Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks Department File #1 Miscellaneous City Park Documents - 1 271 Notti no ' y Huntington Beach, California 92 ' , :a February 23, 1970 a r Res Approval of building on Marina park site. City Council _ • City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Sox 190 Huntington Beach, California. 92646 Doar Councilmen., - When driving up Graham Street last Tuesday afternoon, my eyes were jarred by the sight of a two storryy building skeleton on Marina Park site. I stopped for a closer lookI then wont home to call City Hall. The kind gentleman who answered the tolephone' in the Building Department informed so that City Council had the previous evening (February 9th) given go—ahead approval to this Robbinvood Little League building project although no building plans or location drawing had been submitted and/or approved prior to construction start. Wollo I thought that he was pulling my logt But it seems that he vasn't. My immediate reaction was to seek your re—consideration of approval . But b"h Paul Jones and Mayor Breen have discouraged we from this course of action in •iev of your unanimous approval. May I ask whether Council required a clean-up bond on this IgnollIX permanent building as the city does on all well .oppeerations? ' llve to help pay the bill for city orsw removal at thds build- ing at a future date? Nov many years doss the Robbinvood Little League have remaining on their lease for th use of Marina Park? Is it the intention of the City Council to allow long-term use and development of this land by Little League? Do** the Council plan to snake a outright gift of the acreage to Little Loagus? Will, at a future date, a park architect find himself hsying to design a community level park on the Marine sits. working around the location of both this building and the temporary library on—the—Graham Street fronts ? Cy I bring to your attention anonher action of your February ninth meeting. You approved the sale of all six million dollars of our city park bonds. Marina site to in line with three other community level park sites to share development funds in the amount of $19056,004}.CC, (con*. ) as outlined in the Proposed Park Dou'd1 .t o Shoat e* onalooed) an a o"d your 0 1T the a ro4uiri Your a e t a t 4pproval decision vas the r*salt of city staff orrbr LA"'bayingall d the :project to reach sonstrustion stage prior to * tP lx of site 38 at°laa and onstruction blueprints the ues'tio'a ' �a to O, NOV V. IMN??I? .Almov T ST .� AVOID SMILAR SITUATIONS 7 . Pleas+ `ti su les *4 pkeiee of the building o roved., very at raltards, or PA a. It non—C fit ar tl ** b l.loved aq tter rights ti Qoms l la' '�i tag o� ' oing to Pitsh taut stakes for the oeldta vs.' at a. . Or Association is the ucal tux grove at Talbert oldo ``,a t st" t . ace Noram Vortby Too Uverns e aatiaa d Comission C arsioa Riga ►5 Board file 3 r_ 'a 4. 1 y 'i f t 11 �., as t5 " E si w � t f+� e� w: r x OAK � f m 4 I 4 i R JS 4, 4- A ri r" x' s i a MID' NOR PARKSITE DEED NUMBERS :Park - Beach Front 37 fi Pier- to 3`9 - HB Co et al Y'± Parksite #1 - Cornell 559, E/Springdale- Loland Homes - - Parksite #2 - Brunswick r, Goldenvest & McFadden - 1129 19.3. 194. 1.95. 196.2 Z 2.273.2,74 Parksite #3 - Peck Park J 742 Peck Estates - Flynn -N/Edinger a' Parksite #4 - Kettler 677 S/Heil W/GW - Hunsaker l'• Parksite #5 - Murdy 233 Block A & B - (C & D not park) ' Parksite #5 Murdy - See Murdy Park Deeds under Murdy Parksite #6 - Gothard 464 Gothard/Talbert - Orange Co C' Parksite #7 - Maldonado 687 Beach to RR - Warden/Baughman Parksite #8 - Lamb-Glen Mar 463 Cannery/Pioneer - Tartan Parksite #8 - Lamb-GlenMar 690 E/Cannery S/Yorktown Parksite #9 - Recreation Dept 21 Huntington Beach Co. Parksite #10 - Circle Park 13 11 th-13 th - HB Co Parksite #11 - Lake Park 14 llth-12th - HB Co Parksite #12 - Farquhar 90 r, Plaza - llth-12th - HB Co. Parksite #13 - ~ '`»w `' 725 �w Slater W/Edwards - eLamater Parksite #13 - :.-4 77ZAy 726 � Slater W/Edwards - Cols - Parksite #14 v Miredith 747 — �O'1 (A2r*us) E/Wrookhurs t la ,Indianapo li s cY Pes.�t y.te # n . .•?/Q 77( New" Yames CHIIiRD$S CAT.no. 1.02I4 ►FIRTRJ L1 V,S.A. PARK SITES ACQUIRED j . PARKSITE IDENTITY . TOTAL ACRES LOCATION NO. 2.5 86dth of Bolsa orth of Cornell Dr. West of Edwards St. a", 1. CORNELL DR. Ave. ,, , , j East of Springdale St. Adjacent to Schroder School. 2. BRUNSWICK PARK 6.5 South side of Brunswick Drive, West of Golden West St. ` 3 PECK PROP. it 5.2 North side of Edinger Ave. , East side of Graham St. Adjacent 1, to Marina High School. I' 4. KETTLER PROP. 3.1 W/GW, E/EDW, S/Heil, N/Flood Control. 5. MURDY PARK 17.0 East side of Golden West St. % -mile North of Warner Ave. Adjacent to Flood Control Channel. 6. GOTHARD 14.9 West side of Gothard St. South of Talbert Ave. (Old Orange 'i County Dump Site). 7. MALDONADO PROP. 2.5 North side of Taylor Ave. , West of Beach Blvd. S. LAMB - (GLEN MAR) 2.1 East side of Cannery St. North of Adams Ave. , Adjacent to Wardlow. 9. RECREATION CENTER, 2.0 Northwesterly corner of 170 St. and Orange Ave. J L , ,4 a� PARK SITES ACQUIRED PARKSITE IDENTITY TOTAL ACRES LOCATION NO. F CIRCLE PARK .8 12b St. and Crest Ave. 11® LAKE PARK 4.0 Bounded by 12Q St, on the North, 11A St, on the South, 16 } ,� �,�. ,s� 1• .a " Lake St. on the East and Main St, on the West. mom 064• Gs t s S !_060.e t6 A R 'f 0tV-CXQ 12. FARQUHAR PLAZA 1.8 Bounded by 12t St, on the North, Main St, on the East, .I1t St. on the South and Crest Ave. on the Kest. .13. lam. S/Slater , W/Edwards 14. MEREDITH PROP. E/Brookhurst, N/Indianapolis t i r 15. NAVY PROP, 2, Northwest corner of Edinger Ave. and Bolsa Chica St. (Navy Net and Ammunition Depot) . =. EDISON R/W 5.6 South of Garfield Ave. , East side of Bushard St. (Edison Co. R/W) EDISON R/W - N/W of Hamilton/Brookhurst - ` DECON CORP. f t �- Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 � 1 j ( U TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council III//// FROM: Planning Commission DATE: January 28 , 1976 SUBJECT: -HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF PARKS REQUEST On January 6, 1976, a request by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association for mini-parks was referred to the Planning Commission by the Recreation and Parks Commission. This request,. which is attached, identifies two sites totalling 1. 08 acres for acquisition and seeks immediate consideration because of time constraints on the availability of the properties. As expressed at its January 20, 1976 meeting, it is the consensus of the Commission that the request for mini-parks be denied but that: 1. current park needs of the northern section of the community be met by a temporary park site at Clay and Goldenwest Streets; 2. park needs of the southern section be met by the existing open space area at Morning Tide on a temporary basis; and 3. that the Planning Department be directed to increase the priority V of the "Seacliff Study" on its current work program and begin a comprehensive development and parks plan for the area in cooperation with the Huntington Beach Company and the Recreation and Parks Department to insure that future park needs can be accommodated on a permanent basis. Generally, the Commission concurred with the Staff analysis which is attached for your information. While the staff report concluded that there currently is a deficiency of parks for the existing population, considerable vacant area remains within the Seacliff-Beachwalk area to alleviate this deficiency as phased parks are developed. Another important issue raised by the Commission is the undesirability of mini-parks. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that such facilities are extremely expensive to acquire and to maintain. Further- more, to accept the agreement offered by the Huntington Beach Company through the Association - cash credit for the acreage involved - would mean accepting less acreage than required for similar-sized developments by City park standards and less than could be provided for the same price in another location. 0 _ S Page 2 The commission concluded that a temporary site at Clay and Goldenwest would be an acceptable alternative to the Association request. That site could serve several purposes in conjunction with meeting neighborhood recreation needs which could not otherwise be met until some time in the future as planned parks develop. Also transmitted for your information is a recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Department. A representative from the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association will be present at the Council' s February 3 , 1976, meeting to discuss the original request. 2Resp fully submit ed chard A. Harlow Secretary RAH:MF:ja huntington loch Manning department staff repol TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 13, 1976 SUBJECT: Huntington Seacliff Parks Request On January 6, 1976, a request by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association for acquisition of two mini-parks was transmitted for your review. The request identified two sites for acquisition and sought immediate consideration because of. time constraints on. the availability of the properties.. Staff analysis of this request is now complete and presented below. If the Commission desires to accommodate the Association request, an Amendment to the General Plan will be necessary before park fees are expended. Such an Amendment could not be processed until June. To assist the Association and the landowners in their plans, however, we are presenting the request now to get your earliest directions on the matter. The following paragraphs address four items: a park supply-demand analysis, an identification of important considerations that will in- fluence any decision on the subject, an investigation of alternatives available, and a staff recommendation for Commission action. Park Demand Within the area under consideration there are 333 existing single family units and a population of 1202 persons.l Based .on the General Plan° s. neighborhood park standard of 1. 5 acres per 1000 population, existing demand for neighborhood parks equals 1. 8 acres. No neighborhood parks currently exist within a quarter mile2 of the developed portion of Seacliff leaving a 1. 8 acre deficiency. At ultimate development (based on existing zoning) the Seacliff Area may support a population of 18 , 419 and require about 22 . 5 acres of neighbor- hood parks. (It must be noted, however, that it is questionable whether ' further development will proceed according to existing zoning.)' As indicated on existing plans, twelve acres of City-owned neighborhood park land will be provided west of Goldenwest for Seacliff at ultimate development. Four sites - #95q 955, 966 and 967 - at 3 acres each (and in conjunction with planned school facilities) are projected for develop- 1 Based on 3. 61 persons/household as determined by the 1973 Special Census in the Seacliff Area. 2 Standard service area for neighborhood parks. I t t - Page 2 ment in fiscal years 1983 , 1984, 1982 and 1979, respectively. With development of these sites, however, a deficiency of about 10. 5 acres of neighborhood park land remains. West of Goldenwest, two relevant park sites are planned - 870 and 845 . Planned for the northeast corner of Palm and Goldenwest, 870 is a neighborhood park site of three acres planned for development in 1982. At Seventeenth and Main Street, 845 is a community park site of 6 acres planned for development in 1977 . All of these sites - both east and west of Goldenwest - are related to park needs of the Huntington Beach Company properties. Figure 1 itemizes neighborhood park needs and Figure 2 identifies planned neighborhood parks. Considerations From a statistical standpoint, as presented above, a deficiency of 1. 8 acres of neighborhood parks currently exists and a deficiency of 10. 5 acres may exist at ultimate development. In addition to park demand-supply analysis, several other considerations are also pertinent to this dis- cussion. 1. Planned Park Phasing . Accor(L•nc to the "sastc,- Plan of Parks, the first neighborhood site to be developed in the Seacliff area will be #967 near Palm and Goldenwest. This site would eliminate the acreage deficiency at present but development is not scheduled until 1979 at the earliest. Even this date is tentative, however, since all the planned parks in Seacliff were anticipated to be in conjunction with school sites which, according to school district officials, may never be utilized. The Parks Department may, therefore, be altering the phasing or even location of these sites. Other planned sites west of Goldenwest are not scheduled until the 1980' s and are also 'related to future school site development. The first park to be developed in the vicinity is Huntington Community east of Goldenwest. Neighborhood park site 870 is proposed for 1982. 