Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Parks - Miscellaneous Reports and Documents 1985 - 1989 December 11, 1985 .so- ems. . The Honorable Kay7arZ City Council Members z Huntington Beach City Hall U, ! ! 2000 ?lain Street Huntington Bea:h, CA 92648 CITY OF HUKT,..G"ON BEACH hear Hayor Handle and City Council Members, CITY COL'NCIL CFFICE The residents of houses and rondominivas near Bartlett park are circulatue a petition regarding the park and its problems which we plan to present to you at the City Council tweeting of December 16. 1985. In our petition we will ask the City to immediately increase its efforts to maintain this area to eliminate current fire and public heal'''h hazards and to remove the trash that currently litters the area. We are also asking that the City work closely with the ara.nge County Environmental Management Agency, that Is developing the lower part of the park as a flood control basin, to ensure that this lower area is developed and Landscaped in a way that is beneficial to the appearance of this Land o nd consistent with its use as a park. Finally, we will also ask that the City develop this park within eighteen months i d that easy access to the park by residents of the area be included in the park plans. Many residents of this area have contacted various departments (Park, Public Xorks, Fire, etc.) over the years to report various problems Snthe area. This piecemeal effort has not seemed to effect any permanent solutions to the problems at the ?ark. Some of the problem;3 are an folloxst 1) The area poses a real fire hazard in the dry season. The area is not mowed regularly and becomes overgrown with weeds. Kids playing in the area some play with =tches, resulting in fires. In 1984 and 1985 approximately twelve fixes were started In this park. Even if the upper parts; are mowed, the slope area rexxinsa a hxzar3 as it cannot be mown. The homes to the east of the' park all have wood shingle roofs. Under the right conditions, many Hanes could be destroyed. 21 The area poses a piblie health hazard due to the stagnant water that is standing in the lower part of the park most of the year. Mosquito abatement is not performed often enough. 3) The area is Uttered with trash. There is an old rusted car, and old•sofas In one area.'' A swamp area is fil3ed with grocery carts said other debris. Most of the really bad areas are no visible from the streets. 4) As many areas of the park are not v,isiblo from th6'street; it is an inviting, area for illegal activities such',a:a drug dealing, and is also`,inviting .to vagrants who take up residence -1n the park. 5) Them are 3H simile family houses ,and 68 condominiums in: th6 (, tracts adjacant to the park. . All of the single family houses have four bedrooms and thus, many famL21es with children live i f there. We are attempting to determine exactly how many children live there, but -me are confident that it could eauily be 500 or more. These children have no place to play except in the street or in the park as it now exists. For these reasons, we believe that the ultimate solution to these problems is for the park to be developed as; soon as possible. We have been promised ""�'•+MCT'w.2-.'.:1 .TT%�T.c::.i�;+i...:� I.'->.. a'�"+'iT��xasr......��,-.+.-.'.M..+..�.s:. "-•• ,,,:f:uu� '.,. ,:+x:r...-.n:�••.�usaarcr�L,�:i,, a-r:'. .i. w+ , i A r r 1 1( e. . 