Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHarriett Wieder Regional Park - Bolsa Chica Linear Park - Tr I on CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: Honorably Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member of DATE: July 10, 2000 SUBJECT: 'W'Item for the July 17, 2000 City Council Meeting Request for Action on the Linear Park Y The Linear Park is languishing. There area number of reasons for this. 1. Approximately 54 acres of land in private hands will not be donated to the city ; and county for the park until building occurs on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. 2. There are oil lease encumbrances and contamination issues in the park. 3. The city has been unwilling to supply water to that part of the park in county territory. 4. The county plan includes land not yet donated to the county, thus the county is unwilling to move forward with their plan. It is requested that the staff generate a proposal that is submitted to the county4ha'-If (O_W�4k\L, considers the following: 1. Water may be supplied to the park which lies in county territory. 2. That the 54 acres in private hands may never be donated so we should plan around this eventualty. 3. Define the leasehold and contamination issues. 4. The county should provide funds for possible purchase of land and maintenance around the linear park in a dollar amount at least equal to the average of the other four supervisorial districts. The Second Supervisorial District does not have a regional park supported by county funds comparable to the other supervisorial districts of Orange County. s- FSXRe TV),% Sly ov TA)% 9:)LS)k- r-4 (A_— i A The linear park has been held hostage for too long. The people of the Second Supervisorial District deserve a plan and financial support from the county for open space comparable to that of the other supervisorial districts. RB:lp xc: Connie Brockway Ray Silver • Am1gOS16531 Bolsa Chica St. Ste 312 Huntington Beach CA 92649 de (714) 840-1575 0 1976 =200 o S a Chica• RECEIVED FROM ears AND MADE A PART OF THE R CORDE 24 COUNCIL MEETING OF:l...7 p OFFICE OF THE CITY CL RK Stewardship CONNIE®ROOKWAY,CITY CLERK July 17,2000 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach I am Dave Carlberg,immediate past president of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica I am here representing the Amigos in support of item H-3,the proposal by Councilman Bauer regarding the Bolsa Chica linear park. For over two decades the Amigos de Bolsa Chica have lobbied for the establishment of a county regional park along the Huntington Mesa bluff top. The park will provide a needed buffer between mesa residential development and the Bolsa Chica wetlands below,as well as provide open space for the adjacent park-impoverished residents of Seacliff. For a variety of reasons hardly a spoonful of dirt has been turned in the establishment of this park. Councilman Bauer is correct in that of the planned 106 park acres, about half,while promised for park land, is still in private ownership. The future interpretive center is planned for the private portion. Depending on how development on the Bolsa Chica mesa plays out, there is the possibility the private acreage may never become part of the park. In addition,some of the land planned for the linear park is under long term oil leases. With these two situations taken together, we may end up, at least in the short term, with a county regional park of less than 30 acres. This brings up another point that Councilman Bauer refers to. The 2nd supervisorial district has been vastly short-changed when it comes to regional parks. Orange County regional parks(not including the wilderness parks or the 3100 acre O'Neill park)average about 400 acres per park. If we're lucky,we may eventually see the Bolsa Chica linear park as much as 106 acres,or as little as 25 or 30 acres. We must get the county to protect what little we have been promised,and to acquire additional adjacent open space to bring us close to what the rest of the county enjoys. As a reminder to the city,county and the land owners,the intent of the recently passed Proposition 12 is to fund purchases such as this and we urge all parties to pursue this source. One final request we would like to ask of Councilman Bauer. In its 1992 General Development Plan,the county proposed a 10,000 square foot Bolsa Chica interpretive center to be constructed in the linear park. When it revised its plan in 1997, the county reduced the center to 5,000 square feet with provisions for future expansion to 8000 square feet. As a comparison,recently constructed interpretive centers at Madrona Marsh and Newport Back Bay are about 10,000 square feet. Considering its popularity and international reputation,we believe the Bolsa Chica deserves an interpretive center of at least 10,000 square feet. Councilman Bauer,we ask that you add item 5 to your recommended action: Restore the size of the Bolsa Chica interpretive center to a minimum of 10,000 usable square feet and hold Hearthside Homes to their pledge of funds for its construction. Thank you for your attention. Dave Carlberg Rd?-.5F.1 9 h�iem v��van Uer�1/ law CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9a0.30 HUNTINGTON BEACH q CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION J dty Cr r� Ca." TO: City Council Members FROM: Mayor Peter.Green DATE: December 28, 1998 SUBJECT: "H" Item for the January 4, 1999, City Council Meeting Harriett Wieder Regional Park The county is unable to begin landscaping the Harriett Wieder Regional Park because the City of Huntington Beach has not, as yet, provided water for landscaping purposes. The city is reluctant to provide water if this implies that a determination must be made, and an ordinance passed, that there is excess water available. The consequences of this determination and ordinance are evident to all and is not the issue in this "H" Item. In order to circumvent the broader implications of declaring that excess water is available, an ordinance can be written that is site specific to the Harriett Wieder Regional.Park and not applicable to any other site. Therefore, I suggest the following: Move to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance similar to the attached with the necessary supporting documents to substantiate the city position. This ordinance does not require that a determination of excess water be made by the City Council. PG:lp xc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Attachment ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.16.180 AS IT PERTAINS TO PROVIDING WATER TO PARCELS OF PROPERTY DIVIDED BY THE CITY BOUNDARY WHEREAS, Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 14.16.180 provides that the City may not sell water to consumers outside of the boundaries of the City without the City making a finding of the availability of a surplus of water; and On rare occasions,parcels and lots will be divided by the City boundary line; and The property owner of such parcel should be able to obtain water service from one jurisdiction or the other; and The most equitable way to determine if the City may provide water services to a parcel is if a majority of the parcel lies within the City boundary; NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Municipal Code Section 14.16.180 is amended to read as follows: (a) "It shall be unlawful for the City Water Department to sell water to consumers outside the City, or to allow any consumer outside s the City to use any water furnished by the City system unless the City Council shall by resolution determine and declare a surplus of water exists in excess of that required by the inhabitants of the City. . (b) Notwithstanding the above subsection,where the majority of a . parcel of property lies within the City of Huntington Beach,the City Council, in its discretion,may adopt a resolution authorizing water service without the necessity of a finding of a surplus of water. For purposes of this Section,a parcel may include one or more legal lots which are subject to a single development and which are bound together by way of an easement,license or similar instrument." SF/sTMOrdinance:Watersvc RLS 97-292 _ 9/15/97-#4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1997. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney.&R' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Public Works SFATMOrdinance:Watersvc RIS 97-292 - 8/12197-#4 1-04-1999 2:55PM FROM LAW OFFICES 213 622 0445 P_ 1 L A N D T R U S �' OFFICERS January 4, 1999 PAUL HORGAN PRESIDENT By Facsimile: ' (714) 374-1557 JUANA MUELLER VICE PRESIDENT Kayor peter Green and MARINKA HORACK SECCRETARETARY Huntington Beach City Council NANCY DONAVEN C/O Connie Brockway TREASURER Huntington Beach City. Clerk BOARD OF DIRECTORS Re: H Item for the January 4, 1999 City Council Meeting CONNIE BOARDMAN Harriet Wieder Regional Park SANDI GENTS MARINKAHORACK Dear Mayor Green: STAN KRUTSICK BUCK MARRS.PHD KAREN M6RICKEL Bolsa Chica Land Trust has reviewed the above, and we are EILEEN MURPHY concerned that the Council will be setting the stage for JOEL SHELDON challenges by others if exceptions are made to the present BOB WILLIAMS i t hi Code section which are no airtight. In that regard, the ROBERT WINCHELL,PHD g g JAN VANDERSLOOT,MD attachment to the H item certainly is not "site specific" and is otherwise so broad and vague that, if adopted, ADVISORY COUNCIL significant problems of interpretation and otherwise might well result. RALPH BAUER, PAST MAYOR Any ordinance which is prepared will, hopefully, address HUNTINGTON BEACH SENATOR BARBARA BOXER th,e above' JANICE L.KELLOGG. CEO KELLOGG SUPPLY. INC. Thank you. VINCE KONTNY.(RET) V.P..FLUOR CORPORATION 71%HORGAN tfull wALT>=R W.VEIL.DIRECTOR y EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,ARCO ROBERT SHELTON, sa G CONSULTANT PAST PRESIDENTS President A BO SA CHICA LAND TRUST " t?"gym NANCY DONAVEN,1996-1998 6::i-<C-; CONNIE BOARDMAN.1994.1996 FLOSSIEHORGAN,l992-1994 -� rri C7 4v .y w � LOCAL ENDORSEMENTS: GARDEN GROVE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW,ORANGE COAST LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS NATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS: THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE.THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY. THE:NATURE CONSERVANCY.SIERRA CLUB,SURFRIDER FOUNDATION We 207 21 ST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH 9 CALIFORNIA 92648 • (714) 960-9939 p r40 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ® Inter Office Communication &Aoltr �'ke,5elq�, Community Development Department IW#Y,DX 0E77Z6 7z510 'ET ,//771 ",4YA09 c5/L✓11: TO: Honorable Mayor Dettloff and Members of the City Council I- VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator S,,r'—� FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director DATE: April 30, 1998 17 SUBJECT: Update on Harriett Wieder Regional Park c The purpose of this memo is to share with you the current status of issues which are delaying the construction of the Linear Park. 1. Land Availability: Land is needed from Koll, even for the first phase of development between Palm and Garfield. Koll is required to dedicate 49 acres for the park, after certification of the Bolsa Chica LCP and before mass grading or building permits are issued. Since the Coastal Commission's certification has been delayed by litigation, that dedication is stalled. 2. Acceptability of the Land to the Count Even if Koll were willing to dedicate its land to the County, some of the land (not between Palm and Garfield) is subject to continued oil extraction-under leases with no near term expiration. Furthermore, such land would need soil remediation(clean-up). The County will not accept the land without clearing of leases and remediation. 3. Water: The County needs water from the City for irrigation during the establishment of the natural vegetation, continued watering of the tot lot turf, for drinking fountains - and eventually for the interpretive center restrooms. The City Council would need to amend the Municipal Code or make special findings for provision of water service outside city boundaries to resolve this. However, given the complexity of items 1 and 2 above, there is no urgency in resolving this issue at this time. 4. Funding: County financing for the Linear Park was included in the current fiscal year and is being requested for the 1998-99 fiscal year. However, County staff report that park development is diminishing due to the diversion of$4 million per year to help finance the County's bankruptcy workout program. Approximately $1.26 million is being requested as carryover funding for the new fiscal year. In summary, it does not appear that the park will be developed anytime soon -- unless Koll agrees to working out a new arrangement with the County and/or the City. Attachments: 1. Exchange of correspondence between City consultant, Bob Fisher, and Harbors, Beaches& Parks Manager, Tim Miller. 2. March 4, 1998 memo to City Council from Melanie Fallon on Harriett Wieder Regional Park (G:admn1tr498msf1 7) ............................ ...... ........... ..................................... ........... .... .... ........ ............. ...... ........ .... ...... ........ ............................. ................ ....................... ........ .............. ......... ............::.. ... ..... ... ....... ..... ............... ............. ................ ............. ................. ... . . . ... ........ ... ... . . .... ........... ............ .... .. . ..... .... . ...... I I ..... .. ........ .................... . ....... ......... .... ... . ..... .... .....Sol ..... ......................... ....... .... ....................... . .... ........ ................... ................. .................- .............. .......... ........... ...... ...... ........a .... .................... ..... ........ ...... ... .... . ................................ ....... .................. ...... .................................... Robert G. Fisher &Associates ' Land Use Consultancy 4 PaA Newport, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and Representation Tel(T440 (949) 644-7275 Fax(714)644-0577 March 24, 1998 Mr. Tim Miller, Manager Harbors, Beaches & Parks Public Facilities and Resources Department P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 RE: WIEDER REGIONAL PARK Dear Tim: Thanks for your time and information on the status of the park. As you know, the City of Huntington Beach is anxious to see this project get underway and they have retained me to assist in helping resolve the obstacles to park development. Melanie Fallon has also asked me to arrange additional coordination meetings between City and County staff when they hold promise of potential progress. Here is a summary of what I understand are the matters needing resolution to move the park project forward: 1. Water: The City will need to arrange for water service to the Plase 1 development site. The City will explore a municipal code amendment to make that possible. 2. Phase 1 Land Dedication by Koll: Koll is obligated to dedicate some 49 acres of parkland (Phase 1 and other lands) after certification of the Bolsa Chica LCP and prior to County approval of a Master Coastal Development Permit for mass grading, land subdivision or installation of improvements. Koll has been unwilling to dedicate any land until the.certification is obtained. The certification has been delayed due to the successful legal challenge of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust and Huntington Beach Tomorrow. For a November 1998 project start, we would need Koll to dedicate the land by September to enable the advertising for construction bids. This would in turn require a resolution of the legal challenge, or a willingness by Koll to dedicate-in advance of that resolution. 90 'd ZS609SLbTL 831N33 Ad00 This is a tall order to be sure) However, the City has received a letter (copy enclosed) from Koll indicating a willingness to discuss possible annexation to the City. It may be that these discussions will present an opportunity to obtain the Phase 1 land by September. 