2. Accessibility The report submitted by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association identifies what is believed by residents to be a major problem in addition to lack of existing parks; that is, poor access to planned sites for young children. The developed Seacliff area, as the report indicates, is surrounded by Palm Avenue, Goldenwest Street and Clay Street. Palm Avenue separates the homeowners from park site #967 and will eventually be a primary arterial highway in this location expected to carry between 13, 000 and 21, 000 average daily trips (ADT) at ultimate development. The design capacity of the street will be 30, 000 ADT. The homeowners express concern -for children under 14 (the age range neighborhood parks are expected to serve) crossing such a busy street. Park access would also be Page 3 difficult for residents of the northern section of the developed area as the golf course obstructs pedestrian travel between the north and south ends of the existing developed area. As a result Goldenwest Street, a highly traveled arterial, would be the only unobstructed way for pedestrians to move from the northern end to the southern end of the community. Park site #966 is planned to service the northern end of the community in conjunction with site #955, but development is not projected until 1982 and 1984 , respectively. The Homeowners Association believes, however, that future traffic on Clay Street to other Seacliff tracts and the gas plant will discourage use of this site by smaller children who would have to cross the street. Clay Street west of Goldenwest is not currently identified on the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways ,and traffic projections are not available._ The volume of traffic ;expected on Clay will depend n future development and street align ments in other parts of the Soeacliff area so its effect on park access cannot really be determined at this time. 3. The Desirability of Mini-Parks An important issue for City consideration raised by the Seacliff request is the desirability - of mini-parks. Though there are two mini-parks in the City, such small open space areas have generally been discouraged in the past. Parks of such size are seldom able to accommodate the types of uses neighborhood parks are usually planned for. They are also more expensive to maintain. Parks and Recreation Department maintenance records for 1974-1975 , for example, indicate that it entails approximately the same amount of man hours to maintain a one acre park as a two or three acre park. As a comparative study, that department selected Davenport Park which is one acre and compared it to Bushard Park which is two and one-half acres. Davenport Park required 227 mari hours of maintenance time while Bushard Park required 244 man hours of maintenance time. A major reason for such a disproportionate amount of time spent at a small park such as Davenport Park is that all work has to be done by hand or with small machines. Its size does not allow for tractors to do such tasks as mowing, aerifying, etc. And even though it is a small area, it still must be routed for a two man crew to drive to for weekly maintenance and clean up. t As a result, in these two examples yearly manpower spent on Davenport` Park amounted to 227 hours for a $196-6 per acre cost and spent on Bushard Park amounted to 244 hours for a $845 per acre cost. 4 . Potential Park Sites With the assumption that neighborhood parks should be provided within the developed portion of Seacliff itself (because of accessibility I Page 4 problems caused by adjacent streets) , the Association report identified three potential mini-park sites that might meet existing needs. The proposed locations are identified in Figure 3. The southern site on Morning Tide is located on the golf course within Tract 6904. The two lot site (.4371 gac) is landscaped and already in use as a recreational area. The site is owned by the , Huntington Beach Company, and because of oil easements is presently in open space use.. The assessed value for these two lots is $2740 . Though immediate purchase of these lots is not necessary to fill the request, the Parks Department believes that the City will have to commit to acquiring this area when development is possible. Because of the property' s location on a golf course near the beach, the true market value of the parcels will undoubtedly be much greater than land elsewhere in the City. This site does, of course, provide easy access for existing residents in the south end of the community as no major streets obstruct travel to the property. Adjacent to existing units, it is also a visible site, adding to its value for child safety. Two alternative sites are identified by the Association in the north end of the community (Figure 3) . Alternative #1, . 6 acres in size, occupies three residential lots in Tract 7421. Bordered by local streets and residential dwellings, it is located in a protected environment. This park site is centrally located in the northern_ end of the community. The assessed value of these three lots is $3600, but as with the southern site, market�value can be expected to be significantly higher than the standard four times this amount because of its choice location, especially now that oil encumbrances have been removed. The Huntington Beach Company has estimated the value .of these lots between $60, 000 and $70, 000 . Alternative #2, of size as yet undetermined, is located outside the community. This property is bounded by Goldenwest Street, a high traffic major arterial in this location. . Surrounding property is residential on the south and vacant (zoned residential and industrial) on the north. This site is a planned location for a water pumping station which would occupy approximately 100 ft. x 160 ft. The Huntington Beach Company has offered to negotiate with the City for this site which could serve jointly as pump station, park, and historical landmark. (The site of the discovery well is nearby. ) The Homeowners Association contends, however, that this site is less desirable than Evening Hill because of its isolation from existing development and its proximity to Goldenwest. 5. Park Fees and Long Range Development The Huntington Beach Company owns the five lots desired by the Homeowners Association and is apparently willing to negotiate with the City for the mini-park sites as long as credit is given to the Huntington Beach Company toward park dedication requirements for the Seacliff Area. Generally, when land for park sites is supplied by a developer, it is deducted from the total park dedication require- Page 5 �ment_on_an_a.cre—for acr_e_b-asis. In thi.s_cas.e_, however, the Huntington Beach Company is requesting cash credit on the market value of the land, not the acreage involved. Because of the properties' choice location, their cost will be significantly higher than land in other parts of the City. As a result, the existing residents would be accepting less acreage than would be due them under the City' s park standards and less than could be provided for the same price in another location. According to the terms of agreement when the existing Seacliff tracts were approved, about 2 . 5 acres of park land or about $74 ,300 in fees were to be provided for the needs of existing residents. Should the Association request be granted, only 1. 08 acres of land will be secured at a cost of $60 , 000 to $70, 000 and the' City will still be committed to purchase the Morning Tide site at some time in the future. As a result, 1. 42 acres of required park land will be waived and the City will be spending most of the required fees. The City has never in the past granted market value cash credit to a developer for land allocated to park purposes. The long-range implications of this precedent should be considered in making a decision on the Association request. Alternatives Several alternative solutions to the problem identified by the Homeowners Association seem worthy of investigation. 1. Grant mini-park request: Statistical analysis indicates that a deficit in neighborhood parks is a reality for the developed portion of Seacliff. The northern and southern ends of the community are divided by a physical barrier and access to all proposed park facilities requires children to cross potentially busy streets (assuming Clay plays an important role in future Seacliff development) . Mini-park sites are available and the owner is willing to negotiate purchase with the City. To accommodate the Association request, the Planning Commission could approve the proposal in concept, recommend it to the City Council for approval and request that Staff be directed to pursue an amendment to the General Plan identifying the five lots as park sites. 2. Comprehensive Planning Effort: The existing residents of Seacliff do not have a neighborhood park, and they believe that those sites planned for acquisition are too far in the future and are made undesirable because potentially busy streets must be crossed to reach them. There are many areas of the City with similar situations. While it may be ideal to provide a neighborhood park within everyone' s immediate neighborhood, such cannot realistically be accomplished. While the concerns of the homeowners can be appreciated, several factors stand against their proposal: Page 6 a. The southern site on Morning Tide is an open space area currently maintained by the Huntington Beach Company and encumbered by oil easements against development for many years in the future. Should the City do nothing, these two lots will continue to be available to neighborhood children until per- manent facilities can be provided b. The cost of acquiring and maintaining these mini-parks is much greater than what it would be for providing typical neighborhood park land. C. To secure the lots the City would be setting a precedent with potentially undesirable consequences regarding market value credit for acreage dedication in meeting park requirements for development. d. Park land sufficient to meet existing need is scheduled for acquisition and development on both the northern and southern ends of the community. e. An alternative multi-purpose site at Clay and Goldenwest could be utilized on a tentative basis until permanent sites are developed at 966 and 955. f. Normally, partially developed subdivisions (existing Seacliff represents only 86 acres of a total 600 acres) of similar size would not be provided with temporary facilities or mini-parks because planned park sites were not scheduled for immediate development. Based on these considerations the Planning Commission could recommend against the Association request but ask the City Council to direct the Planning Department and the Recreation and Parks Department to analyze the planned park locations in the Seacliff area in regard to changes in school site planning, changes in planned use from existing zoning, and development phasing plans for the remainder of Seacliff. Doing - so would require designating a higher priority to development of a comprehensive plan for Seacliff - an existing item on the Planning Commission work program - but would enable development of coordinated parks plan that would hopefully overcome the problems generated by piecemeal approval of individual tracts - as illustrated in the park needs of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association. 3. Interim Measure: If the Planning Commission decides that the need for a comprehensive analysis of development potentials and park needs in the Seacliff area is necessary but that interim measures are desirable to offset the existing park deficit, the potential park site at Clay and Goldenwest could be utilized. The Public Works Department needs the site for the pump station and development of the mini-park is consistent with plans for historic preservation, conservation of scenic resources (this area is elevated above much of the City) and the Scenic Highways -Landscape Corridor concept along Page 7 Goldenwest Street. While this would not be the ideal location from the Association' s point of view, it would provide for some of the park need for residents of the northern community and it would be consistent with several City objectives. Residents in the southern community could continue to utilize the Morning Tide site as an interim facility until the site south of Palm is developed. Recommendation It is the conclusion of the Planning Department that while a neighborhood park deficiency exists for the developed portion of Seacliff, circum- stances do not warrant a City commitment to permanent mini-parks. Con- siderable park acreage will be supplied at ultimate development. While currently planned sites may be altered, the potential for developing a desirable parks system in the area is great. As a matter of policy, the City should not consider park needs on an isolated basis but rather in conjunction with an overall development scheme. The Department believes that the southern two-lot open space area will continue to remain vacant for many years and will certainly be available to residents until the earliest planned parks are constructed to serve them. While residents may dislike having their children cross well traveled streets, this situation exists throughout the City and cannot be overcome. This fact does not justify committing the City to expensive mini-parks. Because of the coincidental need of the Public Works Department, a northern park at Clay and Goldenwest could be justified to meet the needs of northern community residents. This site could be considered temporary until planned sites are developed or as a core for later expansion into a permanent facility as additional development occurs. These measures could satisfy in part the real needs of the residents today while a comprehensive development and parks plan was prepared for the entire Seacliff area. It is the recommendation of the Department that no City commitment be made for acquisition and/or development of mini-parks in the Seacliff area but that the Public Works Department and the Recreation and Parks Department pursue at least a temporary park site at Clay and Goldenwest in conjunction with the pump facility. It is further recommended that Staff be directed to pursue at the earliest time in cooperation with the Huntington Beach Company and the Recreation and Parks Departments a comprehensive development and parks plan for the total Seacliff area. A staff recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Department is attached for your information also. When the Planning Commission recommendation is made, it may either be forwarded to the City Council for action or referred back to Recreation and Parks Commission which originally requested Planning Commission review. RAH:MF: ja Figure 1 Neighborhood Park Demand Neighborhood Park Demand Existing 333 d.u. x 3. 61 persons/household* = 1202 persons 1202 persons x 1. 5 acres park land/1000 population = 1. 803. acres Neighborhood Park Demand Ultimate Residential Zone Gr Acs DU/Cr Ac -,Total DU Pop/DU Total Population Rl-0 107 5.4 578 3.58 2069 Single -family R1-01 7 5.4 38 3.58 136 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R2-PD-0 94 15 1410 2.47 3483 R2-PD-01 4 15 60 2.47 148 Multi-family R3-0 39 25 975 1.99 1940 R4-0 153 35 .5355 1.81 9693 R4-01 15 35 525 1.81 950 Total 18419 Class Pop. Park ?\bed per _ Park Need Park Acreage Net Deficit at 1000 Pop. to be Provided Ultimate Development Single-family 2-,205 1.00 2.205 acs 12 acs 10:47 acs Multi-family 16,214 1.25 20.2675 acs *Notes This population per household figure for the Seacliff area is taken from the 1973 Special Census conducted by the State Department of Finance. The household population figures used to compute neighborhood park demand at ultimate development are citywide estimates prepared by the Planning Department in January, 1975. x IAVE. 955 966 (95� N W 3 Z 0 J O O Q �9c 'c 845 AVENUE �o 870 9s, T tik PARK LOCATIONS FIGURE 2 GARFIELD AVENUE t I NORTHERN PARK SITE Alt.