1 :1 1j 1 • s H . f 1 t f w � r.A a park for several year. but the development date has Waved back time And again, I have a Son wfio was ten when uo wed in, tut La now 17 arse will be going to college next year, nover having :ud acceca to a neighbonccod Parke WiII I have to say the sans thing for my children who are two and four? I w:uld be happy to discuss these p:oblew with any wombats of tt•.e council prior to the Hondtuy meeting and would be dollg4ted :o tams you an a toy.:' of the park an it now exista so you can see the prahleca for yourself, I cagy be reached anytime at 968-1156. TI=k you for any help you can give ua. Sincerely Youra, Linda IA.%Y_t t 19752 Eldcroat Lane Huntington Bears, I It'• fN i—';w 1ea►t;tR 4 ra• r' 'ld". .""`..'�^'�.•-..w.tt.' ••".•w;;.'wr F'f^.•'.0 an«'••-.....w.....� `•'. � t �• �. .. r 1 arswrrrKt�-.i�sas+ 4 Z"�'T"���'� ^r It s•'( .` ` �r s J t' t '` - J, L{� r� • , Fti 1 .• }1:• 1 � Cc ' � ' si �• t 'r s ••i t Yll•rs ' • ~�'1: •� tl tt + •e' t � .� • i s 1 lid U, r tt t• t J � r �F tl '(t s +� }.>rt �� tz r 1 s J nq •, p .s i• f 1 '.t t s ' s 1.17I •1 ` t �' Sr�t.'(•rs t � r: , s •a�ti 3 ,. .t`.. .�.'At ?:. r . .. .'af _ ,t r 1. tX "r.�Sti .- � rr+ti't;�` i ;.'+3Y� .'s,�4{;'t}�,ot.F'' d 1'� ;t.�:.,.'•IY ,..it.tll �rr�r,.'r it F* cJTV OF HUNTIN GT N BEACH j `Ir INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION �4wtw�t►w�t.cN To Paul S. Cook F lax Bowman City Administralor Director. Community Services Subject pAV Quimby Act Fee Date March 21 , 1989 Attached is a report on the hark development projects and Quimby Act fees fir the perlod 1989 through 2WO. The report is belf—' explanatory. 1'leaae advise of the next step you Wish me to take in this matter. 6 • w / Attachment i f _ t .... �._�.. .tt ....,.....:..:..C.:,_t...•r...�..�..-.,.•. 1 .:::,� .,. .i,.: ,'-i:.i=. '.a rt.ss.s..:rsF: :T,', .:i-:'.�:.eiti+,t�.R."' .R:Yh�aG�',lJ ' ."'�t+tiL"Y 71.1, t: !'�s,c..,.l.f.i •'�" . . , y.t.:.yi:"JI.'�� r CITY OF 1RPM19MW L'P15/.11 mpff IaTY SE WCE9 DEM1't IM PARK DEVEU01"EM FUJUL9 M Aran SAY AM E1W TDC IOUOD: 1989-2000 Cities can establish fees to build out park system (acquisition and/or development) through the mechanism of the state Quimby Act. The city last increased its fees in 1982 to 60% of the projected maximum fee based on a 1900 appraisal of the park system. Though the full. fee uaa not approved by City Council, the goal had been to provide the necessary funds to emplete the park system as It was then d-%lineated in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Prior to 1982, the fees lead also been increased in 1972. The cost of acquiring and developing land into parks has risen dramatirzlly cver the past seven years. In o=der to reach its goal of providing the citizens of Funtington Beach with a quality park system, City Ocuncil moat again analyze the projected park development and the fees to developers. The other Cities in Oranga County were surveyed. The survey data is most useful and comparable when adjusted to our city's park standard of five acres per thousand population; lased on thin information, the two cities with the ; highest adjusted fee axe Newport Beach at $5,894 and Anaheim at $6,765 for a single family residence. Also included is a listing of future park development scenarios with inflation factored in where appropriate. Sind the develop wnt schedule its flexible and not firmly established, several scenarios j are presented to provide backup information for city council's decision-nuking process• I i PARK DEVELAPMENr SI.DM RY! i Listed below are proposed Park projects that can be reviewed to determine what the ,total park system should entail. The Park Develepwn'- summary incl-,-es short- and mud range projects plus,Mmtington Central Park. The parks and park facilities have been spread over the ten-year period in an attempt.Lo project the constraints of acquiring the funs through developer fees. The variable for