3. Remainina`Reaional Parkland Dedications Required of Koll: The Koll/County Development Agreement obligates Koll to dedicate other regional parkland between Garfield and Edwards. However, that land is subject to a long term oil extraction lease. The County has been unwilling to accept title to the property unless it is free and clear of that encumbrance and of any soil contamination. This is a stumbling block for resolving issue no. 2 above, because all park- land is required to be dedicated at one time. However, it is a problem both for park construction and for Koll's development project. Neither can proceed without resolving this issue. It therefore seems reasonable that Koll will be motivated to work toward resolution of this problem, even if it means amending the development agreement. 4. Trail Connections: You have indicated that the ability to link the Phase 1 area to Huntington Central Park is vital to retaining the regional significance of the park. City staff and I are anxious to help you resolve that issue. You will recall that Daryl Smith believes an interim trail connection is possible, pending the resolution of the oil lease encumbrance. In any event, we believe the regional significance of the park is tied more to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve connection and the establishment of the interpretive center than to a trail connection to a city park. 5. Financing the Phase 1 Park Development Proiect: It will be necessary for the Board of Supervisors to budget a sufficient amount for this project. This may require more than just carrying over the currently available funds, if the existing budgeted amount has been drawn down and/ the project cost is now estimated at a higher figure. The City would like to know how much you intend to seek in the 1998-9 FY. Tim, I would appreciate receiving your comments on this statement of the issues, whether you agree or disagree -- so that we can be sure of how we need to proceed. I would also like to be kept posted of information about the project that arises there at the County offices. Nothing about Bolsa Chica is easy, but a very important park is at stake, so let's keep at it until we get it done! Sincerely, Robert G. Fisher RGF:sw L0 'd Z960991bTL 831N33 J.d00 ?�� o County of Orange a � ro Public Facilities & Resources Department o 'rzrmO John W. Sibley, Director April 20, 1998 Mr. Robert G. Fisher Robert G. Fisher &Associates 4 Park Newport Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT- Wieder Regional Park Dear Bob: This is in response to your letter dated April 9, identifying issues requiring resolution to enable development of subject regional park to commence. It is understood that you are representing the City of Huntington Beach and it's interest in seeing "this project get underway", and in that regard, are seeking County comment on the issues you have identified. The County generally concurs with the specific issues you have identified, although our perspective on significance or manner of resolution may differ in some instances. Following, in reverse order, are comments on each issue: 1. Financing Phase I Park Development. $1,266,207 is requested in the 98/99 HBP budget for Phase I development; this represents a carryover of unused funding from the $1.4 million currently budgeted. The adopted park GDP anticipates certain improvements in the Phase I area to be made by Koll at it's expense. Koll's ability and interest in making these planned improvements, particularly within a timeframe of the next year, are now questionable due to the protracted legal challenges to their larger development project. As a result, we cannot clearly define the Phase I project scope, or estimate total development costs with a high confidence level. Regardless, competing demands for limited HBP capital funding will make it difficult to add County/HBP funding to this project. 2. Trail Connections (and "Regionality"). As implied in your comments, the "regionality" of the planned park is of critical importance to us, to justify the commitment of HBP funding. You correctly indicate that a key interest of mine to establish "regionality" is In connective trail systems: in my view this necessitates permanent trail rights over property owned by SCE, extending through the park's Phase II area encumbered by oil leases, and connecting across Edwards to the city's Central Park. With respect to the planned Interpretive center, I personally believe the public would be better served by locating the interpretive center within the ecological reserve itself. If this is not possible, and a center is to be located within the regional park, based on current fiscal projections it may be some time before HBP has sufficient capital funds to develop an interpretive center. LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 300 N. FLOWER ST P.O BOX 4048 (714)834-5302 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 FAX k 834-2395 b0 'd Z96099LbTL 831N33 A.103 Mr. Robert G. Fisher Page 2 3. Koll Parkland Dedications Outside "Phase I" Area. As you indicated, Koll is required to dedicate such lands in a manner meeting the County's approval. The County has made its concerns over oil lease encumbrances and current and future soil contamination, very clear to Koll representatives. Reportedly, Koll representatives were prepared to meet and present solutions to the County's concerns, just at the time of the unexpected court decision requiring Koll to obtain new Coastal Commission approvals. We have had no subsequent contact with Koll representatives, and presume they are evaluating their overall development options. 4. Koll's Phase I Parkland Dedication. Your letter suggests a possible opportunity to tie park dedication to a recent initiative from Koll to discuss annexing to the City. This relationship of regional park dedication to city annexation is not clear to me. However, if the city and Koll feel it would be useful, I would be glad to arrange for appropriate County staff to participate in discussions. As to timing of dedications to enable park construction, PFRD Design advises that early November is the latest a construction contract could commence and still meet the seasonal planting window. 5. Water Service. As implied in your letter, and as underscored in an earlier letter from Supervisor Silva to the city, the city's cooperation in providing water service to the park is a prerequisite for our undertaking Phase I park development. An additional matter needing resolution is Koll's mitigation (25 acres) requirements and on whose land (Koll/County). As you well know the County and HBP have a significant investment of staff resources and planning and design costs in Wieder Regional Park. We share the city's interest in resolving remaining issues, to facilitate initial park development as soon as possible. As we move forward in resolving the issues, a key focus of mine will be on a qualitative evaluation of the nature of proposed Phase I park improvements. I believe the proposed improvements must result in creating a facility of regional interest to the recreating public. I will be glad to keep you apprised of pertinent progress by the County. I will also be glad to participate with you, PFRD Design and the city in meetings and discussions to resolve outstanding issues to enable commencement of park development. Very truly yours, Tim Miller cc: John W. Sibley HBP Managers Ron Strom, District 2 Denny Turner Clare Fletcher S0 'd ZS609SLbTL 831N30 Ad00 ........................ .... .......: $fi".. �". CH1V��NT 2 .............. ®� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication Community Development-Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Ray Silver,Acting City Administrator M FROM: Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director . DATE: March 4 1998 yX01 SUBJECT: Status Report on the Harriett Wieder Regional Park We have recently learned of some new issues which may further delay the construction of the Linear Park. In order for you to understand the complexity of these delays, we have prepared this memorandum for your information:.: Background: The City and County entered into an agreement in 1979 providing for City/County cooperation in creating a linear regional park connecting Huntington Central Park along the top of Huntington Beach Mesa with a trail connecting ultimately to Bolsa Chica State Beach. The essential features of the agreement were: 1. The City would use its best efforts to secure land within its municipal boundaries through dedication in conjunction with development approvals in the area; 2. The County would do likewise in the unincorporated area; 3. The County would prepare a General Development Plan(GDP)meeting the approval of the City; 4. The City would issue permits for development consistent with the GDP; 5. The County would develop, operate and maintain the park at its expense. Page Two Both the City and the County have fulfilled their obligations to require parkland dedication in return for.development entitlements. However,not all development. projects have reached the point where land is actually required to be transferred. Furthermore, as discussed below, some complications have arisen with respect to parkland dedication. The County has prepared a GDP and the City Council and Board of Supervisors have approved it. The plan provides for approximately 100 acres, including(primarily) passive recreation,bicycle,hiking and equestrian trails; revegetation with native plant material; an interpretive center of 5,000 square feet; a 100 car parking lot, and two 3 acre areas with local park improvements mostly to serve the nearby neighborhoods. The City has approved and permitted the Phase 1 development project between Palm and Garfield Avenues. Project Status: The County's 1997-98 FY budget includes $1.4 million for the first phase development project, and construction was expected to commence in November 1997. (Winter time construction is necessary to avoid wildlife disturbance and to provide proper plan germination). Two complications have caused delay in the start of the project: land and water. 1. Koll Land Availability Koll land is needed for the Phase 1 project. Koll is obligated to transfer the parkland to the County once its Bolsa Chica development project LCP is certified and prior to issuance (by the County) of a Master Coastal Development Permit required for grading, land subdivision or any construction. Coastal Commission certification was legally challenged by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. A recent court decision requires the Coastal Commission to reconsider Koll's Bolsa Chica project. Thus,the County does not have the Koll land on which to build some.of the trails,the interpretive center and the local park area of Phase 1. Furthermore, Koll's development agreement with the County requires dedication of parkland between Garfield and Edwards at the same time as that between Palm and Garfield. City and County staff just recently learned that the Garfield to Edwards property is encumbered by an oil lease and active oil extraction. Koll apparently cannot, as required by the County's approval condition, deliver the property free and clear of leases and encumbrances (and probably not free either, at this time, of soil contamination). Page Three Koll attorneys are working with County staff in an attempt to resolve these problems, but no solution has yet been identified other than an amendment to the development agreement: As recently reported to the Council,however,Koll has announced its intention to revegetate the portion of the park's Phase 1 area,to satisfy a requirement of the County and Coastal Commission to mitigate for the planned removal of vegetation habitat on and near the Bolsa Chica Mesa. The recent court ruling may delay Koll's planting project, however. 2. Water Availability: The City's Municipal Code does not permit municipal water to be made available outside city boundaries. Both Koll and the County need water for plant irrigation in the park. Koll had decided to truck in water for its planting project. The County decided to wait until city water and Koll land would be available. Prospects for Park Implementation: The next opportunity for starting the Phase 1 park project is November 1998 (to satisfy the wildlife constraint and growing season requirements). However,this will require that the County rebudget the $1.4 million(perhaps plus some additional funds to reflect rising development costs). Last month,the County's Harbors,Beaches and Parks Commission agreed to include funds in the County's five year HBP spending plan for the interpretive center. However,the complications for Koll's development project and dedication of parkland were not fully understood nor discussed at that time. Some county staff expressed great frustration with the project,raising the possibility that the park will lose priority in County staff activities and funding proposals. We will be meeting with County staff to discuss the status of these issues and explore possible solutions. We will keep you apprised of the status and next steps. cc: Mike Dolder,Acting Assistant City Administrator Ron Hagan, Community Services Director Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Bob Fisher, Consultant MF:BF Jr (398msfl) Special Report EDWARDS/SEAPOINT � . LINEAR PARK ISSUE PAPER Department of Community Development March 28, 1988 HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This issue paper examines the need for resolution of issues associated with the Alignments of Edwards Street and Seapoint Street, and with the eastern boundary of the proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park. Problem areas identified include conflicting arterial alignments on City and County Master Plans, an undefined boundary for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park, potential for scenic views and access to the park, increasing development pressure in the area, and potential impact of roadways and developments on known archaeological sites. Three alternative alignments of Edwards Street are analyzed as to their effectiveness in resolving these issues: 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the base of the bluffs, 2. Realignment of Edwards Street westward on the blufftops, and 3. Retention of the existing alignment combined with a local bluffline drive. At this time, it appears that the third alternative, the retention of the existing alignment of Edwards combined with a local drive, is the the most cost-effective and realistic option. This alternative would provide a suitable boundary for the Linear Park, as well as opportunities for park access and scenic views. It would also allow development to proceed in a timely manner, and would reduce costs and topographic alteration associated with other alternatives. (0278d) INTRODUCTION Within the vicinity of the Huntington Beach mesa and bluffs exist a number of land use and circulation problems, which are primarily related to the future alignments of Edwards and Seapoint Streets, . and to the uncertain boundary of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. These problems and conflicts need to be resolved in order to facilitate planning efforts on an area-wide scale, and to permit orderly and timely development . This issue paper will briefly . discuss the impacts of three alternative street alignments for Edwards and Seapoint Streets on relevant problem areas, and will present a recommendation for direction and future action. STATEMENT .OF PROBLEM The location of the eastern boundary for the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Linear Park remains undetermined. The Huntington_ Beach City Council, in 1986, adopted a resolution establishing general criteria for a park boundary and outlining conceptual alterna- tives . The criteria included a minimum of 100 acres of usable recreation area, a minimum usable width of 150 feet, and an eastern boundary defined by Seapoint and Edwards Streets or other streets . The resolution established that usable recreation area could not include bluff faces or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA' s) . In response to the City Council ' s resolution, the County adopted a proposed park boundary which followed the exist- ing alignments of Edwards and Seapoint Streets, and encompassed approximately 140 acres . (Figure 1) The future alignments of Edwards Street .and Seapoint Street also remain unresolved. The existing developed alignment of Edwards Street south of Talbert Avenue ascends the bluffs and extends due .south, terminating at Garfield Avenue. This alignment conforms with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways . The adopted Circulation Plan for the - City of Huntington Beach, however, shows Edwards Street veering westward just south of Talbert Avenue, and following a route along the bottom of the bluffs to an intersection with the Garfield Avenue extension (cross-gap connector) . The existing alignment of Seapoint Street extends northeasterly from Palm Avenue approximately one-half mile to a dead end. The County Master Plan of Arterial- Highways shows Seapoint Street continuing northward to a T-intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) , west of the existing Edwards/Garfield intersection. The City Circulation Plan shows Seapoint Street continuing northward and connecting directly with Edwards Street at the base of the bluffs, forming a four-way intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) . The alignment of these arterials relates directly to possible access points to the Linear Park. The Linear Park will be access- ible from either end, at Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica State Beach. Depending on their alignments, both Edwards Street and Seapoint Street could provide a means of additional access along the perimeter of the park. -1- : 0. am�� tt �tp1uu1narr— •l: �• 1.o.6 equal • ,tom �mmmn� inn M �.