#2 w DR 0 \\ O NORTHERN �\ PARK, SITE 0.6462..gac Alt.#I s i �,..SO6�. � i4 ..�Wn PARK SITE I". % 0.437.1. do •rNNO � y 3 0 Cw f POSSIBLE PARK LOCATIONS FIGURE 3 a ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mr. Dick Harlow, Director From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director Planning Department Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject Seacliff Park Acquisition Date January 12 , 1976 Recreation and Parks Department staff members have studied the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association request for the City to acquire and develop mini-parks in the Seacliff housing sector of Huntington Beach and make the following recommendations to your staff and Planning Commission: 1) That the H.B. Company be encouraged to keep the southerly z acre site containing pipe lines as an open space green belt easement which can continue to be used as a park by the public. This encouragement could be in the form of an agreement which would give the City the first right to accept the land as a park prior to any contemplated change of use by the owners . 2) That the City and H.B. Company negotiate to provide a neighbor- hood-type park (2 to 5 acres) on the north-west corner of Clay and Golden West Streets which will serve several purposes : A neighborhood park and playground; a site for the commemorat- ing plaque for the "Discovery Well" of the H.B . oil fields ; a Water Department pump station site, beautification of the Golden West and Clay entrance to Seacliff; and the future po- tential of locating an elementary school adjacent to the park in accordance with our Master Plan of Parks , Open Space, Schools and Recreation. 3) That the proposed residential lot (19 , 000+ sq. ft . ) site for a mini park at Evening Hill and Manor Point not be accepted because : a) The lots would have to be purchased at current fair market value ($60, 000 to $70 , 000) as it is not identified in the Master Plan and was contemplated for acquisition after the subdivision was constructed. b) In recent years the only similar size park sites acquired by the City were on the Hunt- ington Harbour islands and were developed by the Huntington Harbour Corp. and given as a gift with the City accepting the maintenance responsibility. c) The mini-park activities would be severely restricted because of its small size yet expensive to build. Playground equipment would most likely be the main theme. d) The costs for manpower to maintain the 1 acre 12avrej�p�xt Park in Huntington Harbour are nearly equal to the manpower cost to maintain a typical 22 acre neighborhood park such as Bushard Park (see attachment) . e) Because of the cri- tical acquisition time factor, in order for the City to acquire a 2 - Memo to: Dick Harlow, Director Date : January 12, 1976 Planning Department Subject: Seacliff Park Acquisition the mini-park would require diversion of funds from current high priority acquisition and development programs . f) If this mini-site is accepted as an amendment to the Master Plan. of Parks , then approximately (11) eleven similar neighborhoods in the City will also qualify for mini-parks and the cost of such an acquisi- tion, development, and maintenance program would be staggering . Norm Worthy, Dir ctor Recreation, Parks and Human Services NW: ac Attachments To : Mr. Tom Bushard From : Duane Jenkins Park Superintendent Park Supervisor Subject : Maintenance of Mini-Parks Date : January 12 , 1976 as Compared to Regular Size parks Our maintenance records for 1914-1975 indicate that it entails approximately the same amount 'of man hours to maintain a one . acre park, as compared to a two or three acre park. As a comparative study we selected Davenport Park which is one acre and compared it to Bushard Park which .is two and one half acres. . Davenport Park required 227 man hours of maintenance time while Bushard Park required 244 man hours of maintenance time. A major reason for such disproportionate amount of time spent at a small park, as Davenport Park, is that all work has to be done by hand or with small machines. Its size does not allow ,for tractors to do such tasks as mowing, aerifying, etc. Even though it is a small area, it ' s still routed for a two man crew to drive to, and do its weekly maintenance and clean up. MANPOWER COST DAVENPORT 227/hrs.' 4 8.66 per hr. 1,965..82 : - BUSHARD 244/hrs. @ 8.66 per hr. 2,113.04 i i TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 6 , 1976 RE: PARKS IN THE HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF AREA Transmitted for your information are: (1) A presentation on the potential development of mini-parks in the Seacliff Area given by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association. (2) A memo from the Recreation and Parks Commission to the Planning Commission and Planning Director on park acquisition in the Seacliff area. (3) A letter from the Director of Recreation and Parks to Lusk and Son, a developer wishing to develop homes in the Seacliff area on lots selected by the Homeowners Association as a logical City Park site. The Planning Staff is now performing a park analysis on the Sea- cliff Planned Community and surrounding area. The analysis will determine if the request by Seacliff Homeowners for mini-parks is justified. Discussion of the parks analysis of the Seacliff area is scheduled for your January 13 , 1976 adjourned meeting. EJ:gc i I HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MINI PARKS IN THE HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF AREA PRESENTED TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10, 1975 WHAT IS HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF? It is a community comprised of 311 homes with 1400 residents of which 600 are children under the age of eighteen. Approximately 2/3 of these children are 10 years and younger with a majority of this group being pre-school ages. WHY DOES SEACLIFF NEED A PARK? Seacliff is bounded on one side by Golden West, a highly travelled street (See Exhibit 1 for traffic survey) ; bounded north. and south by Clay and Palm Drives, both planned to be major travel streets for future developments; (Exhibit II) and on the west by Seacliff golf course (See Exhibit III) . Because of its location and the above mentioned boundaries Seacliff is virtually an island from any park sites planned by the city. We believe that the Parks and Recreation Commission- had planned to provide the children with a park via the proposed schools in the area. However the school district has cancelled or indefinitely suspended plans for a school- in this-area (Exhibit IV) thereby neces- sitating a re-evaluation of park needs. Land is. available now and will not be_after=1y15/76-, unless purchased now for development-of mini=_ parks -for this area of Huntington Beach. Unless prompt action is-taken the younger -children in the Seacliff -community will be denied the-en- -- joyment and benefitsof a park. Seacliff needs one. site in the northern part and one__site _in.-the southeren part of the community. _ As well as being developed in such a way that Seacliff-is---surrounded--i n - a manner-such that smaller chi ld-r-en--cannot-go-_elsewhere -to play, Seacliff is also seperated into two sections- that will not permi.t children to use one park. A mini-park in both sections is the only feasible solution. SOUTHERN SITE (EXHIBIT V) There is---only=one-s-ite available-in-the- south end of Seacliff. --This property cannot be-developed for-- residential- usebecause oil and gas lines easements . This property is owned and has been developed by Huntington .Beach Company as a greenbelt area. It is currently used quite extensively by the residents in the southern end of Huntington Seacliff. We therefore ask that the committee recommend that this site be dedicated as a greenbelt park or play area. NORTHERN SITE The northern section of Seacliff has no greenbelt area and currently children play in the streets. After a number of meetings it has been determined that there are only two possible sites which could be used as park areas , -a �site at. Goldenwest and Clay, and one at -Evening Hill and Manor Point. GOLDENWEST AND CLAY This site is -actually located outside the Seacliff community. It is bordered by the high traffic- arterial of Golden West. Per the survey in Exhibit I the traffic on this arterial will become in- creasi-ngly more intense. --The survey as prepared did not-include the impact of the new Huntington Seacliff shopping center which is scheduled to--open soon. This -shopping center-is -diagonal-ly__-_ across- the street from the Clay and Golden West site. Clay is currently-used by-res-idents and- trucks--to.-service..-Standard—OiJ_:_ - facilities and traffic will increase with the addition of a planned._. gas treatment -plant.--- An extension-of -Clay to serve the -new-housing - developments of the Huntington Beach Company will also impact the traffic -i-ntens,ity--in- the near future. A -water pump is_ to be moved - from east of-- den to this site. This smaller site is so far removed-from Seacliff homes that it would--require- superv-ision of the- children dur-i ng-.-utilization of- -the facility --Such -a_-s_i to would not be -extensively utilized by-residents of :Seacliff were developed as a parka (See red arrow on Exhibit II for location) . EVENING HILL AND MANOR POINT-- (E-XHIBIT VI) This parcel==is=--larger-and central-ly -located-wi.thin-.the -northern- portion of Seacliff. It is in a safe, low traffic area. Though I - acquisition costs may be higher than other site, development costs would be reduced since it already has water, power and sewer facilities. Development costs could be further reduced by using . the present landscaping thereby reducing the cost of trees and shrubs. This site would be extensively utilized by residents (particularly the younger children) because of the central location, { and protected environment. The design should be for all residents , but with particular emphasis for the younger children. MONEY AVAILABLE Approximately $92,000 of park fees were generated from the development of -Seacliff (Exhibit . IX) . These fees are currently being held by Huntington Beach Company. These fees could be utilized to acquire and develop the sites within the Seacliff community. In this way the City of Huntington Beach would not_be--_required -to .use-funds currently .in the city treasury and allocated for other projects. This plan would allow for utilization of funds in a community generated by that community. Huntington Beach Company has agreed to dedicate this land to parks if requested by the City and to negotiate the purchase against the fees -already generated (See Exhibit VII) . They would also develop this site if requested by the City.=- -This would- be-.done :in-accordance= w.ith ahe -Ci-ty's-.-spec- ficati-ons PRIORITIES This Parcel is..currently. -in -escrow to be -purchased--by Lusk. Company for development of residential homes (Exhibit -VIII) ._:= If this excrow is allowed-to=go-through;-the-residents.--of=_th-is _area--wi.-l-1-=never-==have a park.--- Lusk Company has agreed-to=cancel--this escrow==if---the- City-wil-1 -act- quickly- to acquire this _land _for_._a_.park._To further assist the City, the residents of Sea-cliff--have located playground equipment-which-=will be-- donated—for use on this park site. By utilizing- the donated equipment, the present landscaping, and already developed utilities; the residents feel the development costs could be kept to a minimum. WHAT ACTION IS NEEDED? Due to the critical time requirement we ask the Park Commission to expeditiously recommend to the city to acquire and develop these parcels within the Huntington Seacliff area as park sites r EXHIBIT I ® CITY OF HunflnGTon BEACH P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 November. 17, 1975 Dale Dickey 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Dale, Enclosed is the information that you requested regarding traffic along Goldenwest Street south of Garfield Avenue. The map shown as 2-C Talbert Deletion is the latest -traffic projections along the City' s arterial streets . These pro- jections were prepared approximately 11-2-2 years ago by the traffic consultant firm of Herman Kimmel. The Huntington Beach traffic flow map shows existing traffic volume along the arterial streets . Traffic counts are updated-each- year by the Traffic Engineering Department. If I can be-of--any further - service please contact me. Sincerely yours, Rich Barnard Planner RB/s - Enclosure P.S . - Mel does not have an extra copy of the Colony by the Sea EIR. " RPac� 1 m O U � = m Q O 8 4500660p 11 13400 R JO BOL SA AVE. 2 3 u 8 0 8 8 $ 2 2400 N 6700 0900 Y MIFADOEN AVE. O - - Q � 26100 2400 " 9100 g600 w R800 f✓•/00 20300 21600 �,7526 —— EDINGER AVE. 2800 5300 n 4900 5800 6800 7500 7500 7500 n 3600 2600 HELL AVE. 169DO 115,400 16400 ry 16900m 2Z300 Z2700 19900 n 19100 +—SLAR ;'- WARNER Al'E. 1590076M 87004600 �� �� 7900 3500 400o a aoo TAL BERT AVE _ 1 " LEGEND \ 400 a 1100 IOOD � R 2 N SCALE,I'�50' ELLIS AVE. AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOWME PER 24 HOUR PERIOD Q g O Y 5000 19W 2500 4000 B300 6300 7900 6600 �� 1900 GARFIELD AVE. 00000 20000 S 0 _ g 30000 3000 a -4200 � -43OD a 4300 4300 N 3600 w— __ YORKTOWN AVE; O _ 50000 13500 w F7100 22200 E^ 19300 K,1900 '_ - -ADAMS AVE. 70000q C by cS t `D 3600 -4700 N 4700 v 4200 0 3000 INDIANAPOL IS AVE. 1974 2 0 E 11b L 5400 Ei000 a 8000 6600r 5100 ATLANTA AVE. ■\ ■ _- - 22 - - - -- 3 Roo 9400 11600 -- HAMILTON AVE. CITY OF -- - "DO 2500 BANNING AVE. y ti FBI c Cy HIU14TINGTON BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 0 V4 12 3.p 1 MILE 0 22 @0 2e—_.� 2F40 3960 5M0 FEET JaN]5 r ! � j 3 1 Q 20 `-� 30 3Z 2f 23 E R ME 43 i9 S�f 2l 70 34 2 G HEIL AVE 47 i� 29 2s ►9 �� XER AVE �l 9 �� SS 37 26 29 ifµ Is �s it 20 21 20 SEATER AVE is S 37 ! ! 2 b -qt ' 20 so 7 2 G TNKki AVE l _ 3 ELLIS AVE il® 12- 33 4.0 z 3 � .� 3 WELD E 9, oua E fF��FN� 37 S f� CL -Ay YORKTO �3 rS9, / st A.