Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROPOSED SENIOR CENTER IN CENTRAL PARK - CHARTER SECTION 61 J, , 4 '/11J IJ 2006 JUN 2 1 PrN 4: 37 C. Council/Agency Meeting Held: I (1 17 Y Deferred/Continued to: PIT lu i XApp ved, U Conditionally Approved U Denied City�Irk's ;cpfignagre Council Meeting Date: 7/3/2006 --TDepartment IwNumber: CS06-01 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CIT COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: PENELO�PELBRETH-G AFT, DPA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: JIM B. ENGLE, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVIC SUBJECT: CONSIDER TAKING THE PROPOSED SENIOR CEINER IN CENTRAL PARK TO A CHARTER SECTION 612 (MEASURE C) VOTE OF THE PEOPLE Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should City Council take the proposed senior center in an undeveloped area of Huntington Central Park (HCP) west of Goldenwest at Talbert, north of the Frisbee golf course to a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote of the people? Funding Source: $5,000 from Community Services General Fund Account#10045101. Recommended Action(s): Council may make motions from the following: Take a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote to the November, 2006 election 1. Approve taking a proposed senior center on the southern five acres of a 14—acre undeveloped site west of Goldenwest at Talbert in Central Park to a Charter Section 612 vote at the November, 2006 election; direct staff to return to the City Council on July 17, 2006 with ballot language, resolution, summary and analysis; and, approve making an exception to the minute action of July.11, 1994 requiring an applicant"...to obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people." OR Do not take a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote to the November, 2006 election 2. Direct staff to process the proposed senior center on undeveloped land west of Golden- west at Talbert in Central Park through the entitlement process and prepare construction plans and specifications, then return to City Council for a Charter Section 612 vote at some future date. OR 3. Select an alternate site for a senior center and direct staff to process the proposed senior center through the entitlement process, prepare construction plans and specifications, and return to City Council for consideration of taking the project to a Charter Section 612 vote at some future date. OR 4. Do not move forward with the development of a new senior center. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/3/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS06-010 Analysis: NEW SENIOR CENTER: City Council has, as part of its strategic plan, set a goal of building a new senior center in the city. Council also approved funding to hire a consultant, LPA, to prepare a feasibility study on a new senior center. On March 20, 2006, City Council conducted a study session where the consultant, LPA, presented an overview as well as hard copies of the senior center study. The study included the need for a new, larger center to serve seniors; types and size of facilities/amenities required; square footage of the building; revenues and expenses as a result of a larger center; and, an analysis of potential locations. LPA utilized its experience in studying and building senior centers and community centers, met with staff and the Council on Aging (COA), conducted two public meetings to solicit input, and reviewed existing documentation to prepare the final report. LPA evaluated nine locations: HCP - northwest of Ellis and Goldenwest; HCP - fourteen acres west of Goldenwest at Talbert; the current Rodgers Senior Center site at 17th and Orange; the Orange County Transfer Station west of Gothard and south of Talbert; two sites at Kettler School (closed school); LeBard School (closed school); and, two sites at the undeveloped Bartlett Park site. LPA's analysis of potential sites is presented in Attachment 1. LPA determined a new senior center would require one acre for a building and, overall, approximately five acres including the building, parking, courtyard and landscaping. #1 Site: Goldenwest and Talbert: LPA determined the best location to be the southern portion of a fourteen-acre undeveloped site in HCP west of Goldenwest at Talbert. The five-acre site is immediately north of the existing Frisbee golf course; east of the group picnic shelter and open group activity area. The remaining nine acres of the undeveloped site are north of the proposed center. Further north, beyond the nine acres, is the Shipley Nature Center. The proposed site is west of Goldenwest, a major arterial within the city (Attachment 2). There are a number of reasons that this Central Park location was determined by LPA to be the preferred site including the fact that it is centrally located within the city and adjacent to a major arterial (Goldenwest), which has access to public transportation. The park setting would lend itself to a senior center on site, as well as the fact that there are other activities in the park that could be enjoyed by seniors, including Shipley Nature Center and Central Library. Those amenities may also reap the benefit of senior volunteers. The research of historical data by LPA indicates that there are no constraints including methane, oil or environmental (further due diligence will be required to confirm this) as exist in many of the other sites. The site is also owned by the city, thereby eliminating additional acquisition expense. Other Potential Sites: The second, third and fourth sites, respectively are: HCP-northwest corner of Goldenwest & Talbert, Kettler School; and current site at Orange and 17th Street. -2- 6/21/2006 11:32 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/3/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS06-010 #2 Site-HCP at Goldenwest & Ellis: This site has several attributes including the fact that it is centrally located, public transportation nearby, flat topography, and easy access. But it is not centrally located to other developed recreational amenities within HCP and the site previously had oil operations including wells and sumps onsite. There has been some experimental mitigation performed, but it is anticipated that additional work would be required. Such mitigation can be expensive based on the cost to abandon previous oil wells and soil cleanup. #3 Site-Kettler School: This site is adjacent to Edison Community Park and would enhance a senior center because of the park setting. At the time the study was done, it was thought the site could potentially be purchased from the school district for 25 percent of value under the Naylor Act. The Naylor Act can only be applied in areas deficient in open space. The site negatives include having to pay full market value IF the school district surpluses it (district currently considering its options), not centrally located, and potential methane mitigation (tests show migrating methane). #4 Site-Current Senior Center @ 17t" & Orange. The primary advantage of this site is that seniors are using it now. The negatives include: not centrally located, residential on three sides, only 2.3 acres in size which would mean the costs to construct a new center would escalate due to the need to build subterranean parking and a two-story center. For example the underground parking for 200 spaces is estimated to cost more than $10 million above the LPA non-site specific cost estimate. Other Site Analyses: Attachment 1 provides additional information about the first four sites as well as the other five sites studied by LPA. The city over the years has previously considered other locations including commercial property and a closed hospital site. These have previously been presented to Council, but none were deemed feasible for a variety of reasons including acquisition costs. CHARTER SECTION 612: Ultimately, there will be a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) public vote to locate a senior center on city parkland. At its May 20, 2006 meeting, City Council directed staff to bring the issue of a public vote to the July 3 Council meeting. Charter Section 612 references the sale or lease of park or beach property, construction costing more than $100,000 or a building more than 3,000 square feet. Constructing a new senior center meets the charter criteria. It is greater than $100,000; LPA estimated its construction cost to be approximately $14.7 million (excluding design, environmental assessment, construction management, inflation, etc.). Note: LPA's cost is a preliminary estimate that is not site specific. For example, there will be some additional cost not included in LPA's estimate to modify the traffic signal at Goldenwest and Talbert. Also, the senior center would be greater than 3,000 square feet in size. The Registrar of Voters indicates that the cost of placing a ballot measure on a General Election is up to $5,000. If City Council decides to place the proposed senior center on the ballot for the November 2006 election, the ballot measure, resolution, ballot title, summary -3- 6/21/2006 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/3/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS06-010 and impartial analysis would then be prepared by the City Attorney with review and approval at the July 17 Council meeting (Attachment 3). NOTE: Taking a ballot measure to the voters at a special election could cost up to $444,000. The election cost could be less if other agencies are also including ballot measures. CONSIDERATION OF JULY 11, 1994 MINUTE ACTION RE: CHARTER SECTION 612 (MEASURE C) PROCESSING: City Council, in 1994, created a minute action (approved motion) that indicated an applicant who was bringing forth a project for construction on park or beach land that met the criteria of Measure C "must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people." LPA has estimated the cost to process the entitlements (environmental assessment, Conditional Use Permit, etc.) and preparation of plans and specifications to be approximately $2 million (Attachment 4). Since the city is the "applicant", Council could decide to waive the July 11, 1994 minute action so that the issue of a senior center in Central Park goes before the voters before funds are expended on the entitlement process and preparation of construction plans. The project would still be contingent upon Planning Commission and City Council approval. The City Attorney has opined that a charter vote of the people can happen prior to the environmental assessment, which is part of the entitlement process (Attachment 5). Voter approval does not mandate the senior center being built on the proposed site, but only that it be approved should all other conditions for development be met. Community Services Commission: The Community Services Commission on April 12, 2006 received a presentation of LPA's study as well as copies of the report with its analysis. Additionally, a public input meeting was held as part of the May 10 commission meeting, with meeting notices published and sent to homeowners within 1,000 feet of HCP. Commission received an overview of the LPA site analysis and an historical perspective of past Council actions relative to the proposed undeveloped Central Park site and its master plan. Commission voted 7 to 1 to recommend the proposed senior center at the Goldenwest and Talbert site (Attachment 6). Council On Aging: The Council On Aging (COA) is advisory to City Council on matters relating to seniors as well as being a certified non-profit 501(c)(3) foundation. The COA provided input for the LPA study regarding needed amenities and size of facility. The COA has indicated its concurrence with the study's results including the selection of the Goldenwest/Talbert site as the best location. Environmental Status: There is currently a program level EIR on this area of HCP, done as part of the overall park EIR. An environment assessment on a senior center at this location would have to be performed before the recommended development could transpire. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. LPA Analysis: Potential Senior Center Sites -4- 6/21/2006 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/3/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS06-010 2. Location & Recreation Use Map 3. Measure C Vote Timeline 4. LPA Cost Analysis 5. 1 Legal Opinion re CEQA 6. 1 Community Services Commission Action, May 10, 2006 -5- 6/21/2006 11:10 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 H U N T I N 6 T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analysis, A critical element of the feasibility process is determining a potential site for the new senior center.As a part of our review process we examined nine potential locations.The potential sites were provided by City staff and were identified during public workshops as sites that could provide five acres of usable land.This acreage accommodates a one-story building, required parking as well as'Seniors on the Go' transportation vehicles, landscape,and site amenities such as courtyards and gardens.Sites such as the existing Michael E. Rodger's Senior Center,were not excluded if they were smaller,however,it was recognized they would present additional complexity during development. Wenty-four criteria were established in five categories to evaluate the nine locations.The categories included site characteristics, access, special conditions,economic conditions,and pertinent data. Each criteria was given a value ranging from 1 to 5.With input from City staff and the Council on Aging committee,we established priorities for each of these criteria on a scale from 1 to 3 to`weight'each score.The product of these values established the total weighted score for each site,creating a ranked evaluation system.As a result of this process, the preferred location for the new senior center is Site 1, located within Central Park at Talbert.The second highest score was Site 2, located within Central Park at the corner of Goldenwest and Ellis. Our evaluations have been limited to only the visual assessment of the sites due to inadequate reports and documentation available at this time.Soil conditions, site encumbrances,underground utilities and easements, and potential use agreements are unknown for all nine sites and were not able to be considered in this evaluation.As a result of the weighted score, the next step in evaluating the final building location would be to hire civil and geotechnical engineers to perform due diligence on the preferred site to ensure its viability. At the conclusion of that scope of work,a final site recommendation could be confirmed. A map showing each potential site is given on the next page. It is followed by summaries of each site including maps, pictures and pros and cons of each site. 1 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX f ................................................................................... Site Analysis J I O N 1 W Q 0 (d Q O O O O O_ S m Z J of _- Z, H = Q O Q �, �1 fn O' J Z _ 0 J O W C7' Ur ' tY a VY uj z In z m m Site 1 W _. o Goldenwest and Talbert 0 405 1 1 Site 2 ; Goldenwest and Ellis 1 , 1 Site 3A i ' WARNER Kettler School _ Site 3B ----{ --------T---- --a------ SLATER Kettler, Edison Park 1 ; ' 5 a05' TALBERT Site 41 LeBard Park & School z ; ELLIs —r— -- — T ---- -----r--------- --------- Site 5 OC Transfer Station ' _________ ____�__ GARFIELD Site 6 ' YORKTOWN Rodgers Senior Center " ------- __-_� 6 ADAMS Site 7A ti• im i i Bartlett Park, Adams 4,�, -1---- ---------- • INDIANAPOL Site 7B � i 4 1 1 1 Bartlett Park, Yorktown ��F i 33 OrATLANTA 1 1 HAMILTON l CONTEXT+ s NOT TO SCALE 2 HONTINGT0N 0tACH SEN10R CENTER SITE CRITERIA DEFINITMbNS 3/6/2006 SITE 'CHARACTERISTICS Provides 5 acres to accommodpte the desired building program,parking,outdoor Site Acreage amenities,etc. gullding Program Accommodates the desired building square footage exterior Program Accommodates the desired outdoor amenities Accommodates future Expansion Allows the building area to expand horizontally,rather than vertically,in the future Evaluates the amount of contours on the site,as areas with more slope can Topography Increase building costs Evaluates necessary site work(grading,site remediation,demolition,etc.)as this No Signifiianf Site work Required can increase building costs Mature Vegetation Evaluates vegetation that could influence site design,such as mature trees Evaluates vegetation that could limit site flexibility,such as endangered habitats, Sefisitive Site Vegetation wetlands,etc. Evaluates how compatible the neighborhood is to a public building,operating Adjacent Uses: Comp3tIbIl[Li of Neighborhood from 8arn-1Opm Sensory Issues: Vlew,sound,Smell Possible amenities or liabilities to the site Micro Climate: Wind Sun Possible amenities or liabilities to the site ACCESS Vehicular Safe ingress and egress points,multiple locations are desirable Pedestrian Providing accessible paths of travel Accommodate'§Wibr Transportation Allows for the current'Seniors on the Go"vans to be stored Public Transit Proximate bus stop .___:....-_-Central Location Geographic location central to adult population SPECIA..I,__C..DNDIT10NS .—Zoning/Land Use Understand the current zoning,as it will affect the entitlement process EC0N0MIC_C._ONDITI0NS Sltd Adduisition Required The city must acquire the site _....bite Owned by City The city owns the site OTHER Does the site help create a place of civic pride? Does the site reinforce the city's Proximity to Civic Servlees(Park/Library) 'center? Maximizes Potential Use of the Site Could the site be better used? VisibilityAderititytoCommunity A prominent location Is desirable Site Fred of Encumbrances Evaluate any known agreements that may limit site acquisition or development Is the building.situated in a location people want to rent? Does it support the cost ArdfLi'tt-0 Outdoor Space recovery goals? 3 H 0 H T I H G T 0 H BEACH SEN10R CENTER SITE EVALUATION SUMMARY 1/6/2006 Goldenwest Goklenwesl Kettler Ketller LeBard Park OC Transfer Rodgers Barnet Park Sanlet Park &Talbert &Ellis School Edison Park &School Station Sr.Center` Adams, Yorldown Site 1 Site 2 Site 3A Site 3B Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7A Site 7B SiTE CHAR..A.1-TERISTICS Availability/Size 15 15 15 15 15 15 3 6 6 building Program 15 15 15 15 15 15 9 9 9 txterlor Program 10 6 6 10 10 10 4 4 4 Accomm6dAte§Future Expansion 10 10 8 10 10 10 2 2 2 Topography 8 8 10 10 10 8 10 2 2 No Signitiearit Sitework Required 6 2 2 6 2 4 2 2 2 Mature Vegetation 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 St Mitive Site Vegetation 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 3 3 Adjacent Uses: CompAlibility of Neighborhood 15 12 3 12 3 9 3 3 .6 Sensory IssuAs: View,Sound,Smell 10 6 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 Mierd Climate: Wind Sun 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Subtotal 119 104 99 118 105 105 69 52 55 _................. ACCESS Vehicular 5 12 6 12 3 12 15 3 3 Pedestrian 15 15 15 15 12 15 15 3 3 Accommodat@s Senior Transportation 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 6 3 Public Transit 15 12 6 12 3 9 15 12 3 Central Location 10 10 2 2 2 10 8 8 8 Subtotal 50 54 42 54 33 51 60 24 12 SPECIAl•_._C.DN DIT10NS Zoning/Land Use 15 15 12 15 12, 15 15 9 9 Subtotal 15 15 12 15 12 15 15 9 9 EC0N0MIt--G_fINDITI0NS Sit§As Auisitlon Required 10 10 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 Ske Owned by City 15 15 3 3 3 3 12 15 15 ......_...._. Subtotal 25 25 5 5 5 5 22 25 25 OTHER Proximity to Civic ttNle§s(Park/Library) 10 6 2 2 2 8 4 2 2 Maximizes ilotdntlal Use of the Site 10 8 2 6 4 4 2 2 2 Visibility/Id6ilityto Community 10 10 2 6 2 10 8 8 4 SIO Fr§§of Encumbrances 9 9 9 9 3 9 6 3 3 Amenity of Outd6f5f Space(Rentable) 10 8 4 10 4 6 2 2 8 Subtotal 99 91 29 43 25 47 66 67 69 T 0 T A L 308 289 187 .235 180 223 232 177 170 4 0 2005 TSMG in association with LPA H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. site Analvqls - Site 1 - Goldenwest &Talbert Site 1 is located within Central Park at - the south west corner of Goldenwest and W S Talbert.The five acre site would be south of the existing nature center,and north .... of the Disc Golf recreational area. Vehicular access could be signalized at the intersection that joins with the Sports _' ___ ...,E,. Park and Library,creating a collection of - .. civic uses in this region of the city.This site is owned by the city. � ' ..u.r. 1 � CONTEXT I`.. .. .. . , WIN ........... y � �k. � R±a :w 5 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analysis. Site 1 Goldenwest & Talbert HUNTINGTON PARK_ _. *SHIPLEY'S ... � ��- __- :f'@IA7URE CENTER. �•: '. ..k. *LIBRARY i. . - - TALBERT.. BUS ',:STOP - STAURANT - f I. OT DISK GOyyL��E PARK LEGEND �.. ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE �E NODE PARKLAND SITE 1 � PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER SITE BRIDGE nNm STEPS POWER LINES 6 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEA_CH _ SEN10R CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT SITE 1 Observations—HCP 16 Acres/Goldenwest and Talbert Pros: 1. Accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion 2. On site bus stop 3. Views around site are all pleasant 4. Primarily quiet--Senior Center could be located within park atmosphere 5. Allows multiple points of access at Golden West Street,with straightforward vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and fire truck access 6. City owned property 7. Although site is not leveled with the street(10'to 15'drop)contours at site are spread out,topography is primarily flat, requires some fill 8. Undeveloped site 9. Centrally located within the city 10. Would benefit from central park amenities,such as Huntington Lake, City Library, Sports Park,passive park with trees and open turf,pedestrian path near the lake, Disk Golf and Breakfast in the Park and Nature Center 11. Site adjacent to compatible uses and does not negatively impact adacent uses 12. No significant vegetation needs to be removed or relocated 13. Utilities are available—Sewer,Water and Electricity Cons: 1. Per FEMA's map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 2. Safety driving concern to be evaluated: Slow drivers turning into active arterial at Golden West(6 lane street)could require a new signal at the intersection 3. Master plan currently includes passive park at this location 4. Requires Charter Section 612(Measure C)vote ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Site 1 Pros: LPA indicated that there are no oil or methane issues on site based on review of written records;due diligence requires that we confirm that there is no site mitigation required. Cons: Clarification: Master plan includes picnic shelters,parking,tot lots,restroom,and open turf area. 7 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. site Analysis Site 2 - Goldenwest& Ellin Site two is located within Central Park at the north west corner of Ellis and Goldenwest.A five acre site would be ti located to complement the master plan ..xEx development in this currently L_____ _____ undeveloped area of the park.This site is owned«,. y the city. • 7 1 e r R - ti'0r g .wus ,W nn.xr. r XON..E%T'I- �v c �y. �. ¢"'fix �- �✓' �.�kna.��, �.:�`;w t 9 O H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analysis Zsi Site 2 Goldenwest & Ellis '*'HUNTINGTON PARK �F STABLES '+55. OIL DRILLING AREA i 1 s5p 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ELLIS ST D *.BUS ... STOP A LEGEND �.. ACCESS •• PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE 3IE NODE PARKLAND SITE 2 PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER n>m BRIDGE Illllb STEP$ POWER LINES 9 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH _ SENIGR CENTER �� LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 2 Observations—HCP NM comer of Goldenwest and Ellis Pros: 1. Accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion 2. Allows multiple points of access on either the east side, Golden West or south side at Ellis, with straightforward vehicular and pedestrian circulation,and fire truck access 3. City owned property 4. Site is relatively flat 6. Centrally located within the city 6. Per FEMA's map site is out of the flood area 7. Bus stop south of the site on Golden West—although walking distance could be too far for some seniors 8. No significant vegetation to be removed or relocated Cons: 1. Requires Charter Section 612(Measure C)vote 2. Master plan currently includes therapeutic riding center,parking,tot lot,restroom,and open turf amenities;master plan would have to be modified 3. Safety driving concern to be evaluated: Slow drivers turning into active arterials at Golden West and Ellis near a busy intersection 4. Views around site are not all pleasant,some oil drilling machines to the west,and residential homes to the east 6. Surrounding area is primarily loud and busy 6. Central Park amenities,such as Huntington Lake,City Library,Sports Park,Disk Golf and Breakfast in the Park are not as proximate for the pedestrian from this site 7. Oil wells and sumps on the site would need to be evaluated to determine possible negative impact on site development ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Site 2 Pros: • Clarification: "Somewhat developed site"includes trails and adjacent equestrian center. 10 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR ( ENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analysis Site 3A& 3B Kettler School and Edison Park Site three is located at Kettler School. _ 5 Given the significant amount of acreage, the option exists to develop either the - main campus area, identified as site X w"..E. or the school play fields adjacent to Edison Park,identified as site 3B.This __________. _____-_ site is not currently owned by the city. , , . ' ---- CONTEXT' m_ "6!i , w F t� 3 1 1 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX . .................................................................................. Site AnalySS Site 3A& 3B - Kehler School and Edison Park j; 1£ ! j ' Q DORSET DR i !! m SITE 3A ;� C7 BUS -----�i—'"—" -- - ' 44 AC fj i w STOP — _ sroP STILLWE DR 0 < f � 3 2 �, SAINTI19--itT].S N _ `_ SITE 3S 112 84 1ST P I OMSON IGH ..�(.CO UNITY, CHOOL . 1 Iml CENTER l ` TATIMN NAMILTOI AVE LEGEND �. ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE NODE POTOGRD PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER SITE 3A &3B -1 BRIDGE 0 700 200' 900' �Mx STEPS POWER LINES 1"=400 12 HUNTINGTON ^ BEACH SENIGR CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 3A&3B Observations—Kehler School/Edison Park Pros: 1. Accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion 2. Views around site are all pleasant and predominantly of the park for site 313 3. Primarily quiet 4. Site is flat and level with the street 5. 313 school fields provide ample site area for building development 6. Would benefit from proximity to Edison Park and Fire Station on Magnolia and Hamilton 7. Site is a4acent to compatible park uses 8. Significant vegetation and mature trees 9. Bus stop on Magnolia,near Site 3B 10. Existing park would benefit outside amenities for the proposed Senior Center Cons: 1. The 3A site has two existing curb cuts on Dorsett Drive, but access and vehicular circulation is through established residential neighborhoods which is less desirable. 2. Access from Stilwell Drive' (off Magnolia)is most appropriate,but would require reconfiguration of the existing park to get access to the 3B site. 3. Access to site is through residential streets 4. Development of the 3A site will require demolition of buildings 5. Per FEMA's map site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1%chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 6. 3A not a City owned property and would have to be acquired 7. 3B is part City/part School owned and therefore part of Measure`C'vote 8. Location is not central 0. Closed school property which the City would be able to purchase under Naylor Act for between 25 and 75 percent of market value, which is estimated at $1.5 to $2 million per acre — if school district chooses to sell after officially 'surplussed' 10. Site 3A has predominant views of the residential neighborhood 11. Adjacent to active community park with potential negative impacts for parking and noise 12. Methane mitigation is likely ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Sites 3A&3B Pros: Clarification: Bus stop is a considerable distance from Kettler site for a senior citizen. Cons: Surplus school site could be purchased by city but not under Naylor Act because there is sufficient parkland in the area. 13 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analvsis _ a Site 4 LeBard Park & School Site four is located at LeBard School and Park.The existing acreage is in excess of W the desired five acres, allowing the new i senior center to be carefully sited based wgxxEx upon existing recreational uses.This site is not currently owned by the city. 41 -- r _�j xnuo i '• xxgxgvois P ! Alio- nigxtq xqM*xx to CONTEXT'. ., xm 10 scggz }7 Y r yti s � p:-s 0 1 1 y yyj i 14 H U N T I N 6 T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. site Analvqis Q Site 4 - LeBard Park & School fag ism on A• as CRAILET OR a a a im aim f � 1 1 BARWICK OR a - j.. -Jj(-LEBARD SCHOOL 1 � � 4 a *LEBARD PARK I. Q2 a� C"THIA DR an HERCULES ? me r a r a a A , _. se LEGEND H ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE �I NODE PARKLAND SITE 4 PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER =I BRIDGE - STEPS POWER LINES 15 H_UNTINGT0N BEACH SENIOR CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 4 Observations-LeBard School and Park Pros: 1. Accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion 2. Views within the site are pleasant and predominantly of the park,and the river trail to the east 3. Allows multiple points of access at Cynthia Street or Craimer Lane with straightforward vehicular and pedestrian circulation,and fire truck access 4. Site is relatively level with the street 5. Existing park would benefit outside amenities for the proposed Senior Center 6. Adjacent bicycle and pedestrian path in the river bed to the east connects with City bicycle trail 7. Mature vegetation on park site Cons: 1. Access to the site is through an established residential neighborhood 2. Views to and from the residential neighborhood that sits on three sides of the property 3. Northeast comer of site could be developed for Senior Center on approximately 3.8 acres (limiting some of the potential amenities a 5 acre site permits),allowing the ball fields to remain in place if necessary. The adjacency of the ball fields would be less desirable for the Center. 