inflation was oomptrted at 6% because rtt development costs have inflat t frum 5% to 10% annually and the city's real property division also *Poorfi`that 6% is,a rear,onable increase for acquisition. other time lines and'pmible'scenarios, :in more detail, are presented in the attachmsent titled "Future Park Development". -• The following pres;ente a pictiure where the overall Huntington• Central Park development is delayed until: the other projects such as neighborhvod-,parks are conpleted. It also does not take into acoaunt:the 'r "possibi.lity of utilizing Redevelopwnt and private funding (such as with�a golf coat-se), but the projects are delineated so that City Council can select a desired development funding level. 1+ ia;,..i, w ..,,iC.ri.`•Ti",�""„i..�:L7a77✓�.•�"'-"�.�""'.,..+...auv,:vf .,�I.' - s .Jt;�'..tvw:wn.ar.r.-a;.�; r.-+.. ..•�}ii+{�atti is , , } ' ij r' 1 Shah Range (Prettent (lots): McCallen Park Phase II 5 600,000 Bartlett Park Phase II 1,300,000 Irby Paris Phase 11 1800000 Gi:bW Part 3500000 IICP -- Methane Gae 500,000 Newland Baru Expumlon 125,000 j; I1C•P - fiandicapped Area (Grant) 142,000 A. C. Marion Property Acquisition 1r286,000 Subtotal S 4.483,U00 , Mid Range (5 Years Inflation) Ibl ly/lUhl/Seacl if f Subtotal $ 5,674,UOn Hwitingt-on Central Park (10 Years Ir f latioO open/Passive: West of Golden Weat & Talbert (16 Acres) $1,523,000 N/W of Ellis & Golden West (57 Acres) 8,954,00O i N/E of Ellis & Golden West 454 Acres) 8,954,000 Subtotal $19,431,000 Other Matter Planned Recreation Facilities: i Olywic. SWiming Pool $ 8,597,000 Recreation ;renter W,th Gymaul m 10,745,000 Theater in Park newn, tion 1,307t000 Bandstand. 332,000 West ParkbV Lot ftenavation 1151000 Sully Miller Lake 1,674,ODO nquestr.Lan Trails , 391,coo Huntington Lake Renovation 537,000 'f q CAaa Range Renov'atioa 269,O00 i GirbuP Carapitx3 1.594,000 Talbert Lake Renovation 11791,000 I.' Specialty Carden 3,S60 R 000 Subtotal 530,932,000 Aaruisition: ' hots s 21812,000 Llunti..'ton Pacifica 4., 448,0(O Subtotal S 7,289,000 Oil h)°11 nraent: Subtotal S 1,720,000 OVERALL TOM $69,529,000 .1L:�yy Viilt �wu✓�ii 1..'{/ILL :� ! t� ,� • , 14 i ' loll -s Y „� a. �;;, •. . , i y�,�, r i e ,w• � r <<.� + , 1. r, rf ,L,7 ra '` , 1•r ,y "t t r4°� OMMIt MIS ( By incorporating the valuation of the existing park ayst:em into the forrxila for determining the develuper'o fees for lurks, the Cx=lnity Ue%elofrmst Delaxtrxmt detxrtained the naxim►rn fees that could be charged. 7be om ueity Services Departrent e:r"e to use Alternative 2 in this report be+:a►iEve it eliminates the high priced p3rk property in the ltuntington Harbwr area and, thereby, provides a better mean average. Listed helot is the mximn fee, optional foe level© based can percentages and the pro j,-icted revenue. 7be revenue: is haled on the oocmxmit' Deveklment O��rtsnrl►t's projection of }kvaitg gn*th thr�rAvjh the year 2000. Fr+r further detail mgardirg Alternat:iveeA 1 b 2, rx--fer to the attachment titled "Year 2000 Projection of P:►rk Fees and Revenues'. . ttrau►ity Daumlop=t Drel�arttm�t'n )lousing (?nits Projection by the: year 2000: I 4,000 Single Family Units (SFU) 6,844 Multiple Family tlnito MM) - based on average of two bedmcras per unit. Fee/Unit Fevenue Existing Park Fee S 2,395 SFU $ 91580,000 S 1,662 MFU 11,374r728 $ 2b,954,720 Alternative 42 KAxiru.-a Fee $11,119 SFU $ 44,476,000 S 7,715 WU 49,201,460 S 93,677,460 V of Maximtm (Alt. 2) Fee/Quit. (S) Revenue (8) 90% $10,007 SFU 540,028,000 6,944 ?go ..47,524,73_6i i $67,552,736 r 80% $ 0,895 S1U $35,580,000 6,172 MU 42,241,160 $77,321,160 70% S 7,783 SFU $31,132,000 5,401 MU _ 36,964 4�44 $68,096,444 60% S 6,671 SEV $26,684,000 ' 4,629 MFU 31;680, ,876 $58:364,876 • ..