� �5 -AVE �- A AVE z3 L ERT DELETION � � TAB EXHIBIT II IMM92 M4 ,&M, aum 2110 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-6581 W. E. FOSTER VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER November 25, 1975 Mr. Dale D. Dickey, Chairman Seacliff Homeowners' Park Committee 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Dickey: You have requested an overview of :our proposed sequencing of .future surface development in the Seacliff area; particularly with regard t6 the area that would be served by a southerly prolongation of Edwards Street from its present terminus. As we have discussed, we .currently foresee the 90 acres adjoining the loth andtllth fairways of HSCC as being the next development area. If this is the case, a logical development sequence would then be .northeasterly along the Bolsa Chica bluff line in three to five years, . and thence into the area served by Edwards Street (between the front nine and back nine of the golf course) in an additional three to five years. In considering-such a timetable,-=I am certain- that you are- aware-of _ its tenuous-nature; many things could occur_.to-accelerate_or— decelerate such a program, or to change the sequence-of development entirely. So we would strongly caution your group - or any other - not to place any specific reliance on such a generalized.planning sequence. It should also be noted that the timing of the proposed highway linkage between PCH and the Garfield/Edwards intersection is still uncertain; .-_ and in-fact --could-be required_as:-:a result-of the next development__area along Palm Avenue; extended.- -if such a -linkage-does occur--at_an -early- date;- it-would open-some- of the .area_.south -of Edwards to earlier development for specific land uses before the surrounding area is totally planned. I hope this information is helpful to you in spite of its necessary lack of specifics. Very truly yours, WEF/h GARFIELD AVENUE w w I N _..__ Lgy.N .. I i N4yf N o - u i y U CH CR. L p , 1 C - 9TE. 5 � oulET O B � • y CN 0pc,�' �� i �J Gj rt • P ?�Sw[lsul e s tc ehayse ....,...n,::ik -.....�. .:..,.•... ...-..� ._-.. ...•.n.... � ypNB9D ,� w: 9P / v�wr:Nc p� a�• •;s i z MORNING � 94d ���� o F ----------- -- ---Sig-"`. . EXHIBIT III EXHIBIT IV o HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL OISTRICT December 5, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey President, Sea Cliff Homeowners Association 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Dickey: This letter is in response to your request for information in regard to school planning and construction in your immediate area. The Huntington Beach City School District has worked diligently with the Huntington Beach Company-in "Master---Planning" future development as to the ultimate location of school sites in your area. Please find enclosed a tentative map in regard to school site locations. I This District presently has reached a leveling point in the relation to the tremendous growth we have experienced in the last ten years. This District presently has adequate space to accommodate all the students living in our community. If there is a decline- in.-school—.-- age-.popu_1 at.i-on---East-of-Beach==Bout-eva-r--d-and=-a-corr-es-pondi-n.g--grow_th--._�- in your-area,'there wi-1 l-be a-transportati on-=-.probl em -for--a period-of=-- time:- - j You should also know that this District has used all of the voted bond j money constructing the ten schools East of Beach Boulevard. Prior to construction of any schools , it will -be necessary to go back to the people for new bond money. If I can provide--any--further information, please -feel free to call . iSincerely, f C. C. Palmer Deputy Superintendent, Business CCP:Ic iEncl . cc: William Foster, Huntington Beach Company C. C. PALMER S. A. MOFFETT BETTY FUNKHOUSER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT - BUSINESS INSTRUCTION AND PERSONNEL 735 14TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 71 ■ HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF. 92648 ■ (714) 536-8851 I J ___ 320.311-1 , �ze«o env o%>«n• G. moo•r �`� 3.1 .71 ., �ow aS/w• ^�3.0/ern r •v^nM.av n;rq.. w., '`\ ~� ! / � 340 ua..a.« i LANO U3G. IN` r.NTOCiY \\✓// r T t Y E 1 • 'v .FiV t i'cG Cit. cr�t� _C?' 7:::>:•J C:+SF.VJ 11::aLV Y.:nX __.--'--_ GARFIELU - - AVENUE r- w w Ir i L4wN hq� �I fy t DR u CHURCH CR. 1 R, j W 5 j J NORTHERN I PARK, SITE s``fq s 0.6462•.gac i Cy ePyy �A, r s SOUTH;ERt._..... 'luOn " wiS! � PARK SITE, wET 0.437.1 gdc m� 40RNIN0 110E ' � O y�4 (..--L9./t_ 4,c00,1-_ m O C , O \T(/I io Cl \ EXHIBIT V - VI EXHIBIT V II November 6, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey, Chairman Park Committee Huntington Seacliff Homeowners' Assoc. 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear !•!r. Dickey: This will confirm our previous discussions in which I have expressed our Company's willingness to dedicate for, park purposes, and if requested, construct park improvements on the-three lots (56-58) on Evening Hill Drive. As you know, the subject lots are now in an escmi of sale, and this offer is conditioned upon a firm commitment by the city to accept the land and/or park improvements in partial satisfaction of our subdivision park fees before the date that the escrow is in condition to close. And in no event, does this offer extend past January 31 , 1976. This offer is also conditioned upon the city's agreement to value the dedicated land at its current market value in computing the amount of park- fees to-be offset,=-and -upon our Board .of Directors' concurrence with such a value. - As we- have discussed,--our Company will tn,� to cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the desires of the surrounding residents -and the- - various city agencies involved. But in view of the fact that we notified the Homeowners ' Association in April , 1974, of our plans for these lots , we hope that firm agreements for their use can be reached at an early date. Very-truly yours, - WEF/h EXHIBIT VIII JOHN D. LUSK & SON A MEMBER OF THE LUSK FAMILY OF COMPANIES 17550 Gillette Ave., Irvine Industrial Complex P.O. Box 2140, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 • (714) 557-8220 (213) 726-6841 November 13, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey Chairman Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association Park Committee 19341 Manner Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Lots 56, 57 & 58 Tract 7421 - Huntington Seacliff Dear Mr. Dickey: This letter will confirm our conversation of Thursday, November 6, 1975 relative to the request made by the Homeowners Association that considera- tion be given by John D. Lusk & Son to allowing ample time for your Ass ociation--to-reque.st_co.nside ration ofthe.City_of.Huntin-gton-Beachfor_the purchase of the subject lots for city park purposes. As you are aware, John D. Lusk & Son is-in the process of purchasing the subject .lots from- the Huntington Beach Company on which John D. Lusk & Son plans to construct three single family residences. It is our further understanding that the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association has-requested consideration-by-the City of Huntington-Beach for the purchase of said lots for public park purposes and that the request-will --- be considered-by the Parks and Recreation Commission- at their first meeting in December of 1975. Based on this knowledge, and in a spirit of cooperation with the City and the Homeowners Association, John D. Lusk & Son has agreed to withhold the start of construction of the .residences on the subject lots until January 15, 1976. We believe-this should enable the Association and the City to come to a determination relative to the use of these lots. We would emphasize that if the City determines to act favorably towards-the -pur-chase of the lots for public park purposes, an immediate escrow would have to be 'Mr. Dale Dickey Page Two November 13, 1975 opened providing for prompt purchase of the lots at a price yet to be determined. Should you have any questions relative to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, JOHN D. LUS& SON Donald D. Steffensen Vice President DDS/br cc: Mr. William Foster Huntington Beach Co, RECEiV t-- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C! INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION H TINGTON BEACH PLA�� ING [)EPA. UN _ To W. Dick Harlow, Planning Director & From Recreation & Parks Commission Planning Commission Subject Seacliff Park Acquisition Date December 11, 1975 The attached presentation by members of the Seacliff Homeowners Association was made to the Recreation and Parks Commission last evening in an appeal for their support in proposing a change in Huntington Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation. The referred to change would allow three residential lots on Manor Point and Evening Hill which totals 19,000+ sq. ft. and is presently in use as an oil drilling site to be converted to a mini-neighborhood or vestpocket park in the north-eastern section of Seacliff and preservation of another half acre oil line easement lot in the south-western section of Seacliff on Morningtide as a mini park. The Recreation and Parks Commission felt the planning staff and Planning Commission should review the master plan of parks in the "Old Town" and "Seacliff" areas as the H.B. City School District now projects fewer schools than were anticipated in 1969. In that the City plan ties neigh- borhood parks to elementary schools, the lack of schools could adversely affect the City park plan. Please act expeditiously on this matter as Lusk and Son wish to build homes on the north-eastern site should the City not choose to include the mini parks in "Seacliff" as an amendment to the Master Plan of Parks. Respectfully submitted, 614V Norm Worthy, Secr tary Recreation and Parks Commission NW:ac Attachment cc: Wm. Foster, H.B. Company D. D. Rowlands, City Administrator Recreation & Parks Commission i i i i I THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Recreation, Parks & Human Services Department POST OFFICE BOX 190 • HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 • TEL: (714) $36-3486 OFFICE: 2000 MAIN STREET +EI '1f g� g 0 NORM WORTHY Director y; 1 QJ TOM BUSHARD December 17 , 1975 Park Superintendent PLAIVNNG DEF.'. VIVIAN BORNS Superintendent Recreation&Human Services Mr. Don Steffenson, Vice President John D. Lusk and Son 17550 Gillette Avenue Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Steffenson : The Recreation and Parks Commission met recently and reviewed a request by the Seacliff Homeowners Association to obtain the three lots within the oil island at Manor Point ---- and Evening Hill which your Company plans to vacate as a mini- park to serve the immediate neighborhood. I have attached a transmittal memo from the Recreation and Parks Commission to Mr. Dick Harlow, Planning Director , asking that his staff and the Planning Commission review the park master plan needs in the Seacliff area primarily due to the projection of less elementary schools (and subsequently neighborhood parks) for present and future residential development . Would you please consider holding off your immediate plan to acquire the three lots within the oil island' for a short time to allow our planning staff to review the park needs of the Sea- cliff neighborhood? We feel ,we should know by early February whether or not the oil island lots will be recommended as a park site . Sincerely, I N m Wor y, Di ector Recreation, Par s and Human Services NW: ac cc : EFcreation & Parks Commission r. Dick Harlow, Planning Director Mr. Wm. A. Foster, Vice President, H.B . Company Mr. Dale Dickey, Seacliff Homeowners Association RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR f OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OPINION NO. 71-26 7 December 1971. SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Funds REQUESTED BY: Tom Severns , Development Coordinator PREPARED BY: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney Dan J . Whiteside , Deputy City Attorney QUESTION: May Park and Recreation Capital Outlay Funds be Used to Acquire Land for Central Park Phase III? ANSWER: Yes . DISCUSSION: Section 11546 Business and Professions Code (Subdivision Map Act) in essence permits a city by ordinance to require from a subdivider " . the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recrea- tional purposes . . . . " The statute further provides that the land so dedicated, and any fees. in lieu thereof, shall be used "only for the purpose .of providing park or recreational facili- ties to serve the subdivision, " and that the amount of the land or fees "shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future ,inhabitants of the subdivision . " - Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Sections 9741 et seq. provide for such dedications or for fees in lieu thereof . The problem here has arisen by reason of a desire to use such in-lieu funds for purchase of some parcels of land which will be used in Phase III of Huntington Central Park . i The question is more specifically stated: Can fees paid by developers in lieu of dedication of land for a park be used to acquire park land for the benefit of the city as a whole , or must any land so purchased with such funds be used only for the benefit of the inhabitants of the subdivision whose subdivider contributed the funds? f 36 ( �a I _ — • - S Office of the City Attorney 7 December 1971 Opinion No. 71-26 Page 2 The funds may be used to acquire park land for the benefit of the city as a whole . The Supreme Court of California so ruled unequivocally on that precise point in Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay , Inc . v. City of Walnut Creek et al: , Cal 3d 6333 94 Cal. Rptr. 630 ( 1971) . Thus , the City of Huntington Beach may use such in-lieu funds to purchase land for a portion of its Central Park. DON P . BONFA, Cit Att-6rney and DAN J. WHITESIDE, Deputy City Attorney DPB/DJW/cb NOTE: This opinion is explained in City Attorney Opinion No. 72-65 . I t 37 2 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY OPINION NO . 72-65 8 November 1972 � 1 SUBJECT-:, Subdivision Park Fees REQUESTED BY: City Administrator PREPARED BY: Don P. Bonfa, City Attorney Willis Mevis , Assistant City Attorney QUESTION 1 . May subdivision park fees be used for maintenance of parks? QUESTION 2 . May subdivision park fees be used to purchase other land for parks? ANSWER 1 . No. ANSWER 2 . Yes . DISCUSSION: The rules on the application of Business and Professions Code Section 11546 are set forth in Associated Home Builders V. City of Walnut Creek, 94 CR 630 (1971) . This case holds that the fees collected "may be used for im- provement of the land itself as well as for acquisition of land, but not for other purposes . " "We conclude that it is consistent with this purpose for fees to be utilized either for the purchase of park or recreational land or, if the city deems that there is sufficient land avail- able for the subdivision' s use , for improvement of the land itself as , for example, for drainage or landscaping, but not for purposes unrelated to the acquisition and improvement of land. " Therefore , such fees may not be used for maintenance of parks . As to the acquisition of other land, Business and Professions Code Section 11546 (c ) provides that "fees . . .are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. " aC� 53 • K Office of the City Attorney 8 November '1972 Opinion No. 72�-65 Page 2 However, while not directly involved in the suit, the court by footnotes, clearly indicated that the exclusive use by those who will occupy the subdivision is not re- quired. The court suggested that in this mobile age, land some distance from the subdivision would also be available to subdivision residents . Therefore, land not immediately adjacent or part of the subdivision may be acquired for park purposes as long as it is reasonably accessible. Substantially the same questions were raised and answered in City Attorney Opinion No. 72-16 and 71-26, citing Associated Home Builders v. Cit of Walnut Creek. Although City Attorney Opinion 71-26 concludes that' 'Associated Home 'Builders unequivocally ruled that the funds may be used to acquire parkland for the benefit of the city as a whole, we find in a close reading of this case that the question was discussed but not directly involved in the suit . 0 ' DON P. ONPA, City ney and S MEVIS, Assistant City Attorney DPB:WM:bc ' 54 . PLANNING GENERAL PROVISIONS S. 9740 ARTICLE 974 PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES (1238-8/66, 1596-8/70, 1798-1/73) S. 9740 PURPOSE. PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of fees is required by this article are in accordance with the recreational element of the Master Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. S. 9740.1 REQUIREMENTS. Every residential developer or person who-develops land for residential purposes shall dedicate a portion of such land, pay a fee, or a combination of both, at the option of the city as set forth in this article, for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities at the time and according to the standards and formula contained in this article.' This article shall not apply to alterations or additions to an existing dwelling unit, provided said alteration or addition does not create an additional dwelling unit. S. 9740.2 GENERAL STANDARD. It is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that five acres of property for each 1000 persons residing within this city be devoted to park and recreational purposes. S. 9741 STANDARDS AND FORMULA FOR DEDICATION OF LAND. Where a park or recre- ational facility has been designated in the city's Master Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreational Facilities, an element of the Master Plan of the city, and is to be located in whole or in part within the proposed development to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the development the developer shall dedicate land for a park. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following standards and formula: (a) A = 5.0 (D. F. x No. D. U.)* 1000 (b) Definitions of Terms: (1) A - the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the development. (2) D. F. - density factor obtained from Section 9741.1 as applicable to pro- posed development. (3) 5.0 - number of acres per 1000 persons. (4) No. D. U. - number of dwelling units proposed in the development. *When a proposed development contains dwelling units with different density factors, the formula shall be used for each such density factor and the results shall be totaled S. 9741.1 POPULATION DENSITY. For the purpose of this article, an annual review by the Planning Department of the latest available population and housing data for the City of Huntington Beach from federal, state, or city records `,for files shall be used in determining the density factor for the proposed development. I S. 9741.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS PLANNING The density factor for a type of residential unit shall be determined by dividing the number of persons residing in the City of Huntington Beach in such units by the number of such units. The number of dwelling units in a development shall be the number proposed for construc- tion. When the actual number of units to be constructed is unknown, it shall be assumed for the purposes of this article that the maximum number permissible by law will be constructed. The number of bedrooms in each unit of a proposed development shall be determined from the building plans filed, and shall include as bedrooms all rooms, however labeled on the plans, other than living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, and bathrooms, which are suitable for use as or are suitable for conversion to bedrooms. The number of bedrooms attributable to a unit shall include not only those areas so labeled on the plans, but may include as well any area in a dwelling unit which, because of its size, location, facilities, or relationship to other areas of the dwelling unit, is deemed divisible so as to create one or more additional bedrooms. S. 9741.2 FORMULA FOR FEES IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. (a) General Formula. If there is no park and recreational facility designated in the city' s Master Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools, and Recreational Facilities, to be located in whole or in part within the proposed development to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the development, or if the proposed development contains five (5) acres or less, the developer shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 9741 hereof, in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 9741.4 hereof, such fee to be used for a park which will serve the residents of the area being developed. (b) Use of Money. The money collected hereunder shall be used only for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the develop- ment by way of the purchase of necessary land, or if it is deemed by the city that there is sufficient parkland available for the development, for improving of such land for park and recreational purposes. S . 9741.3 CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING BOTH DEDICATION AND FEE. In developments of over five (5) acres, the developer shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu thereof in accordance with the following formula: (a) When only a portion of the land to be developed is proposed on the city's Master Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools, and Recreational Facilities, as the site for a park, such portion shall be dedicated for park purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 9741.4 hereof shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to Section 9741 hereof. (b) When a major part of the park or recreational site has already been acquired by the city and only a small portion of _and is needed from the development to complete the site, such remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of Section 9741.- h -eof, such fees to be used for the improvement of the existing ;park and recreational facility or for the improvement of other parks and recreational facilities serving -he development. .�,•- r q PLANNING GENERAL PROVISIONS S. 9741.4 S. 9741.4 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEracATION. (a) Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 9741 hereof, which amount is the median fair market value per acre of the land in all neighborhood public parks within the city if such land were not used for or zoned for park or recreational purposes. (b) Fair market value of the land in such neighborhood parks shall 'be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser by periodic appraisal of neighborhood park prop- erties within the city. Such appraisal shall exclude improvements. S. 9741.5 DEVELOPMENTS NOT WITHIN MASTER PLAN. Where the proposed development lies within an area not then within the city' s Master Plan but scheduled to be so included, the developer shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, in accordance with the adopted park and recreational principles and standards of the city' s Master Plan and in accordance with the provisions of this article, and the master plan shall be amended within 120 days following approval of the tentative tract map, to include said development and any previously unincluded park for which development there was a dedication of land and/or a payment of fees. S. 9741.6 DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE. Whether the city accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: (a) Recreational element of the city's Master Plan; (b) Topography, geology, access, and location of land in the development available for dedication; (c) Size and shape of the development and land available for dedication; (d) The feasibility of dedication; (e) Compatibility of dedication with the city's Master `Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreational Facilities; and (f) Availability of previously acquired park property. The determination of the Planning Commission as to whether land shall be dedicated, or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive. S. 9741.7 CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. No credit shall be given for private open space in a development. S. 9741.8 PROCEDURE. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning M Director shall determine pursuant hereto the amount of land to be i dedicated and/or fees to be paid by the developer. S. 9741.9 COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT. At the time of approval of the develop- ment, any developer raking a dedication or contribution, for a, park to be constructed or improved in the future, shall be advised of the date upon which such construction or improvement is expected to begin. S. 9741.10 C?ANEM PROVISIONS PLANNING S. 9741.10 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. The provisions of t his. article shall not apply to any industrial development. S. 9742 SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this article, or any future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remain- ing portions of this article, or any future amendments or additions hereto. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares that it would have adopted this article and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion or any future amendments-•or additions thereto, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, portions or any future amendments or additions thereto be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Y r� .•c�, Y1 5 -.}. r �.2v '' t. •ft'�',.r� �. sC,'„Y".w{�.uae`�`ra dy,� ..L "J: r _f.4: c �_R v ���`x ,s a k ;, y_� a�`'.,i•^ fit' .,,t ,3:ry C,.�,a ..y ,,�i,...�Ly.{.J`.tSX �,i,;_,,,rf-3,,�^ "Ki•+,�•�"yR+`•r�t��.L� 5r.:,,k,,�,. #8`C-tom �s.d�{X•5. �,5�^j�yy,�'y �i')1'.'y^��'"rr�4, 'hr /r p` c�RC ��' '!' ° - ''�•'. .'F:. ''�.(' �,^"^?,Y �"f.:! �`".'.r�l'.i.`3. "�i3'°" 1.+/'a. .. ,•1,; a`. Ly `3 L'F .� }:: f°y^k r 7'"''�, ,�„E : a24 Y 66475 GOVERNMENT CODE is (i)) The ordinance in ARTICLE 3. DEDICATIONS - a subdivision, to be dee Sec. (e) The land, fees, o 66475. Public easements, providing park or rec. 66475.1 Bicycle paths. (d) The legislative 66476. Waiver of direct access rights. inent, and the park an i 66477. Park and recreational purposes. ciples and standards co 66477.1 Acceptance or rejection of offers of dedication. (e) The amount and I 66477.2 Offer of dedication; continuation after rejection; termination. 4 bear a reasonable rela 66477.3 Time of-passing title. the future inhabitants 66478. School purposes. (f) The city or count, is !article 3 foss added by Stats.1974, C. 1536, p. —, § 4, operative March 1, facilities will begin. 1975. _. (g) Only the payme ' (50)parcels or less. C § 66475. Public eaesments (b) Subdivisions co There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement of dedication or irrevoca- purposes shall be exe ble offer of dedication of real property within the subdivision for streets, alleys, _ ever, that a condition includingaccess rights and abutter's rights, drainage, y ` g g g public utility easements and building permit is re other public easements. Such irrevocable offers may be terminated as provided in tures on one or more subdivisions (e) and (d)of Section 66477.2. be paid by the ovine (Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. —L, § 4, operative March 1, 1975. permit. Derivation: Bus. & Prof.Code former Sta s.1937, c. 670, P. 1864, § 2. Land or fees requi section 11535, added by Sta6.1943, c. 128, p. Stats.1941, c. 537, P. 1857, § 1. local public agency 867, ¢ 1, amended by Stats.1943, c. 668, p. Law Review Commentaries 2423, § 1; Stats.1947, c. 259, p. 822, § 1;. wide level and to the Stats.1955, c. 1013, p. 1924. § 3; Stats.1957, Forced_dedications 19 a condition a sub- c. 1039, p. 2273, § 1• Stats.1959, c. 306, p, division approval. (1971) 9 San Diego I� if SUCK agency elect Rev. 112. 2215, § 2• Stats.1961, c. 2060, p. 4287. § 1; land or funds shall a, Stats.1963, c. 1551. P. 3136, § 1• Stats.1965, Library references _ herein. _ c. 1180, p. 2981, § 7; Stats.1967, c. 727. P. Interest a36. 2098. § 3• Stats.1967, c. 856, p. 2293, 1; Municipal Corporations �43. § !In the event park i Stats.1968, c. 269 p. 601, ¢ 2; Stats.1968, c. C.S.S. Interest § 35. r E 331, p. 718, § 4; gtats.1968, c. 520, p. 1164, § C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83, 84. agency other than a t 4; Stats.1970, c. 500, p. 983, § 1; Stats.1971, cated or fees to be C. 358, P. 716, § 1: Stata.1971, c. 1446. P. u 2854, §5; Stats.1972, c. 706. p. 1287, §2. jurisdiction and such § 66475.1 paths Bicycle The provisions of y they apply to condo Whenever a subdivider is required pursuant to Section 66475 to dedicate roadways an existing apartm to the public, he may also be required to dedicate such additional land as may dwelling units are necessary and feasible to provide bicycle paths for the use and safety of the resi- taming less than fi dents of the subdivision, if the subdivision, as shown on the final map thereof, 000 square feet of g contains 200 or more parcels. •(Added by Stats_197 (Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. —, § 4, operative March 1, 1975.) 1974, c 1537, p_— Derivation: Pub.Res.C. former section x Section 10.7 of S 5078.9, added by Stats.1971, c. 1361, p. 2681, vided: "It is the int § 1. 7 if this bill and A ' (Stats.1974, e- 1537] - § 66476. Waiver of direct access rights be 66477 of thecti Gove There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement that dedications or of- is chaptered after I+ that Section 66477 of fern of dedication of streets include a waiver of direct access rights to any such as amended by Sect street from any property shown on a final or parcel map as abutting thereon and - No. 687 be further tive date of this act if the dedication is accepted, any such waiver sball become effective in accordance .¢ in section 4.7 of this with its provisions. changes in Section bill. Therefore, Sec (Added by Stats.1974, c. 1536, p. —, § 4, operative March 1, 1975.) become operative o Derivation: Bus. & Prof.Code sembly Bill No. 687 former Stats.�937, c. 670, p. 1868, § I3. become effective, section 11590, added by Stats.1943, c. 128, p. Stats.1941, c. 537, p. 1858, § 2. i 872. ¢ 1, amended by Stats.1953, c. 564, p. - -_ - 66477, and 1818, this bill ¢ 1• Stats.1957, c. 1606, p. 2954, 1; sem7 § bly Bill No. 6S Stats.1965, c. 1738, p. 3894, ¢ 1. -" the o this ecdateEha:_ _ the a added by S f § 66477. Park and recreational purposes not become operati Section 3 of Stats The legislative body o a cr y or county may by ordinance require the dedication = •'It is the intent of -of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for par], or bill and senate B;1 u approval 1536] are both chap recreational purposes as a condition to the a rroval of a final subdivision map or rive on or before parcel map,provided that: tBl effect e March 1. 19751 iv (a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the filing of 11546 of the Busin cha the tentative map of the subdivision or parcel map. _ and thts bill is 142 1�.3c-^�-a-�'S'��„''' `w� '' s ,� �'i �.;cam �„�,3�F ,s•-'-'"`a,T-�''�r ���'�-�•�r �`' v:?u"'k'�'-x���"'� ,�' t-� Cz' �.e• .L'�a x' t� ' �' -`3 'y"'.' -s. ?ice- '7'f"- %`i'-- -.1ss h, s,."+`- ,. ! �_•C `rlx ''f". .-••„y; "K - �3`+, & � -'fir- -„ .. ^' x_ ..�„> Riarc w;, ',�•`�'`';�,,.`#3t�-5•,'�7� y .s' �,-r- , ...,..,�':ys, a+' �' .h•- .ram' rsT.. ..�„s�k`t'. GOVERNMENT CODE § 66477 (b) The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision, to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof.. (c) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. k.Ifi (d) The legislative body has adopted a -eff9oraa Plan a recreational ele ' ment, and the pa.rl; and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite prin- 6`} clples and standards contained therein _ (e) The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shalll miaation rbear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by iS the future inhabitants of the subdivision.. (f) The city or county must specify when development of the park or recreational elite March 1, facilities will begin. (9) Only the payment o1 fees may be required in subdivisions contain! lift ; (50)parcels or less (h) u 'visions containing less than five (5) parcels and not used for residential ication or irrevoca- Purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; provided how- Ifor streets, alleys, - ever, that a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a iiiry ea_=ements and building permit is requested for construction_of a residential structure or .strue- I ` tires on one or more of the 9ted as provided in parcels within four years the fee may be required to - I :; be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such �t{ a permit- Land or fees required under this section shall be conveyed or aid directl to the 2- 1�l y P y } 1SsiI, 5 L local public agency which provides park and recreational services on a community- ,ari>s wide level and to the area within which the proposed development will be located, s a condition to sub- P Po P 9,) 9 San Diego L. if such agency elects to accept.the land or fee. The local agency accepting such `t ' Iand or funds shall develop the land or use the funds in the manner provided ` herein } . ons pia In the event park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public 1q srporations 55 83, 84. �_� agency other than a city or a county, the amount and location of land to be deli- i cated or fees to be paid shall be jointly determined by the city or county having. jurisd:ction and such p;;blic agency. The provisions of this section do not apply to industrial subdivisions; nor do 1 they apply to condominium projects which consist of the subdivision of airspace in r:..+. to dedicate roadways an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new onsl land as may be dwelling units are added, nor do they apply to parcel maps.for a subdivision con- a .r td safety of the rest- twining less than five (5) parcels for a shopping center containing more than 300, e final map thereof, 000 square feet of gross leaseable area and no residential development or uses. u -(Added by Stats.1974,c_ 1536,p.-,§4,operative March 1,1975. Amended by Stat& ' 13 a) 1974, a 1537, p. -. ¢ 2.)-. . Section 10.7 0[ Stats.1974 c. 1536, pro- No. 977, that Section 11546 of the Business vided- "It is the intent of the Legislature, and Professions Code, as repealed and If this bill and Assembly Bill No. 687 reenacted as Section 66477 of the Govern- } ?' [Stats.1974, c. 1537] are both chaptered and ment Code by Section 4 of Senate Bill No. become effective, both bills amend Section 977, be further amended on the effective z 66477 of the Government Code, and this bill date of this act in the form set forth in Is chaptered after Assembly Bill No. 687, Section 2 of this act- to incorporate the tat dedications or of- b - ( i that Section 66477 of the Government Code, changes in Section 11546 proposed by this rights t0 any such as amended by Section 2 of Assembly Bill bill . Therefore, if this bill and Senate Bill_ i ' a 8botring thereon and _ No. 687 be further amended on the opera- No. 977 are both chaptered and become ef- i=3 tive date of this act in the form set forth fective on or before January 1, 1975, and x,y. �fecdve in accordance in Section 4.7 of this act to incorporate the Senate Bill No. 977 is chaptered before this a 'sue ?: changes in Section 66477 proposed by this bill and repeals Section 11546. Section 2 of bill. Therefore. Section 4.7 of this act shall this act shall become operative on the ef- 1975-) become operative only if this bill and As- fective date of this act and Section 1 of �. sembly Bill No. 687 are both chaptered and this act shall not become operative.,' �. 1353, 5 13. become effective, both bills amend Section .. Derivation: Bus. 6c Prof.C. former sec- t 1L58, 12. ti 66477, and this bill is chaptered after As tion 11546, added by Stats.1965, c. 1809, p. sembly Bill No. 687, in which case Section 4183, 5 2, amended by Stats.1972, c. 1049, p. i 4.7 of this act shall become operative on 1929 5 1: Stats.1972, c. 1387. D- 2879..5 1; the operative date of this act and Section Stata.1972, c. 1388, p. 2884, 5 2. i 66477 as added by Section 4 of this act shall 1 not become operative." Law Review Commentaries Section 3 of Stats.1974, c. 1537, provided: Background and general effect of 1965 ure the de;hcation "It is the intent of the Le�lature, if this addition to Bus. & E:of.C. 5 11546. Rev. of - bill and Senate Bill No. 977 (Stats.1974, c. 1965 Code Leg. (ConLEduc. of Bar, 1965) * �' I of both, for park or 1536) are both chaptered and become effec- page 17. ' 11 subdivision map or tive on or before January 1, 1975 [Senate Dedication of parks: legislative review. -a. Bill No. 977, effective Jan. 1, 1975, opera- (1973) 4 Pacific L.J. 578. tive March 1, 1975] both bills affect Section Forced dedications: Reqquirement that - i0 the filing Of 11546 of the Business and Professions Code, applicant dedicate portion of land to publie prior and this bill is chaptered after Senate Bill use as condition to granting of zoning vari- 143 1 630 ` 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Cal.sd e33 484 P.2d 606 2. Municipal Corporations C=43 It Statute providing that land or fees ex � 4 Ca1.3d fi33 P g - �E' ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS OF the acted as condition to approval of subditt GREATER EAST BAY, INCORPORAT- Sion map are to be used only for the pur. ` ED, Plaintiff and Appellant, pose of providing park or recreational f;. V. cilities to serve the subdivision does not n. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK et al., quire that such facilities ma • be used 1 q � only t Defendants and Respondents. by the residents of the subdivision, I,ut I.) S. F.22787. only that any such fees may not be divert- ! 1-,uprente Court of California, ed to any purpose other than for park ur 1 i In Bank. recreational facilities which will be ataila. (, ble for use by those residents. West, f April 26, 1971. Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, § I1546(c)• t Appeal from judgment of the Superior r Court, Contra Costa County, Richard E. 3• Municipal Corporations «43 i I' Arnason, J., sustaining constitutionality of Constitutionality of requirement tha; statute authorizing cities and counties to subdivider dedicate land or pay fees for " require dedication of land or payment of park or recreational purposes as conditu,;, } ' ` fees as condition to approval of subdivision to approval of subdivision map is not de " map, and of city ordinance and resolutions pendent upon exclusive use of facilities 1,•, thereunder. The Supreme Court, Mosk, J., those who will occupy the subdit•istu;I s�o ' held that the statute is constitutional, de- West's Ann.Bus. & Prof,Code, § 11546. spite contentions, inter alia, that it violates =' `= equal protection and due process in that it 4. Municipal Corporations 0-43 deprives subdivider of his property without Unique problem with development ,; 7 r° just compensation, and that ordinance and stibdiviston in that it reduces the supply resolutions were also valid, despite conten- open land while increasing the deman.! L a t£ tions, inter alia, that they contained indefi- therefor, as well as special benefits to th, g 44.'` nite and arbitrary standards. residents of the subdivision, warrant Affirmed. tinction between park and recreational is `.. cilities, as to which subdivider may be to Opinion, 11 Cal.App.3d 1129, 90 Cal. uired to make contribution of land o: r Rptr. 663, vacated. gees, and other governmental services n, cessitated by the entry of new resident. 4, West's Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11546. I. Constitutional Law 0-21 I, 278(1) i t Municipal Corporations C:-43 5. Taxation 0-47(1) In face of constitutional challenge on tb due process and equal protection grounds, Impermissible double taxation occur+ - statutory requirement that subdivider dedi- only when two taxes of the same chararn: « rate land or pay fees in lieu thereof for are imposed `on the same property, for th, i„ park or recreational purposes as condition same purpose, by the same taxing author: i, of approval of subdivision map can be jus- ty, within the same jurisdiction during ti:< tified on basis of general public need for same taring period. 4 L recreational facilities caused by present 6. Taxation C-47(1) 't and future subdivisions; it need not be Requirement that subdivider dedirat• l•,' shown that the need for additional park land or pay fees for park and recreation:: % :h and recreational facilities is attributable to purposes is not double taxation on thc�:• the increase in population stimulated by'the that residents of subdivision not only pa- new subdivision alone. West's Ann.Bus. & initial cost of park but also assume prole: Prof.Code, § 11546; West's Ann.Const. ty taxes to be used for its developmentAI + art. 28, § 1 et seq. maintenance. •i `4b oo t• t 4 Ca1.3d 633 ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 631 >ns a43 4 Cal.3d 633 Cite as,Sulu.,94 Ca1.1?vtr.rao 7. Municipal Corporations G=43 11. Municipal Corporations 0-43 at ]and or fees ex- Relative]), small land use in apartment Ordinance requiring subdivider to ded- pproval of subdivi- construction warrants distinction between icate land or pay fee in lieu thereof for .d only for the pur- subdivider, who is required to contribute park or recreational purposes was not un- °r recreational fa- land or fees for-park and recreational pur- constitutioriall arbitrary in the imposition li vi )' )' P sion does not re- poses, and apartment builder who is not, of fees on population basis, though results ema)' be used only though both developments may generate might be that developer of valuable high- subdivision, but the same population. density land would be required to pay nay f7Ot be divert- higher fee, since persons occupying hous- than for park or 8. Constitutional Law 0-63 IO 211, 278 I ich ' O ing in high-density area may be expected will be availa_ Municipal Corporations 0-43 to make more use of public recreational fa- 'esidents West's Within statute_ requiring subdivider to cilities than persons with larger private 11546(c), dedicate land or pay fees for park and rec- yards. reational purposes, subdivision providing 43 Corporations that crty 12. Municipal orations CAI I i or county must specify when de- p p (1) .equirement that Velopment of the facilities will begin is not Ordinance requiring subdivider to ded- >r pay fees for unconstitutional on theory that it is arbi- icate land or pay fees in lieu thereof for ses as condition trary delegation of power to local govern- Park or recreational purposes was not un- map is not de- mental body and denial of due process and constitutionally indefinite in setting fees on of.facilities b equal protection. West's Ann.Bus. & Prof. basis of fair market value of land which to y subdivision. Code, § 11546(f). would otherwise be dedicated. } ' 11546. 13. Municipal Corporations 0-43 i.,i 9. Constitutional Law 0-208(3) With respect to ordinance requiring 3. Municipal Corporations 0-43 subdividers to dedicate land or pay fees in i 'veloprnent of Within statute requiring subdivider to lieu thereof for park or recreational pur- dedicate land or pay fees for ark and rec- the supply of P ) P poses, resolution providing that dedication the demand reational purposes, subdivision providing would be required if park designated on 'nefits to the that only payment of fees may be required master plan is incorporated within subdivi- warrant for subdivision containing 50 parcels or sion and if slope, topography and y reat dis- e, to ra less does not unconstitutionally discrimi- P s t p } n geology i }tonal fa_ of the site as well as its surroundings are Hate against owners who subdivide into may be fe- g suitable for intended use of park provided ' more than 50 parcels, since value of land of land or constitutionally sufficient criteria for de- services ne- taken or amount of fee exacted are fixed termining whether dedication or fee should residents. t1 accordance with the same population be required. 11546. density formula. West's Ann.Bus. & 1'rof.Code, § 11546(g). 14. Municipal Corporations 0-43 b; Under statute authorizing cities and 10. Constitutional Law 0-211,278(i) counties to require subdivider to dedicate c haracter occurs Municipal Corporations 0-43 land or pay fees in lieu thereof for park or c ` i', for the Statute authorizing cities and counties recreational purposes as condition to ap- io require dedication of land or payment of proval of subdivision map, absence of re- '- ' i- wring ng the fu'es in lieu thereof for park or recreation- quirement that city reduce dedication or - al purposes as condition to approval of fee requirement in event that subdivider ',O division maps is constitutional, notwith- has voluntarily provided recreational areas standing contentions inter alia, that it vio- is valid in light of policy of encouraging t dedicate fates equal protection and due process in adoption of long-range master plans for ; eational that it deprives subdivider of his property recreational needs of the community. theory Without just compensation and that parks West's Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11546(d). � ily'pay and recreational facilities are not so direct- 15. Municipal Corporations f-lll(I) groper ly related to health and safety as to war- Ordinance providing subdivider who is nt and rant `` dedication requirement. West's Ann. required to dedicate land or pay fee for w 11us. g Prof.Code, § 11546. park or recreational purposes shall be giv- 63 2 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 CaUd 633 ; en credit for voluntarily provided recrea- Daniel CurtinJr., Cit • Atty., for 4 C ,. . Y P J. 1 ) ) , de. tional areas if such facilities satisfy the fendants and respondents. of > principles and standards in the master plan ``f. Ex elle J. Younger, Atty. Ge.n.,-Sanford of. set forth sufficiently defined standard. N. Gruskin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denis U 16. Municipal Corporations C�z43 Smaage, Deputy Atty. Gen., William A Under statute authorizing cit • or of I r g ) Hirst, City Atty., of Pleasanton, John �� of 1 county to require subdivider to dedicate Lewis, City Atty. of Livermore, Miller, to s land or pay fees in lieu thereof, fees may Groezinger, Pettit & Evers, San Francisco, be used for improvement of the land itself, and Robert A. Thompson as amici curial gcni ;., as well as for acquisition of land, but not on behalf of defendants and respondents jjjC17 �. for other purposes. West's Ann.Bus. & yz. Prof.Code, § 11546. :ire �MOSK, justice, and 17. Municipal Corporations 0-43 A.- City's general plan indicating location Section 11346 of the Business and Pro. of various types of parks and recreational fessions Code authorizes the governing bear facilities and setting forth general prince- body of a city or county to require that it subdivider must as a condition to the a> tilepies under which land is acquired and de- I futu veloped, amount of land required for city's proval of a subdivision map, dedicate land population and different types of parks, or pay fees in lieu thereof for park or rec. { `t.•' �•�=" minimum areas, and various facilities reational purposes. In this class action for whc; ...,.tom` - lion, ®� which each type of park should contain declaratory and injunctive relief, Associat- Vill A s- satisfied statutory requirement for adop- ed Home Builders of the Greater Fast f' • tton of general plan as prerequisite to re Bay, Incorporated (hereinafter called As- reyu quiring subdividers to dedicate land or pay sociated) i challenges the constitutionali- 71,0) `= t of section 11546 as well as legislation fees for park or recreational purposes. )' g West's Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, § 11546(d). passed by the City of Walnut Creek to iin- ? tg , plement the section. It is also asserted apply 18. Municipal Corporations 0-43 �s that the city's enactments do not compl} Sc Within statute authorizing cities and with the requirements set forth in the sec. ;11nn tC` counties to require dedication of land or tton. The trial court found in favor of the ;ufr.i • payment of fees for park or recreational cit and Associated appeals from the ensu- Y PP Mona a purposes as condition to approval of subdi- ing judgment. videt vision map, requirement that "ordinance" include definite standards for determining Section 11546 of the Business and Pro- Indic % proportion of subdivision to be dedicate prof d fessions Code provides: or amount of fee was satisfied by. resole- "The governing body of a city or count}. c:�tec may= by ordinance require the dedication of tion containing such standards, in absence rat of proof that resolution was not passed in land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, l> t} the. same manner and with the statutory or a combination of both; for park or rec- 1i formality required ill.the enactment of an reational purposes as a condition to the ap- ratio ordinance. West's Ann.Bus. & Prof.Code, proval of a final subdivision map, provided recre § 11546(b). that: 1,00G J.�(a) The ordinance has been in effect _U 2. for a period of 30 days prior to the filing Ring, Turner & Ring, and Harold H. of the tenatative map of the subdivision. Turner, Walnut Creek, for plaintiff and "(b) The ordinance includes definitt i, appellant. standards for determining the proportion th ,t 1. Associated is a nonprofit corporation or- they intend to subdivide into four or more ganized for the purpose of promoting .the lots under the Subdivision D1ap Act. ' home building industry. Some of the a (Bus. & Prof.Code, ✓; 11500 et seq.) members own -%Falnut Creek land which tl� 1 - -q� a ` s""ar � i - • �. � -i. � � •,' - � 3. t."i � 'ats " .� � ,r*: �.3'� +"fir r.��+r '}.�, 4' . s, A. . '} a '}%,. s i< sir �.<"`? •' '`.F• >'-92a' ''ryy r `�`, i F 't .,. `' .e� ` 'C,3" {y r.-l3 r l{. �u r •+,,. ...'� �.°",n,�' 4 kC r h � V- •k,'t;T{ }x-"r ,.� .t � r k ,. t '=- 55•':ri t LL, w, i. ? >74i» " 5,•�. -I •4A•,.-Y'c ''.,r S.t;�'q" ;.+,i{,. h l�, µ r.3-'r"' - .•`�i.x". - � i ... �. -,rr s��; ,D -.T ; .+;, t` y �-)*f."`K- ',.c . yam,. r• DC is t '`,'�. 3 w. j _ a H, t CaL3d 633 ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 633 4 Ca1.3d 637 Cite as,Snli.,tl4 Cal.liptr.ES,3o l; ty., for de- of a subdivision to be dedicated and the is designated on the master plan and the 3 amount of any fee to he paid in lieu there- subdivision is within three-fourths of a .= n:, Sanford of. mile radius of a park or a proposed park,2 - 11'Denis D. "(c) The land, fees, • or combination or the dedication of land is not feasible, William A. [hereof are to be used only for the purpose the subdivider must pay a fee equal to the John A. of providing park or recreational facilities value of the land which he "would have '}, Dre, Miller, i to serve the subdivision. been required to dedicate under the ., t Francisco, "(d) The legislative body has adopted a formula.-*; s. mici curiae general tan containin a recreational ell,- t` P g _LSection 11546 and the city's ordinance �a7 -espondents• ment, and the park and recreation facilities are designed to maintain and preserve open . are in accordance with definite principles p {=' 1 P space for the recreational use of the resi- t 6 s and standards contained therein. dents of new subdivisions. The adoption (e The amount and location of land to of a , general plan (subd. (d)) avoids the ss and Pro- be dedicated or the fees to be p compelling governing ; paid shall pitfall of com ellin exactions from subdi- i_< bear a reasonable relationship to the use of eiders of land which may be inadequate in e't' Iuire that a the park and recreational facilities by the size or unsuitable in location or topography i to the ap- 4 ` future inhabitants of the subdivision. for the facilities necessary to serve the edicate land .,. ;ark or rec- ••(f) The city or county must specify new residents. Under the legislativeV. action for ' %%,hen development of the park or recrea- scheme, the park must be in sufficient :f, Associat tional facilities will begin. proximity to the subdivision which contrib- { s r reater East utes land to serve_ the future residents. (# ) Only the payment of fees may be Thus subdividers, providing land or its called As- required in subdivisions containing fifty T, istitutionali- ' (SO) parcels or less. monetary" equivalent, afford the means for .': a re u i the communty to acquire parcel of suffi- s legislation g P :reek to im- a The provisions of this section do not clent size and appropriate character, lo- Iso asserted apply to industrial subdivisions." Gated near each subdivision which makes a E` not comply Section 10-1.516 of the Walnut Creek contribution, to serve the general recrea- : tional needs of the ne,.v residents. ' i in the sec- -%inicipal Code, which will be discussed favor of the infra, refers to a general park and recrea- if a subdivision does not contain land s'. im the ensu- tional plan adopted by the city. It pro- designated on the master plan as a recrea- Y ~'ides that if a park or recreational facility tion area, the subdivider pays a fee which I' ss and Pro indicated on the general plan falls within a is to be used for providing park or recrea- , proposed subdivision the land must be dedi- tional facilities to serve the subdivision. Gated for park use by the subdivider in a One purpose of requiring payment of a fee t.: ty or county - ratio set forth in a resolution determined in lien of dedication is to avoid g ledication of a ( ) penalizing thereof, " 1,3, the type of residence built and the num- the subdivider who owns land containing l,cr of future occupants. Pursuant to the an area designated as park land on the park or rec- ratio, two and one-half acres of park or master plan. It would, of course, be pat- rn to the ap- recreation land must be provided for each ently unfair and perhaps discriminatory to ap; Provided 1,000 new residents. If, however, no park require such a property owner to dedicate en in effect 2. *• .15stN•iated r"ontends that the city is not diners, :riot La. no rl,ferrnee tr, the es- to the filing liritited in expending the in-lieu fee to Imr- penditures of fees provided by sulxlividers subdivision. r•liase or iniprut'e a park Avithin threo- in lieu of dedication. As to the latter fourths of :t mile radins from the sulmlivi- subject. section 11t-1a16 govi-rus. ies definite lion iviiich provides t1w fee. Ilonever. e proportion } till, ordinanee so providi:s. The city's 3. The regnirl,nu•nt of dedir:atiim is qualifiod 1 standard for n long;-ran e park pLin doe., os to subdivisions containing 541 parcels iudicatc that n conunnnity park (u"liiell or less. In order• to vonildy with sub- t ur or more sert•es it larger area than a neighborhood division (g) of st.•tion 11546 only the ,,lap Att bark) should Is•within n nolius of one aml payinent of fees niay erl In, ruirtyl in sub- sea') a half miles from the honks served. I1nt divisions of such sire. 1 this is n general st;indard for nll rt:.i- l� u 94 Cal.Rptr—401h � GGG i f ~ 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Ca1.3d 637 634 4 C y.. land, while exacting no contribution from access into the subdivision. The subdivi_ The a subdivider in precisely the same position der insisted that he could be compelled to rea except for the fortuitous circumstance that dedicate land only for streets within the COT E . his land does not contain an area which subdivision to expedite the traffic flOW the has been designated as park land on the therein and that no dedication could be re- and • plan. quired for additions to existing streets and the T` highways. "Ooreciver, he asserted, the city sce, Ir had b-en contemplating condemnin Constitutionality of Section 11546 P g g the wet 4 property for the.purposes indicated in any 3f Sta Associated's primary contention is that event, the benefit to the lot owners in the '� cy S section 11546 violates the equal protection compared I P tract .would be relatively small con ared to Intl! f and due process clauses of the federal and the benefit to the city at large, and the to e state Constitutions in that it deprives a dedication requirement amounted, there- subdivider of his property .without just fore, to the exercise of the power of emi- T mcr compensation. ft is asserted that the state nent domain under the guise of subdivision ha _ is avoiding the obligation of compensation map proceedings. P by the device of requiring the subdivider to it'g \-1�'e held that the city was not acting it, ope dedicate ]and or pay a fee for park or rec- eminent domain but, rather, that a subdivi_ {ill reatuonal purposes, that such contributions der who was seeking to acquire the advan- hav are used to pay for public facilities en tagcs of subdivision had the dirty to comph' panjoycd by all citizens of the city and only with reasonable conditions for dedication Fe incidentally by subdivision residents, -and so as to conform to the welfare of the gut 19t e= that all taxpayers should share in the cost owners and the general public. We held, of the �F= of these public facilities. Thus, ,t is as- further, that the conditions were ,iot im- f` i serted, the future residents of the subdivi- proper because their fulfillment world ire,- scri fort ;. �.