4. Adjacent to an active sports park(Little League)with potential negative Impacts for parking and noise 5. Per FEMA's map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 6. Huntington Beach City School owns site of 9.7 acres 7. No bus stop near site 8. Southeast side of City-not centrally located 9. Demolition of existing bail fields or bulldings will likely be required 10. Near power tines at river bed 11. If city purchases closed school site with P.A.&D.funds,Measure'C'vote required to build the proposed Senior Center 12. Little League could potentially be require relocation to accommodate the proposed Senior Center and parking 13. Two acres of the five acre park site is owned by Edison Company ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Site 4 Pros: • Clarification: Property is owned by school district,not city and,therefore,is not a"pro'. Cons: City could purchase all or part of the property under Naylor Act. 16 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analys-lis Site 5 OC Transfer Station Site five is located at the O.C.Transfer _ f W Station property,west of Gothard Street, and south of the existing city Sports Park. The opportunity exists to enhance this • ..A property and integrate it with Central -----_i---- --�-_- -- =A,:, Park.The site is currently owned by the County of Orange. k 3 {' _ IXUTAn,ppLls 9 x .. �r i 1.7 �s�, 4 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. sate Analy.,sis Site 5 - OC Transfer Station *Bus -*CITY LIBRARY STOP TALBERTST Q SPORTS PARK ' - CONCRETE AND ASPNALT RECYCLING - VARD i i i i = i i O 1 CD GOTHARD a FIRE STATION LEGEND 1- ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE �E NODE -" PARKLAND C C � PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER SITE TT C G J mm BRIDGE mm� STEPS � POWER LINES 18 ,.f'f H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 5 Observations—OC Transfer Station at Gothard and Talbert Pros: 1. Accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion 2. Allows multiple points of access along Golden West with straightforward vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and fire truck access 3. Site is relatively level with the street,with discernable topography at the west side 4. Proximate to Central Park, Huntington Beach Library,and Sports Park, although none of these uses are within a short walking distance. 5. Centrally located within the city and near other civic uses Cons: 1. Per FEMA's map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods° 2. Adjacent uses include the recycling yard to the north,commercial projects to the east and south,and the closed gun range to the west limiting the opportunities for views,etc. 3. Busy and loud 4. Bus stop north of site at Talbert,although not within a desirable walking distance for seniors 5. Site is not a4acent to compatible uses,with limited access to other park uses 6. No significant vegetation 7. County owned property,City would need to purchase 8. Site is a former landfill and would require significant mitigation ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Site 5 Pros: • Clarification: This site is undeveloped and,therefore,the statement that most site work already exists is incorrect. • This property is a considerable distance from other HCP amenities,such as the Central Library and Shipley Nature Center, therefore,benefit is minimal. • The fact that the county owns the property is not a"pro". 19 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analvqis ffite 6 - Rodgers Senior Center Site six is the existing Michael E. Rodgers . - Senior Center.The site is only half the size required to accommodate the new senior center space program. But,given �.xxEx the success of the programs offered in __ _____ -_ x this facility,and that the site is owned by ---------------______� the city,it certainly warranted site '• ,.r° analysis study. x ' - .a. N+rt�J s q S- a l� Y A 20 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Analysis 0 Site 6 - Rodgers Senior Center 4. O VO •• p !` 2.3 AC �. 2 • 1011, .y I H� • Sp • a •• LEGEND p. ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH- EDGE 9�F NODE PARK LAND SITE 6 PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER BRIDGE u STEPS V POWER LINES 21 HUN_TINGT0N _8EACH SENIOR-CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 6 Conclusions—Existing Rodger's Senior Center Site at 17"h and Orange Pros: 1. Seniors are familiar with the site 2. Micro climate near ocean is pleasant 3. Primarily quiet residential neighborhood 4. Has ability for vehicular access,pedestrian circulation,and fire truck access on all four sides of the property 5. City owned property 6. Site is level with the street and generally flat 7. Could benefit from proximity to the beach and the city walking trail Cons: 1. Entire site would require demolition 2. An interim Senior Center building/site would have to be determined to accommodate existing senior programs during construction 3. Site does not accommodate all needed program and/or parking. Site is small(+2.3 ac.),probable multi-story solution with subterranean parking required 4. Chevron deeded the property to the City with the condition that it be used for park and recreational uses,therefore,If facility were on a different or other site,this property could not be sold to raise funds for the new Senior Center without Chevron's approval 5. Adjacent to residential neighborhood with potential negative impacts for parking and noise 6. Southwest side of City 7. Per FEMA's map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X "This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dke,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 8. Not very much plant cover,primarily asphalt 9. Would require Measure'C'vote ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Site 6 Pros: "Site a4acent to compatible uses"—the area is surrounded by fast food,mini-market,and/or residential. Cons: In addition to the need for a two-story building,there would have to be subterranean parking. Site is not on south side of city. A better comment would be that it is"not centrally located." 22 H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX .................................................................................. Site Anal ySs Site 7A& 7B -Bartlett Park,Adams & Yorktown Site seven, Bartlett Park,was brought a _ to our attention in one of the public workshops. Given the requirement for a I five acre site, the analysis looked at the south end of the property at Adams, identified as site 7A,and the north end ' 1 ,.E.. �- r 1 -------------- of the property at Yorktown,identified '' as site 7B.The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis completed in July of 1999 by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., identified the bluff top area of the Park Site 7B �o„TEXTS,, as the most appropriate location for any proposed structures.This area was not � .°.. „ identified initially as it does not accommodate the desired 5 acres for the Senior Center.The report indicates that a building could be sensitively located to minimize the impact to the e surrounding area,but illustrates a 20,000 SF footprint,which at this time would not fully accommodate the desired city space program and would be challenged to fit the required parking without significantly impacting sensitive adjacent areas. Site 7A .ary H U N T I N G T 0 N BEACH SENIOR CENTER COMPLEX ..................................................................................Site Site 7A& 7B - Bartlett Park,Adams &Yorktown M GAS MITI".* ATtON� �E STORE a... Y,ORKTOWN AVE _ WALGREENS FAST �:�L .... .. ... .. FOOD SITE is 1 UTICA 1 , kk CHAMB F * tom < INDER6AyRrEN;;ti - OF CO.RMERCE�J�E : OF COM m a 7'oa autsROAMS ST STOP V_1 _... CHEVRON* *RESTAURANT GAS ._..:: STATION LEGEND H ACCESS PEDESTRIAN PATH EDGE NO OE- PARKLAND SITE 7 A & 7R/ Y � PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER l V >� BRIDGE -' uum STEPS POWER LINES �V 24 H U N T I N 0 T 0 N REACH SENIOR CENTER LPA SITE ASSESSMENT Site 7A Conclusions—Lower Bartlett Park at Adams and Coldwater Pros: 1. Site area accommodates parking,building program,exterior program,and future program expansion,with potential two-story building 2. Bus stop on Adams Street 3. Centrally located within the City Cons: 1. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis completed in July of 1999 by Sapphos Environmental,Inc.identified this area to be maintained as a natural area to maintain flood control/riparian area 2. Loud and busy 3. Views around site are not all pleasant,commercial property on west side,extreme topography to the north(Ravine), and prone to flooding,with native vegetation 4. Significant topography limits site flexibility 5. Existing curb cut on Adams is very dose to a busy intersection(Beach and Adams) 6. Per FEMAs map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 7. Site has an Orange County easement, and could have significant drainage issues which could restrict development options Site 7B Conclusions—Upper Bartlett Park at Yorktown Pros: i. Accommodates parking,building program,and partial exterior program with amu�ti-story building 2. Site is currently undeveloped 3. Extended views from the site are pleasant and overlook an environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA) 4. Centrally located within the City Cons: 1. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis completed in July of 1999 by Sapphos Environmental,Inc.identified this area as compatible for a Neighborhood Paris with no built structures that could have significant impacts 2. Vehicular access to site is limited 3. Fire access could limit site flexibility and building placement 4. Adjacent to residential homes to the east and a multi-story residential to the west 5. Significant topography and adjacency to sensitive resources limits site flexibility 6. Per FEMA's map#06059CO234H, site is located within Zone X"This area protected from the 1% chance flood by levee,dike,or other structure subject to possible failure during larger floods" 7. Site requires development and potential environmental sensitivity for a Native American burial/midden site The Opportunities and Constraints Analysis completed in July of 1999 by Sapphos Environmental, Inc., identified the bluff top area of the Park as the most appropriate location for any proposed structures. This area was not identified initially as it does not accommodate the desired 5 acres for the Senior Center. The report indicates that a building could be sensitively located to minimize the impact to the surrounding area,but illustrates a 20,000 SF footprint,which at this time would not fully accommodate the desired city space program and would be challenged to fit the required parking without significantly impacting sensitive adjacent areas. ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS TO LPA REPORT Sites 7A&7B Cons: • Site is not only a Native American burial midden,but also contains an environmentally sensitive habitat. • 7A includes storm drain pump station and storm water detention area that would impact buildable area. 25 ATTACHMENT #2 LIMIT OF EXISTING MAINTENANCE- FACILITY SYMBOL LEGEND EXPANSION INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF%DO SQUARE FEET I `.\Slater Ave DENOTES EIR PROJECT LEVEL a> I DENOTES EIR PROGRAM LEVEL �Iw— _ i �t MAI — R -CITY PARK TREE AND �I. E APE .--I � I MAINTrEfIAN YARD FACRTY WILL INCLUDE ��— ENHANCED IMPROVEMENTS AND r Fn CONSOLIDATION l 11-2 r I TING � Proposed Senior Center I PA0.CWRSE , TALBERT IAKEJ 0 Location EXISTING I MEADOW EXISTING I SHIPLEY NATURE AMPHITHEATER li CENTER Area currently undeveloped and ° R MUSIC AREA EXISTING designated as medium intensity I •`I L PLAYGROUND with picnic facilities, restrooms, = EXISTING ,I YOUTH tot lot and parking. Senior center ' o'• = LXBRARY SHELTER a a DB""" ITalbI rt Ave_ ISTING on the southern portion of this 1 u�� area would require the use of 5of the 14-acre site. x ' it ++Y A�,.+" !�• J� � .�T� SPORTS COMPLE�C' I HUNTINGTON LAKE DISC GGOLF 1I'II� ^ EZI E CO COUR5E +pwll•�u`�},; GUN ORANGECWNTY ` f• e.ai2.F. RANGE �'TRANSFER STATION RK rA DESILTATION' _ �, ' BASIN S` SULLY EXISTEQUESTRIAN E ' 'i:.. -I ILLER LAKE CENTER WI i U '+POINT o{0000 ono• {{{ {{{{ I?TIFI�{ _��� AR COUP { DAM ` C> EXISTING ' 'I 'I URBAN FOREST ��jj E �. �I OCEAN VIEW HR RIET M. � i'R S MI-ACTT y yk0 Q� 'ESTATES MOBILE WEIDER ii TRAILS A a .,..;RECREATION '[/8 HGMEs f' REGIONLIl !1 TRAIIHEAD AREA PARK /• _ 1 / ' ACCESS TO TRAIL FROM EXISTING MULTIPURPOSE TRAIL Ellis Ave EQUESTRIAN ESTATES AREA TO INCLUDE MASSES OF TREES OF VARIOUS SELECTED SPECIES - FACILITY INCLUDES SHADE SHELTER PICNIC- FACILITY INCLUDES:ACCESS ROAD— � /-FACILITY INCLUDES:ACCESS ROAD FROM EWS TABLES,HITCHING POST,BIKE RACKS,AND FROM ELUS AVENUE THERAPEUTIC AVENUE,RESTROOM BUILDING PICNIC SHELTER, TRAILS RIDING CENTER,OPEN TURF AND FISHING DOCKS,TRAILS OPEN tURF AREAS.PARKING FACILITY INCLUDES:ACCESS ROAD FROM E1115-- ggOppV��E�ppRIFILOW PARKING RESTROOM 1�I LOT,VOUFYBALL COM,AND TOT LOT AENUE,RESTROOM BUILDING,PARKING LOT CENTERG-TOY LOT AN SHy�A 1 5 --FAAICIILITY INCLUDES:ACCESS FROM WITH STANDARD SPACES,AND EQUESTRIAN (ALT9TWEST IREE7RTGRA EL PARKING LOT. TRAILER PARKING SPACES EIGHv1bj LIGHTED SOCCER FIELDS EIGHT 81 LIGHTED BALLHtIOS,F�URIGI ROLLER CAAGE,TW02RI CONCESSION' �r RESTROOM BUILDINGS,TWO 21 /ia IL—F� I TR, /X L P /X V LI�7 TOT LOTS,8 PICNIC SHELTERSS r� CITY IiJOBFFVIIHUI'�F�\N�TII\\NGTO(//N��\BEfIJA`\\CH, CALIFORNIA Shipley, - Natwe tee t , V i Res t► �• ` r Tot Lot yr s r1 ! TALSIAT G AGUE 1 C t�ianle Shelter. 1 : , =z> *PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER WOULD BE ON SOUTHERN 5 ACRE r OF THIS 14 ACRE PARCEL _4Central Park Faster Plan CAMOZA DO 16-18 Acres HARRINGTON ATTACHMENT #3 MEASURE C VOTE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 7, 2006 The City Clerk is responsible for producing a resolution calling for a General Election. The City Attorney is responsible to provide language for Measure C. This language should include full text for the resolution and a 75-word ballot summary that will be printed on the ballot. The total cost of the Measure C vote is anywhere up to $5,000, excluding the cost of publishing and translation. NOTE: A special election could cost up to $444,000; costs would be spread among the agencies proposing ballot measures. IMPORTANT DATES: Y3— City Council directs staff to place a Measure C ballot on the November 2006 General Election. 17— City Clerk submits RCA with input from the City Attorney for approval of ballot. Ballot title, ballot language, summary, and up to 500-word impartial analysis is prepared by the City Attorney, and goes to City Council for approval. AUU Ll - Last possible day for City Clerk to submit the following items to the O.C. Registrar of Voters: ■ Resolution ■ Text(full or partial) ■ Impartial analysis ■ Any arguments for and against (NOTE: Opposing group can prepare arguments against a measure.) AUQ — Last day to withdraw measure from ballot • ATTACHMENT #4 HUNTINGTON BEACH SENIOR CENTER LPA'S PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS Construction Cost Net Building Area $300/SF 33,970/SF $10,191,000 Grossing Factor 75% Efficient [$300/SF 22,320/SF 3,396,000 Subtotal Gross Building Area $13,587,000 45,290/SF 1,070,000 Site Costs Allowance Parking Utilities within 5' of Building Perimeter Landscape $14,657,000 Subtotal Preliminary Construction Costs (not site specific) $ 1,319,000 Soft Costs 513,000 Architect, A/E, Acoustic, Recreation, AV Consult. (9%) 733,000 Printing, Testing, Survey, Permits (3.5%) 100,000 FF&E Allowance (5%) 50,000 CEQA 732,850 Legal Project Management 5% Subtotal Soft Costs $ 3,447,850 Subtotal Construction Costs & Soft Costs $18,104,850 Contingency Design & Construction $ 2,931,400 Subtotal with 20% Contingencies $ 21,036,250 Escalation 5% for Three Years $ 2,273,667 OPINION OF TOTAL PROJECTS COSTS $ 23,309,917 LPA's estimate of the costs associated with preparing the project so that it is ready for a Measure C vote per Council minute action of July 11, 1994 is as follows: ➢ Architecture & Engineering: $1,319,000 ➢ Printing, testing, survey, permits: 513,000 ➢ CEQA 1001,000 10% contingency (soft costs only) 193,000 $2,125,000* *Does not include estimates for Project Management; Legal Services, Furnishings, Furniture & Equipment (FF&E); 10% Construction Contingency; or Inflation. ATTACHMENT #5 Lim CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: JIM ENGLE, Director of Community Services FROM: JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney DATE: June 28, 2006 SUBJECT: Review of Letter from Attorney Mark C. Allen regarding Charter Section 612 and Proposed Senior Center We have reviewed the above referenced letter. The basic premise of the letter is that before a Charter Section 612 vote of the electorate can take place regarding the location of the proposed senior center in a portion of Central Park,the City must perform some environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). We disagree. CEQA applies to "projects." Both the CEQA guidelines and California case law recognize that the word "project" as defined by CEQA does not include the submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community that does not involve a public agency sponsored initiative. (Guidelines, Section 15378(b)(3); Stein v. Santa Monica(1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 458; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 165.) Here, the City intends to submit an advisory measure to the voters as required by Charter Section 612, not a "public agency sponsored initiative" measure. Therefore, environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA is not required prior to the vote of the electorate. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding this matter. M� ENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney /pda alien-senior • • • ATTACHMENT #6 ;, l CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lj2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION (714)536-5486 Subject Community Services Commission Motion re: Proposed Senior Center in Huntington Central Park The Community Services Commission on April 12, 2006 received a presentation of the LPA study on the proposed senior center as well as copies of the report with its analysis. Additionally, a public input meeting was conducted as part of the May 10, 2006 commission meeting. A meeting notice was published and sent to homeowners within 1,000 feet of HCP. Commission received an overview of the site analysis prepared by the consultant, including LPA`s analysis of potential sites and an historical perspective of past Council actions relative to the proposed undeveloped Central Park site and its master plan. Commission voted 7 to 1 to recommend the proposed senior center at the Goldenwest and Talbert site. The minority vote indicated support of a new center, but wanted more information on the recommended site and potential costs beyond the cost analysis provided by the consultant. 1. Recommend to City Council approval of the use of approximately five acres of the 14-acre undeveloped site west of Goldenwest at Talbert and north of the disc golf course in Huntington Central Park (HCP) as a new senior center site with the stipulation that there be no expansion in the size of the five-acre footprint after the senior center is developed; that the building elevation be limited to one-story, and that the new landscaping blend in with the surrounding area; 2. Recommend to City Council approval of modifying the Huntington Central Park Land Use Master Plan designation of the five acres west Of Goldenwest and north of the disc golf course from medium to high intensity. NOTE: The remaining approximately nine acres would remain medium intensity; and I Recommend to City Council approval of modifying the Huntington Central Park Master Plan of Recreational Uses to add a new senior center to the southern five acres of the approximate 14-acre area west of Goldenwest at Talbert. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: CONSIDER TAKING PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER IN CENTRAL PARK TO CHARTER SECTION 612 VOTE COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 3, 2006 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not A licable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over$5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED; Administrative Staff ( ( ) Assistant City Administrator Initial ( ) ( C ) City Administrator Initial City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: t7 C CJ (Below • . For Only) RCA Author: City Council' City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council Member, Please hold off any vote on the new Senior Center until the City Council and Residents of the community have had a chance to review and discuss the optional sites. Please consider the alternate sites such as Kettler School. I am against placing pny Center on open space in Central Park, i ant interested in a SENIOR CENTER, not a Multi7jeperational'Community Center. Signature Name �� �31 S drt K Street Address City A State Cry Telephone No. E-mail J e_ o j Q9X.r It rJ e.. . Esparza, Patty From: ashtoncolvin [ashtoncolvin@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center I understand that the Council will be considering including the Senior Center proposal (for the building in Central Park) on the November ballot. . . I feel that the center would be a great asset to the City and an appropriate addition to the park's facilities. I encourage you to include the proposal on the November ballot. Sincerly, John Ashton 19001 Dalehurst Circle HB - CA 92646 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mickie/Bill Bagley [mickiebillb@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:10 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center Please put the senior center on the November ballot. The one we have is old and outdated. Compared to other local cities what we have is bad. Though they do a good job with what they have to work with. We need a better facility. Muriel Bagley 21771 Fairlane Cr. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. 7 4 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Thebarkers8@wmconnect.com Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:39 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center This is to inform you that we are both strongly in favor of the proposed new Senior Center & the possible location within Central Park warrants a vote of the citizens of HB. This is an issue too important to be decided by a small group, including the City Council. Put the question of the November ballot. Larry & Marilyn Barker 9582 Warburton Dr. H B 92646 6/20/2006 RECMD FROM AS PUBLIC RECOR R NCIL MEETING OF CITY OL FACE Public Comments by Ralph & Charlene B auf"`'I" CLERK June 5"',, 200+6 Honorable Mayor and Council members My name is Ralph Bauer and I any a 41 year resident of Huntington Beach. Although I am a member of the Huntington Beach Council on Aging, I do not officially represent them with these comments. I do however represent a new organization the committee to Support Our Seniors. About a year ag9the Council on Aging received data which shows that the number of seniors over 60 in Huntington Beach will increase by 64% to 53,600 by 2020. Further the monthly visits to the existing 1940's rehabilitated building have doubled between 1994 and 2004. The city council was thus requested to engage a firm to develop some concepts of where to place a new senior center. The well known firm of LPA of Irvine was retained and they reviewed nine potential sites in the city. The preferred site was the one in Central Farb at Golaenwest at Talbert. At that point the outcry against that location began. The opposition said, "I love seniors and a new senior center but": 1. Put the center on a site the city does not own 2. Put the center on a site which has contaminated soil. 3. Put the center on the existing 2 '/2 acre site which would rewire subterranean parking and a multi- storied building" Further, they said, "Let's do more studies": 1. Do an EIR which would stall the project beyond election day in November, so a Measure C Vote cannot occur in a timely fashion 2. Do a traffic study so that we can use traffic to oppose the project 3. Do a financial feasibility study knowing that no money can be committed until a site is selected The opposition stated that they oppose a measure C vote. What are they afraid or. We say, Let the people decide- That is the democratic way" Let me tell you a personal story. I was married nearly 54 years ago to Charlene. Shortly thereafter I was sent to Korea for 15 months and spent my first anniversary and my first 2 Christmases in the Korean War on a minesweeper. I came home and went to graduate school-and while my wife taught school. We had 2 children, both of whom have advanced college degrees. Charlene served on the Library Board which selected the architect who built Central library. She was a founding member of the League of Women Voters and founding president of American Association of University Women. She was a Cub Scout mother. She was a founding member of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. She was the co-founder of the Friends of the Library, We both participated in over 20 bond and override elections, one of which raised 6 million dollars that acquired much of the land for Central Park. That bond issue was passed 37 years ago I served 8 years on the Oceanview School Board and oversaw the building oL6 schools.'I served 8 years on the Huntington Beach Union High. School District Board and oversaw the building or rehabilitation o 3 high schools. I served 10 years on the City Council and hel2ed institute many cost saving and money making projects. I co- authored the statement on Human Rignity I was young when I came to Huntington Beach, Now, I am old - 75 to be exact. Charlene and I believe that we and many others with similar life experiences have earned the right to have a senior center in Central Park. We have earned the right to watch the birds and the butterflies, the flowers and the trees. We have earned the right to have easy access to the library when we can no longer drive. Currently, the equestrian center occupies 25 acres in the park. The Frisbee golf course occupies 15 acres. The dog park occupies 2 acres which is about the same as the present Senior Center at 17'h and Orange. We think it is only fair that the Senior Center be place on 5 acres at the preferred location on Goldenwest at Talbert. Please put this issue on the ballot for a vote on November 7, 2006 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:42 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: New Senior Center -----Original Message----- From: Lorraine Belgum [mailto:lorrbelgum@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center I support building a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert; I urge you to place it on the November Ballot. I have greatly benefitted from Rene Burton's "Stretch and Strength" class at the H. B. Center over the past 3 years. Lorraine Belgum 9665 Pettswood Hunt Bch 92646 Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http: //mail.yahoo.com 1 Esparza, Patty From: Kristina Bruning [kkbruning@socal.rr.com) Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: support move of Senior Center I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for 17 years. I support a yes vote on moving the Senior Center from the beach to Golden West and Talbert. Access for seniors would be improved by this move. Kristina Bruning 16792 Roosevelt Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92649 June 5, 2006 SPEECH TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY JUNE 5TH, 2006 RE: PROPOSED SENIOR CENTER BY: RENE BURTON Good Evening Honored Mayor and Council Members: My name is Rene Burton, and I have been a resident of the City of Huntington Beach for over 40 years. I was one of the first members of the Allied Arts Board and one of the first Founders of the Huntington Beach Arts Center. The Art Center is an important cultural resource in our community. I have been active in the senior community for many years, and am a credentialed Adaptive Physical Education instructor for Adult Education in the City of Huntington Beach. I have been in the fitness field for over 24 years. I teach seniors at Rodgers Senior Center several times a week. My classes are always full but the room is not large enough to accommodate all the students. I support the proposed new Senior Center at GoIdenwest and Talbert. The over 50 age group is the largest growing demographic in the country, as well as in the City of Huntington Beach. I am dedicated to promoting health and fitness for seniors and baby boomers in our community. The current senior center at 17th and Orange is an old rehabilitated 1940's building and needs major repair. It does not adequately serve this growing demographic. The location proposed is the geographic center of the city and is served by an existing bus line. It will enhance our city just as the Central library, across the street, and the Art Center has. Both these facilities have contributed to the community, and have made Huntington Beach a great place to live. All the surrounding cities, such as Newport Beach, Corona Del Mar, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley and Westminister, have new and improved Senior Centers. Our seniors are vital and productive members of our community. The seniors in our community are the very people that have contributed to the development of the Library at Goldenwest and Talbert, and for the development of the Art Center on Main Street. Both these facilities have proven to be an asset to the City and have provided many years of education and enjoyment for all the residents, both young and old in our City. The proposed site can also be used as a multigenerational facility, and parking and meeting rooms can be shared by existing community groups like the Friends of the Shipley Nature Center. Devoting 5 acres of this park to the new Senior Center will enhance the City of Huntington Beach. No soil remediation is needed and the site accommodates a 1 story building, which will be environmentally sensitive and the surrounding plant species will be selected by the Friends of the Shipley Nature Center. I sincerely hope that this council will see the value of a new and enhanced Senior Center for the citizens of our community, who over the years have contributed to the expansion and growth of our beautiful city. This Senior Center will be a valuable addition to the forward looking city of Huntington Beach. Thank you. ReneBurton 418 16th Street Huntington Beach (714) 969-9967 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: CAROL CALLISTO[aprgal@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: new senior center. I support the THE PREFERRED Goldenwest&Talbert site for the new senior center. 7 o• l L 4 6/28/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Agnes Chow[agnessuecyc@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: a new senior center To: The Huntington Beach City Council Date: June 21, 2006 From: Agnes S, Chow, a senior lives at 18252 Hartlund St. , Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1559 Re: A new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the Council meeting on July 3. I do agree to have the issue of building a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November ballot. Thank you. Yours truly, Agnes S. chow Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Victor Cohn [vicvac86@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 11:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center My wife and I are current residents of Huntington Beach, and I teach computer skills to Seniors at the Rogers Senior Center. We both feel very strongly that the city must create a more modern and inviting center for our seniors. The current facility,though functional, does not provide the activities the newer and younger generation of seniors require, such as modern exercise equipment and larger areas for group aerobics. The idea of a beautiful new facility in Central Park will be much more centrally located and can be designed with the needs of the newer seniors in mind. It also occurs to me that the current facility can be turned into a park like area thus minimizing the amount of lost park space to the community. Please do all you can to see that a new senior center becomes a reality,not just a dream. I will be out of town on July 3, 2006. If I were not, I would attend this very important Council meeting and address the council directly. Respectfully, Victor& Susan Cohn 6/27/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Tom Cooper[tjcoophb@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center/November election Honorable Mayor and members of the Huntington Beach City Council: As a member of the original "People For Parks" that helped sponsor, and worked for the passage of the Bond Issue for land purchase and development of Central Park, and as a former member of the Huntington Beach Parks and Recreation Commission for nearly 20 years, I would really encourage the City Council to strongly consider approving the placing on the ballot in November, 2006 the issue of the new Senior Center. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Dr. Thomas J. Cooper 714/847-1148 601 fi� C�- Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Don Cotton [doncot@gte.net] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 1:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: 'Bob Dettloff; 'Dick White'; rbauer1022@verizon.net; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center To: Huntington Beach City Council: Just a note to show our support for the Senior Center in Central Park(Golden West&Talbert Loc). At this time, we are unable to attend the July 31d meeting. It should certainly be on the ballot. All HB citizens should have an opportunity to make the decision as it is a park for all ....not just a few opponents/proponents. This location is best for the senior center because: 1. Central Park is for all and should be shared with seniors (are a good percentage of our population) . Note: There is no one who is more deserving to have a piece of the park than our seniors....at least equal to horses and disc golf. 2. Seniors are the ones who initiated the building of Central Park to begin with .Most current users are non-seniors and were not even around then . The seniors should receive their thanks and support. 3. The Senior Center should be built at minimal cost to the city. 4. Proximity to the park's trails, lake, Shipley Center(and the children) and Library provides the optimum enjoyment/lifestyle for our seniors. Some additional comments: 1. Have noticed that one of the main special group opponents involves disc golf. It is sad that so much area is devoted to disc golf(can't understand why it happened) ....how many actually are benefiting from all of this space and at what cost to the city? An article in the HB Independent mentions a "pro shop"/snack sales on the premises, &a$3 admission charged. Would like to know how to obtain financial report on this operation and how much goes to the city. Note: parking is free for this sport, but not for others in the sports complex).A question: How popular, to our citizens) is disc golf compared with other sports; i.e. tennis, baseball, softball, regular golf(driving range?), etc? 2. Another comment from an opponent in letter to editor(Register) pertained to building the senior center would "impact raptors" in the area. This should not be a problem, as they can move from the 5 acres(for the seniors) into the adjacent 15 acres (disc golf). The non-seniors , who utilize the adjacent areas, can arrange for their re-location. Thank you for your support, Don & Irene Cotton 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: penny@curry.us Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1.30 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear City Council: Please count this as a yes vote on building a new Senior Center in HB on Golden West and Talbert.. Penny Curry 16400 Saybrook Lane#12 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Penny@curry.us Al)� t 6n 5/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: lai dea [lai.dea@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center I support to put the issue of a senior center at Golden West and Talbert on the November ballot. Lai Dea "7/3 /0 6/21/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:28 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: YES Vote for Central Park Senior Center -----Original Message----- From: Ronidickenson@aol.com [mailto:Ronidickenson@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 4:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: YES Vote for Central Park Senior Center Dear Huntington Beach Council Members: I own a home on Jardines Drive, overlooking the western section of Central Park near Shipley Nature Center. My parents bought my house in 1969, and I have lived here for five years since buying it from them. I walk in Central Park twice a day, always near the proposed project. It is a wonderful location for a new Senior Center. Right now, it is used by squirrels. A few people occasionally use it for their gasoline-powered, radio- controlled models on weekends, but mostly it is sitting unused. Many people currently use Central Park. I see families there every weekend enjoying the beautiful facilities. Probably a majority of them are traveling here from nearby cities to enjoy the open spaces our 1960's era city "fathers" created. Our library center and sports facilities add much to Central Park community use also. Let's create a much-needed facility for our seniors that will be highly used by our own active residents. Our senior citizens tend to be loyal users of Huntington Beach merchants, watchdogs of our public facilities(I have picked up many bags of discarded trash on our beaches, and in our parks, on my walks), and proud residents of our beautiful city. I also make use of the current Senior Center, as I am over 50. In fact, I own another home on 22nd Street near the facility on 17th and Orange where I lived for six years. I take a line dancing class at the center on Fridays. I doubt any of our city's facilities are more intensively used in such a positive way. One request: Make sure the activity rooms are big enough! Veronica Claflin Dickenson (714) 847-0321 3 1 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Linda.Eide@AlconLabs.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: My support for a Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert As a resident of Huntington Beach and a concerned citizen, I'd like to voice my support of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. As our population ages, there is a real need to provide adequate services for seniors within Huntington Beach. Other communities are addressing this need in their communities (e.g. Fountain Valley) and Huntington Beach should as well. As I cannot attend the July 3rd meeting, please consider this resident request. Thanks! Linda Eide 8662 Acapulco Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 962-2558 This e-mail (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient or an authorized representative of an intended recipient,you are prohibited from using, copying or distributing the information in this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error,please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. 6/15/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Engel, Stephen W[stephen.w.engel@boeing.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:55 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Support for Senior Center in Central Park Dear Council Members, Just a note to express my families support for the planned Senior Citizen Center located in Central Park at Talbert and Golden West st. This is the most central location and it will be a perfect fit with the Shipley Nature Center near by. Thanks for your attention. Steve Engel 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Yasuko Fordiani [yfordiani@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center The Council meeting held on July 3rd. We need a new senior center with growing seniors in Huntington Beach. We are for building a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. Seniors are growing in Huntington Beach and we need a large place for the seniors. We will not be able to attend so please count our vote for the new Senior Center. Thank you. Robert and Yasuko Fordiani /3/0 6 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: dan garwick[danja@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center City Council Members, We are residents of Huntington Beach and have actively supported various open space issues such as the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and as Friends of Shipley Nature Center. Maintaining a healthy and balanced quality of life is very important to us. Having said that, we are very much in support of placing a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. It is needed and the site is very conductive to supporting the continued quality of life for all of Huntington Beach without impacting Central Park. Irrespective of our personal views, I do understand honest differences of opinion on this issue. Because of the importance of this issue to all residents of Huntington Beach, it is critically important that everyone gets a chance to express their opinions through the ballot box. I would urge all members of the city council to vote to put this issue on the ballot for EVERYONE to decide on this issue. Dan &Anja Garwick 4851 Curtis Circle, Huntington Beach 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: JGeorge821 @aol.com Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 3:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert I wish to register my support for the new Senior Center to be located at Goldenwest and Talbert. My husband and I have been Huntington Beach residents since 1970 and we would love to see the Center at the park location. Other sites have been dedicated to the youth in our city and we feel seniors would participate at the center as much as, or more than, sites dedicated to other specific groups. Please add this issue on the November ballot. Thank you. Jackie George 6762 Bridgewater Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92647 6/26/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Gerald Gooding [g.gooding@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear HB City Council Members I strongly urge your support for putting before the voters, the question of whether a senior center should be built at the proposed site on the corner of Golden West and Talbert(near the library). Such a center would vividly attest to the spirit of civic responsibility of the citizens of Huntington Beach. I strongly support a center at that site, and I hope you will too. Sincerely, Gerry Gooding 5191 Meadowlark Drive Huntington Beach 714 840-6985 73 /L 6/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: CGriff1716@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center YES- PLEASE PUT THE SENIOR CENTER ISSUE ON THE BALLOT. IT IS BADLY NEEDED AND WOULD BE A WONDERFUL ADDITION TO OUR CITY. 6/20/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: Pihitt@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:43 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center To City Council, I agree as a resident and senior of Huntington Beach that the new senior center should be located at Goldenwest and Talbert. I use the current senior facility several times a week and if we have to move then I feel this location is the best to meet all of our needs as well as the upcoming seniors. Our classes are growing at the current location. If need be it needs to go on the Nov. ballot. Sincerely, Marion Hitt 7281 Coho Drive #205 HB 92648 714-536-0604 Pihitt@aol.com 6/15/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Pihitt@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center I will be out of town and unable to attend the meeting on July 3, 2006. 1 am in favor of the Senior Center to be located at Goldenwest and Talbert and feel it should be put on the ballot. Too many times we have let a few vocal people change what most of us believe in. Thanks to them there are no more prayers in our schools, holidays can't just be holidays etc. We are ready to see this thing through and those of us who use the current location of the Senior Center several times a week are ready to voice our opions. Thank you, Marion Hitt 7281 Coho Dr. #205 Huntington Beach 92648 6/20/2006 Senior center Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cheri Hoffman [swballoons@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior center I have been a H.B. resident for the pass 36 years and feel its time to spend some of my tax dollars on a new senior center. The central Park is supposed to be for everyone so why can't the seniors of this community have a very small portion. By passing the measure to let it go on the ballot will give everyone in this city a chance to express there vote!!!! Please vote Yes and allow it to go before the voters. Thank You Cheri Hoffman A— r 6/15/2006 Esparza, Patty From: bholloway[bholloway@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior center ballot Hello I would like to see the Senior Center issue on the ballot and support the idea of a senior center. I am unable to attend the council meeting in person and ask you consider this my support for the issue. Thank you very much. Barbara Holloway 5951 Kenbrook Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Resident since 1977 C � JA� Esparza, Patty From: mary j.k. [mary6mjk@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:59 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes,Cathy Subject: Support for the Talbert&Golden West Senior Center Dear City Council, I fully support the proposed Talbert & Golden West Senior Center and pray that it will be voted on for the fall ballot. We need a center that is centrally located for everyone. I spend a couple days every week at the Rodgers Center playing Mahjongg on Wednesday and supporting the Handcrafters with my knitting and crocheting items. So much pleasure and friendship is enjoyed by everyone. I believe the location is perfect for a new Community Center, good transportation, the senior's can go for a walk in the park with out fear as there would be many walking, close to the library to pick up information and books, and a good atmosphere in a beautiful setting for everyone to enjoy. Thank You, Mary Kanaske Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: CKDCK@aoLcom Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Huntington Beach Senior Center Yes, I agree that the issue of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Telbert should be placed on the November Ballot DORIS KEEHN 6/16/2006 Esparza, Patty From: ellenpaul@webtv.net Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: ballot measure Yes, please put issue of Senior Center on November ballot. . . Question: has the issue of our city's name ever been on a ballot? If not, while at it, how about putting city name change on ballot. . . .I DISLIKE "SURFCITY" and won't frequent any shop which advertises as such. . . .It distressed me to address this email using that name! ! Thank you, Ellen Knuff (a HUNTINGTON BEACH resident for thirty nine years) i Esparza, Patty From: Amy Lammers[baseballmom_53@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 8:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: century1@earthlink.net; CSLG@aol.com; boordlee@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Sr. Center- Issue Should Be On Ballot Hi there, please note, we support the issue of the Senior Center, at Goldenwest/Talbert being on the November Ballot. Please know, that my mother uses the Rogers Senior Center now, located downtown. The Seniors NEED a Center, and it has come to my attention they are NOT being welomed @ Goldenwest/Talbert Location. We agree this issue NEEDS to be on the ballot. I am out of town, during the July 3rd HB City Council meeting @ 6pm- where this issue will be discussed. Amy Lammers Goldenwest Estate Homeowner, HB (daughter of an HB Senior Citizen! ) Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/Ol/ r Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: MARLENE MC ILROY[marmcilroy@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:26 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center This is sent as support to adding the issue of the proposed Senior Center(at Goldenwest and Talbert) on the November Ballot. This would be a fabulous place to put it and does not use that great a percent of the available area. Thank you, Marlene McIlroy (40 year resident of HB) 18532 Pueblo Circle HB 92646 0d M 7 /3 �- 6/21/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jimmacre@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Dear Council Persons, I am fully in favor of placing the proposed new senior center location in Central Park on the November ballot. The old center needs to be replaced with a more diverse one to cater to the needs of us"old Fogys". Jim McLaughlin 8788 Coral Springs#203 B Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 auk o 6/21/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Patricia Moore [hbpatricia@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: rodettloff@socal.rr.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Please, dear City Council Members, Either vote yourselves or vote to put it on the ballot. We really need it. Parking is such a problem and the rooms are small and old. Don't we really deserve something new? Can't you sell the property where Rodgers SC is for homes? I sure would like to be on the Committee to Support Our Seniors. Patty Moore, 7172 Ridge Glen Dr. , Apt. 109, HB 92648 Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/Ol/ 1 Esparza, Patty From: Louise Niles [louise niles@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Senior/Community Center I urge the City Council to approve the construction of a new Senior/Community Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. If we can give the equestrian people .25 acres, the frisbee peope 2 acres, build a new sports complex, then the City of Huntington Beach can support the new center on 5 acres. The site is ideal. Please say yes on July 3, 2006, and let's get it on the ballot in November. Thank you for your consideration. Louise Niles 18192 Parkview Lane #202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Bob Ogus[bdodger@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Huntington Beach Senior Center - Dear City Council: I support a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot. Our seniors are the folks who helped build this city and the current facility that they must use for all the activities is a disgrace. We pride our city on it's caring for it's citizens yet we provide more space to horses and pets. Huntinmgton Beach seniors vote, dogs and horses do not. Thank You Robert Ogus 16391 Redlands Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 7 4/0 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Stanleyp90@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior center site I'm in support of the Goldenwest and Talbert site for a new Senior Center site. Stan Parker 00 A A 6/22/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: DON PRICE [d.donfprice@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Dear Council Members I live within 3 blocks of where the new Huntington Beach Senior Center is proposed to be built, and I want you and all to know... I SUPPORT THE NEW CENTER 100%. LET THE CONSTRUCTION BEGIN. It is in my backyard, so to speak, and I welcome it. I think the proposed location is perfect. Build it large enough so that it will support this city's needs for years and years and years to come. Be well Don F. Price 6902 Vista Del Sol Drive 7 /3 /0 W_. ,4 / 6/20/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: rrobinson [srobinson9@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:28 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear City Council: My husband and I support putting the issue of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot. Thank You Sam and Rosemary Robinson 6/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Elaine Rosen [elrosen@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Dear Huntington Beach City Councilpersons: Due to the fact that we are hosting two Anzo, Japan guests for the holiday festivities, we are unable to stay for the City Council Public Forum where we would have liked to state our views regarding the Central Park site for a new Senior Center. The 5-acre site is such a great location for the new center. Driving by the area, it seems like such a small parcel compared to the vast expanse of the whole park. How can anyone disagree with it? We have read the pros and cons, and honestly, can find no legitimate reason to not use this perfect area for the senior center. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON THE CENTRAL PARK SENIOR CENTER SITE. Thank you for your consideration in this important issue. Elaine and Arthur Rosen 514 9th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 969-0194 elrosen@verizon.net 7 log J 6/27/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:21 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Senior Center 6/21 Naturally, this came in just after I sent you the email. -----Original Message----- From: Terry Schnitzer [mailto:terryschnitzer@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center I am planning to be at the meeting on July 3rd but wanted to cast my vote in favor of the Senior Center being built at Central Park. Am writing just in case we don't make it on July 3rd Terry Schnitzer 21552 Impala Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 964-1408 Terry Schnitzer 1-3 6/21/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: william simek[wsimek@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior center To all the council. even the young ones, 1 can not attend the July 3rd meeting regarding the senior center. Remmember you to will be seniors--soon then you know. Have some guts and vote on it now. As a senior I would like to see a new center before I die and time is running out. Thanks for what you have allready accumplished. A HB resident for 40 years. Bill Simek 17342 La Mesa Lane 6/28/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:23 PM To: Esparza, Patty Cc: Flynn, Joan Subject: FW: I strongly support a new Sr. Center Patti, the Council is getting a bunch of emails on the Sr. Ctr. Do you want them forwarded to you? -----Original Message----- From: Tstorrerl3@aol.com [mailto:Tstorrer13@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: I strongly support a new Sr. Center Please, put this on the November ballot!!!!!! I can't be at the meeting on July 3rd---will be on vacation. There was a front-page article in today's The Wave of Huntington Beach quoting a Bob Franklin, who claims to be a senior city planner of FOUNTAIN VALLEY. He is quoted as saying he's ready to fight against the new center at OUR Huntington Beach Central Park. Why in heaven's name is he even involved?? He doesn't live in our city!!! Let him go fight, and oppose things in his own city for crying out loud!!! Thanks, Theresa Storrer Huntington Beach Resident 6/15/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: D. H. Sutis[dsutis@socal.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 4:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Central park Our home backs up to the nature center at Central park, we have just received a flier from the opponents of the Senior center, giving out your email address so that we can let you know how we feel about the Senior center. We are all for it!!!! If we can share the park with horses, dogs and freebie golf why can't we share it with the seniors, many of whom have paid taxes in Huntington Beach long before some of these opponents were even born, and will continue to do so as long as they live here. Our seniors need this new center and we in Huntington Beach will have to hang our heads in shame if this is not built. All the cities around us do more for their seniors than we do and there is no reason we can't surpass them. Respectfully yours, Mr. and Mrs. D.H.Sutis 6782 Jardines Dr. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 (714) 842-3014 7 3 6/20/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: marion sutton [mjsutton@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed new Senior Center I'ni writing irr, suffort of the-prolposec.lneiv Senior Center.....it is vitatlthat ive Yrovic(e a better pfc-1ce anda convenient Coca Iion for al(our order citizens....rnc(u.c ilkq nee` ....I have i orkec(c7n ttt.E' 'ILF£'GZC_C on �' eet$ ?rC)( riZ-n2, i YkL�{Z71C>VE' t{�fZt the present siftiatioit is ito lont e'r a �gooil st7ot for aff o f us to geither, for nteetbigs, a.ml soci L( activities. 3(eLtSf (etS jT.L'e G�ilr Ce}€ICJYS GAS 1?12-LCh (ove as ive give our chifdren. lVe a.11 need he(t,,r......we cannot (16 this atone. 'Marion Svtton 6/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: marion sutton [mjsutton@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 10:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: the new Senior center As I am a Senior and do not like to drive at night, I won't be able to attend the meeting on the 3rd of July, but I would like to include my vote in favor of the new center for the many, many people who use, and will use the new center for the Seniors off Talbert Avenue. It is a wonderful location andour elder citizens who have contributedso much to our community certainly deserve a good; new and available center. Please use my name in support, andl hill be glad to be useful in any way possible to get this new center under construction. I have used the old facility, and it is much too small and inconvenient now... Thanks for your attention, Marion J. Sutton misuttonC@socafrr.com �,..� 6/26/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jack&Yvonne Taylor Utaylor483@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 4:53 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Sr Center To whom it may concern: This is a sincere request from long time residents of Huntington Beach to place on the November ballot the issue of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Mr. & Mrs Jack Taylor 15321 Rushmoor Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92647 7 ! / 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: GLORIA VEN LET[gjvenlet@msn.corn] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 3:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center in Central Park Dear City Council Members, We are ready and willing to vote for the Senior Center to be a part of Central Park. The park is big enough to spare a small portion for the center and it will be "centralized" for easy access to seniors and used more frequently by seniors who also take advantage of getting their exercise walking around the park. It is a perfect union!--just as the library now is. Thank you for taking this email into consideration. CI&Kal a*i&Zolvw t Vmiolat 15421 Cott&nwo-o&C%rd& 74 uw�,t� to-w 3e� CA 92647 , 6/26/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Art Weiland [artweiland@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 4:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center I support putting on the Nov ballot whether to build a new Senior Center. Arthur Weiland 6/27/2006 6/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Lwolder@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:54 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert Please give serious consideration to locating the new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. It is a central location for this center and is greatly needed. Leslie Wolder 16212 Piedmont Cove Huntington Beach CA 92649 } 7 131 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Harvey Wolsky [wolskhj@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Ballot Initiative Dear Council Members, I respectfully request that the proposed initiative concerning construction of a new senior center be placed on the November,2006 ballot. As a participant in classes at the Rodgers Center, I am acquainted with the necessity of extensive upgrading needed on that building. As a practical matter, with the projected increase in the senior population in the city of Huntington Beach, a new, centrally located center makes more sense. Please allow the citizens of the city to voice their opinions at the ballot box. Respectfully Submitted, Judith Wolsky 15731 Hummingbird Lane Huntington Beach a.. 6/22/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Martha Bergman [mbergman@gwc.cccd.edu] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center in Central Park Dear Council Members, I favor keeping Central Park passive. I believe we need more balance in our city between new developments and natural areas, and I worry that in our efforts to save a buck by building a senior center on park land we will saddle future generations with the expense of trying to purchase more open space, a trend already emerging in other Orange County towns. The meadow area is used more than many people realize, and--regardless--a building as large as the planned center will make the west side of Central Park much smaller-seeming, less natural looking, and noisier. One woman with whom I discussed this topic said she thinks the center is a movement to make the west side a "Senior Park. " One teenager promised me (to my dismay) that there would be graffitti on the building every day if the "selfish seniors" (her term) build it. No doubt that's an empty threat, but this girl is not atypical, and her remarks show how much this issue is already dividing the community in a painful way. I believe there must be much less "volatile" sites that deserve consideration. I know the people who favor the center in Central Park are making the argument that, whether or not this is the best site for the building, we should put the matter before the voters on the November ballot. This view, to me, is superficial. We voters tend to believe that when city council puts something on the ballot it is well-researched and that you recommend it. Remember, in a democratic republic such as ours (we often forget that we aren't simply a democracy) , we depend on council members to be our screening process. Once an proposal gets on the ballot, things--in a community as large as ours--can get a little crazy. Smear campaigns start up, false facts get spread (usually at the last minute leaving voters no time to check them out) , and so forth. Other than the collection of signatures on a petition, we depend on you to make sure ballot measures are reasonable, researched, and the very best of alternatives when all alternatives have been meticulously considered. Deciding to wait to put an emotive issue before the voters, especially in the interest of searching for the least devisive alternative, is not necessarily denying the rest of us a voice. It can be--as I believe it is in this case--doing your job. Thank you for reading this. Martha Bergman 1 June 26, 2006 City of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Senior Center at Central Park Dear HB City Council, I am asking you to vote AGAINST putting the proposed Central Park senior center project on the November 2006 ballot due to several serious unanswered environmental questions. Senior center proponents are using the 1999 Huntington Central Park Master EIR to justify that there will be no undue environmental impacts with the Alternative 1 site consisting of 5 acres southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest& Talbert. I am sadly disappointed at the willingness of the proponents to overlook several glaring EIR deficiencies in their mad rush to cram the senior center through the approval process. The EIR begins by explaining the difference between "program"-level analysis and "project"- level analysis. The EIR admits that "program" analysis by itself is insufficient to fully determine the impacts of a specific proposed project and that further"project" analysis needs to be done prior to construction in order to determine the full impact. Since only "program" analysis has been done for the Alternative 1 site,the City Council does not have sufficient data to determine the impact of the project, and ultimately the voters lack the data to cast an informed Measure C vote. The only acceptable City Council action for moving this project forward at the current time would be to initiate a "project" EIR. Page 3.7-8 states that: "Wildlife surveys were conducted during the daylight hours,therefore, only diurnally active mammals, or sign of mammals were observed. No trapping or nocturnal surveys were performed." Daytime-only wildlife surveys are woefully insufficient to determine the impact of a facility that will be hosting 300-person wedding receptions during evening hours in order to be (allegedly) fiscally viable. The resulting light&noise from both the facility and parking lot will have serious detrimental impacts to nighttime wildlife. Based on my personal nighttime owl surveys on the Shea& Goodell properties at Bolsa Chica, it is highly probable that both Barn Owls and Great-Horned Owls (species normally seen only at night) are present at Central Park and utilize the trees adjacent to the Alternative 1 site as hunting perches. However, if the 1999 EIR omitted night surveys, it is impossible to determine the impact to the local owl population. The vegetation data in the 1999 EIR was collected during three visits in September/October 1997. I know from five years of personal botanical observations that I have conducted on the Lo . - J Shea& Goodell properties that September and October are the most boring months for vegetation in Huntington Beach. Most of the summe6dry species are dying or already dead, and no evidence of the winter/wet species remains. Any EIR that wanted to accurately characterize a site's vegetation would also conduct surveys during the February-May peak period as well. The wetland data in the 1999 EIR is similarly lacking. The only field visits done to look for on- site wetland characteristics were on August 12, 1997, and September 9, 1997, both near the end of a long, dry summer. I don't know of any non-tidal areas in Huntington Beach that demonstrate meaningful wetland characteristics at the height of the dry season. Any real wetland survey should occur during the rainy season. I made a personal site visit on May 12, 2006,to do a quick vegetation survey and to look for wetland characteristics. The obligate (OBL)wetland species Salt Sandspurry (Spergularia saliva,http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPSA5)was present in moderate abundance. The OBL designation means that this species in found in wetlands 99%of the time. I also found a small depressional area that contained both Salt Sandspurry and the dry, cracked mud surface that is indicative of prolonged wet season ponding (see photo below). I made a subsequent visit on June 10,2006, and found another obligate wetland species -- Seaside Heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum, http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=HECU3). Clearly a more thorough EIR analysis needs to be conducted during the wet season to determine whether or not additional potential wetland areas exist on the site. Page 3.7-41 states that: "A habitat\migration corridor from Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve is potentially present in the future Harriet M. Wieder Regional Park. This linear park will provide a corridor of natural habitat between Huntington Central Park and the coastal salt marsh habitat of Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Harriet Weider [sic] Regional Park is planned to be vegetated with native grasses, coastal sage scrub, and riparian plant communities. Harriet Weider [sic] Regional Park offers the potential for a safe and natural route of faunal exchange between the coast and Huntington Central Park. Potential sensitive species which could utilize the corridor may include: Swainson's hawk,American peregrine falcon, coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper's hawk, loggerhead shrike,yellow warbler, and Virginia's warbler." The EIR does recognize the obvious here when it states that Huntington Central Park is essentially part of the Greater Bolsa Chica ecosystem. But at the time the EIR was written,there were still massive development plans for Bolsa Chica. As we all know,those plans never materialized, and the restoration of Bolsa Chica is well under way. Thus the Bolsa Chica ecosystem will exhibit a much greater vitality than was contemplated by this EIR, making it even more likely that sensitive coastal plant&animal species will find their way to Central Park. The current EIR is therefore stale and needs to be revised. Page 3.7-44 says this about development in the "Low-Intensity Recreation Area" (i.e. senior center Alternative 1): "However, because this area is inhabited by significant numbers of rodents, development of this area will potentially result in significant impacts to food supply and foraging territory for raptors present at the Park." The EIR obviously did not foresee the death and subsequent rebirth of Shipley Nature Center and the resulting raptor population that resides at Shipley. The EIR's bird lists do not include the California fully-protected White-tailed Kites that are/were nesting at Shipley during the 2006 season. What will the loss of the foraging area mean to the viability of today's Shipley raptor habitat? You can't tell from the 1999 EIR,because it does not reflect the situation existing in 2006. Page 3.7-47 lists Mitigation Measure Biological Resources 4 as: "Potential impacts to foraging habitat for raptors resulting from development of non-native grasslands in the Park could be mitigated by enhancing ruderal/bare areas at a ratio of 1:1 for acres of impact to provide suitable habitat for prey species. Additionally, strategic planting of trees in the developed areas to allow broad, open areas for foraging would mitigate for loss of existing foraging habitat." Not quite. The landscaped lawn areas of the park provide inferior prey species (rodents, lizards) habitat compared to the "wild" non-native vegetation of the Alternative 1 site. Planting trees in the lawn areas won't mean anything to the raptors because their food sources won't be present. I have yet to hear senior center proponents explain what sections of the park will have the existing lawn ripped out and replaced by mustard/radish/etc habitat to accomplish the 1:1 mitigation proposed by the 1999 EIR. Clearly the 1999 EIR has deficiencies that severely limit its usefulness in evaluating a project in 2006. If the city is going to pay more than lip service to CEQA, a new project-level EIR needs to be performed for the senior center before any Measure C vote. Therefore I am asking you to vote AGAINST putting the proposed Central Park senior center project on the November 2006 ballot. I remain philosophically opposed to the idea of constructing massive buildings in Central Park instead of preserving the existing open space which becomes ever more important as the city approaches build-out. If the Council succeeds in cramming through the senior center, I predict it will be the beginning of the end of Central Park. Future population growth will inevitably overtax other municipal facilities in the years to come, and there will be pressure and precedent to build even more buildings in Central Park. I strongly urge all members of the public who value the existing open space at Central Park to web browse to www.savecentralpark.org, send e- mail to savecentralpark@aol.com, or phone 714-587-0371 to find out how they can help to save Central Park. The city needs to be more imaginative when it comes to site selection for a new senior center. I have no doubts that a new senior center would be a valuable asset for the community,but not if it comes at the expense of the integrity of Central Park. Sincerely, XIS4 b. g-ix� Mark D. Bixb . 17451 H!]g Q to Huntington Beach, CA 9 6 9470 714 6 5-876 mark@bixby.org Photo¥2 Obligate Salt Sadpuryin the dpe6ok area containing dried, cracked mud ��« ��r d�2 ��». y Roberts, Robin From: Mark Bixby[mark@bixby.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:46 PM To: Flynn, Jo Robin Subject: [Fwd: t senior cente nd the 1999 program EIR] 0 the senior center and the 1999... Hi Joan & Robin, If it's not too late, can you see that my attached e-mail makes it into the June 5th city council agenda packet? Otherwise Late Communications will have to do. I don't know if stuff sent to city.council@surfcity-hb.org is automatically included in the packet, so I thought I would forward a copy directly to you. Thanks. . . mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . Page 1 of 1 w 'r a - � � � A •v file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\robertsr\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Internet... 6/5/2006 Roberts, Robin From: Mark Bixby[mark@bixby.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:40 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; hbtalk; sehbna@yahoogroups.com Subject: the senior center and the 1999 program EIR X 0605120_0009 (Large).JPG Hi City Council, hbtalk, and SEHBNA, Today (05/31/06) I went over to the Central Library to look at the 1999 Huntington Central Park Master EIR (http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/ProjDocList.asp?ProjectPK=45492) being used by senior center proponents to justify that there will be no undue environmental impacts with the Alternative 1 site southwest of the intersection of Goldenwest & Talbert. I must say that I am sadly disappointed at the willingness of the proponents to overlook several glaring EIR deficiencies in the mad rush to cram the senior center through the approval process. The EIR begins by explaining the difference between "program"-level analysis and "project"-level analysis. The EIR admits that "program" analysis by itself is insufficient to fully determine the impacts of a specific proposed project. Further "project" analysis needs to be done prior to construction in order to determine the full impact. Since only "program" analysis has been done for the Alternative 1 site, the City Council does not have sufficient data to determine the impact of the project, and ultimately the voters lack the data to cast an informed Measure C vote. The only acceptable City Council action for moving this project forward at the current time would be to initiate a "project" EIR. Page 3.7-8 states that: "Wildlife surveys were conducted during the daylight hours, therefore, only diurnally active mammals, or sign of mammals were observed. No trapping or nocturnal surveys were performed. " Daytime-only wildlife surveys are woefully insufficient to determine the impact of a facility that will be hosting 300-person wedding receptions during evening hours in order to be (allegedly) fiscally viable. The resulting light & noise from both the facility and parking lot will have serious detrimental impacts to nighttime wildlife. Based on my personal nighttime owl surveys on the Shea & Goodell properties at Bolsa Chica, it seems extremely likely that both Barn Owls and Great-Horned Owls (species normally seen only at night) are present at Central Park and utilize the trees adjacent to the Alternative 1 site as hunting perches. If the 1999 EIR hasn't conducted any night surveys, it is impossible to determine the impact to the local owl population. The vegetation data in the 1999 EIR was collected during three visits in September/October 1997. I know from 5 years of personal botanical observations that I have conducted on the Shea & Goodell properties that September and October are the most boring months for vegetation in Huntington Beach. Most of the summer/dry species are dying or already dead, and no evidence of the winter/wet species remains. Any EIR that wanted to accurately characterize a site's vegetation would also conduct surveys during the February-May peak period as well. The wetland data in the 1999 EIR is similarly lacking. The only field visits done to look for on-site wetland characteristics were on August 12, 1997, and September 9, 1997, both near the end of a long, dry summer. I don't know of any non-tidal areas in Huntington Beach that demonstrate meaningful wetland characteristics at the height of the dry season. Any real wetland survey 1 should occur during the rainy season. I made a personal site visit on May 12, 2006, to do a quick vegetation survey and look for wetland characteristics. The obligate (OBL) wetland species Salt Sandspurry (/Spergularia salina/, http: //plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPSA5) was present in moderate abundance. The OBL designation means that this species in found in wetlands 99% of the time. I also found a small depressional area that contained both Salt Sandspurry and the dry, cracked mud surface that is indicative of prolonged wet season ponding (see attached photo) . A more thorough EIR analysis needs to be conducted during the wet season to determine whether or not additional potential wetland areas exist on the site. Page 3.7-41 states that: "A habitat\migration corridor from Huntington Central Park to Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve is potentially present in the future Harriet M. Wieder Regional Park. This linear park will provide a corridor of natural habitat between Huntington Central Park and the coastal salt marsh habitat of Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Harriet Weider [sic] Regional Park is planned to be vegetated with native grasses, coastal sage scrub, and riparian plant communities. Harriet Weider [sic] Regional Park offers the potential for a safe and natural route of faunal exchange between the coast and Huntington Central Park. Potential sensitive species which could utilize the corridor may include: Swainson's hawk, American peregrine falcon, coastal California gnatcatcher, Cooper's hawk, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, and Virginia's warbler. " The EIR does recognize the obvious here when it states that Huntington Central Park is essentially part of the Greater Bolsa Chica ecosystem. But at the time the EIR was written, there were still massive development plans for Bolsa Chica. As we all know, those plans never materialized, and the restoration of Bolsa Chica is well under way. Thus the Bolsa Chica ecosystem will exhibit a much greater vitality than was contemplated by this EIR, making it even more likely that sensitive coastal plant & animal species will find their way to Central Park. So the current EIR is therefore stale and needs to be revised. Page 3.7-44 says this about development in the "Low-Intensity Recreation Area" (aka senior center Alternative 1) : "However, because this area is inhabited by significant numbers of rodents, development of this area will potentially result in significant impacts to food supply and foraging territory for raptors present at the Park. " This is another part of the EIR that is stale. The EIR did not forsee the death and subsequent rebirth of Shipley Nature Center, and the resulting raptor population that resides at Shipley. The EIR's bird lists do not include the California fully-protected White-tailed Kites that are/were nesting at Shipley this season. What will the loss of this foraging area mean to the viability of the Shipley raptor habitat? You simply can't tell from the 1999 EIR, because it is no longer relevant in 2006. Page 3. 7-47 lists Mitigation Measure Biological Resources 4 as: "Potential impacts to foraging habitat for raptors resulting from development of non-native grasslands in the Park could be mitigated by enhancing ruderal/bare areas at a ratio of 1: 1 for acres of impact to provide suitable habitat for prey species. Additionally, strategic planting of trees in the developed areas to allow broad, open areas for foraging would mitigate for loss of existing foraging habitat. " Not quite. The landscaped lawn areas of the park are inferior prey species (rodents, lizards) habitat compared to the "wild" non-native vegetation of the Alternative 1 site. Planting trees in the lawn areas won't mean anything to the raptors because the food sources won't be present. I look forward to the coming City Council debate where I hope to hear senior center proponents explain what sections of the park will have the existing lawn ripped out and 2 replaced by mustard/radish/etc habitat to accomplish the 1: 1 mitigation proposed by the 1999 EIR. Clearly the 1999 EIR has major problems that severely limits its usefulness in evaluating a project in 2006. If the city is going to pay more than lip service to CEQA, a new project-level EIR needs to be performed for the senior center BEFORE any Measure C vote. But ultimately I remain philosophically opposed to the idea of constructing massive buildings in Central Park instead of preserving the existing open space which becomes ever more important as the city approaches build-out. If the Council succeeds in cramming through the senior center, I predict it will be the beginning of the end of Central Park. Future population growth will inevitably overtax other municipal facilities in the years to come, and there will be pressure and precedent to build even more buildings in Central Park. The city needs to be more imaginative when it comes to site selection for a new senior center. I have no doubts that a new senior center would be a valuable asset for the community, but not if it comes at the expense of the integrity of Central Park. Sincerely, Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714.-625-0876 mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . 3 Save Central Park!! Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cindy Clark[cindyclark@socal.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Save Central Park!! I am outraged at the idea of developing a senior/community center on property zoned for the park. Why is it that we have to develop this center at this location? There are so many other sites that can be used. Please leave our precious open area parks alone! The wildlife (plants included) need to be cared for, not torn down and replaced. Our council already has a responsibility to uphold this park as it is, for the community. If the members of the council were to change this zoned property to a different status for the building of a community/senior center, I can assure you, the HB community will seriously question the credibility and integrity of each council person, for a very long time. I implore all of you to keep our central park zoned as it is now, forever. Sincerely, Cindy Clark 7 3 /� 6/20/2006 The so called New Senior Center proposal I am for a better senior center but not at central park in the recommended location by Ralph Bauer and Mr. Dettloff,who are not city officials but good friend of Mayor Sullivan and council member Green. The start of this proposal is inappropriate because it was behind closed doors from the public with two council persons absent and by a friend of the some of the city council. This is how HB got the first Senior center downtown and destroyed five ball fields because it was stated at the time (before measure"C")that the center was needed and it had to be at this location because it was best for the seniors. Are the people of downtown HB going to get their open space back as a park or ball fields or is the land going to be sold to the highest bidder?? This is not about a senior center but a way for the HB staff to get a hall for weddings and other events to be rented out to make money for the city. Where is the money coming from the pay for this center?? HB can not fix its road ways, curbs, sidewalks and sewer/water system because of lack of money. Debbie Cook was the only council person to try and bring up the lack of money to build this center(no funds available to build). The members of the council at that meeting ignored Debbie Cook. Now let me go over the report, why was one of the consultants from northern California??No companies that would give the city staff would they wanted from Southern California, that is a biased report with the out come the staff wanted. The comparative analysis- does HB have to keep up with the Jones and have the best center of any city in Orange County??? Why wasn't Anaheim and Santa Ana included in the analysis which are cities closer to HBs population and land area?? Market analysis-assumptions were made here that were totally wrong. How come it can be assumed HBs population of adults 60+in 2020 but not any other cities in table II?? How much space (square feet) does each senior need at the center?? Comparative Analysis---if there are only 33,000 seniors in HB how come Rodgers center says that 118,000 people showed up in 2004 for events. Why because of number manipulation,the same people came to the center, stayed all day and were counted several times per day. Space Program—why does the Administration building have to so big at 1,910 square feet. How many people does it take to run the center?? Education center---should be cut in half for square footage from 4,000 to 2,000 square feet. These rooms are redundant( in other center buildings) or not needed. Social Center—a 7,000 square foot community hall with a 2,500 square foot kitchen. Way to big, what are we trying to build the Trumps casino??? Fitness center—a 4,500 square foot fitness room and a 2,600 square foot exercise room. They sound like the same thing to me and are way to big!!! 7/2 /0 - _- Cd 1 Project Costs--- a million dollars plus on parking. Who are you trying to kid on that cost???Not even a majority of the seniors even use the center or ever will, old or new center. Site Analysis---site#1 is not the best choice. Site 3B & 2 would be better choices. Why was Murdy Park not given consideration??? In conclusion not all senior want a new center in central park, the center does not need to in the center of the city. What is being proposed the way to big and not needed!!! It is to close to the Nature center and to much traffic for GoldenWest street There are thousands of citizens who will fight this proposal the way it is presented now and it will fail!!! I am 58 years old, myself and my neighbors who are mostly in my age group will fight this proposal until are streets, curbs and sewer lines are fixed or repaired. The city needs to spend what money it has on the right things. Thank you for your time. Robert Dingman 17162 Erwin Lane 92647 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Del and Virginia Emery [demery@socal.rr.comj Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 11:58 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Senior Center 6/15/06 Dear Council Members: We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed Senior Center/Conference Center to be located in Central Park. Don't use the guise of a new Senior Center to push through this project. An article in the June 15, 2006, O.C. Register's The Wave, states that a 64% increase in the number of folks older than 60 years of age is expected by the year 2020. The vast majority of folks older than 60 years of age will not be in need of wedding facilities. We thought all the big hotels located along the coast in Huntington Beach have conference/ball rooms available for meetings,weddings and receptions, etc. Also, people can schecdule a wedding in the park any time with city approval. There are many, many