� � �O !nay J ��:m . MINA •n��►�� �g��•� ,maulnn <y�����iE•�pO�►� �►� muiulnl �. • npiiiuiii ,ice ` �`f uipnnu '���`* - llullllllll llllilllllll °HIIIII Hn IHllinl! �� - riimulH uuuuuu ,ilnunr"'4uuimu. wuuulu mnman muunnrnumwn riimunll:nuuuuu uumH�"�lili`uuti nnunnu mulnnu unnnull unuuuu mala i _ 1P91H�li■ uimunu �� uuuulim .IIIBIIIHI ��� luu`! � m MAW 111 :11 4 � � • The blufftop area has the potential to provide outstanding scenic views to motorists, ranging from Catalina Island, the Pacific Ocean, and the Bolsa Chica lowlands to the south and west, to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The existing developed alignment of Edwards Street does not take full advantage of the view potential due to the roadway' s distance from the bluff face, and its termination at Garfield Avenue. The Huntington Beach Company has proposed a zone change from RA (Residential Agriculture) to Qualified-R1 (Low Density Residen- tial) on a 55-acre blufftop site, in order to permit development of single family residences . The zone change proposal conflicts with adopted City and County policies regarding the linear park boundary, and does not consider any potential realignment of Edwards Street as outlined on the City Circulation Plan. The zone change was denied by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1988, and an appeal is currently pending before the City Council. NEED FOR RESOLUTION The County of Orange has planned Coastal Commission confirmation hearings on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use. Plan for summer of 1988. The alignment of Edwards Street and the definition of - the linear park boundary are critical to the implementation of the plan as proposed. The development of the Bolsa Chica lowlands is contingent upon providing viable wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) along the bottom of the bluffs and along the bluff faces, within the linear park. The City' s currently adopted alignment of Edwards Street precludes the planned restoration of many acres of wetlands 'and ESHAs . The boundary of the Linear Park also needs to be resolved because the Bolsa Chica LCP calls for the park to provide required coastal access . The County also has funds available for acquisition and design of the linear park. These activities should be undertaken as soon as possible to assure that such funds are effectively utilized. The proposed Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area is experiencing increasing development pressure. Several zone changes to Qualified-R1 (Low Density Residential) have been approved in recent years, and construction in the area has commenced (Country View Estates and Central Park Estates) . The Huntington Beach Company has additional zone changes to Qualified-R1 pending both east and west of Edwards Street. The alignment of the arterials and the location of the park boundary need to be determined in order to allow for appropriate development planning within the Specific Plan area, including location of internal collector streets, open space areas, and horse trails . The Huntington Beach Company zone change west of Edwards Street is especially impacted by these decisions, since they not only influence the design of the subdivision, but also determine the limits of the developable area. -3- (0679D) ALTERNATIVES AND MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS Three alternatives for the Edwards - Seapoint alignment are under consideration. Their effectiveness in resolving the issues outlined above will be evaluated in terms of the following factors: o Definition of a realistic linear park boundary o Provision of access to the park o Provision of adequate circulation o Retention of developable land o Cost effectiveness The three alternatives for Edwards Street south of Talbert Avenue are: 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the bottom of the bluffs, as shown on the adopted City-Circulation Plan. (Figure 2) 2 . Realignment of Edwards Street to the west of its current location, but still on the bluff top. (Figure 3) 3 . Retention of the existing alignment of Edwards Street, combined with a local street system west of Edwards . (Figure 4) 1. Realignment of Edwards Street to the Base of the Bluffs This alignment would not be an effective boundary between the linear park and adjacent urban uses . Instead, the roadway would pass directly through areas designated in the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan for restored wetlands and possible Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA' s) . The roadway would divide the park/bluff area from the wetlands, creating a barrier for wildlife, and disturbing or eliminating many acres of valuable wetland habitat. This alignment would not provide the preferred access to the park. Since the pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails are proposed to be located on the blufftop, the roadway would not be an appropriate point for public access to the park. An alignment at the bottom of the bluff would provide adequate circulation in the area by connecting north Huntington Beach to the . cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) and to Pacific Coast Highway via Seapoint Street. It also would not interfere with parcels currently zoned and General Planned for residential uses, which are located primarily along the blufftops . Nor would this alternative impact significant archaeological sites which are thought to exist along the bluff top. This alternative would be the least expensive of the "three alternatives to construct, due to the limited amount of grading required. The realignment would avoid Edwards Hill, and would follow the approximate alignment of an existing oil road. -4- (0679D) AMENDMENTS CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL two an STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCL \`I RESOLUTION NQ 4368-DEC.12.1976 LEGEND: CITY OF FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH :y MA;oR _45Doo i _ ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA i `'I�..'•., I PRIMARY _3Q000,.: SECONDARY _2Q000 NOTE: 1 SOL:O L:NES 'NOICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY \ NOT NECESSARILY :LT iMATE RIGHT OF WAY \ . \ DASH LINES �NCATE AREAS WHERE NO QIChT O v J� F 'NAY NISTS I \\ \ 1i i / EL;IS i av 41. '�a�a 9aRffE�O ; ;, V Cy�Y FIGURE 2 CURRENTLY ADOPTED PLAN.- EDWARDS STREET AT BASE OF BLUFFS -5- AMENDMENTS ft„ Q CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PTED BY CITY CCUNM RESOLUTION 140.4362-OEC976 LEGEND CITY OF FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH -: -- MAJOR _._45.000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA PRIMARY _30000 SECONDARY --20.000 ;.� NOTE: SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY •i NOT YECESSARILY JLT)MA7E RIGHT OF WAY � DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF NAY EXISTS �\ •, IF-' / \�dP r� I i will 1je .op IFdo o\ / W �\ A 3' 7� FIGURE 3 REALIGNMENT OF EDWARDS ALONG BLUFFTOP -6- AMENDMENTS PI.Y co CITI , ..,i CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL +Y6m co \\ a STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ',:« y.