- �i♦•�-.-.•trrY rl '•.•.•MIYMz7�1'►•fM"S � �{ .. ,.• rT"�41�gtY1°{.��N!."'u7�t:J�111 �F •.1�1 : , N , X •c: t t 5 - r ` ft - - ` r , f , ' i k+ f ,,L r♦' 1 '1 , art �j+ rr. -r ;' .` -'r• • f - - try. . - L •;, ..�rsL:tt:.c. :��J."-:L^�r.���_. ..���».�..+Isre►-"1�"..-`��.'iaZGi....`^�.c�:..'` .Y^.ul{1{.21�'TL'�3'�.�" — t i� 4 :3 l� I,I I,I Z6Z'9016% Z6Z 09 0T 113W sn'T 000'969'8 S 03S tzrlZ 098'L8T'6Z$ 09B £bfl ST fleet STE'Z I 000'titi£'£TS (us 9EE'E S wE i tS9'ZT6'80 1 b85 OZT TZ I04 9808E 000'Z6VLT9 w 1pt 1, S t06 ZST'3+ 19ts ZSt fow 9Z n3M fl5fl'E 000'06Z'ZZS IMS 095'S S %09 •lWo (Z olty) camYxm 3o yj I-Vn= VARK DEVEEO1F1Nr Oeve.Jgp art and aoqu_sition that will take place within the next one to four years. Costs projected at current dollars (no inflation catputed). )jcCallen Park Phan II 6 600,000 Bartlett Park Phase I1 1,300,000 Irby Park Phase 11 180,000 Gibbs Park 350,000 WP - Methane Me 500,000 � Newland Barn 125,000 I)CP - Handicapped Areas 1.42,000 j A.G. lbrion Acquisition 11286,000 Total $ 4,483,060 II MID 1tAMM i De,oelopnent which should take place within the next ten years. Estimates based en projected pq=lation (5 acres/1000 pap); actual p xic acreage developed could he downenaled. Eat-,gates; are far develognent only: land premxned to be acquired through dedication. Holy/Dahl: 4,400 pup. = 22 Acres of park @ $80,000/A = $1,760,000 Sewli.ff: 6,300 pop. = 31 Acres of park @ $80,000/A = $2,480,000 r` 7btal without inflation = $4,240,000 Ybtal in 5 years with 6% inflation = $5,674,000 Nam: Balsa Ciuca and Awan arau not included. '.. III HUNTING m U71n L PART{ ;r A. Open/Passive West of Golden Went at Talbert* (16 Acres) $ 850,O01) e N/E of Ellis and Golden West (54 Acres) 5,000,000 N/W of Ellie and Golden West (57 Acres) �5 000,000 7btal without inflation = $10,850,000 Total in 5 years @ 6% inflation = $14,520,000 7bW in 10 yeare @ 6% inflation = $19,431,000 *00st. is approximately $2,600,000, but grants will partially fond r '- i • is f'. G .....r--.- sac;r." ^ rd.-....�v.w..r>•+1't'ii71t."s71/.I.",.;.�.'r..FiC- r ,'. t ' 1 - . f t• - ' . ,. ., ,r :,' r '';' is 1 r r • e rj .. ' A• s fit' f t ' r .it�. r•`'i ,T� l, - . _ ,`')r. - l'. / � , .. ''h r.. ,� >" . ._: rY i L..IL.! ; ra' •�a i III IRRaIMGM CFNrRAL PUR (COLYr.I D. other !taster Planned (tecre+ation Facilities ItE(SIi'MON Me-kLM COST 5 YEARS MUCIM 10 YF,'A.ILSINPIATIM f Olympic 9wisaaing lbol 6 4,800,000 $6,424,000 $ 8,597,000 Recreation Center wlgM 6,000,000 9,029,000 10,745,000 f 7hbater in Park Rmwastion 730,000 977,000 1,307,000 Bandstand 165,000 248,000 332,000 Hest Paris Lot Iie Mation 64,000 86,000 115,000 Stilly Miller Lake 935,000 1,251,000 1,674*000 Equestrian Trails 218,000 292,O00 391,000 Ihmtingtcm Lake Renwati•on 300,000 401,000 :37,OO5 Om Range Renovation 150,000 201,000 2690000 Gsxvp Canvim 890,000 11191,000 1.594,000 Talbert Lake Renovation 1,000,000 1,330,000 1,7911000 Specialty Garden 2,000,000 2,676,000 3,560,000 $17,272,000 623,114,000 $30,932,000 C. IDL"- Afcquissitim EEncy;clopfwdia Lots = $ 1,570,000 xuntirW n Pacific (E&aazds & Ellis) = 2,500,000 TbYal without inflation = 4,070,000 J Encyclopedia Lots = 2,101,000 Hmtington Pacific (Edwards 6 Ellisp)= 3,346e000 Total in 5 yearn @ 6$ i,-iflat•im = 5,447,000 Encyclopedia Lots = 2.812,000 fimUngton Pacific ( & Ellis)= 4,477,000 } Total in ZO years @ 6% inflation » 7,289,000 4Y D. Oil Well Abarubment 32 belle @ $30,OOOtwel l = $ 960,000 ibtai in 5 yews a 6% inflation = 1,285,000 Zbtal in 10 years 0 6% inflation = 1,729,000 bate: Mwd for ahandmwent will be determined by actual use of lard at the time of developnent. 1V .-VEV,.Mt R. Present costs without inflatarxt Acacutxilat3`v+e T1;; :chart Mange $ 4 483,OVO' $ 4 483;OMO Mid Range 4,2.40;000 8,723000 BCP-Ogg Passive 101TO501.000 19,579 000 Other Rec. Facilities 17,000;000 36,573,000 AcT isssiticw Encyclopedia Lots 1,570,000 • 38,143,U00 Hunt. Pacifica 2400,000 40,6431'000 -Oil. Wells 960,000 41,603,000 i .,,. .. •. . .. •. '3"�•a'in..,r.r.�y.s�.,w•!,ir ::.nc,.-:.:.ur..a..T:a''�".�`. �Y'f,siiGa ,�.2'i�i�'+'♦•�CkZt*r.Yk'3! ja�drJ*+ r - • � - .i, . .. .•e T�, a "'�f • ' Y ' ' . •. t -r. r 'sty,�V 1 — ' • • , , a,�d I •girl +�i- IV OMf MBI Ma0[1Tr.) H. Oosts with 5 years inflation Short Ramje (no inflation) v 4,483,000 $ 4,483,000 Mid U-*e 5,674,000 10,157,000 MUOPM/Pasolve 14,520,000 24,677,000 -Otter AAc. Facilities 23,114,000 47,791.000 Acquisitions Encyclopedia Wtn 21101,000 49,892,000 Hunt. Pacifica 3,346,000 53,238,000 -Oil Wells 1,285,000 54,523.000 C. Costa; with 10 years inflation Short Range (no inflation) $ 4,403,000 $ 4,483,000 Mid Mange 0 yr. inflation) 5,674,000 :10,157,000 am'-Open/Passive 19,431,000 29,5H8,000 -<Xber Rec. Facilities 30,932,000 60,520,000 A aguisition: Ehcy�clope+dia Late 2,012,000 63,332,Ouo Hunt. Pacifica 4,477,000 67,809,000 -Oil Wells] 1,720,000 69,529,000 3 i . t r ^S7 :Z'.i:sZ,Il�T.�:L;.vsV+�•�^-� ,,,,,.ti.'i/.�:•� ✓t 'i.::,:. .,M4. &W,WMA7 '++...a.`4,.,.:-�I�:i�rc.,,.t7ss*•.;•n• per• , • • VM 2000 FFME ICN of PARK M9 h?IE) nEVEFXTES C mnity Development Departmnt's Ikxming Units Projection by the year 2000: 4,000 Single Family Units: (SFU) 6,844 PWtiple Family I its (MFU) - Weed on average of two bedrooms per unit. Fee/Unit Reve„n,A Existing P,irk Fee S 2,395 SFU $ 9,580,000 $ 1,662 MFU 11,374,720 $ 20,954,728 Alternative #1 Maximua,� Fee $11,687 SFU $ 46,748,000 9,109 RM 55,497,996 $102,245,996 .Note: alternative 1 le based on the appraisal of the entire existing park ssyateo. ' 1 Alternative i2 Muimim Foe $111129 SFU $ 44,476,000 $ 7,715 MFU 49,201,460 $ 93,677,460 € Notm: Alternative 2 ie also based on the appraisal of the park system ejr=ept that the high priced a jaW such as PUiM in , Mmtington Barbour are imoved to provide a mean valuation t of PU* rm*exty, 1 CPrzC S 3 Based on Mternative 1 few/unit of $11,687 SFU and $8,109 MU. 4 of Maxim= (.41t. 1) Fee/Unit fS) Revesuae( 90% $10,518 SFU $42,072,000 ' 7,298 MFU 49,947,512 $90,019,512 80% $ 9,350 SFO $37,400,000 6 e k 7 MFU 44L397 428 $01,797,020 70% $ 81161 SFU ;32,724,000 5,676 MFU 38,646,544 $71,570,544 60% $ 7,012 SM $28,048 000 4,865 MFU 33,296,Q60 $62,344,060 '_"^�s7tCtt'Is���T7�,�.•ito'L..�►:.'v^.�%y;'�'„`.»-.�..' .�.�•-•...+�ib�; y .'..;, i.:.i...�17CAC"RS:� a. �'4.�#.y'�.:Y �e2'.>.r �}; t.w •. .. J1r's-.7. J'Jw{: iiJ-. �N'�;./`<�fjT-45 r . - - - - _ 1 • 'fit; • t' t r ,l: _ 1, •, r r , r . 50% S 5,044 SFU $23,376,000 4,055 M 27,752.420 $51,128,420 40% S 4,675 SF[] $18,700,000 3,244 KU 22,201,916 $40,901,936 3306 S 3,506 SFL $14,024,00n 2,433 H U 16^651,452 $30,675,452 20% $ 2,337 SET) $ 9,340,000 1,622 JIFU 11,160,968 $20,51 W,968 AMCWTM 2 OPTUM t Basted on Alternative 2 fees/unit of $11,119 SEU and $7,715 %IEU. of M xigm (Alt. 2) ?7—_/Unit (S) 90% 510,DD7 SM $40,028,000 6,944 M M, 47•-524,736 $97,552,739 60% $ 81895 SEU 5.5,580,000 6,172 MFU 42,241,160 577,821,160 .� 1; 70% $ 7,783 SM $31,132,000 5.401 FIFU 36,9644,444 i $68,096,444 60% $ 6,671 SFU $25,684,000 4,629 M 31,680,876 - ; + $58,364,M c# 5D% $ 51560 SEU $2Z,240,000 3,658 ICU 26.404,152 $48,644,152 401 S 4,44E spu $17,•792,000 3,086 MFIJ $38,912,554 r ' . 30% $ 3,336 SEU S13,344,000 2,315 WU 114S4►3 860 $29,187,860 t r 70 $ 2,224 SVU $ 01896,000 1,548 WU 1N560,292 ,. $19.456,292 ' . -' ,,,,, ..•;•.,Irv.•as,s.�...*--..wnr�saz,cars&�.+.'�- • .�-.C�rrwzz:aoaxsnc� , t < _: 1 -•� . � � lip' ti - , 1 t PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES IN LIEN OF LAND OEDICATI0a FOR A SINGLE FMILY RESIDENCE A five-acre adjusted fee comparison for cities which reported a park standard per 1 ,MG pipul at on. Acres/l,000 Current Five-Acre City Standard Fee Adjusted Fee Anaheim 2 $2,706 S6,765 Brea 4 673 041 { Garden grove 5 650 650 11,vi ne 5 4,740 4,740 La Palma 2.5 3,100 6,200 f Las Alamitos 2.5 700 1 ,400 Wniport Beach 5 6,894 6,994 Orange 3 1,500 2,500 Placentia 2.5 1,550 3,116 San Juan Capistrano 5 2,675 2,675 i Santa Ana 2 1,090 to 2,725 to 2,395 5,988 Seal Beach 5 375 375 Tustin 3 480 to 800 to 500 833 Westminster 2 785 l,963 Yarba Linda 2 825 to .2,063 to 1 ,345 3,363 t 3269e/3 ---. ,-•-•----- ,:•� sue'' `� +'-',,-rH��._.,:,vim j•sr+r�r:.,..'.a�w..�.•� �,ie:,v»:1-W,.,r sw •k - - (��' • " r ! �-'n 4 t •spa 62) 1". C§TV OF OW".TONGTON BEACH •` INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICAT(ON � iik7tCttyiftt�LT1 N* To Jim U. Engle, Superintendent From Hal Slmmort s rr Park Development & Recreation Senior Planner Subject DEVELOPER FEES FOR PARKS Date November 29, 1989 , y Based can the park and recreation fee formula contained in Article 996, the dea✓ity, factors established by Resolution 5072, and the values of land which you provided, park f. feet per unit of residential development were calculated to be the follotring: `> Density Fee/Unit LW-C.'uf Unlit Factor AIL-1 Ah.1 ExIst'naEw k� i Singlw Family 3.43 11,657 11,119 2,395 as Multiple Fartl;y Single/Bachelor 1.17 3,987 3,793 817 One Bedroom 1.$7 5,349 5,089 1,096 Two Bedrooms 2.39 8,I09 7,715 1,66? Three Bedrooms + 2.78 9,472 9,012 10941 Itt bile Home 1.69 S,758 5.478 11180 Several factors should be considered when evaluating what the City'a part: fees should be. Factors such as the community's goals for park services, the funds, necessary to attains these goals, and InformEstion on exactly what park fees may be used for (acquisalon, development, or both) may be used to Justify Increases in fees. .However, based solely uprn the above calculations, the new park fees would appear to be high, especially when ca,isidering that payment of additional development fees such as school ana traffic Impact fees may a►=;i be required. For instance, the 111,119 fee for a single family residence Is well abode similar fees in surrounding cities; tees range from insper t,nit in Seal Beach to $6,76< per unit in Anaheim. Reducing the value of land by 5010 to$324,171 per acre would bring fees for a single fr.mily residence down to $5,569 which is more in line with park tees in surrounding cities. 1t5:0:pbm (1591d-3) laC11rV OFMUNTBING1101ha BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 14Atwctov MAD# TO Jim B. Engle, Superintendent From Hal Simmons Park Devolopmetit & Recreation Senior Planner Subject DFVELOPER MMS FOR PARKS Date December 13, 1988 The methodology used to determine the park and recreation fens in the Uovem-bar 29 memo is as follows. The parts and recreation fens wore calculated using the formula presented in Article 996 of the Huntington peach ordinance Code. The formula for determining the amount of fee in lieu of land dedication is: X1113-U. ) i value of land/acre 1000 where D.F. is the density factor (established by Resolution 9072) , D.U. is tho number of dwelling units, and 5/1000 represents the number of acres of parks per thousand population. The value of land pr{. acre was busied upon the two appraisals of the euisting park system which you provided. The first appraisal, alternative 1, established lend value at approximately $681,453 per acre; it included parks in the Huntington Harbour in its valuation. The second appraisal, alternative 2, did not in^,ludo the Harbour and established find value at approximately $6480342 per acre. To project tho amount of funds which can be anticipated from these doveloper fees at current fee levels and alternative levels of fees, the fallowing calculations were conducted. It was estimated that there will be 00,896 housing units by the year 2000. Cua+rent1r, there are: approximately 70,052 housing units in the area; therefore, within the nest ten year3 (approximately ) 10,844 units maIr be built, an average of 50422 housing units per five-year period. Wo ostimated that of the 5,422 units, 2,000 will bo single family units and the remaining 31422 will be multiple family unite. Based ; pon this and the "fee/unit" values contained in the November 29 memo, the following revenue projections ;rare calculated for 1995 and 2000. WOO CIO DEMOPER PEES Iron PAIRXS December 13, 1908 Page 2 of 2 f Type of Chit Number FsoAlnit Projected Rimeaws of WI s dlt...l All, Z F LWaa dlf...1 AIL...2 Es LE93 Singlu Family 2,000 $11.687 $11.119 $2.�)95 ss3,374,000 $22,238,000 14,79O,D0O fiultiple Family `,"Two Bedroom 3,�,Z2 = 8.109 ` 7, ,15 $1,662 $27,74 ,._g .TOTAL 5,422 151.12Z,99lt $48,638,730 e1D,477,:,64 �Q Tyro of unit Nuobar FeaAlalt Projected Revenue; of Units tat, 1 A11.1 •'xip,_IMM AU, l AI.R:..Z FRIttina Single Eerily, 4,000 $'11.687 $11,119 t2,395 S 46,748,000 $44,416.000 ;'` $ 9.580,00..1 ilult-iple Family "T" Bodroon 6,644 s 8.109 s 7.715 $1,662 ¢ 5 7 99j $ALZQj,H 511,774J2 TQYA� 10.�44 �1Q2.ZAS,Pd7 $93,677.40 $20,954,728 Values for 2 bedroom unitr, were used sinc© it was assumed that t;iey apresent an average for multiple famt,;.� units. HS0O:9bm t ' PARK SYSTEM APPRAISAL ANALYSIS (per Locke Land Services) AVERAGE COST PER ACRE Alternative I - Park System Analysis Acres appraised = 263.80 Valuation a $179,769,000 Average cost per acre = $681,462 Alternative 1I - Park System Analysis Excluding Huntington Harbour Parka In 1982, Council determined that parks within Huntington Harbour should not be included in the analysis of park develop fees because their higher value would skew the results. Huntington Harbour Parks Boost.'r 1.00 acres $ 1 ,740,000 French .32 acres 1 ,239,000 Prince .20 acres 770,000 Trinidad 1.00 acres 2,9480100 Conrad 3.00 acres 5,619,000 Totals 5.52 acres $12,316,000 Acres appraised a 258.28 Valuation = $167 9453,70O Average cost per acre $648,342 3517e/2 � , ,-...r1 Z".] i,a, .1. ..•y ..e .: ......:. .«=4: .1.:.•. .. ...riI:.1... •. ._ .y:y, ✓•ii..'=rt;{• -•.> ;i�`v �'i; �^"'�"".�A( PARK SlTESr 197511980/1980 00MPARATIVE ANALYSIS In the 13 year span of time, covered since our first full report, the following Interesting points and statistics appear: 1975 1980 1988 %„# Total No. of Parks appraiseds 34 48 55 +13 Average size of each sites 3.215 Ac. 3.184 Ac. 4.796 Ac. +34 Average •.slue of each site:* $144,629. $1,040,321. $3,269,032. +Eel Average land valuelacres* $ b4,051. $ 326,719. $ 495,505. +34 Minimum land value ($/Ac-):* $ 25,000, $ 152,460. $348;480. +56 t Maximum land value ($/Ac.):k $1300680. $1,655,488. $31855t%D. +57 R-1 zoned subdivision land 1 $tAc.s $40r45 M $217-300 M $457-697 M +04• . L.A. h Orange County Consumer Price Index: 150.8 235.0 360.9 +35 t; t i #t Percent of change since the lost (1900) report. +�s Disregards valuations of Edison R/W lands which are only 10% of useable i land values. t I •' .+rs::` . :..', +,ry.t, .-.,., . ...,-. i -_ .,,l �, „ . ..... ., ,:..-....:.:.:fir. ... ..:, . .2'.`..+:..+t�' .�y.'�i:.:ar�.I�'[..�_.i[T.7s:,.,ii<i iti j.S�L*'.. O ri s. • r •S CITY OF HUNTI NGTON BEACH PARK AND RECREATION FEES i Pursuant to Article 996 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code and Resolution] 5071, establishing coat of land, and 5072, establishing density factors (adopted August 16, 1962) , fees to be paid for the residential developments are as follows: DENSITY TYPE OF UNIT FACTOR $FEE/UNIT '10. UNIT FEE SINGLE FAMILY 3. 43 $2, 395.00 MULTIPLE FAMILY i ) . Single/Bachelor 1 . 17 817.00 2. One Bedroom 1 . 57 1, 096. 00 3. Two Bedrooms 2 . 39 1, 662.00 4. Three Bedrooms + 2 . 78 1, 941 .00 MOBILE HOME 1. 69 11180. ocr TOTAL FEE FEES PAID PLAN CHECK NO. Date Rece pt No. JOB LOCATIOIJ: PARK AND RECREATION FEE FORMU'" PER ARTICLE 996 5.0 (D.U. 'x D.F. ) x $139,633.00 �- 1000 - t , i i sa, c.. r.• ..: .•_ a ii'. 'r., :: . . .. ....._..:....... - ..,n`, ;rl^.•, ,:tp._ ^t' TTli..4i.. .� �.:••'+.�e'.�. C HUIdTINGTON BEACH PARKS JULY, 1908 STUDY OUR FILE PARK I.D. (Alphabetically) MAP ACRES NO. NUMBER NAME OF PARK DM APPRAISED S F. TOTAL 1 850 Arevalos 5 3.00 8.00 1,045,500. 2 975 Bolso View 33 3.00 20.00 2,613,600. 3 905 Boaster 21 1.00 40.00 1,740,000. 4 875 Burke' 7 2.50 16.00 1,742,500. 5 825 Bushard 6 2.50 16.00 1,742,5d0. 6 790 Chris Carr 25 1 1.28 10.50 5,160,800. 7 800 Circle View 17 2.00 10.50 914,800. i 8 805 Clegg-Stacey 11 3.00 16.00 2,091,000. E 9 820 College View 25 3.00 16.00 21091,000. 10 107 Conrad 21 3.60 43.00 .5619000. 11 976 Drew, 13 2.50 16.00 1:742:500. 12 761) EadeIr• 20 2.50 10.50 11143,500. 13 835 Edison• 14 140.00 8.00 13j940a000. 14 735 Farquhar 12 3.00 22.00 2,8751000. 15 655 Franklin- 9 2.00 10.50 914,800. 16 104 i rcnch Channel Vista 21 0.32 88.50 1,239,000. 17 755 Gisler 20 11.00 16.00 7,663,700. 18 930 Glen View 17 3.00 10.50 19372,200. 19 860 Golden View 32 2.50 10.50 111439500. 20 7-15 Grcer 17 7.00 16.00 4,878,700. 21 610 Harbour View 23 3.50 25.00 398119500. 22 915 Haven View 23 3.00 16.00 2,091,000. 23 885 Howes- 7 2.50 16.00 1,742,500. 24 955 Helme- 413 2.00 18.00 195601000. 25 740 Hope Vie%i 32 3.00 8.00 11045,500. 26 710 Irby. 25 11.00 10.50 5,031,400. 27 730 Lake. 12 5.00 22.00 4,7912500. 28 615 Lake View 30 3.00 16.00 2.,091,000. 29 935 Lambert • 40 3.50 8.00 1921918000 30 978 Langenbeck 1 18.00 16.00 129546,000. 31 840 Lark View. 32 3.00 16.00 2,09.11000. 32 745 Lebard a 5.00 10.50 202870000. 33 974 Manning 12 2.50 14.00 19524,500. 34 795 Marina- 18 11.50 16.00 0,015,500. 35 910 • Marine View 33 3.00 16.00 290910000. 36 971 Aiof fat t 13 2.50 16.00 1,742,500. 37 715 Murdy• 26 15.00 16.00 10,455,000. 30 940 Newland 1 3.00 16.00 21091,000. 39 770 Oak View. 31 2.50 10.50 I,1439500. v/t�'C:::Flt;.:a•BTti't'7....,��j y.f, .;;i c t. rn..r.._.�� .�.�.^-^. �. -. _.. -� . .- ,_,•....-w.... ,:4Y CI Ctt.. . .:'y l"R.f •.. . f`"".'�^ 4 • •i I. I. 1 HUNTINGTON ©EACH PARKS (cont'd.) OUR FILE PARK I.D. (Alphabetically) MAP ACRES $J NO. NUMBER NAME OF PARK DM APPRAISED S.F. TOTAL 40 750 Perry, 1 2.00 16.00 1.394,000. 41 8a5 Pleasant View, 27 2.00 16.00 1,394,000. 42 105 Prince Viewpoint 21 0.20 88.50 770,000.•. 43 925 Robinwood..- Is 2.00 16.00 1,394,000. 44 700 Schroeder 17 2.50 16.00 1,742,500. 45 106 Seabridge . 21 4.50 80.00 1506600000. I 46 830 Seely . 20 3.50 16.00 2,439,S00. 47 880 Sowers - 7 2.50 10.50 1 r 143,500. 48 965 Sun View- 26 2.50 18.01), 1,960,000. 49 945 Talbert , 6 5.50 10.50 2,S150700. 50 900 Tarbox- 21 0.50 40.00 8700000. 51 895 Terry - 39 5.00 14.00 32.0490000. 52 108 Trinidad Beach 2..1 1.00 68.00 2,9480100. t 53 720 Wardlow 5 2.50 16.00 1,742,500. 54 775 Weider 23 5.00 10.50 20287,000. 55 645 Worthy_ 2 12.00 18.00 9,408t000. TOTAL: 263.80 179,7691800. i i 1 i 1 r