vacant properties around this city(vacant schools and numerous spots at strip malls). We think the best solution is to expand the present Senior's facility. Thank you Del and Virginia Emery 6/15/2006 Esparta, Patty Page 1 of 1 From: Davalin@aol.com Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:40 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Please don't build a senior center in Central Park...I'm a Senior, but I believe what little open land that is left in Huntington beach, should be saved. Please take this in to consideration. Linda Farrow 00 /?7 /Y) 6/20/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Rick Fee [e46rick@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:37 PM To: city.administrator@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Senior Center I am in support of a new Senior Center in Huntington Beach. Although I am not a senior citizen, I have visited our current Senior Center at 17th St. and Orange on several occasions. There's no doubt the current center is outdated and not large enough to meet the needs of our senior citizens. The biggest question I have is one of location. The proposed site for a new center is in an undeveloped portion of Huntington Central Park. This location represents some the last precious open space we have left in our city. Although some have characterized this open space as just a "dirt lot", many of us would put a much higher value on it than just dirt. As I recently walked through the proposed site, I found it teeming with wildflowers, birds, rabbits and squirrels. It's a peaceful escape from the bustle of the city and is enjoyed by playing children and entire families on a daily basis. In a densely populated town of 200, 000 people, open space is very rare thing and once it is lost it will never be regained. Living in coastal Orange County, one must drive a great distance to get out of the city and experience true wild places. Because of this, many residents and visitors alike covet the few small pieces of open parkland that remain. We have already lost a large portion of passive open space to our new Sports Complex. Now the City is proposing to eliminate even more with a new Senior Center. While a new Senior Center is much needed for our community, giving up a large piece of valuable Central Park open space is too high a price to pay. City leaders I urge you to reconsider this decision and find a more suitable location for our new Senior Center. Sincerely, Rick Fee 18062 Shoreview Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 (714) 841-2600 Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best seam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com L� t Esparza, Patty From: Elena Fettig [emfettig@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 7:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed building in Central Park Dear Council Members, I was very upset to hear of your plans to build in the meadow area of Central Park. I don't want to lose any more of our open spaces and I am sure most residents feel the same. I vote and I will be very unhappy if this goes through. Sincerely, Elena Fettig Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Susan Fleming [scardl966@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: SENIOR CENTER Dear Mayor and all Council Members, I am a resident of Huntington Beach, moving here in 1968, at the glorious age of two years old. From my earliest memories the park has remained remarkably the same. In the good old days, when my friends and i would enjoy the paddle boats in the lake,we would hike up the hill to Reynolds stables, picking these reeds that we chewed that tasted like black licorice. It was so great to walk to each horse stall and pet every horse that would let us. We would also pick blackberries that grew along the fence of the old nature center. We would run home with them and mess up my moms kitchen, making pies. Just ask her, she still lives in the same home,we moved to in 1968, and of course she is a senior. Surprisingly she is a senior that is AGAINST this proposed senior center. Not only are we for SAVING CENTRAL PARK,we are for saving money. As we all know $23 million is a very preliminary figure. I think it is known projects usually drastically go up. I will not continue to bore you,if you have read this far. I am sure you have reached your own conclusions. What is coming to be reality for me, surprisingly,is according to the seniors, come fifteen years, I to will be a senior citizen. Thank You for reading! Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam?Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 7/3 6/15/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Leland Green [lelandgreen@socal..rr.com] Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: tammygreen@socal.rr.com; savecentralpark@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center in Huntington Central Park-Feedback Dear City Council Members, While we will not be able to attend the public meeting on June 19th,we wanted to let you know our thoughts on the proposed Senior Center in Huntington Central Park. Our family really enjoys the Central Park area,including the area for the proposed Sr.Center.We run through the trails,and truly appreciate the area in its current,undeveloped,state. It would be unfortunate to add any high intensity building to this area.As a resident of the neighboring tract,we would prefer this section of Central Park be left undeveloped. Sincerely, Lee&Tammy Green 6922 Via Angelina Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Ph 714-841-9247 lelandgreen@socal.rr.com (10 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cindy& Ken Jackson Dacksons@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Serior Center Council Members, I'm writing out of concern and frustration regarding the proposed Senior Center-or should it be really called a Community Center that will also be used as a Senior Center. We have been down this road before,with the debate about the use of the school gyms that were built at the four school sites of the Ocean View School District. Like the current consideration, they were originally proposed as gyms for the kids at those four middle schools. Then it came to light that they were also to be used by other groups on a pay per use basis. Now we are back to the same situation. A very large building, with a very large parking lot, being pushed as a place for seniors that just happens to also be planned for use as a community center that would house a variety of events. Where are the impact studies for traffic and the environment? As with the gyms there are none. The noise levels generated by the GoldenWest Highway (I call it that because with speeds of 50 to 60+ miles per hour and increased traffic it is in fact a highway), sports center, and occasional amplified functions in the park is already significant. What is the real agenda here? In the name of helping seniors a community center would be built to benefit who? It would realize how much revenue per year? The current downtown site would be leveled to make way for homes that would realize how much tax revenue? And then there is the matter of changing the zoning of our park to high intensity use. Have any of you looked at HB from the air? There is this large expanse of green (Central Park)that is really unique and heavily used by all citizens. The so-called messy section that is in question is called nature by some. But now some want to change that by opening the door to building. Opening the door is exactly what this will do-if you can build this building why not another? And so on. Central Park was established as just that-a park to be used by all. I am a senior citizen. I enjoy using the park. I have no problem with building a new senior citizen center, but not at the expense of the park and all the people who use it, and certainly not in the way it is being billed -as a Senior Center that also will be used as a Community Center that would probably have a huge impact on our quality of life. /a ro 1�2 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: ROBERT S KIRKSEY[nrkirksey@verizon.net) Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 4:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Central Park, Parking lot and Building TO ALL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PLEASE Please don't approve this rezoning and building in the Park. We were in the park today and saw families relaxing, playing games, eating and just enjoying the outdoors. Keep the park open with lots of space for all. Why more pavement? We are not against the seniors, they do need more space. Complete the park according to the original plans. Thank You, Bob and Nancy Kirksey 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mike McVicker[MMinHB@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Save Central Park City Council of Huntington Beach, I do not approve of the use of five acres of the fourteen-acre undeveloped site in Huntington Beach Central Park west of Goldenwest and north of the disc golf course for a new senior center site. The city council needs to look at an alternative location other than any part of Huntington Beach Central Park. Mike McVicker 9192 Bermuda Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ro 6/22/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Bob McVicker[robertmcvicker@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Save Central Park City Council of Huntington Beach, I do not approve of the use of five acres of the fourteen-acre undeveloped site in Huntington Central Park west of Goldenwest and north of the disc golf course for a new senior center site. The city council needs to look at an alternative location other than any part of Huntington Central Park. Robert McVicker 15011 Hanover Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Find just what you're after with the new, more precise MSN Search-try it now! 6/21/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Beverly Montgomery [bevmontgomery@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 12:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Council Members: As a 42 year resident of Huntington Beach I finally have to write to you regarding an issue that you are currently discussing. I and my family have used the Central Library's resources at least twice a month since it was built, and am always amazed that I have a very peaceful, contented feeling when leaving the grounds. When built, the library was far ahead of its time and is still as beautiful as when built. From picnicking, listening to music, and of course reading has been a constant source of pride to my family. To think of putting anything in the middle of it, (a Senior Center) is mind boggling. When the Sports Complex is used, which is rare and another costly waste of money, there are no spaces for the Library patrons to park. Apparently, even though the parking fee is low for the complex the participants don't want to pay it. To add another parking lot, signal, etc. etc. would be absurd. The rationalization for choosing this site is unreasonable. "Inter-generational exchange" sounds good but will NOT happen; with the money that is spent in this city, the land ownership should not even be a factor. As far as Mr. and Mrs. Bauer saying that they DESERVE a beautiful environment, is insulting! I am a senior and of course the city needs a new center, however it seems to me that preserving the historic HB library should be your prime consideration. Any other site on the recommended list could be used. It would be wise if you would observe the area more than once, so that you will be aware of what goes on before making a decision. Sincerely, Bev Montgomery i 6/26/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:31 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Opposed to proposed building in Central Park -----Original Message----- From: Morang, Beverly [mailto:BMorang@filenet.com] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:56 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Opposed to proposed buidling in Central Park To all City Council Members We are opposed to having a building in our Park. We need all the green areas and trees we can get in our city. Why not fix up the area and plant more trees versus having more concrete which we don't need. I walk my dogs in Central Park every day and the last thing I want to see is another building and parking lot. Sincerely, Bev Morang 6371 Varsity Dr Please protect precious open land for Central Park legacy Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:25 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Please protect precious open land for Central Park legacy Importance: High I missed this one. -----Original Message----- From: Norman R. Nager, Ph.D. [mailto:nnager@fullerton.edu] Sent: Sunday,June 18, 2006 10:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Please protect precious open land for Central Park legacy Importance: High Honorable Members City Council Huntington Beach I urgently request that the City Council reject any modification of the Central Park Master Plan. Condemnation of open space adjacent to the picnic grounds, fields, and walkways of Central Park must be resisted, as expedient as it may be. Land dedicated to parkland for future generations in the master plan for Central Park must be preserved. In my 71st year, I believe we have a sacred obligation to leave our ecology at least in no worse condition than it is in now. A good deal of open space has been lost to Huntington Beach over the years. Certainly, existing senior facilities can be remodeled and expanded. Attractive temporary facilities can be provided during the remodeling/expansion phase. Or land already built upon for no-longer-used school facilities could be used as the site for a completely new senior center. Please preserve the Central Park legacy for future generations of seniors and their grandchildren. Respectfully, Norm Norman R. Nager, Ph.D., Fellow-PRSA Emeritus Professor of Communications (Ret.) California State University, Fullerton http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/nnager/ http://commfaculty.fullerton.edulnnager/AboutProfNager.html 7/� 6/20/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Sandrasedia@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:34 PM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Central Part Please leave the park the way it is. Put the senior center across the street by the base ball diamonds where parking is already available. Central Park has been, voted by the people, of HB to be a low or min. usages park for a reason. There are too few places that nature can be enjoyed for its quite. NO on rezone and NO on a senior center in the park. I am a senior citizen so I'm not opposed to the center,just the location. Sandra Sedia 714-847-2186 6/20/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: Griffwhite@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:05 AM To: pdapkus@surfeity-hb.org Subject: Senior Center in Central Park I am HB resident who is writing to you and the other council members about the proposed senior center to be built in Central Park. I live in the neighborhood north of the proposed site(Central Park& Edwards) and we purchased our home specifically for its access to the park. We loved the fact that there was this one "crown jewel" in HB that wasn't developed, built on and paved over. I have watched the entire area around Edwards Hill change as we lose more access to open and green space. Please don't take away the park and its beauty by adding an enormous building and parking and lots and lots of traffic. There must be a better site(s)than those proposed in the Notice of Public Meeting. Are we really that desperate for space that we must take away from Central Park? Leave it alone! What draw will there be for residents if we have only tiny parks left in this city? Little pockets of green about a block in size seem to be the plan. This project notes it will require a change from "medium intensity use"to "high intensity use"and that this change in zoning is what is required to go forth. So, the project already is anticipating a high impact to the area - more traffic and cars in the one area in town you can go to get away from it all. Do you ever walk those trails that will be taken away for this project? They sit nicely below the street level so when you are in the park you forget that Goldenwest and the traffic and the craziness that is Southern California kinds of melts away for a bit. Now we will be treated to a large building, dumpsters, parking lots and more traffic where there once was quiet and beauty. Please note, I do not oppose the Senior Center. I oppose its location and I am sharing this with as many HB residents as I can. Our neighborhood is planning a leaflet campaign to encourage people to share their concerns. We are contacting homeowners associations and local groups that help to protect green space. We also own a horse which we board at the HCPEC. This is an amazing facility that this city should be proud of, and my fear, along with many other residents, is that the goal is to use as much of the park as possible for development. Once you convert that parcel to "high intensity use"what is stopping you from moving right through the park with more development? Enough! Protect what we have. Why can't we be a city that is proud to have green and open space for its residents? We are already a city of walls- please, please, please - leave our park alone. I do not want to live in a town that places no value on green and open space for its residents. We need more than revenue to live. I will see you at the meeting on May 10th and I hope to have a vocal group with me as well. We are starting a petition drive specifically for this issue. Thank you so much for your time and please give serious consideration to this matter. KEEP HB GREEN!!!! Sincerely, Mindy White 17762 Carranza Lane HB 842-1884 6/15/2006 Page I of I Roberts, Robin From: Whalen [tmbawha@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:18 AM To: rroberts@surfcity-hb.org;jflynn@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Senior Center at central park I won't be able to make the meeting tonight but I wanted to let you know just what I think of the proposed senior center to be built at central park. I think that instead of spending millions of dollars for that project, the city should repair what we already have. The streets and sidewalks are a mess,to say the least. Take a ride down Varsity and look at the sidewalks and on Springdale also. The repair job that the city did just makes it worse.Also the weeds that are growing 'up in the streets,that just keep getting taller and taller and never get taken care of. Also another thing is that people let all kinds of vegitation grow over their walls and then it goes onto the public walkway and interfers with walking on the sidewalks. The homeowner should be held responsible for keeping their trees and vines and etc. off the walls or be charged when the city comes and cuts it off for them. Barbara Whalen 5/9/2006 RECENED FROMETING_ it M AS PUBLIC RECORD 3NC OF E CLE JM L CITY CLEM PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED OPEO$1K LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER BETWEEN'THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER. Name Address E-MAIL or Phone# !i ffG��"1` IfllY� 032jr/Sbt1 A _ - _ c +� f%n, fit- c [/. ov Gar -_74- . . .. ` as► ��� tlzro0.- Cr• I , _fit _ Zc0 � .._�-pdeoc tl�ctv A645.eL-opo 5 4 f-', . C,4 927o,� l k--(TI4 Smer(Wk�� '�Zo PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED OPFQSE_LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER.. Name Address EMAIL or Phone# _wk, .. _ _ -� ?e1 t � Ctt q (?t } *tt ¢ � { 3 S,_ J��� ��� , ���c c.;Q,. �.,,,,���.. (Jt,�,� .� �.�,.-�- ��. �•� C� `����;��'i�}_ 4 toy_S�tY�. _ 4 731. _ ._ TArr+. 'w'r�'•p . 4© ►t Sz w t- 3, 8 `zr ' .2 z:s6�-z.., .. 6av � . ' Yd V'-C/�'t ae l C � woo A4,i` fir'/ r C n 6oimv Aer ... Z.c s— x;s- d^z.';L- ✓r�^j. � 2 �' �i�c�O av JL q7 f A�l►�� ,f� TtfQn1` /6/�/l l�li Gas � h19 � V-6Y pp� VA _ qjQ-jo1v-,Za65 5-306 \/,j Pll:si�s,��v�V- Avx--, 3 (11 Q� -5-�5c/ —6113 PvTITI®N THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE LOCATING THE SENIOR.CENTER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER. Name Address E MAI4 or" phone#' � r dt 54 Yl 60 cz -54; � .. - �� 77 is -zA, AvebC43-0 , ��' �i�(�e,.✓1- _�a,.��_ _� ... _ __ .��'��� -.ail�f._�a-`�.��.n_. f��i c�w_�`�.b_�& �7�y b/-�.3�s`� A;- P ri x PETITION. THE UNDERSIGNED (?P��QS�LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER, BETWEEN TBE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER. Name Address E-MAIL or Phone# g�_. .. .. c�,..c :. cam►"�-�_: (,fit tl 7 B � . Via;'Afl rf 14Wd � _ ,_ �. t � ?r 1�_ C Imo., � � _ .w .: 47 . vw 10 CA � - -� C7V 1 � r . 1 k . . _.. T era � -� Z.� a _ 1�5 �,��nvt (,��c�• _C�.�4� ,��r�i ��_ �� �, C,�t_ .�21�.�1� . ��IL1���G ^�l Y�� �-�. 1G� N�ar- � �earcG�cAgb3l p,Vie1'10 fS3� ,, tide �® 10 5 . �2�� : . ._ dun�ssr l h , C'% . 7G�1 ��2 �': � i1n..d�'' /V►G'��-0��1 . ��_�'_� .���!�rx�'i �..`J.,"V-� �`��. G `�7��LG� `�`���t ( �7:5%'c�.�--�, 11 i�ct � '�ewvv�� t9Z 6--C� 1 PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED ORPOSE LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER. Name Address E-MAILor Phone 17 z /009Z j c ve!-��sac IIq Ilve tdVo ferylirS r 5 Ve, ► rrq : _� Div-� `_ Vj ow lok V,4-1- Ac-s bl� J. r I e 1AX 7 A-Al,,,,---- f{t�5'f C 26 c 1 Y 7 c? 9 � � �-��C��. ���.?�� - CO�-°� M. , :��_-�1��0� � 00-1 ��t Lee Wood Stuck Lna ffiAnf., r3 c-��. XA r �35 l en i ir//v_ , (-�v. s � C ►-z C.V967 ` /Y ��► �z Ca Iv r 1 ,(7-0 kl Zat : r�s ,re Ila D n lr'n ( J4yo kLoy J-0 fo 3, N t72/VG M, PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED OPP F LOCATING,TI IE.SENI0R CR4 TER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF CURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER., Name Address E-MAIL or Fh©ne# r aa.co Iliw'crow . lJ fcs5 �: r5rb -_. - r �. ale 'u _ 'x., d re �56 body �vQrrZ $ c 44� . . mg.7 ... �c� rKk C,r.. .} , C Sidcar�+al�3c�yGl,« corn ..___ _ Tly-All ts 51N3 �6-5 3 ._ .... .,_l'7 3,72 . Qeac 0� .( v Vex-CA R'o-SO., 6 7 t q C� S 1 C.q -Z477-4-35-3 1 qlq(4 ? PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED ©P LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER.. Name Address E-MAIL FiIL or Phone# �} �x . rr w_ t7� r 'Z. rve,� t ZGZU . _ 13 . ° ,t( �c 7� 7/7-7/i *7 Ct . _. r ►-? Cr C� i}J � 2� L-1 J4 '7)3 7 74q� r J ✓ors� � (�'�C9 Z �vt ,. ice tell b't; ,C,S` - 1 1Ov WQco+',q f C(4S>3 Y,7,Zj5�4Y* dd l e Qpo "k5e_r K2c? t19 g2CV7 -7141 94"3 gga-7z MAkm ST-, tjr4%T Sprtm (rt-iA C azao� r9��1�g-`�1q3 1 PETITION THE UNDERSIGNED 0EPOSE LOCATING THE SENIOR CENTER BETWEEN THE DISC GOLF CURSE AND THE NATURE CENTER, Name AddressE-MAIL or Phone# c1"k gt . n. . c : _ _ dad, SlQ� - flu 1 Y , 1f c , 07 _ - a 77 - - 1 3 r I Es arza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, July 03, 2 6 3:31 PM To: Esparza, Patty ` Subject: Two more Central Park Community Center "L in Central Pa... Yaf gap& City of Huntington Beach (714)536-5579 (714)536-5233 (Fax) 1 4/u/un-3 /"-j -�-�1�� ��1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Alvin Christensen [actensen@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Central Park To the City council As a long time resident of Huntington Beach I must seriously object to the idea of building a hugh structure in our Central Park, regardless of the purpose. To do so over the objections of the people who live here and enjoy the openness of the park would add to the dismal record of the city council Not only have members of the council been found guilty of criminal acts and past members guilty of fraud. The building of the Sports Center itself another debacle. Even an ordinary householder would check the references of a contractor before hiring one. Incompetent and dishonest is the repeutitation and this city council needs to be scrutinized in all of its actions. The people will decide. Sincerely Lilian Christensen Love cheap thrills?Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Paula and Michael Hessley [paulamichael@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Community Center in Central Park I'm a senior citizen and have enjoyed going to classes at the present Center. I also live in the Central Park area and walk there daily. I strongly object to the ulterior motive of having such a huge building for a Community Center with rentable facilities for weddings and corporate events. I can't imagine how the peace and quiet we go to the park for will be replaced by the loud music and partiers infiltrating that area. We all know how much fun weddings are, but they're very loud and people want to drink. Imagine going to the park on the weekend for a quiet time and dealing with wedding guests who have decided to party more in the park area! You'd really have to keep a closer eye on your children then. Security guards would be necessary to prevent this intrusion. If a wedding party or corporation want to have their events in the park, they can reserve the library. I drove over to the Senior Center ten times over a five weekday period, at different times of the day. I counted the number of vacant vs. filled parking spaces. Of the 95 spaces available for parking, the average amount of vacancy was 46%. The lowest amount of spaces was 32 and the highest amount of vacant parking spaces was 63. That told me there was no justification for an over 45,000 sq.ft.Senior Center building and that the ulterior motive is an income-generating facility. If the Senior Center MUST be in the park, why not consider a smaller one to meet the needs of just the Seniors? Even at that, I hate to imagine the accidents a seniors try to get back out onto Goldenwest's fast moving traffic. Thank you. Paula Hessley 714-847-1622 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Paula Baird [pcbaird@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:09 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Central Park Would you be so kind as to forward this to Councilman Coeper; I attempted to do so, but the email was returned. Thank you. Dear Mr. Coeper, When I heard the city wanted to build a new senior center near my home in Central Park, I thought "yeah, my husband and I could WALK to it (we're in our 50's). How lucky for us." As I followed the council meetings, I became more and more concerned that this simply was not going to be a center built for seniors, but a massive community complex with a huge parking lot, right in the middle of our precious park. I couldn't believe what the council was proposingl In 1990, I worked tirelessly along with Debbie Cook, on the Measure C campaign, just so this would not occur. At that time, many citizens could see the council chipping away at our parks, a little at a time, turning them into housing developments. It had to stop, or eventually our parkland would be gone. I am appalled at the arrogance of our current administration to even suggest this be built on park land. The people spoke with Measure C. Please, please don't take that lightly. Around town the talk is about "who's scratching who's back" to get this pushed through, and why. I certainly hope that is not the case. Paula Baird 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mary Baretich [mjbaretich@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:12 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: SENIOR CENTER Dear City Council Member, Please hold off any vote on the new Senior Center until the City Council and Residents of the community have had a chance to review and discuss the optional sites. Please consider the alternate sites such as Kettler School. I am against placing any Center on open space in Central Park. I am interested in a SENIOR CENTER, not a Multi-generational Community Center. Name: Mary Jo Baretich Street Address: 21752 Pacific Coast Highway, #23A Huntington Beach , CA 92646 Telephone No: (714) 960-9507 E-mail: mjbaretich@hotmail.com 7/V0 6/29/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Mark Bixby[mark@bixby.org] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:32 PM To: hbtalk; sehbna@yahoogroups.com; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: city to waive key part of Measure C for senior center Hi hbtalk & SEHBNA & city council, The city is going to wave a key part of Measure C that calls for a vote at the *end* of the development process, not the beginning. From http: //www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/city—clerk/070306-Fl.pdf page 4: "CONSIDERATION OF JULY 11, 1994 MINUTE ACTION RE: CHARTER SECTION 612 (MEASURE C) PROCESSING: City Council, in 1994, created a minute action (approved motion) that indicated an applicant who was bringing forth a project for construction on park or beach land that met the criteria of Measure C "must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. " LPA has estimated the cost to process the entitlements (environmental assessment, Conditional Use Permit, etc. ) and preparation of plans and specifications to be approximately $2 million (Attachment 4) . Since the city is the "applicant", Council could decide to waive the July 11, 1994 minute action so that the issue of a senior center in Central Park goes before the voters before funds are expended on the entitlement process and preparation of construction plans. The project would still be contingent upon Planning Commission and City Council approval. The City Attorney has opined that a charter vote of the people can happen prior to the environmental assessment, which is part of the entitlement