� •� �.- ADOPTED 8Y CITY COUNCIL © I RESOLUTION NQ 4368-DEC.12,1976 \!- LEGEND CITY OF FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY HUNTINGTON BEACH MAJOR _4a000 f ,,�. . I ! \ PRIMARY_ _3Q000 ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA i SECONDARY _20.000 i - I NOTE \� SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF NAY - NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT'OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS 0000 ki ELLIS I ; i I i ro ----- . ' �L cwr•.o FIGURE 4 RETENTION OF EXISTING ALIGNMENT WITH LOCAL BLUFFTOP ROAD —7— 2 . Realignment to the West on the Blufftop This alignment would provide a continuous, effective, physical boundary between residential development east of the roadway, and the linear park to the west. The extension of Edwards Street along the blufftop would also provide excellent opportunities for public access to the park, scenic views, and access for public safety vehicles and personnel. An arterial in this location would provide trespassing security for residents to the east, and act as a buffer between residents and recreational activity at the park. This roadway, like the adopted alignment, would provide a direct connection to Pacific Coast Highway via Seapoint Street, and form a four-way intersection with the cross-gap connector (Garfield Avenue) . This type of arterial intersection is more desirable from a traffic engineering standpoint than an offset intersection, . which would result from Alternative Three described below. The Huntington Beach Company' s pending zone change west of Edwards Street extends nearly to the bluffline. This alignment of Edwards would cross through the property, creating additional area for the park on the west, and reducing the amount of developable land to the east. It is possible that a portion of the existing Edwards right-of-way could be used to compensate for this loss . Although the right-of-way could not be abandoned or developed due to the location of - existing utilities, the area could be used to meet recreational/open space requirements for a development . The blufftop alignment of Edwards Street does have drawbacks, most notably the amount of grading required as the road traverses the bluffs down to a connection with Seapoint Street. Extensive cuts would be needed, ranging from 16 ' to 35' , and earthwork quantities would amount to approximately 200, 000 cubic yards . This amount of grading would greatly alter the contours of the existing bluff face, as well as greatly impact the archaeological sites located along the blufftop. (Figure 5) 3 . Retention of the Existing Alignment This alternative would maintain Edwards Street in its current alignment, and provide a local street system along the blufftop to the linear park boundary. A local blufftop route could provide the advantages of a blufftop arterial, but with less cost and topographic alteration. Edwards Street would be retained in its present alignment, forming a T-intersection with Garfield Avenue. Seapoint Street would extend northerly to a T-intersection with the extension of Garfield Avenue (cross-gap connector) , approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile to the west of Edwards Street. Thus, the circulation pattern would not allow direct access from Edwards Street to Seapoint Street, but would require . a westward traverse on the Garfield extension. The local blufftop roadway would connect only with Edwards Street, in order to prevent the use of local streets as a "Short-cut" from Edwards to Seapoint. -8- (0679D). �9 -- ? TAlBERT 0 • -� t: 7 go ELLIS :.` GARFIELD s23 /. . T o goo ieoo on HUNTINGTON BEACH CAL OG M SITES IFORNIP. ARCHAEOL PLANNING DIVISION FIGURE 5 -9- The local roadway, like the blufftop arterial, would provide an effective physical separation between the Linear Park and adjacent easterly development projects. A local road could also provide access to the park, as well as scenic opportunities for motorists . If the local roadway is used to delineate the park boundary, the Huntington Beach Company could proceed with their zone change in this area, with both the local street system and the park boundary to be approved in conjunction with development plans . A local road would not require the extensive grading that accompanies an arterial, because decreased width and reduced traveling speeds allow the right-of-way. to more closely conform with the existing topography. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be needed, and consequently, the total cost of the project is much less than construction of an arterial._ This alternative could also be designed to have a minimal impact on the blufftop archaeological sites . At this time, staff has initiated Circulation Element Amendment No. 88-2 and Environmental Impact Report No. 88-1 to study the impacts of these possible arterial alignments . After preliminary investigation as discussed in this report, however, staff feels that extensive analysis of possible amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan should be delayed until the Council expresses a preferred direction for resolution of the issues . RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes to prepare a Precise Plan of Street Alignment for a local blufftop road, and to complete at a later date a Circulation Element Amendment and Environmental Impact Report to realign Edwards Street from its adopted location at the bottom of the bluffs to the existing alignment (Figure 4) . This alternative will allow for the advantages of a blufftop arterial, including delineation of a park boundary, park access and scenic views, at less cost and with less topographic alteration than an arterial. Additionally, it will allow the Huntington Beach Company to proceed with development plans in a timely manner. The Precise Plan of Street Alignment for the local bluffline drive will set the boundary for the linear park. Therefore, in preparing the Precise Plan, staff would propose that the _ road leave a minimum 150 foot wide usable area for park purposes, in accordance with the Council ' s previous resolution. It will also be designed to have the least possible impact on known archaeolo- gical sites along the blufftop, and to strike a balance between park land and developable areas . These considerations will require a cooperative effort between City staff, Orange County Environmental Management Agency staff, and the Huntington Beach Company. -10- (0679D) On March 21, 1987, the City Council directed staff to schedule a joint Planning Commission/City Council study session for May 2, 1988 to consider issues related to the Linear Park and the Edwards/Seapoint alignments . At that time, staff will introduce a bluff line drive alignment in conjunction with a linear park boundary, including an analysis of resulting park acreage and width. If that approach is found to be acceptable, then the Huntington Beach Company' s zone change request on the blufftop could be reconsidered on June 20, 1988 as presently scheduled. MA:HS:LP:gbm -11- (0679D) REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date September 25, 1989 Submitted to: Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrato --_�D 19. Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, City Administratore� ITY LERK Subject: Acquisition of Orange County Transfer Station on Gothard Street Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: Statement of Issue: _ Because of the large investment the city is making on.the state—owned land from the municipal pier to the end of the bluffs, it is advisable to acquire title to this state land. Also, it is necessary to relocate the police shooting range to allow development of the Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park. Recommendations: 1. Authorize the Mayor to make an offer to the Orange County Board.of Supervisors to acquire title to the twelve acre County Transfer Station site on Gothard Street in exchange for the city accepting maintenance responsibilities for the County Linear Park after it is developed. 2. Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the State of California to acquire title to 2.3 miles of state lands from the municipal pier to the end of the bluffs between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean low tide line in exchange for providing the State Parks and Recreation Department up to three acres to develop a maintenance and operation facility on the transfer station site. 3. Approve the concept of relocating the police shooting range to the transfer station site. Analysis: Since the city intends to invest from $15 to $30 million in improvements to the beach front between the municipal pier and Bolsa Chica State Beach during the next twenty years, it is advisable that the city acquire title to the land rather than risk turning over the improvements to the state at the end of our current operative agreement in 37 years. The attached report dated 9/29/88 from Director of Community Services, Max Bowman, explains the advantages of this action. In order to acquire title to the state land, the California Parks and Recreation Department is proposing a trade for a three acre parcel in the Gothard Industrial Corridor. The attached letter dated 9/16/88 from the State's District Superintendent, Tom Miller, explains the steps in the proposed transactions. PIO 5/85 Page -2- The county's transfer station property, which comprises approximately twelve acres including the transfer station which has been out of operation for several years, is considered surplus by the county. It has an estimated value of $3 to $4 million depending upon a thorough soils investigation. Also, the cost of clearing the site reduced the value of the land further due to the estimated depth of the asphalt at the transfer station. Rather than purchasing this land at its appraised value, staff is recommending that the city offer to enter into a maintenance agreement with the county to maintain and operate the County's Linear Regional Park after it is developed. Based on assumptions made by the county staff included in their attached memo to Supervisor Wieder dated 9/6/89, the county's annual operating and maintenance cost would be $216,000. Accepting maintenance responsibilities by the city would be a natural extension of our maintenance efforts at Huntington Central Park and the coastal Blufftop Park and would assure our standard level of maintenance. Maintenance of this facility by the county would be expensive for them since they have no other park maintenance responsibilities in the immediate area. In addition, the development of the second phase of the Ocean View Estates Mobile Home Park requires the acquisition of the Mushroom Farm and relocation of the city's police shooting range. A staff committee has researched alternate locations for the shooting range, and the Gothard Industrial Corridor appears to be the best location in the city. Although the city has no legal obligation to relocate the range based on the current lease with the Police Officers' Association, this facility provides valuable training to our officers as well as other local law enforcement agencies and private citizens who pay a fee to use the range. The remaining transfer station land would be used by the city for necessary outdoor storage, additional golf course area, or landscaped open space. Funding Source: No direct outlay of funds is involved in the recommended action. Maintenance costs for the County Linear Park would be included in the city's annual budget. Alternatives: 1. Do not acquire title to the state land at the beach. 2. Acquire the state land at the appraised value. 3. Acquire the county's land at the appraised value. 4. Do not acquire the county's land. 5. Direct the staff toward an alternate location for the police shooting range. Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Max Bowman dated September 29, 1988; 2. Letter from Tom Miller dated September 16, 1989; 3. Memorandum from Director of EMA dated September 6, 1989. PEC:pf f r � t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lim Lea" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Paul E . Cook Fr A4ax Bowman City Administrator Director , Community Services Subject Fee Title to Bolsa Chica State Beach Date September 29, 1988 During negotiations with the state for takeover of the Bolsa Chica 2.3 miles, we indicated at that time that we wanted the- area in fee simple title. If that were not feasible, we wanted to enter into a long term lease agreement, twenty years with a twenty year option, and that is what we executed. There were three major areas which argued fa.vorably for the city takeover: SAFETY The Huntington Beach Police Department could be very effective in patrolling the beaches and reducing criminal activity by increased surveillance. (24-hour patrol, communication center, helicopters, etc. ) There a.re remote areas along Bolsa Chica State Beach where crime continues to be a problem. The state has limited enforcement capability a-nd no jail facility. It has to rely on the county sheriff for backup. . The city has an existing police force, a jail facility, and. the necessary backup to provide effective enforce- ment. Water safety would also benefit from city management, since the city has a.n established marine safety division which could be expanded to include managing the state beaches. MAINTENANCE The city 's beach maintenance division and parks, tree and landscape division: perform similar functions throughout the city. Local maintenance management, means a closer span of control and the elimination of costly duplications. Using the city's landscape expertise translates to better utilization of species adapted to the local climate and environment, and more cost effective landscape maintenance procedures. The existing organizational capabilities could be easily expanded to manage the additional maintenance responsibilities. ECONOMICS Cost-cutting advantages are available by concise use of resources under a proven management system and elimination of costly overlap and duplication of service that exists with parallel systems. The city already has an effective, experienced management structure. Additional personnel can be accommodated without add-itionaI supervision. This will result i.n a cost-effective operation. The city has expertise in beach management, demonstrated by an ext-rena-ly well-run and cost effective beach. This manpement structure can be ex- panded to include the state beach which is;. presently operated at a deficit. It is the city's projection through cost saving management of reducing duplication of service that the state beaches will be self-supporting. As you can see from the three major items, we felt it was definitely beneficial for us to take over the area. After we entered into the operating agreement, it was our intent to continue working with the state to acquire the property in fee title. In the past few months of negotiating, the state indicated that if the city could provide approximately three acres of land, the state .would proceed with an administrative action through State Parks and Recreation for the city to acquire the Bolsa Chica property. The county transfer station in Central Park came to mind for this purpose. It is a total of twelve acres. If the county would deed the station to the city, we could, in turn, deed three acres to the state. The balance of the nine acres will be adjacent to Central Park and would be developed as an open; passive area. It would . be a tremendous advantage for the county to participate in this property exchange. We have approximately two million visitors to the 2.3 miles of Bolsa Chica State Beach. Approximately 60 percent of that two million, live within the county. Also, with the county involved, it would demonstrate to the state the county's local government control. Additionally, the county could play a more significant role in the development of Bolsa Chica State Beach. To my knowledge, the county has designated in excess of $300,000 in the development of Bluff Top Park. Here again, it would certainly justify the county designating more funds to this . area if it were under a city/county partnership. One of the key issues of city ownership would be that we are estimating in the next twenty years that we will invest $30 million or more on the north side. It would seem in the best interests of not only the city but also the county that we have complete control over the development projects and not be under the dictates of State Parks and Recreation as is the case now with the operating agreement. Another issue we feel is important is that we could possibly qualify for state and federal grants in this area if it were under city ownership rather than an operating agreement. Lastly, and most importantly, with city control, we can best serve the needs of state, county and city residents. MMB:cs STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Orange Coast District 1.8331 Enterprise Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 (714) 848-1566 September 16, 1988 CITY OF HUNT(NGTON BEACH ADWMSTRATIME OFFIGE Paul E. Cook City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Paul: Re Fee Title to the Portion of Bolsa Chica State Beach Leased to the City Please accept my apology for what may seem like an excessive amount of time required to define the course of action necessary to pursue the transfer of the subject property. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the procedure as I understand it. 1. City of Huntington Beach and the Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California agree to utilize a land exchange to effect the transfer. 2. The city must identify a parcel of land that is acceptable to the State for land exchange purpose. 3. The Department of Parks and Recreation accept the proposed parcel. 4. The land exchange agreement be drawn up by State Parks and submitted to Department of General Services of the State of California for approval. Legislation to surplus the parcel is required. 5. After approval by General Services the property transaction shall be accomplished, escrow will close and the property exchange will be complete. The normal time required to accomplish steps 4 and 5 is approximately one year, could be longer, depending on legislative timing. It appears that at this point in time the city and State Parks have agreed to agree; step one has been accomplished. To get started on step 2, I have attached a map showing the area of the city that we wish to locate. The parcel size must be approximately 300 feet on a side (3 acre parcel). The parcel must be zoned to allow us to legally carry Paul E. Cook Page 2 September 16, 1988 out our operation of a State Park District. It must be accessable to a public road, utilities such as water, electric, gas, sewage must be available on the site. I am available to look at proposed sites with you or your staff. Sincerely, om S. Miller, District Superintendent Orange Coast District TSM:mmc - a • --r r- r•v;v 1!C I�l+ YAIIN(� D P11A ■ NAVA u:TR AR I►OSA•+_ ,•,.`{r:iii.++ i - rrtw 1 !� [ ,R•, nI N RI�INA DR i <CIR s R " �coix ••c�•c - 22 \ ywysoi 1••SLA7ER « IOINT. J, R SrA•x[In� 70C[ AVE; !. \ `�••,'4t •s. - C[„.1INL! O l,R -R..rA •lx .)�I.T15 F or• �pIP. uiwooD uRir• o sluovl =. IL•NA a ------ \ .r�•. ••,l°u+o(s o - :oei, i YON TOTA��'• tI• III OL.on J •1111.ti_IxI 1.~_I• SA ICAS� • x•4• �� ice \ , •xjlxE. •il ''' •nE• _ - _ DINES:; DR •a10 � xll[r• f• " m T. lff- .\ .. r. �lun °'O+ r.Ox o+ 1' •_ M� Da HUNTINGTON 1 •cvlux rl+Rn• CENTRAL r--- U \� \\ .y A'••'�.•°:°'!•,: - ` - - "' PARK TALBERT 1 0 r AVE I' Zl) B0OLSA CHICA . \\ N TR NA I N IECE ST :,R. HUNTING ION REACH •NOOEx '9 ::,,• •. .',.\e e:• /011 OlNCER'sO FIRING RANOE _. - ,\ .-. '.y._ `� '..``•,°`°r�.•�syfEl «M'LOA DR uT oei FAi ' ECOLOGICAL• •..\r,• \ ti 1 ...[ �= axr. ' y UNT °� ul AVE IE-'XL EILIS RESERVE. •_a `1,.1(I ,- _ I -,.�)'. -\ f .... V O SCHLEICHER ♦11 4 < !- tS'T." `1. 7'.. ... r r .1,• 1 a y ERNEST AVE O a z 24 - . . ARFIELD rood 4 AYE - - .II•.. _.._ .. � V 2 p J r 7000 wow ` •- d;•.• lf.•1 L.wx x.rENr O " CLAY r ORANGE CITY I + .7 cl.T Ar _ f`I i��o CNU• CI■ J CLESII r cOYRTP1 Cla�o J I•- � � t t CAROB Cl. O < o sill AV ([ t y.•NUNfeNGTON CIfT - NU'Jfl'J':rON SfACllff�� °E�-'��.�.• A.AC" HALL ~ U P° N-ON s% ` a • C 000NIRY/r:l lla - NI.SCN. WI NIT In 0 •o \ "M. v�F •� `/~s[u+Isx I- Exec[ 25 = oats, 9 F. UTICA `r���i• _ •�•`• y TO ONTC - - _ y�E: u i Exlc� t.«[•' PRING IELD oat •°lx_ A+E •x'• S~ _ K t en ''[t•. FADAM °f/(�t •� •�f•C. y~y,\ 'n�\.;-y• r ~8 ..". I r�MA AV I reF NUN(INGfON\` / \04� AOg �~°�• "°Ynw+•.uN 3TN ST oswEc j °•` 9 C AiNVI CNT BEACH tM y 9 n `rf,1• !F\ Or S y y~�C,1 , �J' 1 AV MENPI C'J fA*O,VNAR LAKE LI NCO REC �i o n .•10 A CENTER EO 1 �4 r" V KNO[t \ A.•r O 5 \ \y~�•C �O y 5 h~ "c INDIANA 1A Z '`E• h~ ,` AVE 11ARII \ti s F GEN t A V 26 At lRAYI HUNTINGTON x GabSS 1� b~�•CI'y� � sr cNlc: h p y\ HEACH I ,�� 40 ATLA: . ti+ 27 County of Orange ��J MW DATE: September 6, 1989 RH SP ' TO: Supervisor Harriett Wieder - District 2GC CR CV1 FILE FROM: Director; EMA lNTf: SUBJECT: Huntingt on Beach Transfer Station/Estimated Bolsa CIi ca Linear Park Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs In conjunction with discussions on land sale. of County's Huntington Beach Transfer Station to the State and City of Huntington Beach, we understand that the City of Huntington Beach may . be willing to assume the responsibility and costs for operations and maintenance (0&M) of the future Bolsa Chica Linear Park. We further understand that potential city assumption of park 0&M responsibility and costs is not considered an essential cost or "price discount" element in the proposed land transaction, but as an added negotiation point to enhance the transaction to the County's overall best interests. While this would result in added future ongoing city costs, there are practical reasons for the city to be willing and interested in assuming this responsibility in that:- a. the city presently owns a portion of the future park site; b. land acquisition of the balance of the park site is largely dependent on city exactions from adjacent developers, and C. the city will have a continuing interest in the nature and level of maintenance performed on this park site. Also, precedent exists for city/county shared responsibilities in regional park development (County) and operations (City), with .Santa Ana at Centennial Regional Park, and with Anaheim at a portion of Yorba Regional Park. While it is difficult to determine exact costs prior to implementation of the park, based upon experience at other facilities, EMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks staff estimates the annual 0&M cost of a fully developed Bolsa Chica Linear Park to be approximately $216,000. Per acre and detail cost assumptions are attached for reference. If your staff has questions on this cost estimate, they may contact Bob Hamilton, Manager, HBP Program Planning at 834-3808. Ernie Schneider"^ REH:ps Attachment F850-188(3:84) 6a cc: R. A. Scott, Director GSA ATTACHMENT BOLSA CHICA LINEAR -PARK ESTIMATED OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS I. COST ESTIMATE: $216,000 annually. II. DETAIL/ASSUMPTIONS: A. Landscape Maintenance: $140,000/year. o 20+ acres irrigated turf and -landscape areas: contracted mowing and edging, and irrigation repairs; utilities. o $7,000/ac./year. B. Bike Trail Maintenance: $16,000/year (average). o 4 miles bike trails o annual striping o slurry coat every six years o asphalt overlay every twelve years C. Staffing and Supplies/Misc. Work: $60,000/year. o 1/2 Groundskeeper, at step 12, + 100% benefits and overhead ($15,000). o 1/2 Park Maintenance Worker, at step 12, + 100% benefits and overhead ($13,0.00). o Supplies ($12,000). o Miscellaneous Work: equestrian trail (2 miles) maintenance; restroom supplies/repairs; trash pick up and removal; rodent control; trash containers; fencing, benches, picnic shelters, gazebo/viewpoint, etc. maintenance/repairs. WET � �' 3 7 3 s•i 9 411 � �` i��. �a a So,INT . `\\ •Z � �,�' .. T fir- ..� kill"PPEU sm MIR Talbert-Avenue -- -- _.r-- '� or —11M}IIiM—si— n i i TRACT t A 1 r No �K oo r�L ^�yJ` tat t S- oor • O Y �W �aW`���rlr r•r:.�� . a 1�-IYollor •��r► .i�Mti.w. ' 1 r aantn aaa..t4..n..•Oerr...t.Mwfl -1 r.�r►rr..n l.• ' ro ta.m ' M „n • Ham. caum or ftAL t w.r rr� rau t .sr•�w rw . a ASA w.r •tc — REFust TRAMsan STATION a •r.a'rYr r .wr. NO.II I Yrtww Mtt. • IMu���.tr t It�ttr r•.1 ttl/I� 1 Mr/ rY�/�Mt1. r wl. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION