken and our future, the children, have spoken. Please, listen. Thank you for your consideration. Always, Janice E. Ugland C 0 M M U H I CAT i U.-M A(jenda Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 8:05 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rodgers park AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: lena vergara [mailto:lenavergara(@icloud.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 8:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers park Hello city council- I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the sale of land on which the former senior center sits. If citizens Had know this was a possibility they would not have voted for the new senior center. We are losing open space and parkland. Please keep This land for the enjoyment of all. Thank you Lena Vergara Huntington Beach LMTL COMMUNICATION Meeting Cate: Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Linda Wentzel [lindamarieofhb@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 10:15 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument. "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." Was this an attempt to sell the community on passage of new center? It is no wonder there is such a lack of trust of our elected officials. There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2. This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive. Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive. This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park. Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3. While I am very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION! We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece. This ballot measure is clearly an approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance. 4. Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years. The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center. This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! At the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed., 7/13, Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item for consideration. I was very pleased to see that an overwhelming majority of the Commission (8-2) voted NO on this proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above. They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for HB. In addition, many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and REJECT Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Linda WentzelCOMMUNICATION lindamaneofhbrQmail.com (h) 657.204.9468 1�! �;;Iri(i Date: /V (c) 714.951.7463 " - da Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:55 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park AGENDA COMMENT From: Elizabeth Williams [mailto:iiz ms �ma l.d:)m] Sent: Saturday,July 16, 2016 11:23 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendacomment@surfcity-org Subject:Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park Dear Council Members: As a 38 year resident of Huntington Beach, I have seen both the best and worst of council members' decision making. It is always disturbing when members vote against the wishes of the community and instead decide the profits and greed of certain businesses and/or individuals are more important. Specifically, the site of the recently closed Rogers Senior Center was deeded by Chevron for the purpose of a community park to be enjoyed by the community and instead, Council Member Posey is once again trying to undermine the explicit needs of our community to set aside this property for a community park - as was the original intent of the gift. This is about your personal integrity to follow the intent and purpose of the gift rather than sell your integrity to the highest bidder. While the money that may be brought in to the city coffers by the sale of this property, it is not necessary to be greedy but to evaluate the importance of the quality of life for those living in the downtown section of Huntington Beach as well as our entire city. Just because Council Member Posey says "There is a beach nearby" does not mean the former Senior Center should be sold for development! The questions must be asked: "What do each of you personally have to gain by failing the residents on this issue? Money? Power? Influence?" "Why is it that. once elected, politicians decide community issues to their personal benefit rather that on the needs and promises to constituents?" I urge all Council Members to vote NO on Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park" and stop this bid to sell off our land intended for a park!! Sincerely, Elizabeth Williams (,,,0 M.1 UNiCAT1004 Huntington Beach Resident {t'e ii ',41o,,w:..._�. .sue 1 Esparza, Patty From: Nat[natrwong@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 8:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Oppose item 26 regarding Rodgers Park AGENDA COMMENT Hello city council Once again, I oppose item 26. We have already had a city wide vote in 2006. Thanks, Nathalie Wong wa :* " TAL COMMUNICATION ,P"''Neldnq Date: A, ciida Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Carol Woodworth [koodworth@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:19 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: OPPOSE Agenda item 26 S1'r �z,: „2 NI C AT 1 AGENDA COMMENT Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I / A ianda Item No. -- I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26. -° Six months after writing and speaking against the city engaging in an exclusive arrangement with developers to sell and develop the Rodgers Center property, here we are again! As I said on Dec 21 (4 days before Christmas), I hope we don't have to discuss selling this property again. But apparently we are! In 2006, the following ballot argument was used to encourage voters to vote in favor of the new senior center; "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." During that election, the group "Support Our Seniors" lobbied for the new senior center in Central Park. Their handouts stated; "the current downtown center will be returned to general park use."Voters passed Ballot measure T. The paint on the new senior center is barely dry and you want to renege on one of primary reasons voters approved building it? I find the proposed language for the non-binding advisory ballot item confusing and misleading. Are you intentionally trying to confuse voters? How can you ask two distinctly different questions and expect a yes or no answer. You can't say to voters a YES vote is Yes to the first question and a NO vote is YES to the second question - unless you are intentionally trying to confuse voters. That's like asking; do you want pizza or hamburgers- yes or no? The wording also misleads the voter by implying selling the property is the "best use" of the site. In addition, the ballot item is asking voters how about we sell the neighbor's park so we can renovate your park?Why are you asking the community to decide if one area deserves a park more than another area?Why are you proposing selling open space to maintain open space? That's like selling your couch to pay your mortgage. Selling property provides one- time money. You don't use one-time money to pay for ongoing expenses! I get that we have a budget issue. So, where are the creative and alternative ideas for revenue sources to pay for park maintenance? Have we prioritized the park projects?What about corporate partnerships?What about working with other non-profits like Boy Scouts for minor maintenance?What about using some TOT money for parks? How about creating a park maintenance fund within the budget with each department contributing a set amount of money? Maybe have an event like DuckAThon that supports parks? Rather than focus on the total cost of all park repairs and maintenance, focus on smaller projects one park at a time while developing other funding sources. Do we believe our city slogan "Parks Make Life Better" or not? Last night (7/13), 1 attended the Community Services Commission meeting. Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item up as a proposed recommendation to city council. It was noted and discussed that Agenda item 26 was already on the City Council agenda even though the Community Services Commission had not yet made their recommendation. Which begs the question; why not wait until a recommendation is made by your appointed Community Services Commission before bringing the item to City Council? The good news is that the Commission voted NO (8-2) on the proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed many of the comments made by the dozen or so speakers that were present at the meeting. We shouldn't be selling open space to pay for open space! Please join with me and the Community Services Commission and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Carol Woodworth i Esparza, Patty From: Save Rodgers' Park [saverodgerspark@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item 26 AGENDA COMMENT Mayor and Councilmembers, The Keep the Promise, Save Rodgers Park group strongly opposes Agenda Item 26 and any "advisory vote" in regards to the Rodgers' Park site. We, along with many downtown and Huntington Beach residents, firmly believe that the voters and residents of the city were promised a park multiple times. We also firmly believe in accountability for actions. The residents in the downtown area want, need, and deserve the park that was promised to them. We request that you keep that promise. Thank.you, Keep the Promise, Save Rodgers' Park Team COMMUNICATION Meeting Cate Agenda Item Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 4:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 26860 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda & Public Hearing Comments Citizen name:julie bixby Description: I heard that item#26 on the 7/18 agenda has been pulled, but I've decided to weigh in anyway due to the timely arrival of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan Final Draft Report. I will let that document do the talking: Page 46, regarding results of community interviews: "Short on parkland." Page 54: "Nearly 60% of those polled (57%) identified 'Population Growth,' 'Growth Management,' ...'Housing Growth,'... [as] issues of greatest concern. Page 81: "Nationally, there is an emerging recognition that parks and recreation services play a significant role in improving the quality of life of the City, and that parks and open space are catalysts for both community building and economic development." Page 94: "Fiscal Related Implications....the City should consider utilization of the existing site on Orange Street for...recreational programs..." I think you get the idea. The CIty really doesn't have a need for more residents, but it does have a need for more open space and recreational opportunities. Remember, "Parks Make Life Better" is not just a marketing slogan -- it's actually backed up by scientific research. Isn't Quality of Life one of the City's goals? Expected Close Date: July 19, 2016 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not . monitored and will be ignored. Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:24 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FK City Council Meeting 16-7-18, Agenda Item 26. AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Mastropaolo [mailto:jamastropaolo(@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Sullivan, Dave; Hardy, Jill; Katapodis, Jim; billy4hb(@gmail.com; barbara(@barbarasellsthebeach.com; Erikpeterson4hbccogmail.com; mikeposey(@earthlink.net Subject: City Council Meeting 16-7-18, Agenda Item 26. Members of the City Counsel, my name is Joseph Mastropaolo. I have been a resident of HB for many years. My precinct is 32285. I urge the City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 26, selling the Rogers Seniors' Center property. The property was deeded to HB with the understanding that the property would remain an active park to relieve the stress from overcrowding. HB is already overbuilt with high density housing. There IS a need to tear down high density housing, not to misappropriate city parks to build more high density housing to psychologically break down the citizenry for future slums. We need parks, not overcrowded slums. We need the CC to vote NO on Agenda Item 26. A park is not passive. It is active and essential for the mental health of the citizenry to prevent the psychological breakdowns and the stress fatalities from overcrowding. We need a termination of all agreements with Christopher Homes or any other builder. As originally agreed, the Rogers Seniors' Center Park property needs to stay a park. We don't need more housing in HB. HB is already overbuilt. We need parks and elbow room, not pre-slum housing designed for a few rats and not enough room for even one person. We don't need more psychological breakdowns and more stress fatalities from the thousands of crowded pre-slum housing units already overbuilt all over HB. Relieve the maddening traffic. Protect the Rogers Seniors' Center Park. Vote NO on Agenda Item 26, selling the Rogers Seniors' Center property. 1 Esparza, Patty From: funlife007@gmail.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda#26 Tonight's Meeting on Rodgers' Park AGENDA COMMENT Hello - I am very concerned about someone's idea of putting this back on the ballot. This was voted on years ago. A deal is a deal. Please be ethical in your decision making. Thank you! Kristen Hatfield 313 20th Street, Huntington Beach i Esparza, Patty From: Gary Tarkington [garytarkington@msn.comj Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 11:18 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rogers Senior Center Importance: High MMUNI ATI AGENDA COMMENT Date:Thu, 14 J u 12016 09:34:26 -0700 � Agenda stern Rio. Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, I am writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1.13allot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument."An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use."Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center???It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials.There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2.This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive.Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive.This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away MY NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park.Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3.While I am very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOTTHE SOLUTION!We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece.This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4.Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years.The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center.This proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! I attended the Community Services Commission meeting on Wed., 7/13, where Commissioner Moffatt brought this same agenda item for consideration.I was very pleased that an overwhelming majority of the Commission (8-2) voted NO on this proposal. The eight dissenting members echoed my thoughts above and more. They spoke concisely that this is NOT the right direction for HB. In addition, many from the community spoke against this proposal. I urge you to join with me and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Ann Tarkington, Huntington Beach CA 92646 1 ' Ann Tarkington Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 2 Esparza, Patty From: Paula Hessley [paulamichael@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 1:59 PIVI To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy-, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 AGENDA COMMENT 0zile:,__2 1_z_1f1_ Dear Mayor Katapodis and Council members, We are writing to OPPOSE agenda item 26 for the following reasons: 1. Ballot Measure T which passed in 2006 used the following ballot argument. "An added benefit is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." Was this merely a LIE to sell the community on passage of new center??? It is no wonder there is such a tremendous lack of trust in our elected officials. There was a promise made to the community and anything short of KEEPING THIS PROMISE is 100% UNACCEPTABLE! 2. This ballot measure is irresponsible and extraordinarily divisive. Asking the community at large to decide if one area of the city should be entitled to a park in order to maintain funding for the rest of the city is flat-out wrong and divisive. This will open the door where the community as a whole can vote away OUR NEIGHBORHOOD park, or ANY NEIGHBORHOOD park. Our elected officials serve the entire city and it is incumbent upon all of you to provide for all the city and not divide us. 3. While we are very clear that HB struggles with our unfunded liabilities, SELLING PARK SPACE IS NOT THE SOLUTION! We must dig-in and correct the root of our funding issues including serious pension reform, and not expect to sell away open space, piece by piece. This ballot measure is a very irresponsible approach to addressing revenue for park maintenance or any other funding. 4. Our city has seen more than 3,000 High Density apartment units put upon us in just a few short years. The downtown area has changed dramatically with so many lots changing from one home to two homes. In addition, we just consumed approx. 5 acres in Central Park to develop the Senior Center. This new proposed ballot measure is clearly taking HB in the WRONG direction! We urge you to join with us and the Community Services Board and reject Agenda Item 26. Thank you, Michael and Paula Hessley Information from ESET NOD3 2 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 13 804 (20160714) 1 The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com z Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:40 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy; CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW: Rogers Seniors' Center AGENDA COMMENT From: DGreen1128@aol.com [mailto:DGreen1128@aol.comj Sent: Sunday,July 17, 2016 12:47 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rogers Seniors Center <' 'h. EItllia7!"4 . ", C 0 M M 114'oC� 1O'N City Council Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 -- Re: Rogers Senior's Center ' }` -�- "PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER", this is a sign displayed in the parking lot of the Senior Center. This proposal seems to counter that idea. Making this entire area into a park is more consistent with the view that parks are an important part of our environment. It would also compensate for the loss of "park space" in Central Park now occupied by the new Senior Center. The development of this property with 22 single family units would increase the density in our downtown area, and provide less incentive for the development of all of the existing empty and under-utilized lots that already exist in the "numbered" street area. These empty lots are unattractive and typically are overgrown with weeds. They have no or poor sidewalks in front of them. Why not encourage the developer to build on these existing lots which would greatly improve our downtown area. There has been so much high density development in Huntington Beach recently that we need to take a break and understand the long term impact before jumping into a "neighborhood project". Finally, I would hope Huntington Beach is not so desperate for money that we are going to start a precedent of converting public property to private property. Where does it end? LAKE PARK, THE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY, CENTRAL PARK, these are just a few examples of property that could be sold and converted to high impact housing. Huntington Beach is a great city with much potential; as we add more density for growth, shouldn't we add more parkland. Sincerely, i A/ .e 64-6 Richard Green 504 191" St., Huntington Beach, Ca. Dgreen1128@aol.com 2 Es arza, Patty From: Amazonotter[amazonotter@yahoo com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10 53 AM To- CITY COUNCIL, Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers' Park AGENDA COMMENT Hi, My name is Marvin Park and I live at 414 16th in HB As I understand it, that land was a gift from Chevron and is deeded as a gift. The land was supposed to be a park. I will start with what I do NOT want 1 1 do NOT want the land to be turned into an apartment complex We already have a street parking issue and there has been an ever-growing amount of trash and litter scattered about I do want. 1 A neighborhood park but I'm concerned with the liquor store being so close, that the park would become a place for the homeless and vagrants I wouldn't mind 1 Single Family dwellings Sincerely, Marvin Park 1 Esparza, Patty From, Irene Ilzarraga [irenita624@yahoo com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 11 09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL, Agenda Comment Cc. Flkes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodgers Park- Make Downtown Huntington Beach Great Again' AGENDA COMMENT Council Chambers, As a resident and property owner of Downtown Huntington Beach,Rodgers'Park is a necessary project to enrich the quality of life of homeowners/residents,create a wonderful place to take our children and teens,and uplift the property value for the entire city Many homes and apartments have very little outside lawn space on the property in which we live As our family grows,I am looking for a safe,welcoming place where my children can play,run,grow,and live a healthy lifestyle by burning energy/calones at a nearby park Yes,the beach is near,but the beach does not have shady trees to keep cool under,nor grass to run and kick the ball around Also,most homes have a one-car-driveway space,causing additional car(s)searching for parking on the street This is stressful when street parking is already limited,and I now have to park two blocks away and carry my sleeping child(purse,diaper bag and groceries)all the way home On top of that,my neighbor is now angry that I parked in front of their house Any other use of this 2 acre land will create heavier car traffic,more congested parking on public streets,and stress for those who live here Make Downtown HB Great Again' Build Rogers'Park'Enrich our children's lives' Be Honest and Keep Rogers'Park for the Residents of Downtown Huntington Beach' Thank you for your time, Irene Boggs 1 Esparza, Patty From. Caroline Karr[ckarr08@gmail com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8 50 PM To: city counsel@surfcity-hb org, Agenda Comment Cc- Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda item 26- Rodgers park AGENDA COMMENT Hello, I am writing to express my concern about the proposed site for what we thought would be Rodgers Park being used for something other then a park My husband and I live on 17th Street, very close to where we were told the park would be built. We were looking forward to having a nice, safe place to bring our dog and future kids We are deeply concerned about the proposition to use the land for anything other then a park With 17th being such a busy street, we need a place safe from cars that our family can enjoy Please give us the park as promised Thank you for your time, Caroline Karr l i Esparza, Patty From: Don Karr[dkarr@Millerbarondess com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5 48 PM To: city counsel@surfcity-hb org, Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: Agenda Item 26 - Rogers Park AGENDA COMMENT To Whom it May Concern, am the owner of 525 17th St, and 527 17th St in downtown Huntington Beach My primary residence is 525 17th St, which is right across the street from the proposed site for Rogers Park My wife and I recently became dog owners and are looking to start a family We desperately would love to have a park close by for our children and puppy to have a safe place to play 17th Street is a high traffic area, and there is nowhere for little ones to safely play I have nightmares about children running across the busy street when there could be a beautiful safe park to play in close by Please do what is right for the residents of downtown HB and build the park as promised Thanking you in advance, Donald R. Karr, CPA MILLER I BARONDESSL, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Direct 310-552-7566 Main 310-552-4400 Fax 310-552-8400 dkarr Q m i I lerbarondess com www millerbarondess com 1 Esparza, Patty From- Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11 05 AM To Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park" AGENDA COMMENT From: Dee Dee Khakbaz [mailto mkhakbaz@verizon net] Sent:Tuesday,July 19, 2016 10 52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re Agenda Item 26, "Rodgers' Park" Dear City Council, As residents of Huntington Beach for 15 years we stand firm against any ballot measure to decide what has already been decided, not to permit developers to usurp their authority over Rodgers Park, as this will interrupt the balance of peace and beauty of the lovely park Our family resides on Florida Street between Yorktown and Utica We stand firm against any ballots that disrupt our beloved peaceful parks Sincerely yours, Mr Moe and Dee Dee Khakbaz and family mkhakbaz(o)-verizon net 1