process (Attachment 5) . Voter approval does not mandate the senior center being built on the proposed site, but only that it be approved should all other conditions for development be met. " The language of the July 11, 1994 minute action is clear -- the vote is supposed to come at the *end* of the process, not the beginning. Section 612 of the city charter (http://www. surfcity-hb.org/Government/charter codes/city_charter.cfm) does not contain any exceptions for when the applicant is the city or the entitlement process is expensive. If the city wants to hold an advisory vote in November 2006, fine, hold the vote. But don't call it a Measure C vote, because it's not. Measure C still requires another vote at the END of the process AFTER the environmental assessments have been completed. The City Attorney opinion cited in the above RCA text (at page 55 in the PDF file) is actually narrowly focused on the issue of what *CEQA* requires, and concludes that CEQA does not consider this vote to be a "project" that would require environmental assessment prior to the vote. However, the City Attorney does not address what Measure C requires, particularly the sequencing requirement of the July 11, 1994 minute action. I find it appalling that the city is exempting itself from the Measure C requirements that would apply to all other applicants. I hope the Council comes to its senses and votes NO on July 3rd. If the Council votes yes on July 3rd, there will be several more chances to oppose the idea of a senior center at Central Park -- the November 2006 ballet, through the EIR process, at a Planning Commission vote, followed by a City Council vote. But Measure C will have been weakened in a fundamental way. You will be able to count on the city to use the same exemption again in the future. Regardless of what happens on July 3rd, the fight to save Central Park will continue. I strongly urge all members of the public who value the existing 1 open space at Central Park to web browse to www.savecentralpark.org, send e-mail to savecentralpark@aol.com, or phone 714-587-0371 to find out how they can help to save Central Park. Sincerely, Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . a- 2 Esparza, Patty From: Mark Bixby[mark@bixby.org] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:46 PM To: hbtalk; sehbna@yahoogroups.com; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Re: city to waive key part of Measure C for senior center Hi hbtalk & SEHBNA & city council, Mark Bixby wrote: > From http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/city_clerk/070306-Fl.pdf > page 4: > "CONSIDERATION OF JULY 11, 1994 MINUTE ACTION RE: CHARTER SECTION 612 > (MEASURE C) PROCESSING: City Council, in 1994, created a minute action > (approved motion) that indicated an applicant who was bringing forth a > project for construction on park or beach land that met the criteria of > Measure C "must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a > vote of the people. " . . .snip. . . Hmmm, very interesting. The above agenda item omitted a key portion of the July 11, 1994 minute action. According to the minutes that I received from the city clerk today, the full text reads: "It is the intent of Charter Section 612, the Measure "C" amendment, that a vote of the people be the final approval of projects approved by the city for construction on park land or beaches. Therefore, all projects falling under the criteria of Charter Section 612 must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people. The cost for the ballot measure shall be borne by the applicant for the project. If the project requires a lease or other financial consideration, the terms and conditions of the lease and/or financial aspect of the project shall be included in the information provided for the Charter Section 612 vote. " Note the "other financial consideration" portion. There has been no public discussion of the plan to divert Pacific City in-lieu park fees from downtown in order to fund the new senior center at Central Park. This all needs to be spelled out in exacting detail so that downtown residents understand how moving forward on this senior center idea will continue to keep the downtown area park-deprived. Per the above minute action, this financial information MUST be included in the ballot information. Sincerely, Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 714-625-0876 mark@bixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: V. Bloom [inbloom@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center in central park Dear Council Members, Please leave the 5 acres open space as it was designated. Our children were shocked and saddened as were we to learn of this threat to our beautiful park. Dr. Victoria Bloom 35 year H.B. resident and homeowner 7/3 /0 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:44 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Proposed Community/Senior Center I missed this one. -----Original Message----- From: EDWARD CLARK [mailto:edclark2@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fw: Proposed Community/Senior Center -----Original Message----- From: EDWARD CLARK To:www.citycouncil@surfcity-h" Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:10 PM Subject: Proposed Community/Senior Center To whom it may concern: As a resident of the city, user of Central Park and parkway ficus tree owner I think the money that would be spent on this project would be better suited to address infrastructure problems that have existed for years. I was over at the park today and was talking with a neighbor about how nice it was to have such a park to help you and your children get away and feel like the peace from the city for at least the moments you are there. Also living off Edwards and Slater it would also increase the already heavy traffic flow that has occurred from the continuing development of the beach areas. I think the city has been very aggressive at development and needs to slow and use funds to take care other concerns that have been pushed off (Trees, sidewalks, gutters). Sincerely, Ed Clark 7/3 /0 4� 6/29/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Richard Davis [rcdavis11@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:48 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: proposed building in Central Park Dear current City Council Members, Your proposal to build a building and huge parking lot in Central Park is appalling. There are few open spaces left in this city. Central Park is Perfect the way it is. We don't need more clutter and congestion. The Library and Sports Complex bring more traffic and congestion to the area already. When the library is having banquets or church meetings, it is already hard to fine parking to use the library. We need the open green space here in HB. If you continue to build in the city, Surf City will soon become Congestion City. It may already be too late to save the city, but possibly we can still save Central Park. I VOTE NO MORE BUILDINGS IN CENTRAL PARK. Sincerely, Richard C Davis 6562 Silverspur Lane HB, 92648 714-841-0596 1 Esp arza Patty From: C F [cfoster667@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 8:52 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center-Oppose *** I oppose the location of the Senior Center at the Central park Location. After attending some community meetings, it became clear that the park location presents the following problems: 1) Park areas that currently exist would be encroached upon. With some areas probably eliminated. 2) The hilly terrain is not suitable for a facility designated for seniors. 3) The city has no realistic plan to pay for this endeavor. 4) Parking facilities are already inadequate for Central Park. Many of us who live in the surrounding community already experience parking overflow from park events. Traffic congestion would increase. I live in the adjacent neighborhood that would be most affected by any of these changes. *** I also oppose a new Senior Center, no matter where the location. 1) Huntington Beach already has a Senior Center. 2) The city has no realistic plan to pay for it. - Thank You Chris Foster 6602 Aracena Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Do You Yahoo! ? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: LGeisse@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 8:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center in Central Park Dear Council Members: I would like to reiterate my opposition to this project in Central Park. I have not received an answer to any of the questions I have asked, though I am not surprised. I suspect it is because no one knows the answers to those questions. And that is due in large part to the rush to put this project up to a vote. I cannot argue against an advisory vote, though I feel it is a complete waste of time. Without proper information available, any vote would not fulfill the requirements of Measure C. I believe the city needs to protect our open space. There are so many available sites on which to build where existing buildings need to come down (School sites, for example). There are so many buildings around town that are available for rent or lease. Why would anyone want to use our invaluable and rapidly dwindling open space? The cost is exorbitant when you are talking about the 1% of the population who actually use the Senior Center. (City Population of 200,000. Visits over the year to the senior center of 120,000. That would be 2,300 people per week. Being extremely generous, perhaps only 300 people visit more than once a week. That means 2,000 people use the center out of 200,000: 1%. And many of these are probably not seniors. And that is being very generous.) There are so many other projects that are waiting for funding. It is not right to put this project ahead of them. And how is the city going to afford the one million dollars a year for operating this new center-year after year? I would ask you to represent the city, not a very small segment of the city. Thanks. Larry Geisse, M.D. 6811 Corral Circle 848-3891 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Cheryl Haun [cjhaun@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 3:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Central Park Senior Center Honorable Council members,Ladies and Gentlemen, My name is Cheryl Haun and I am a long time voting resident of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach Central Park is already a multi use environment that hosts many events and activities throughout the year. Our parks current design occupancy is obviously overwhelmed. Take a tour on any weekend and you will see first hand. There are few refuse bins that are not spilling their contents with the afternoon wind spreading the overflow throughout the park. Hopefully the park will remain manageable with the city's population expanding. The impact of this high intensity use now being proposed will be difficult to predict and I feel will be nothing short of disastrous. The legacy of this gesture will not reflect well on the people it is intended to benefit,our seniors. A noble gesture to honor our greatest generation should be planned with highest and best use of this virgin space. The contiguous park land in question should remain a park theme. The land should be developed into a setting of open areas, trees,benches,walking paths and barbeques. Additionally, a pedestrian tunnel under Goldenwest would allow ease of access for guests from the west side which includes; Lake and Picnic areas,Dog Park,Urban Forest, Shipley Nature Center and Equestrian Facilities to the east side encompassing the;Main Library, Gardens, Amphitheater and Sports Facility. This will create a much more useable park by connecting the two sides with little impact on the Goldenwest traffic flow. The costs to complete this development are incidental in comparison to the projected 23 million dollars being discussed for the current plan. Huntington Beach is quickly losing all of its beauty to concrete,buildings,parking lots and the like. The Central Park area is THE nicest, most scenic and restful places we have left in our ever busy and growing city. Please consider the value this has on those who are city residents who enjoy their tax dollars being used to support open space,not all pavement and more congestion. Isn't that what that whole acerage was dedicated to be used for? A much more plausible venue for a Senior Center would be to add a wing to the library. The infrastructure for parking and traffic flow is already established with the handicap elements present. The pedestrian tunnel would enhance this plan. Why duplicate the concrete infrastructure needed for such an endeavor on one of the last open areas in the city. It is much easier to share a parking lot than to develop new. Please carefully consider the unalterable consequences your position of power can create with the wrong decision. The space in question is already desperately needed for its intended use. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Cheryl J.Haun 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Steve Homer[stevehomer@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Vote NO on the$23 million senior center Vote NO on the$23 million senior center 7 6/30/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Karen Jackie [karen@pjackle.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:14 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: F-1 7/3/06 Agenda Senior Center June 29, 2006 Dear City Council Member, Please hold off any vote on the new Senior Center (F-1 on 7/3 agenda) until the City Council and Residents of the community have had a chance to review and discuss the optional sites. Please consider the alternate sites such as Kettler School. No Measure C Vote should be considered until an acceptable EIR is completed if council considers moving forward on this site. I have concerns about replacement of open space as well. None of the proposed actions reflect my wishes currently as losing park space is not a good option and I do not know if a structure the size proposed should proceed to entitlement without more information. My first choice of the recommended actions on this matter is: 1. Select an alternate site for a Senior Center and direct staff to process the proposed Senior Center through the entitlement process, prepare construction plans and specifications, and return to City Council for consideration of taking the project to a Charter Section 612 vote at some future date. Information on what the needs will be in 15 years is not clear; information on how the existing Rogers Senior Center could be enlarged to serve Senior Needs and for how long that would suffice has not been discussed. There is also the issue of whether our city should have a center for exclusive use of seniors or propose a facility to meet senior needs as well as serve additional uses for the community. The funds generated from downtown development would better be spent to enlarge the existing center within that area and improve infrastructure impacted by the increased density from Pacific City and The Strand and the existing Rogers site if not continued with its existing use, would it still be under city ownership? I am against loss of this site and would want to know what alternate use it could be put to by the city for community use. Sincerely, Karen Jackle 6702 Lawn Haven Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-848-4040 days karen@_pjackle.com 6/29/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Roger McClellan [rim2@jps.net] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Cenral Park re-zoning Re: Oppose re-zoning plan for areas of Central Park Dear City Council Members; I am opposed to the plan of having a community/senior center of any kind in Central Park(and I am a senior). No more congestion, please. Leave it open! Thanks very much. Roger McClellan 6311 Turnberry Circle Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 714-960-7977 V 3 � 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Nancy Meeks[huntingtonbeachgirl@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:55 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: SENIOR CENTER Dear City Council Member, Please hold off any vote on the new Senior Center until the City Council and Residents of the community have had a chance to review and discuss the optional sites. Please consider the alternate sites such as Kettler School. I am against placing and Center on open space in Central Park. I am interested in a SENIOR CENTER, not a Multi-generational Community Center. Name: Nancy Meeks Street Address: 21752 Pacific Coast Highway, #2A Huntington Beach , CA. 92646 Telephone No: (323) 381-0423 E-mail: huntingtonbeachgirl@verizon.net 6/30/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: PARS11@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 5:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Tho still licking my wounds from the Fearsome Foursome vote on Poseidon, I am taking the time to send you a small e-mail regarding the Senior Center. God forbid that at my advancing age I should hold back from anything benefiting Seniors at this point. I just think that the expense is extreme, along with the 45,000 plus sq. footage. Might we consider something a tad smaller? And........never forget the funding we need to come up with for the of pension plan. For those who think they can get grants for all of this........I'm selling a bridge in Arizona. Merle Moshiri CA 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Maddrmad@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:56 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: No Building in Central Park Dear HB City Council: Please do not build anything else in Central Park. It is the most precious piece of land we have away from the beach and should be preserved in the most green state possible or it will cease to be a park. Let's raise some money to buy a useable property already zoned for such use. There are enough buildings in this town and ever dwindling green spaces. Once the green disappears it is forever lost. Thank you for considering my opinion. Yours very truly: Madelynn Rigopoulos maddrmadO-)aol.com a Huntington Beach homeowner since 1986 C---t7 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: JonV3@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:02 PM To: mark@bixby.org; hbtalk@bixby.org; sehbna@yahoogroups.com; CITY COUNCIL Cc: Savecentralpark@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Re: [HBTALK]city to waive key part of Measure C for senior center I suggest the citizenry get legal advice to challenge the vote in November, should the City Council decide to go ahead and put it on the ballot before the development approval process, rather than after. Clearly the senior center in Central Park is a project that has CEQA requirements and the public can't know what the environmental impacts are until after the development approval process is concluded. I know of a couple of attorneys who are versed in municipal law and have successfully challenged Newport Beach City Council actions on the Greenlight law in Newport Beach. Let me know if you want to explore this option. It's not cheap, but a lot of people chipping in can defray the cost so as not to be too onerous on any individual. Jan Vandersloot (949) 548-6326 6/30/2006 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:57 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Upcomming issues Another one. It subject fooled me. -----Original Message----- From: Mvizinho@aol.com [mailto:Mvizinho@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Upcomming issues As a resident of the wonderful city of Huntington Beach I would like to share my opposition to two important issues. m opposed to any land development in Central Park. We have many other areas in the city for a Senior Center. It is imperative that we protect our environment/open space for future generations. Once we take away open space it is gone forever.... We must act to protect it for our children and their children. 2. 1 am adamantly against the degradation of services Rainbow Disposal proposes under the pretext of automation, (I am not simply against automation). The current service they provide is outstanding and certainly is"customer friendly". The proposed change places the burden of work now done by Rainbow on the Homeowners who are paying for the service. I would rather pay more for the continued current level of service rather than accept less service. I moved to this city because of the great services and environment, I know you'll make the wise decision for us all.... Thank you for your time and consideration... Manuel Vizinho 6571 Melbourne Dr Huntington Beach 92647 714-903-6602 _. 6/29/2006 Honorable Council members, Ladies and Gentlemen, My name is Jan Wensink and I am a long time voting resident of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach Central Park is already a multi use environment that hosts many events and activities throughout the year. Our parks current design occupancy is obviously overwhelmed. Take a tour on any weekend and you will see first hand. There are few refuse bins that are not spilling their contents with the afternoon wind spreading the overflow throughout the park. Hopefully the park will remain manageable with the cities population expanding . The impact of this high intensity use now being proposed will be difficult to predict and I feel will be nothing short of disastrous. The legacy of this gesture will not reflect well on the people it is intended to benefit, our seniors. A noble gesture to honor our greatest generation should be planned with highest and best use of this virgin space. The contiguous park land in question should remain a park theme. The land should be developed into a setting of open areas, trees, benches, walking paths and barbeques. Additionally, a pedestrian tunnel under Goldenwest would allow ease of access for guests from the west side which includes; Lake and Picnic areas, Dog Park, Urban Forest, Shipley Nature Center and Equestrian Facilities to the east side encompassing the; Main Library, Gardens, Amphitheater and Sports Facility. This will create a much more useable park by connecting the two sides with little impact on the Goldenwest traffic flow. The costs to complete this development are incidental in comparison to the projected 23 million dollars being discussed for the current plan. A much more plausible venue for a Senior Center would be to add a wing to the library. The infra structure for parking and traffic flow is already established with the handicap elements present. The pedestrian tunnel would enhance this plan. Why duplicate the concrete infrastructure needed for such an endeavor on one of the last open areas in the city. It is much easier to share a parking lot than to develop new. Please carefully consider the unalterable consequences your position of power can create with the wrong decision. The space in question is already desperately needed for its intended use. Thank you for your time. Ct7)4), Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Norm Westwell [normw@modernpublic.com] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 11:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Flynn, Joan; djones@surfcity-hb.org; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Late Communication -Opposition to F-1 with findings I strongly urge the council to follow the staffs #4 recommended action; Do not move forward with the development of a new senior center. VOTE NO on ITEM F-1 . Reasons: No EIR has been performed. Not enough public participation of the process has been provided. Other, better alternatives have not fully been explored. It is ominously reminiscent of previously poor rushed decisions. What is the rush? The senior explosion is not expected for another 15 years? A measure C vote CANNOT be taken until the development process is complete. If is nowhere near complete. A vote today would not be in order. The city is going to wave a key part of Measure C that calls for a vote at the *end* of the development process, not the beginning. From http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/city clerk/070306-F1.pdf page 4: "CONSIDERATION OF JULY 11, 1994 MINUTE ACTION RE: CHARTER SECTION 612 (MEASURE C) PROCESSING: City Council, in 1994, created a minute action (approved motion) that indicated an applicant who was bringing forth a project for construction on park or beach land that met the criteria of Measure C "must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people."LPA has estimated the cost to process the entitlements (environmental assessment, Conditional Use Permit, etc.) and preparation of plans and specifications to be approximately $2 million (Attachment 4). Since the city is the "applicant", Council could decide to waive the July 11, 1994 minute action so that the issue of a senior center in Central Park goes before the voters before funds are expended on the entitlement process and preparation of construction plans. The project would still be contingent upon Planning Commission and City Council approval. The City Attorney has opined that a charter vote of the people can happen prior to the environmental assessment, which is part of the entitlement process (Attachment 5). Voter approval does not mandate the senior center being built on the proposed site, but only that it be approved should all other conditions for development be met. 7/3/2006 Page 2 of 2 The language of the July 11, 1994 minute action is clear -- the vote is supposed to come at the *end* of the process, not the beginning. Section 612 of the city charter (http://www.surfcity-hb.org/Government/charter codes/citycharter.cfm does not contain any exceptions for when the applicant is the city or the entitlement process is expensive. If the city wants to hold an advisory vote in November 2006, fine, hold the vote. But don't call it a Measure C vote, because it's not. Measure C still requires another vote at the END of the process AFTER the environmental assessments have been completed. The City Attorney opinion cited in the above RCA text (at page 55 in the PDFfile) is actually narrowly focused on the issue of what *CEQA* requires, and concludes that CEQA does not consider this vote to be a "project" that would require environmental assessment prior to the vote. However, the City Attorney does not address what Measure C requires, particularly the sequencing requirement of the July 11, 1994 minute action. I find it appalling that the city is exempting itself from the Measure C requirements that would apply to all other applicants. I strongly urge On my behalf, I respectfully request the Council to VOTE NO on ITEM F-1. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ 1 / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com It's your government - GET INVOLVED! 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: pdarce@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed Senior Center Dear City Council, Last evening I enjoyed the concert that was held in Central Park and was reminded once again what a wonderful area we have and how lucky we are to have this remaining area left untouched. I am a homeowner and 22 year resident of Huntington Beach. I am proud to live in Huntington Beach and actively vote and keep track of City Council and Planning Commission meetings on Channel 3. I am also proud to have worked with the Senior Community for most of my 30 year career in healthcare. As a speaker for the Orange County Alzheimer's Association and ex-Director for the West Coast Parkinson's Disease Foundation I have spoken in most senior centers in the Orange County and most are not as large or as nice as Rogers Senior Center. While a remodel and better use of space would be nice for our senior community I am TOTALLY against using what small amount of free space we have left in Huntington to build a Senior Center on Central Park land. Please, please vote against this site for a new senior center. Sincerely, Patricia Darcey 8222 Deerfield Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Pat Goodman [patgoodman@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: SaveCentralPark@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Please Do Not Approve November Ballot Measure to Change Central Park Master Plan The Honorable Dave Sullivan and City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 city.council�a sur1ci&-hb.org Dear Mayor Sullivan, I am writing to inform you and the City Council that I am opposed to a November ballot measure that would call for a change in the City's Central Park Master Plan from existing medium intensity land use to high density land use. I believe that Huntington Beach has spoken clearly in past to maintain the current configuration of Central Park's open space. I am certainly not opposed to offer facilities that accommodate state of the art senior services. I would like to know more about the options available to the residents to provide a venue for senior services. I am not clear why the existing site is no longer adequate. My experience with aging relatives is that their world became smaller as they aged and needed activities and services closer to home. Transportation and physical mobility are huge limitations to participation in community as we age. I cannot resist offering a suggestion that we locate several sites throughout the city at venues such as church campuses that are not used during the week or to piggy-back on school sites or existing community centers. I would really like to see a process that is inclusive of all interests in order to come to a fair decision that all parties can agree. We can do it with the proper leadership, discussion and excellent planning if we all do our jobs. Sincerely, Patricia M. Goodman 18531 Bentley Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 cc: SaveCentralPark@aol.com Pat Goodman Want to be your own boss?Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Betty Koch [bettyjlocke@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 1:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Proposed "Senior Center". Dear Council Members, It is with great regret that I am unable to attend the meeting tonight when the proposed usage of Central Park will be addressed. I did attend the planning commission meeting and the thoughts and concerns of the many who spoke to this issue was to no avail. My fear is that tonight will be no different. At the planning meeting not ONE of the over 20 people who spoke (myself included) said they were againest a senior center. This is something that the local media failed to state in their numberous articles. NOT A ONE! What the concern was then, and is now, is the use of Central Park and the need to rezone the site and most importantly a building in excess of 45,000 square feet that will cost well over 23 million dollars. To call this proposed building a Senior Center is a true misnomer. Let's be perfectly honest and call a spade a spade here. The proposed building is a COMMUNITY CENTER and the intent is to be able to rent it out. If, in truth, the city is in need of addressing a Senior Center issue there are other alternatives that could and should be looked at. It is a known fact that as we age we tend to stay closer to home. Why can we not update the current center, and place local centers in the eastern and northern parts of our city? The two additional sites need not be buildings of such grandiose size as the one propsed but bigger is not always better. The sites would be more available to their immediate community, and able to serve seniors needs in a more intimate and caring setting. This is but one of many thoughts expressed by the many who spoke to the planning commission. I am stating, that I am unequivocally againest the propsed Community Center. To try and pass this off as a Senior Center is the city, once again, selling a wolf in Iambs clothing. Sincerely, Betty Koch 6761 Jardines Drive Huntington Beach, California (A resident of this city for over 30 years and, yes, a senior citizen.) 7 J 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: CCSHBCA@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:01 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Cc: ttchaque@yahoo.com; redwood sforever@verizon.net Subject: Preserving Open Green Space Please vote against any construction in HB Central Park. We do not need this piece of land to be destroyed for an ill-concieved plan for a senior center. Take the land that the Hilton and or the Hyatt uses along PCH. This would be perfect for a senior center and a good application of imminent domain. I am also opposed to the strip mall being built on PCH and First Street. We need as much green open space as possible in Huntington Beach. We do not need any more development that will bring more heat, more pollution and more traffic. Give Huntington Beach more trees. Stop the cutting of the trees on Brush Drive. Think about the future, not short term accomplishments. The temperature of our environment will continue to climb and we will need as many green belts as possible. Our children and grandchildren are counting on a humane vote for people not profits. Thank you. Tom Lash 8276 Cherrywood Circle Huntington Beach, CA 714-964-2162 C_ 7/3/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Bill Saksa [arrowhead 18@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Central Park- no to the location of the senior center Hi Everyone, I have live in Huntington Beach for 31 years. Years ago the city tried to put a skateboard park in the same location where you want to put a so called senior citizens center. We have already said no to that location. We want open space not concrete. It is disturbing that we have to go over it again. This is not the location. ... . . . . . . . . If I was not away on vacation I would speak tonight and talk about Moorehouse, city planning and city council back then. Let wake up. . . . . . . . . .it does not belong in the middle of central park. Bill Saksa 18082 Freshwater Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 848-1718 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jeanne Whitesell Uswhitese113211 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear HB City Council Members, As a senior citizen I am strongly opposed to the erection of the proposed Senior Center at Talbert and Golden West. Open space in HB is much too precious to pave over 5 acres of it. In addition . it will create too much traffic on an already busy street . size is overwhelming @45,290 sq. ft. (Is this because it is more than a Senior Center --- but a hall to be rented out to large parties?) . it is too expensive considering other unfunded and more urgent needs in the city Please do not approve this proposed Senior Center. Sincerely, Jeanne Whitesell 17922 Shoreham Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Want to be your own boss?Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 7/3/2006 s t 'm — P , Tom&Jane Peterson 17321 Canna Cir. Huramgton Beach,CA 926477777�-- `""" - z4 f -- ,CA 3 /� ` Jul 01 06 11 : 07a Norman & Ann Miller• 7143776780 P. 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNSEL RE: SENIOR CENTER AT GOLDENWEST AND TALBERT MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH AGREE TO THIS ITEM BEING PLACED ON THE BALLOT. MRS.NORMAN P. MILLER FAX 714-377-8780 JLL-01-2006 , 11:06 7143778780 89% P.01 Page 1 of 2 Sharpe, Jean From: Mark Allen [mark@luch.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:25 PM To: jmcgrath@surfcity-hb.org;jsharpe@surfcity-hb.org Subject: CHARTER 612 SECTION VOTE; JULY 3 HEARING Jennifer McGrath Huntington Beach City Attorney 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CHARTER 612 SECTION VOTE; JULY 3 HEARING Dear Ms. McGrath: I am in receipt of a Staff Report prepared by Jim Engel, Director of Community Services regarding a vote on a Senior Center in Central Park. Please place this letter in the Council package for tonight. I know a little bit about Charter Section 612 (Measure C). I helped write it. I have to this point no objection to the Senior Center. I know nothing about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. Nor do I have an opinion at this point about the location in Central Park. I agree with you. An advisory vote cannot violate CEQA. A binding vote would. Whether a purely advisory vote on the Senior Center is a good idea, I leave to the elected officials in Huntington Beach, who are much more able to make such a determination. However, trying to push the decision ahead of the environmental review likely will have the opposite of its intended effect. It will confuse the decision-making process and, most likely, delay the procedures for approving the Senior Center. The Staff Report includes your opinion, but the Staff seems to be confused about three distinct areas of the law. The first area is election law. As you note, the Council can put pretty much any "advisory" vote on the ballot. The fact that an advisory measure can be put on the ballot has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the vote. If that vote violates the Charter or state law,the vote establishes nothing. The second area of law is the City Charter. Measure C requires the vote of the people to alienate or encumber parkland with certain limited exceptions. The memorandum agrees that the proposed project does not fall within one of the exceptions to Measure C. The Charter Section is silent as to when a measure needs to be placed before the voters except that it is clear such a vote must take place before the project can take place. In essence, Measure C makes the people of Huntington Beach, as opposed to the City Council, the final decision makers with respect to the parks. State law, however, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not silent on the question of timing. According to the Staff memorandum, it is clear that before the project can be built an environmental impact report will have to be done. Environmental review is not magic fairy dust to be sprinkled on a predetermined decision. Rather, environmental review must be an integral part of the decision-making process. In this case, the decision maker is the voters who, no less than City Councilmembers, must have before them the environmental consequences of their action in order to make an informed decision. The Friends of Sierra Madre case you cite is clear on this point. If a vote is to be taken and that vote is a necessary step in the approval process, the vote must follow, not precede, environmental review. If I can be of any assistance in this matter,please feel free to contact me. / —~ Very truly yours, 71,3106 1/3/2006 Page 2 of 2 LAQUER, URBAN, CLIFFORD &HODGE LLP MARK C. ALLEN III Mark C. Allen III Laquer,Urban, Clifford&Hodge This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. 7/3/2006 Blank Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jim and Helen Barker Dimnhelen@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Council Members, Please approve the Senior Center issue so that it will go before the voters in November. Thank you, Jim Barker 714-968-6002 _. 6/29/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Jo Ann Benner Obenner@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center-YES in Park Good morning: I walk in the park each a.m. and the only UGLY area in that lovely park is the site planned for the Senior Center- I am very much in favor of using that land for a senior center which is needed at this time. It would add a great deal to the area and be a lovely spot for our"seniors", who should enjoy the park as much as dogs, etc. Sincerely, Jo Ann Benner Long time HB resident and I always vote! � 7 6/28/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mike Bogen [mike-n jean@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior City Center I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1965 and over the years I have seen our Council develop into a first class governing body that tries to serve the needs of its citizens. The objections that are being raised against the proposed location for the new Senior Center are unfounded in fact and based on some faulty thinking. The people who are suggesting the location have given it a lot of thought and made a decision based of what in their studied opinion is best for the City and its growing number of seniors. This is a non-partisan issue that requires your support. Respectively, Myron "Mike" Bogen 6/30/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: ralph [rbauerl022@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Fw: new senior center -----Original Message----- From: CAROL CALLISTO To: rbauer1022@verizon.net Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:42 PM Subject: new senior center I agree that the new senior center should be located at the Central Park location even though I will probably not be alive by the time it's built. It would be good for all the citizens of Huntington Beach because it would be good place for the entire family--grandparents, parents and children to enjoy, especially with the sport center so nearby. 13 6/29/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: EmmyFCA@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 12:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center I cannot attend the Council Meeting on July 3rd but wish to support the new location for the Huntington Beach Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert. I will support that if it should be on the ballot. Sincerly, Mary Ellen Flannery 18162 Parkview Ln. #109 Huntington Beach 92648 � 1 d X) 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Brenda[brendyblue@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 7:08 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: build new senior center at HB Central Park-yes We totally agree with building a new senior center at Central Park. That is the sane location for it. We desperately need a new building with the convenience to the park and library -two things seniors enjoy and use. Our present senior center is so depressing that we travel to Cypress, Westminster, and Fountain Valley to enjoy their newer facilities. People at these facilities ask me why we don't go to Huntington Beach senior center and we have to tell them their facility is better - foodwise, atmosphere, classes. YES,put the new senior center in Huntington Central Park. Brenda and Roy Gibson Huntington Beach, CA 92649 How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Bill Kirkwood [billk@kiscomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: new Senior center Council members. My wife and I have been residents of Huntington Beach 30 years. We enthusiastically support the proposed Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert, and request you put the issue on the November ballot. Thank you for a job well done! Bill & Carol Kirkwood 3492 Bravata Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Ll C � 6/28/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: kolander rich [rkolander2000@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Hello all you fine people, I just want to commend you on your excellent choices in picking LPA Inc and TSMG. They have done an excellant job selecting a site and backing it up with outstanding data. They couldn't have picked a better location in Huntington Beach. My wife and I are both retired and utilize the resources of Senior Centers in Fountain Valley where we take exercise classes and in Costa Mesa where we teach senior citizens how to use computers using the SeniorNet programs. We look forward to a new and modern Senior Center in Huntington Beach. All the best Rich Kolander H.B. resident Want to be your own boss?Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: sgtjarhead1158@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center November Ballet Honorable Mayor and Council Members: While it is expensive to promote ballot issues; building a new senior center on acerage parceled from the City Park is a contentious issue that begs for citizen commitment via the ballot box. My wife and I ask your favorable consideration to place the issue of the new Senior Center on the November ballot. Thank you for this opportunity via "E" mail to solicit your support. Wilfred H. & Merna J. Meyer 520 9th Street H.B. 92648 Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news,video search,pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. 7/2lo6 6/29/2006 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: JJ2morrow@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: JJ2morrow@aol.com; Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Joe and I highly support placing the new Senior Center proposal on the ballet and strongly favor the Goldenwest and Talbert location . Thank you, Jeannette and Joe Morrow 6142 Cornell Dr. Hunt Bch 92647 7/3/2006 Esparza, Patty From: gorgeousnana@verizon.net Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 7:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center The present senior center is in very poor conditon. We urge you to vote for deveioping a new center on the Central Park site. We voted for the park and nurtured it for many years. Please vote for the center's location in Central Park. Marvin Otis Anne Otis gorgeousnana@verizon.et Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Virginia Petrelis [vapworks@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:26 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear Council Members: Please don't allow the very vocal minority decide the fate of the new senior center. The Central Park location is an excellent choice. Please vote to put Measure C on the November ballot so all the citizens of Huntington Beach will be able to express their wishes. Thank you. Virginia Petrelis How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. ,Z�-ZF co M/1-9 6'16-,rj�C-11:41 1-2 40 6/29/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Sheldon Rosenzweig [srdesign@surfside.net] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 9:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center in Central Park Dear City Council: My wife and I have worked and lived in Huntington Beach for thirty- nine years. We have taken the 55 and Alive driver classes at the Senior Center. I pick up the H.B. Independent paper there and have used the center for many things through the years. We plan on using the Senior Center even more now since we recently retired. We are in favor of the Central Park site (Goldenwest and Talbert) as the new location. This will be a great location for the Seniors since it will be by good traffic streets, a transportation line, by the Main Central Library plus being centrally located. Also it will not impact any existing residential neighborhoods except the people around the Park that think the Park is their personal back yard. Sheldon and Marcia Rosenzweig 15052 Sevilla Circle Huntington Beach , CA /J ice- Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: RUMAYSIEG@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:24 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: SENIOR CENTER ISSUE SHOULD BE ON NOV. BALLOT HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: I am strongly in favor of your putting the issue of a new Senior Center located at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot. I strongly urge you, Councilmembers,to do this. As a longtime resident of Huntington Beach, I have watched how many, many of our citizens have devoted their time to making the city of Huntington Beach a great place to live. They have contributed to the leadership, recreational facilities, library, parks, business sectors,and youth of this city. It is time NOW to do something for those who have given generously of their time to this city and plan a Senior Community Center where older people can enjoy for the rest of their lives. Rogers Senior Center that currently provides activities is extremely outdated and in dire need of improvement and repairs. In one of the classes I attend,Yoga,we seniors have had to practice on hard floors in a crowded room with inadequate ventilation. The current facility does not adequately serve the growing senior population. Do you realize that in the 10 years between 1994 and 2004 the usage of the Senior Center has doubled? I have had the opportunity to visit Senior Centers in several surrounding communities with friends. Their centers are full of activities to which people flock;they are proud of their centers. Our center is not one to which I would take pride in inviting my friends. The site on Goldenwest at Talbert is ideally located because of its central location and proximity to the park and library. It is also easily accessed by public transportation. To those who object to building a Senior Center in Central Park because it will limit usage of the park to citizens, I remind them that Seniors are also citizens many of whom have contributed greatly to this city. They deserve the convenience of a facility with access to the park and library. I urge you to place this issue on the November ballot. Respectfully, Ruth May Siegrist 6401 Mukai Court Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone 714 848-7809 Fax 714 848-1859 Mobile 714 814-8200 Email Rumaysieg@aol.com ?/-3 6/30/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Ijsimms[Ijsimms@dslextreme.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center Dear Honorable Council Members: I endorse the proposed new site location for the HB senior center at Talbert and Goldenwest. I am a retired baby-boomer(60 in March)and enjoy playing bingo at Rodgers with transportation from my residency. I viewed (cable)the deliberations on this issue at the last meeting, and came away frustrated by the Council's lack of action. You have had a consultant review the city's options, the land is already owned by the city and graded, and the ADA requirements currently lacking at Rodgers would be resolved. What's the problem with the City Council just voting to have this site officially established? ("Political"versus "responsible city government leadership"?) Who is this minority group creating havoc over this issue? HB is a wealthy community, but Rodgers Senior Center is a disgrace to the area. HB seniors are now enjoying the new facility in Fountain Valley for many of their recreationaly needs. Are you aware of this?? How many tax dollars will be spent to put this issue on the ballot? I would like to see the Council take action at the July 34d meeting to approve the recommended site, and move on to start construction. The Council needs to take responsibility for the senior community NOW! Yours truly, Lauren J. Simms 6/29/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Eddie and Sophia [edsophia@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 12:36 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center at Central Park TO: Dave Sullivan, Gil Coerper,Jill Hardy,Keith Bohr, Debbie Cook, Cathy Green, and Don Hansen This short message is addressed to all our Council members. I just received a letter from "SAVECENTRAL PARK.ORG". I cannot believe how narrow minded their message is. The person that selected Central Park as the future home of the Senior Center should be congratulated. I cannot envision a better place for the Senior Center. It will be built on a part of the park that is not being used now. It will provide our seniors easy access to the Library and to our beautiful park. It will even provide easy access to the sports fields, where they can entertain themselves by watching a friendly game. I just don't know where those folks opposing the selected location are coming from. They must be part of the NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard) organization. I cannot believe their negative thinking. PLEASE, PLEASE, do the right thing and definitely select the Central Park location for the senior Center. Our Seniors deserve to have their Center located in such convenient and beautiful location. Very truly yours, Edward and Sophia Staros 17332 La Mesa Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 7 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Kathy Weil [kathy.weil2@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Support Measure C - New Senior Center Honorable Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, I respectfully request that you support the placement of Measure C -The New Senior Center in Central Park-on the November 2006 ballot. I have lived here in Huntington Beach for 5 years now and dearly love the city. However, I do feel that a city of our size and stature should have a new, up-to-date Senior Center that reflects our pride and concern for all our citizens. Thank you. Katherine Weil 8877 Lauderdale Ct. #211-F Huntington Beach, CA 92646 6/30/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: The Whites[whiteshb@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Council Members, We support the construction of a new senior center at the proposed Central Park site. We urge you to place the matter before the voters on the November ballot. Walt& Tricia White Huntington Landmark Senior Adult Community 8855 Sutter Circle Unit 518-D Huntington Beach, CA 92646-5713 00 /)1 713106 6/29/2006 Esparza, Patty From: Richard Zeleznikar[miloz@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 9:27 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert June 28, 2006 Dear City Council Members: Please vote to place the issue of the new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot. Regards, Dick and Nancy Zeleznikar a 7 3 /6 1 a s P 3 4 + � � t#r v 7 S b 1 t F• } xtii e` h *4 } 's y +P dam- V. Y Q d `e v _ 1 i b � � z T 1: t g`� � •s. " x d v e � x r � � SM kE x z, aOtI5, x Aw 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Susan Cook[susancook@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Put the New Senior Center issue on the Ballot The issue of building a new Senior Center in Central Park should be put on the November Ballot for the citizens of Huntington Beach to decide. Thank you, 714-366-2424 Cell 714-841-6929 Fax 800-458-9994 Customer Service " LandAmergca Cart wnweWttt CommonwealthOC.com 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Billie Brandon [billie@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:18 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: Senoir Center I'm not able to be at the City Council mtg.,but I agree that the issue of the New Senior Center should be on the Nov. Ballot. Billie Brandon 6142 Winslow Dr. Huntington Bch.Ca. 92647 0 7/3/2006 1 ds � jN *, ere c_a} m The Commme To Support our Seel 0 Can July P The Huntington Beach City Council will decide whether or not to put the issue of a new Senior.Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot If you agree that this issue should be on the ballot, Please attend the Council Meeting and voice your support. The Council meeting starts at 6 P.M. in the Council Chambers At City Hall 2000 Main Street If you cannot attend the meeting, pleas e indicate your support by writing, e-mailing, faxing, or phoning the City Council. U.S. Mail: 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail: city.councilnd surfcity-hb.or2 Fax: 714-536-5233 PLEASE SEE THAT THE NEW SENIOR CENTER IS PUT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER. I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER FOR FIFTEEN YEARS AND THE ONE WE Phone: 714-536-5553 NOW HAVE IS (SAY TOO SMALL. SINCERELY, If you have questions, please visit our website at www.soshb.com or call: 714 846-3927f r= 06/18/2006 15:21 714-8488296 DOR07HY 8 HODGES PAGE 01 COMMMO-To 300110 t Odf SeRiefS rnm On July 3rd'The Huntington Beach City Council will decide whether or not to put the issue of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and 'Talbert on the November Ballot If you agree that this issue should be on the ballot, Please attend the Council Meeting and voice your support. The Council meeting starts at 6 P.M. in the Council Chambers At City Hall 2000 Main Street If you cannot attend the meeting, Ip ease indicate your support by writing, e-mailing, faxing, or phoning the City Council. U.S. Mail: 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 pp E-Mail: cify.council�'u�surfcit,�-hb.org N Fax: 714-536-5233 Phone: 71.4-536-5553 If you have questions, please visit our website at www.soshb.com or call: 714 846-3927 714 8488296 92% P.01 y c� Marinka Horack �y` . 21742 Fairlane Circle 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 964-8170 June 22, 2006 RECEIVE® Mayor Dave Sullivan HB City Hall JUN 2 2000 Main Street - 2006 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATION OFFICE RE:' Senior Center Proposal is a Another "Bait & Switch" Boondoggle Dear Mayor Sullivan: The proposal to put a new Senior Center in Central Park is another "bait & switch" boondoggle. The project is not really a senior center, as much as it is a commercial enterprise. The centerpiece of the proposed building is a large conference hall that would hold.300 people. The plan is to rent out the hall for weddings and large parties. That means crowds of people, parking lots full of cars, loud music, and the need to hire city employees to run this enterprise (and pay thier salaries & pensions) . This does NOT conform to the concept of a passive park and open space. Experienced contractors are already warning us that the $23,000,000 price tag for the massive 45,000 square foot building could easily double in cost by the time it is built. How many noisy weddings would it take to pay for such a project? We experienced this type of "bait & switch" with the Sports Complex. The Sports Complex was presented to vote of the people of Huntington Beach as a $1.9 million sports playground for the children of our city. In fact, the project was pushed along by the leaders of the youth sports programs. Instead, the Sports Complex turned out to be a slick $18 million playground for adults. Many of those adults don't even live in our city. To cap it off, the city hired a corrupt contractor to complete the complex. The contractor ran off with $1, 000, 000 without doing the job. He left the city's taxpayers to pay for the losses. The taxpayers were also stunned to find that the voter- approved $1.9 million price tag was switched to an inflated $18 million. Are we now supposed to trust the same iresponsible city bureaucracy to do the Senior Center right? City employees must remember they are responsible to the taxpayers who pay their salaries and pensions. They should not allow costs to be inflated almost ten times above the voter-approved amount. The project proponents are proposing a new multi-million dollar expenditure upon the taxpayers, and they're using seniors as bait. Who doesn't want to support seniors? But remember, seniors are only a part of this project. The big switch is the creation of a conference center that would require a huge slab of concrete on acres of our open space. And it would bring a constant flow of large, noisy crowds, who would disrupt the rich bird habitat that makes HB Central Park one of the premier birding spots of the region. It would destroy the serenity and rustic ambiance of our beautiful city park forever. , Sincerely, Marinka Horack HB Resident for 30 Years P.S. There are many possible ways to do a Senior Center project correctly. The proposed project at Central Park is extravagant, destructive, and wrong. Jun 27 06 11 : 04a ALICE KINNEY 71484GO993 P. ■ hM The commme To supper our Senierl On July P The Huntington Beach City Council will decide whether or not to put the issue of a new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot If you agree that this issue should be on the ballot, Please attend the Council Meeting and voice your support. The Council meeting starts at 6 P.M. in the Council Chambers At City Hall 2000 Main Street If you cannot attend the meeting, p ease indicate your support by writing, e-mailing, faxing, or phoning the City Council. U.S. Mail: 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E-Mail: city.council(nsurfcity-hb.org Fax: 714-536-5233 . Phone: 714-536-5553 �� L•,ul � c: [- 4r If you have questions, please visit our website at .tc www.soshb.com or call: 714 846-3927 L�--- 714e46E993 69: P.01 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mary M. Koch [mm.koch@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Yes, we need a new Senior Center that will be able to serve the 56,000 senior over 60 expected by 2020. Yes, we support the preferred Goldenwest and Talbert site for the new Senior Center. We suggest the current Senior Center at 17th and Orange be replaced with a community park rather than being developed into new businesses or houses. A green park with trees and shade is badly needed in this area. This proposed park will replace lost Central Park space at the preferred new Senior Center at the Goldenwest and Talbert site. Mary M. Koch, 417 loth Street, Huntington Beach, CA 714-960-0642 mm.koch(Rverizon.net John E. Koch, 417 loth Street, Huntington Beach, CA 714-960-0642 j.e.koch kverizon.net 7/3/2006 RECEIVED ,�•�3• JUN 2 3 2006 f2eur (�i CITY OF HUNTING T ON BEACH /7 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE f;z �6, �� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: virginia nunez [virgiel034@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: suppout our seniors Hello,please add my name on the list of placing on the ballot the issue of the Senior Center on the side on Golden West and Talbert.l am all for it. Thank You Virginia Nunez Senior of Huntington Beach Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email?Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. / /' - Z r . � 3 y/ 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Debbie Payne [d.payne@commercecasino.net] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:18 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: New Senior Center Please vote to put the new Senior Center(at Central Park)on the November ballot. There will be a whole lot of people who will benefit from this and I can't think of a better location. What would be wrong with eliminating a part of the park that is full of weeds???? Debbie Payne 16400 Saybrook Lane#99 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Registered voter. Debbie Payne Corporate Secretary 6131 E. Telegraph Road Commerce, CA 90040 (323) 838-3223 (Tel) (323) 728-8874 (Fax) www.commercecasino.com L 7/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Arouchleau@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Dapkus, Pat; Fikes, Cathy Subject: senior center Dear Council Members, I am urging you to do what you can to put the Senior Center in Central Park. It would be a wonderful, peaceful setting for us elders. The center will not take up but a very small portion of the park which is an area lying fallow at this time. There are no homes near the site, which could be disturbed by the center. The park closes at 10 p.m. so there would not be objectionable noise if the facility was rented out when not in use by the seniors. This also makes economic sense as it would be a very desirable venue for non-senior activities. The cost would probably not be much over the rehabilitating of the very out-dated and out-grown present building. I would think the public would be willing to give us the same consideration that was given to the dog park and we would appreciate the serene setting! Thank you for your consideration of this very important issue. I am a 36 year Huntington Beach resident who is thankful to be able to live in this unbeatable location. You all do a wonderful job and are truly appreciated by myself and many others. Your job is not easy-like trying to please a house full of children??? Sincerely, Asele Rouchleau 18021 Clearwater Circle Huntington Beach (847-7902) 7 7/3/2006 p? 3 s >. 4; y of ��'•�,x3 �S 3� 4: 1 � 3 � G v z s 4 y imm to NINE IM OWN x r � -- `�' meows YN" WE � ,��, ���,fix- �`� � '"�, �` .-'� �.� � r-w.s �- � �= � �a� -�� "`'�.?.,�� � � �� ��� ,3'�a,•..�"� 4 � � a bf list w iy jo -'. a'' - : x- - -'f - r"g'.-,- ,3g„�"..v. ,�, r•� -� .,�„ r, ' - tY �- s k s : c MW sIMM -r Nc�'k n�Ec�nrt�c- :tov X2-p/L /�AEeu (,tX �/�CJ.,P�(�✓i U 23 , 0 � u*uj j4- (3 Ciu- J 1 F! To Huntington Beach City Council, agree that the issue of a new Senior center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot ,.be implemented. Sincerely, To Huntington Beach City Council, We agree that the issue of a new Senior center at Goldenwest and Talbert on the November Ballot , be implemented. Sincerely, e � f Ilf c Mrs. u# �Q ¢r Sq- UP 713 r -e /Yew n 1 o i f a c���Pyc_ �✓ems .5 4,9 40a,n a Oje. S w f f f1 Z, -n, 4 � i goAci " oL" , } na`M a k V(U tit ' c-)tU t7 s � s `717.2 'c p c� C-.0 N r C - F F Jun 27 '06 01 : 37p senior outreach (7143374-1620 P• 1 16 Ilay vfj L t Lsw To ►u rl our SOMNaasI� .�� �. nor .• �,�•�Tile' .Q e5Z L=N 10i S 7-- Y u A r # .Kip r9'.Z6'y�8 / l Z P.01 � S r / 7 U r ' 4 v AN 2 8 2006 dtY counkti 6 4P Recent letters in opposition to the ppositi �,Se�uttt-�'apt Goldenwest and Talbert dwell on the fact that the perceived flaws in the Sports Compx are sornet rf+w related to the Sevin Center. This is a faulty argument.The two projects are unrelated Well over half the cost of the Sports Complex was due to the nemediation of the contarninated soil on the site The Sports Complex site was i mtsable for any purpose without remediation-Today the Sports Complex remains essentially open space mid is available for recreation much like the Frisbee gcilf course across the street. The proposed Senior Center site is not a grassy,tree shaded meadow as some would have you believe. Though uncontaminated,it is a weed covered vacant kit which was a borrow pit for dirt used to construct the San Diego Freeway.The Senior Center will be an envroly sensitive building_whose landscaping will be an extension of Shipley Nature Center_ Rather than comparing the proposed Senior Center with the Sports Coniplex,it might be compared with the �ii Central Library,Nobody would dream of attar the hbrary_However,if the criticisin of the proposed Senior Center were successftffly applied to the library,the h1my would never have been built. The Library has the following issues: 1. It uses up open space 2. It was built without an M a traffic study or a fnancial analysis 3. It causes more iratlic 4. Weddings are held there 5. A playhouse and children's theater f unction there ii r snack b exist there 6 A and a sna bar retail shop P 7. it has book sales,concerts,social events,and dance recitals 8. The meeting rooms are rented out to citizen groups and churches 9. It is home to more than a half a dozen civic groups 10. It hosts art exhibits 11. It has video conferencing capabilities By contrast the program at the proposed Senior Center is not as broad. At will focus,as it does in the current center_on the issues faced by the burgeoning senior population:loneliness,health,physical fitness, nutrition,transpodatton,on going education,social needs,financial planntngi legal problems and the like. The proposed rental opportunities will not interfere with on-goring senior adivities_Rentals are proposed to offset maintenance and operating costs so as to minimize the impact on the city budget 1n closing,I should like to out that C nbal Park,and the con` city and -owned land g 1 � county -owned could become part of the park,include the tia#fowmg: A rock crushing fatality,a 44 space mobile home park,two restaurants,a home for runaway children,a city an a fx i the afore mooned its Complex.Frisbee Golf . ceni�a ex, j yard, equestrian , dnerapeutuc ty Sports pl Course,and Library,a band stand,an amphitheater;a dog park,a nature center a lead-contaminated former gun range,and a former trash station with containinated soil,It is reasonable that with all of these activities past and present,there should be a place m the sum for a Senior Center,a golden place for the golden years.. We hope the people of Huntington Beach will continue to show compassion for seniors and support giving lli them easy access to a beattuftil,morally located venue, More information is available on our website: SOSHB_com Ralph Bauer II CITY OF HUNTIN+GTON BEACH Community Services Department To Mayor and City Council Via City Administrator From Jim B. Engle, Director, Community Servi Date June 29, 2006 Subject LATE COMMUNICATION RE SENIOR CENTER ITEM F-1 Attached is a PowerPoint that will be presented to City Council on July 3, 2006 on Senior Center Item F-1 J8E:cr Attachment E t r UE xl City of Huntington Beach Proposed senior Center Y sr x r New Senior Center: Goal within council's Strategic Plan ➢Council approved funding for Senior Center Study March 20: LPA presented study at Council Study Session June 5: Staff directed to present Measure C on July 3 Y II 4 'cA City of Huntington Beach New Senior Center Study Anal Demographic sis Y 64+ Population 0 64/o Increase 374% Increase wM o � rY Comparative Standard Square Footage per 5,000 Residents Age 60+ Cerritos 16,499 sf Irvine 9,108 sf Fountain Valley 7,489 sf Costa Mesa 6,932 sf Westminster 5,979 sf Huntington Beach 2,220 sf Proposed Center: (Approximately 45,000 sf) 2006 @ 32,670 seniors 6,891 sf 2020 @ 53,579 seniors 4,198 sf Outdoor Space Summary Auto Parking (200 spaces) 1.8 AC Transportation Vehicles .2 AC Landscape .8 AC Courtyards/Gardens/Amenities 1 AC Service Area .2 AC .................... ............ .............. Building Area 1 AC Total Site Area 5 AC = x LPA s Site Recommendation LPA s Site Evaluati ons Site#1 Central Park a (at Goldenwest&Talbert) a - _ s w `t e Site#2 Central Park (at Ellis&Goldenwest NEA Fields i Site#3 Kettler School/ A&B (near Magnolia and Atlanta) t r - - 4 « s Site#d Le Bard School --- ne•,r.,.a (near Bawkhurst and Adams) * Site#5 OC Transfer Station 1, <+3 at Talbert&Gothard jx ( ) E. NJIA Nt'�L:� �eF; Site#6 Rodgers Senior Center _ (at 1711&Orange) coNTexr,l` Site#7 Bartlett Park PJ917J JtdLk A&B Beach&Adams ( ) LPA's Site Evaluation Criteria Site Characteristics Economic Conditions Availability/Size Building Program -Site Acquisition Required Exterior Program .Site Owned by City Accommodates Future Expansion Pertinent Data Topography No Significant Sitework Required -Proximity to Civic Services(Park/Library) Mature Vegetation -Maximizes Potential Use of the Site • Sensitive Site Vegetation -Visibilitylldentity,to Community Adjacent Uses:Compatibility of Neighborhood -Site Free of Encumbrances Sensory Issues:View,Sound,Smell Micro Climate:Wind Sun -Amenity of Outdoor Space Access Special Conditions Vehicular -Zoning/Land Use • Pedestrian Accommodates Senior Transportation Public Transit • Central Location LPA's Site Evaluation Scores .......... Central Park �entml Park Ketillir School Kamer Fields LeSard School OG Transfer Rodger's Lower Bartlett Park Upper Bartlett Pan( GW&Talbert GW&Ellis Campus Edison Park &Park Station Senior Center Adams Yorktimm 2 3A 313 4 5 6 7A 7B .......... ...................... ........... ............... 308 289 187 235 180 223 232 177 170 RANKING: 1 2 6 3 7 5 4 8 9 TOP 4 RANKED SITES #4th Ranked Site-Current Senior Center @ 17th&Orange: Advantage:seniors are using it now—flat topography—city owned Disadvantages: not centrally located - residential on three sides - out of service during construction-only 2.3 acres-subterranean parking($10 million+) #3rd Ranked Site-Kettler Fields: Advantage: Adjacent to Edison Community Park -flat topography Disadvantages: Cost to purchase or lease—not centrally located—access through residential—potential methane mitigation #2nd Ranked Site-HCP at Goldenwest&Ellis: Advantages: Centrally located — access to major arterial - flat topography - easy access—city owned ➢ Disadvantages: Not adjacent to other HCP amenities potential oil mitigation — potential ingress/egress issues To Ranked Site: HCP—west of Goldenwest at Talbert: YAdvantages: Uses only 5 ac.of 14 ac.undeveloped site—flat area— lower wl minimal view corridor impact- centrally located —adjacent to major arterial—access to public transportation — park setting — adjacent to other recreation amenities — no site constraints per LPA—city owned Disadvantages: Signal change required for traffic ingress/egress — potential soil compaction required due to previous excavation Recommended Site � x -15 44 80 •i'i lei" i �" �.- � K a � Looking east towards Goldenwest Street Y�n{ .k. ` s i a a Looking south towards Disc Golf Course I I� a Y" z� i by al?�+ m Looking west to group picnic and activity area 9 pp Y Looking northeast toward Goldenwest/Taibert intersection KB�n Y. Looking north to ramp or berm that intersects park from Goldenwest/Talbert intersection CEQA Environmental Assessment :-EIR on undeveloped areas of HCP prepared in 1999. Master EIR @ Goldenwest/Talbert site: EIR states that the loss of non-native grasslands"due to development is not significant, but the "assumption"is that it should be replaced within HCP ;�New Senior Center would require additional environmental review. vAttorney opined Measure C does not require environmental review first CONCEPTUAL SUPPORT of SENIOR CENTER @ GW/TALBERT COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ;i-,Reviewed LPA's study on 4/12/06 �-Conducted public input meeting on 5/10/06 i-Recommends site to City Council H.B. COUNCIL ON AGING );�Provided input to LPA regarding space study Recommends site to City Council FRIENDS OF SHIPLEY NATURE CENTER yConceptually supports proposed location �A.ry Estimated Project Coasts Estimated Project Costs Construction Costs $14,700,000 (building, parking, landscape, utilities, etc.) Soft Costs $2,900,000 (architectural, engineering, testing, CEQA,furnishings, etc) ............................................................................................................................................................................ .... Contingencies $2,400,000 (10%design; 10%construction) Inflation $3,300,000 (Assume three years before construction @ 50/o/yr) ..._............................................._........_..............................................................................................._......................_.................... TOTAL $23,300,000* *Estimate is NOT site specific;therefore,mitigation for contamination, subterranean parking, utilities not readily available,two-story construction, traffic signal modification, purchase of land,etc.are NOT included in cost estimate. Huntington Central Park Recreation Uses and Acreage 1. Parks,Trees,Landscape Yard=3.4 AC — 1C�P=3S6 AC 2. lack Cram Nature Area= 1.7 AC 16 7 7 3. Alvin M.Coen Camp<ground=4.8 AC 4. Jake R.Stewart Picnic Area 49 5. Adventure Playground Proposed Senior G. Youth Shelter =1.2 AC Center Location on 5 , acres of 14 acre- 7.Central Library = 10.1 AC nttdevelo ed area 8.Sports Complex=45.0 AC Pt+ p 6 View Estates=7.7 AC Ocean�� hs l8A �. an 10.Shipley Nature Center=18.0 AC 11.Group Picnic/Activity Area (McCraken Meadow) 18C 5 12.Disc Coif Course 1_.O AC 13.Equestrian Center=25.0 AC i E� r E 4. Park—2.0 AC I Dot, t88 I al B.Henry A.Kaufman Picnic Are a 16.Bandstand 17.Amphitheater 18.Undeveloped Open Space:"A"=14 AC,°B"=44 AC,"C"=27 AC Shipley, Nature tenter A .r. i' I rAll � �. �. &Tel intat.i. 'Gl � rriC i rthM ql ai1eYL� i f � A- my '�, nx,ibn'bha4tw.. a T cat 8 YI1� *PROPOSED n O.SED SENIOR i . Y CENTER ON SOUTHERN- 5 ACRES OF THIS 14 ACRE PARCEL A. "`i',_i.� i ,.i.•. M�. Z Central Park Master Plan 1 77,Y8 knrps j�hnktw Ii�D7 MEASURE C CHARTER SECTION 612 Measure C references the sale or lease of park or beach property, construction costing more than $100,000 or a building more than 3,000 square feet Measure C Election Cost General Election -up to $5,000 Special Election -up to$444,000 If City Council moves forward with Measure C on November 2006 election, the ballot language would be prepared by the City Attorney for approval at July 17 Council meeting MEASURE C CONSIDERATIONS :-Staff directed to bring issue of Measure C vote for consideration to this July 3 council meeting for November election rOn July 11 1994 Council approved minute action: Applicant"...must obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people." City Attorney opined: Measure C vote can happen prior to the environmental assessment. Voter approval does not mandate the senior center be built; if approved by voters, project still must receive all necessary development approvals including Planning Commission and City Council. PUBLIC CONCERNS MULTI GENERATIONAL SENIOR CENTER • Programming for all seniors 55 to 105+ years of age COMMUNITY CENTER vs. SENIOR CENTER Proposal is to build a center to serve seniors (replaces the Michael E. Rodgers Seniors' RENTALS Rentals are a secondary use; serves the community and helps raise revenue to offset the centers operating expenses ACCOMODATES FUTURE EXPANSION • General LPA criteria LPA estimated cost to process entitlements and prepare plans and specifications: -Architecture & Engineering $1,319,000 n-Printing, testing, survey, permits 513,000 -CEQA 100,000 -10% contingency(soft costs only) 193,000 $2,125,000* *Does not include estimates for project management, legal services, furnishings, furniture & equipment (FF&D); 10% construction contingency; or inflation h I RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Take a Charter Section 612(Measure C)vote to the November,2006 election 1. Approve taking a proposed senior center on the southern five acres of a 14—acre undeveloped site west of Goldenwest at Talbert in Central Park to a Charter Section 612 vote at the November,2006 election;direct staff to return to the City Council on July 17,2006 with ballot language,resolution,summary and analysis;and,approve making an exception to the minute action of July 11, 1994 requiring an applicant"...to obtain all city approvals prior to being submitted to a vote of the people.'OR Do not take a Charter Section 612 (Measure C) vote to the November, 2006 election 2. Direct staff to process the proposed senior center on undeveloped land west of Goldenwest at Talbert in Central Park through the entitlement process and prepare construction plans and specifications, then return to City Council for a Charter Section 612 vote at some future date. OR 3. Select an alternate site for a senior center and direct staff to process the proposed senior center through the entitlement process, prepare construction plans and specifications, and return to City Council for consideration of taking the project to a Charter Section 612 vote at some future date.OR 4. Do not move forward with the development of a new senior center. RECEIVE®FROM AS RE RD O 4� JNR EE OF9; R 0;41106 JOJW L FLYW CIV OLM Comments a@ City Council Meeting, July 3, 2006 _ l Here we are again in the midst of a controversy. As they say, "Nothing in Huntington Beach is easy". There has been a great deal of the usual rhetoric. Despite that, I think that the issue before the council tonight is simple. Should we allow the citizens of Huntington Beach to vote on allowing the senior citizens to occupy a spot in Central Park or not? One side sees the proposed location as a highly attractive centrally located site which is ideal for the burgeoning senior population. The other side says it will take away some open space from the citizens at large, and the Senior Center should be built at a less desirable location.. Some of us argue that whether you support the proposed site or not, it is the democratic way to let the voters decide. If the site is approved by the voters, the city council will decide on programming, financing, and mitigating environmental effects. Arguing about these issues now is really irrelevant. In closing, I might mention, with tongue in cheek,- that if the main library were subjected to the opposition that we see towards the Senior Center the library might never have been built. We should also be reminded that the Central Park and adjacent city- owned land which could well be a part of Central Park is occupied by a 44 unit mobile home park, a rock crushing enterprise, a home for runaway kids, 2 restaurants, a lead contaminated former gun range, a 25 acre equestrian center, a 2 acre dog park, and a 15 acre Frisbee golf course. In the face of these and other activities in the park past and present it would seem fair to devote a few acres to our seniors. Let's at least put it on the ballot. I encourage people to visit the Committee to Support Our Seniors web site _ o- ;DI ED FROM /0aae.� AS 41 KILIC RECORD IL MEETING OF 6/28/2006 !CITY�E FFI E :XAM L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Lcmdnl Huntington Beach City Council Living 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Support for Senior Center in Central Park Dear Members of the Huntington Beach City Council On June 27, 2006 the Huntington Landmark Board of Directors unanimously passed a resolution in favor of drafting a letter of support to the Huntington Beach City Council in favor of constructing a new Senior Center in Central Park. The Board of Directors feels that Huntington Beach is in need of a new Senior Center and the Central Park location will provide the 2000+ senior citizens living in Huntington Landmark as well as other area seniors a tremendous resource. If you have any questions or concerns please call Huntington Landmark General Manager Joe Winkler, CCAM at 714-960-5475. FORT E BOA DIRECTORS, 4 r Hal Plotkin, P side Huntington L'� ark Board of Directors CC: Huntington Landmark Board of Directors, Walt White HUNTINGTON LANDMARK SENIOR ADULT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 20880 Cakridge Lane • Huntington Beach • CA 92646 Phone (714)960-5475 • Fax (714) 960-0597 • www.huntingtonlandmark.com RECEIVED FROM &� AS!��w L MEEM OF ,KOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Committee to Support Our Seniors The Committee to Support Our Seniors invites you to the City Council Meeting On Monday, June 5th City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street At 6 P.M. To support the proposed new Senior Center at Goldenwest and Talbert Please sign-up to speak during the public comments The Committee to Support Our Seniors strongly favors the Goldenwest and Talbert location for the following reasons: 1. It is the lowest cost alternative of the nine sites investigated by the consulting firm, LPA of Irvine. The city owns the land, no soil remediation is needed, and the site accommodates a one story building. 2. The current Senior Center at 17'h and Orange is an old rehabilitated 1940's building and is beyond economic repair. 3. The existing Senior Center does not adequately serve today's, burgeoning senior population, let alone the 56,000 seniors over 60 expected by 2020. In the ten years between 1994 and 2004 usage of the Senior Center has doubled. 4. The Goldenwest-Talbert site is in the geographic center of the city and is served by an existing bus line. 5. Parking and meeting room facilities can be shared with existing community groups like Friends of the Shipley Nature Center. 6. Opportunities for intergenerational programs will exist between the young people visiting the Shipley Nature Center and Seniors. 7. The site gives Seniors better access to Central Park and the Library_ 8. The current Senior Center at 17"h and Orange will continue to function until the new facility is built. After the new facility is built the existing Senior Center can be returned to general use for the residents Downtown. 9. Currently Central Park devotes 25 acres to equestrian activities, 15 acres to Frisbee Golf and 2 acres to dogs. Devoting 5 acres to the Seniors is reasonable 10. The proposed facility will be environmentally sensitive and the surrounding plant species will be selected by the Friends of the Shipley Nature Center. 11. Other cities like Westminster,Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Irvine and Cerritos have approximately 3 to 7 times as much room per senior resident as does Huntington Beach. 12. The proposed site is currently unused and is well away from neighbors thus minimizing negative impacts during and after construction. The Center will not interfere with existing active uses in the park. 13. The 27 member Huntington Beach Council on Aging as well as the Community Services Commission have endorsed the site. 14. For more information call: 714-846- 3927 or 714-847-8371, or our website at soshb.com RECEIVED FROM P AS PUBLIC RECORD�FO2 COUNCIL ME �// ET G OF .2 06 CITY CLERK E Good Evening Mayor and City Council JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK My name is Dean Albright My near 3 years on the Infrastructure Committee I look at as a farce or a scam on the people of this community just to raise the sewer fund and to bail us out of a sewer problem, Because our infrastructure is NOT getting repaired today as it should. And now your trying to go into a new costly project with the senior center into our last open space that we have left in this city in Huntington Central Park, WE have buildings in that park that are being eaten by termites, and they need paint and repairs, we have 65 miles of block walls that are crumbling and that also need repairs before they fall over on somebody, go look at them - I and 60 others have , And have you seen the grafettii that are o r walls? Council Woman Green must see the grafettii eve ime She drives down Springdale from her home, I want to i 'te our city adminstrator to go on a blind folded drive with me thru this city to see if SHE can identify what dirt road we are driving on. I am opposed to eminetdomain on private property, but could you impose eminetdomain on one of those school sites to aquire that property to put the senior center there? that would make more sense and a practical use of eminetdomain, and it would leave our parks still open space. There are more than tourists that visit our open spaced parks. You have along way to go before you can make this city a tourist attraction, because there is more to this city than 2 hotels, a pier and a beach. Thank You for your time � r REVENUE PROJECTIONS BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON C NTRAL..PARK SPORTS COMPLEA SOHEOULE Aft DAY flvs3'; FIELD i FIEL.0`< RE-1 0 3 FIELD f RaLf%1, FIELDS F'sF D 7 FIRD 8 E:3E AM floc AM 0 a 0 is I') g t£ C30AM 0 4 0 i!" aw Ai 'Gt1-AV, 0 G 0 0 k MID, m 0 0 4 t`ut IND t 72.a�CI pv tNo IND W pm tN'o W33A � I:'a'£D hi 114 4A !A +[ afnp;E AWj-5 AA41S .AMLS AVIS Cr'#3A AM" PIALS Alit$ A4AS hi F3a > S A t&S Atl s m W=one AMLS a°.R±S AMLZ AM'LS 0 0 0 tad 7/3 /o ACTUAL HOURS THE SPORTS COMPLEX IS USED ON MONDAYS. YELLOW SQUARES DENOTE DAYS NOT USED. (SELECTED FIELDS) Mal "22, June 5 June 12 June 19 June 26 ;IFt SC— NW SC-3 SC-3 SC ';3 . .� 6 30 2 *4-2 5-3* 3-4 - 7 45 -1 *4-5 2-3* 1-5* 9 00 3-1 4-1 2-5* Ju ! July 24 July 31 August 7 August 14 SC-7 SC-8 SC-8 SC-7 6:30' *1"'3' ','': 5-2 2-4 5-1 1-3 7 45 ,:':_ 2 3-4* 1-5* 4-3* 5-2* -4* 3-5* *3-2 *2-4 hr Huntington Beach Central Park Sports Complex First Year of Operations Mn 2004-April 2005 Revenue FY 0"s May 04-APA 06 (DA yeer) Actuafs NO PH N Adopted I. Parking Revcnuctrincs f 157,344 f _ - 73,67_ 2.Lea�uesrlonrnarnents/Field Rentats/Practice Lights —_ _ f 240350 S —327,63 3.Food Vcndcws(April estirnac-4 days) S 30,000 1 t8 4_Spoon"Ips f 137,000 S Sutdotal S F 694 S 401A5 Crest View PnyaA Arne Sales Tax Allocalrtm f6 276otal9a 677 Expenese FY 04-05 May 04,"05 PrAected Actual Expenses t.11tilities(estimated,pendergdata from SCE) __ S 53,000 S __ 35,000 --— -- ----- --- --- — 2.Public Works Land-.- c Maintenance S 31XI.tHNJ S 145,225 3.Methane Mitigatum-Pmfess-ional Service Contract _. 1 137,400 S 95,400 4,Adu6 S resorts=Permanent de Temporary(wfbetrefits) S 106,200 S 108,436 --- - 5.Adult Sports-Other Operations S _ 120.800 $ 98,109 6.Cow Bird Mitigation S 35,000 $ 35,000 Total f 752,400 $ 507170 Note:Additional rion-departmental expenses include Phase 1-2001A bond Debt Service of$1.103.075 and Phase 2-Equipment Lease Paym #of$M.000 2 «+�+m ���+\©� �yv#\ �}���� � . ��� \$i/®���(/ \$$\ % �% % . # y. .y <\ ;y \�\\ � *� � � .�k ; y#C »« »y� . .. ;y :#« w 2:» \.�\: ` » 2 �« yk « »y� �-» 2w� � 2»�� ?:$ � <§ 1 4� » y\ \ . �»2 � ±2» < »^ , 2: - ^ \ j $\.�$$? . , : »: - +: , : � � » � � . � : � � > . „ . r . � � � � \ ���� . , , , . . , . , : . . . . , : ! : _ . , : m� : . � : : : �, . : . . , v � � � . . . } > � �� � «, � } » � � \/ ; \ . : y. � �� . . . : � � : \ �� �\ : :� \ ^�� . ) 1 � \ ° 2 � \ � � �z . /��\ �\�\ : �\ �\ �\ � 3 W�v Y3 NMI Vol 13, � 9 a s sx r y it i � Y VOTEE am ANY P ICOJECT IN CENT PARK IS. Save Central Park _ -,449 w.savecentralpark.org savecentralpark@aol.com Mark Bixby Julys 3, 2006 _ Context... ...Everything! iw t t NE ,X., Rom' y�^^ Red-shouldered Hawks Bushtits' 3 House Finches Grackles J k 9 American Goldfinches Common Yellowthroats ,t Lesser Goldfinches Bullock's Orioles s.� `. s Y se r Nutmeg Mannikins Just Say No WN Don't pave over Central Park 'U _ • Don't violate Measure C s bi Don't accept an incomplete proposal p p p V ` u y � NY, Voters Save it or Pave it? � � Choose wisely. • • - +� •. .• 5