� ,, t s,on, who %vill ultimately bear the burden dental benefit the city as a whole or bc- �� imposed on the subdivider, will be require(] T cause future as .well as immediate needs to pa} for recreational facilities the need +ere taken into consideration and that pu- tem for .which stems not from the (le.elopment ed , + tcntiai as well as present population factors r t' of any one subdivision but from the needs affecting the neighborhood could be copop n- of the community as a whole. crer. _ sidend in formulating the conditions im- .A In order to avoid these con w stiti- posed upon the subdivider. We do not hi tional pitfalls, claims Associated, a dedica- find in Ayres support for the principle +whi "r tion requirement is justified only if it can urged by Associated that a dedication re- he shown that the need for additional park gnirernent may be upheld only if the par- 4. and recreational facilities is attributable to ticular subdivision creates the need for S the increase in population stimulated by the dedication. „ k: new subdivision alone and the validity of even if it .were not for the authority of 1 �S8 the1sect]on may 'not be upheld upon the 1 t -cs .we would have no doubt that section ..;. theory that all subdivisions to be built un 1154(i can be justified on the basis of a t the future will create the need for such fa- general public need for recreational facil,- lcilities• ties caused by ,present and future subdit In Avres v. City Council of City of Los lions. The elimination of open space lu ., ,. Angeles (1949) 34 Card 31, 207 P.2d 1, California is a melancholy aspect of the r T .we rejected similar arguments. In that unprecedented population increase which it > case, a city imposed upon a subdivider cer- has characterized our state in the last fc� tain conditions for the development of a decades. -Manifestly governmental entitic r residential tract, including a requirement have the responsibility to provide park annl ' that he dedicate a strip of land abutting; a recreation land to accommodate this hnma, t major thoraughfare bordering one side of expansion despite the inexorable decrcas, + 4.zi the subdiya=.ion but from which there was no of open space available to fulfill such need t �^ —n � �� �G ��« p �'. s + �• n -_5 �»�,�' '�. .�•3 u5• �c��� a.- ,F '`'�^ - .r'�,•. a ''_ F` 1'.�' " - '{. ' - ? i .z-^,+_�*.aSa`;{"� '' yy„ rr* ;'•G .:wwns=: �''� s`Ps . ,. _ -at-y Trt,$w••..., ram' yC ..'� "z'..,t +.-.r-.-L ,-..� '"- m.E�" ,�'C.�.t'°`3b�,: ,(y,f g•.�ra�i` yr'°'f f k t - P�`9ti.SrF1C It>'zs�.> F H7 '�. k < ��' ,sµ"Y.A.! •1�.�'!TY �'`� 'ksr.��"�S S mil. ��. lS :,. ,.sy ss`.�rr� "`= �Szs n" '�.. '' k v d `�c,h _}1 k -•` gyp "sy''C} "a.. ti) s,^ �vr,*. .5 �.f"� i5. f p" >.: +b. r si.`•c.- s ��'�`- �, •z �.- �.?ai,t�Y, -`ix vh.- s t a >r f�•- - t � t � ,a, 3•..= i x '�� J -� �.. i 'S:M1 � va''. `A L r.. Yrt. .y' C-� f i'.. .'L Xp X n µt1v,1�r•r t 'R 1 d ILC ? `.M 'A 3 t f _ t -#. "s '•r a:. x s:: .c ,�}h ;r Ue'x -r .a "' r� a^F i'�'�`'t e = di 'r.'�Ya � {}a �...t-,wM1..Yrr.{;�s a ,. r�. � .s;�t !•ty. ry "�." 3� "� j." "r• r ;''4� �t »+ j.. -F,Y' S} d +�, ,•4 F �' +! y. .t e� .,�.¢ �_, •f- 3r ' '. ..a.'„ rF' -r'„ -.t.:., � 7 X` -' `.`.r r � J'S: A y+.®+�..�- i w. s.�'�` ', '�*i".�- ;.:+�tS''i,,a', '`•`�+..c€"A" c 1 '.� 'L- +� �: �.� &( + .�. , n,.x r e.a'. F a*x ai-"r.+,.' ,' k:.r '+.c•k4'.t ,;:-x',- �' A" -6.K,ez; ,'3s� ='' �. kk c y" Q x .+..4 ✓ a d fio+- r `2`�* �- .r r'Yki+4.,+ ' iY�"� - - t t i37 ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 635 4 Cal.3d 640 Cite as,Sup.,fi}Cnl.Rptr.630 These factors have been recognized by the encircling metropolitan centers, and that JP recent adoption of art. XXVIII of the a the demand for outdoor recreation will in- Constitution, which provides that it is in crease tenfold over the 1956 requirement. .ow the best interests of the state to maintain (See Zilavy, Comment, 1961 Wis.L.Rev. re and preserve open space lands to assure 310, fns. I and 2.) Walnut Creek is a typ- arhJ the enjoyment of natural resources and teal growth community. Located minutes' }xy scenic beauty for the economic and social distance by motor vehicle from the metro- ;the v,ell-being of the state and its citizens. politan environs of Oakland and East Bay 3i1Y 1¢af Statutes which further the Linde poli- communities, the city population rose from the cy expressed in the constitutional section 9,903 in 1960 to 36,606 in 1970, an increase I to must be upheld whenever possible in order of more than 365 percent in a decade. the to effectuate its salutary purposes. We see no persuasive reason in the face 're- The legislative committee which recom- of these urgent needs caused by present mi- mended the enactment of section 11546 em- and anticipated future population growth ;ion phasized that land pressure due to inereas- on the one hand and the disappearance of ing population has intensified the need for open land on the other to hold that a stat- in open space, that parks are essential for a Lite rffiuiring the dedication of land by a _h40 livi- full community life, and that local officials subdivider may be justified only upon the YJ,_ 'all- have been besieged by demands for more ground that the particular subdivider upon Ply park space. (21 Assembly Interim Com. whom an exaction has been imposed will, 6071 solel r the development of his subdivi- Report, Municipal and County Government } b y} p q;t lot (1963-1965) pp. 33-34.) The urgency of Sion, increase the need for recreational fa- eld, the problem in California is vividly de- cilities to such an extent that additional im scribed in other portions of the report set land for such facilities will be required. nclbeforth in the margin.° [2,3] Associated next contends that be- � ; eds 4 These problems are not confined to con- even if it be conceded that no showing of po- r temporary California. It has been estimat- a direct relationship between 'a particular tors ed that by the year 2000 the metropolitan subdivision and an increase in the commu- con = population of the United States will in- nity's recreational needs is required, never- crease by 110 to 145 million, that 57 to 75 theless the subdivider cannot be compelled im- , not million of the increase will occur in areas to dedicate land for such needs, or pay a -9 which are now unincorporated open land fee, unless his contribution will necessarily eiplc 're- par- A 4. The report states, "Con--ern is living ex- hnrgeoning citizen intcrest in the problem ldressed statewide in California that we of providing for revi'vation areas in sob- {or may be in danger of '$ * • building division developments. oniseives into n ce•nn•nt-]umber jungle.' 'Neighborhood ]darks are a necessary { Land pressilres ldaye beou huilding steadily component of conimnnitc life. 'Cite com- :uid the rising inarket price of each avail- mittee bas not encoenitered one local of- tioll able scrap of ill-ball land lilts made land ficial who would Bony the yalne of the kf a the focus of eoinpetitiye interests and neighborhood park. Eleeted officials. par- Cili * * ialnes, Ptecrention experts, riciihirly, have found theniselves besieged 1planning owninissions and eonsem-ntionists by tleniands for niore park spnve. Fanii- ici have long insisted that the proyisiou of lies who have moved to suburbia in the e itt recreation nreas in subdivisions is it hope of finding escape front urban con- the i riee'essity. They argue that livalthfnl. gestion have found instead that their chit- a prxhu tive connnnnity life depouds in p:u•t dren may there tend be forced into the, s' hick x, oil the a%,ailahility of rver'eation :ind park streets in their untural pursuit of recrea- few spaci. tion space. These lirople turn to the itic5 g "1'opnlariotd r'enige.slion magnifies the -onuaunity :is a whole for aid in proyid- d need for urban open s i o% - It is eerhn ds in the desired dirks." (Fns. omitted.) an 1 l� 1 l�' g 1� m,in the• visual imlinct of thousands nlnrn (.Assembly Interim Coln. oil Municipals s r thonsands of liouses built rots on row and County Cocentrnent. op. ril. Kmpra, ease 'Y Without relief of olwii s dare wliich has '' —' � I Pp. .,., 3�.) 1✓ x4 ced. I'ven most responsible for stiniulating �r Q6 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Cal.3d 640 4 C and primarily benefit the particular sul.,di- division residents and necessary to the use resi --ision. Whether or not such a direct and habitation of the subdivision, such as rec1 connection is required by constitutional sewers, streets and drainage facilities, [` '•'• considerations section 11346 provides the \\%hile it is tree that such improvements alit ' nexus which concerns Associated. The act are categories directly required by the 115' '. requires that the land dedicated or the fees health and safety of subdivision residents, poli '3 paid are to be used only for the purpose of it cannot be said that recreational facilities den w. providing park or recreational facilities to arc not also related to these salutary pur- of 1 x serve the subdivision (subd. (c)) 5 and poses. So far as we are aware, no case try dt (subd. (c)) that the arnount and location has held a dedication condition invalid on cowl I ti j ha; of-]an(] or fees shall bear a reasonable re- the ground that, unlike sewers or streets, still( w= lationship to the use of the facilities by the recreational facilities are not sufficiently of f =� future inhabitants of the subdivisiott.e related to the health and welfare of sul,di- tion ' vision residents to justify the requirement cunt r 141 _mother assertion by Associated is that of dedication. As shall appear hereinafter, of a 0 the only exactions imposed upon subdivi- several other jurisdictions have upheld ea- cess, ` = ders which may be valid are those directly actions similar to those imposed by sect' uu (lent ;- „: related to the health and safety of the sub- 11546 oil the ground that the influx of ne\%. T] h 5. AV'r do not derttt srthdivisiou (c) to nu•:ut in the position of anliens curiae. It i, pleb that. tilt, f:o•ilitivs win-hasv,l with :I liar- diffirnit to set, -vlty, if] the light- of tilt, land 9=`'m tieular +-ontrilaition arty only be used by nerd for recreational facilities described a lit > y' the residents of till subdivision wlti,'b aloce :uul tilt, increasing mobility' of our cons :mill the eoutr•ibnrion: rather, that the population, a subdivider'~ fee in lieu of fees ❑my not be divertt'd to :ntv purpose dodiratiou toll.' not be used to purebaseor tier- rti other than for lr,n'k or re,•rt,ational fneili- '1er'+•lol, land some distanrt, front the. sub- subd lies which will be available for list, by division but whirl, -could n1so be avail- terpr w t iN� thos resid,•nts. ('irnrl., t l const itution- able for use b. ,'n' hdivision rl-sidents. If, t i e ; . alit. of the exaction is not depoudent upon for esamide, the governing irody of ;t vit% stant exchtsive use of the fnrilities by tb+rse who has dotormine,l, as lots the city in if,,. while t4 fl will occupy the snb+licisiun. .4yres prrs.•nt rase. thar a specific amount of for 1 tc:wlles that the foot tilt- public will also lark i:nnl is re,inirl-d fora ,zhited number (rf ..r bencftt from the use wade of the 1:111.1 of iulrnhitnnis. if this determination is r•ea- �� dedicated is not a ;.;round for bolding on son;thle. and there is :t hark already decel. and a`ra E exa,-tine invalid. ol,ed close to the subdivision to meet the 155Cu ._a need. of its residents, it sraus reasoaahlc vt5toi 6. Anticus curiae Kierro ('Inh arges tbnt the to etnldo. the fee to ]mrchase ];tail in re,ptirrutrnt of dedi,•ation or tilt, payment another aura of the (-ity for park put•pos,•s 7. i I+ , of :t fee may ill- justified ruder 'tile state's to nt:tintnin tilt- propl-r balance betweva d' y polive po-vrr even if the re+•reational far th,• munber of persons in the comnnutitr I. t' cilities provided b.. tilt, sttbdividcr•s eau- and till- amount of park land available. for tribution ;u'e not ns,,d for tilt, spe,-ifiv The subdivider wbo deliberately or fist benefit of the future residents of the still- forrnitonsly th-velops land close to all al- ,]-vision but stir ciut,luyrd for facilities real.' -omplet.-d park diwinisbes the sup- lie( r ira used by ti,e general public-. (Ordinarily if ply of open Lool and adds residents Who land within the subdivision is d,-dicoted rcquin• park space within tilesal city as :' did 'r! for a park it nt:tc be assnmed that those -+'bole. A siruil:tr ratiuuaie -vas earldoycd Iw•c = a'hu Hill rrsidl- in tin, subdivision +till is 'Southern I :Ie. Co. V. City of I'm \it make prituat•y use of for park. The prnb- Allg,•les (196(;) _'-t_' C.'al.App.:id 3.8, 51 "d lettt of connecting tilt' facilities with the C;d.ltptr. W7, to uphold tit ordimmee re- le made of tlu•w 1p' till subdivision rnsi- ]oiling dedication of property for street red .:F ,91n dents arises -vben a fee ill lion of dcdica- l-ug uidin as n condition of obtaining a tint is rr(luired. In view of the prod- hnildiug ponnit. (See also L'ring]r c. B. W lions of section ]]silt-, we awed not deride l:oard of Sapervisors (l9W) 54 Cal.°d tiol in the present cast- whether a subdivider NG,d Cal.L'ptr.493,351 1'_'d 765; .lemid. pre Ina." 1N! rontprlied to tnnke :t vontributio❑ Inv. v. Village of 'r(-ar.stlnle (IW(J)• V, 44_ for to a park -vbich is, fat' cxomple, not (-oil- N.]._'d V. , 271 \.Y.S.°d 955, 957-95.� h+d vcnienfly located to the subdivision. Par- 21.N \.i:.'_'d 673.) tho entbetically, however, -ce perceive merit not $� ere. ry x Knit- wx- '-K' :: dp,. y< 4 t#;„ dt �` '` 'r v �."' `e.-'w `"., ,..,.-, ;= ' z'-a, - ,.c.• ''-�•-r ��. ^•a t z C Y�° ,� t'•"t'?'�-'-s..t 3 -z:.ar� a ';•'�" a � '�....;r•�y nT :'" •x' `- ry^�"3 .mot" ,�' •sari y'.y 'Sx ., '73— el "3^ Sr. y �"Y- ' .ir+�-•r,,.r Aq f '`�' "L�.ly l. - vE is#`��, '3bFa' ,$P �'N01 a..+#..�•'' 's l«i ;:�. x--y _-x 'p1 °` . : •"..- `, "z.*•=r ";.`.rrn�"y :%r,`' .-w •r.u...• Lh3s.1 ""C a; S_- x{ r.�v at' "�fr--• 4� tl. '�^•Jc,(. _.a„� .fi`f.. ; Wt,x','r' r � t - t • 3d 640 ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 637 4 Ca1,3d 642 Cite as,Sup••04 Cal.Rptr.00 kae use residents increases the need for park and seen, the section requires that land ded�at- 42 Lch as recreational facilities.' ed or in-lieu fees are to be used for the eilities. [4] Associated next poses as an eventu_ recreational needs of the subdivision which ements alit} that, if the requirements of section renders the exaction. Since the increase t i' the 11546 are upheld as a valid exercise of the in residents creates the need for additional sidents, police power gin the theory that new resi- Park land and the land or fees are used for cilities dents of the subdivision must pay the cost facilities for the new residents, although i} pur- of park land needs engendered by their en- not to the exclusion of others, the circum- ro case tri into the community, a cite or comitystances may be distinguished from a more alid on could also require contributions from a general or diffuse need created for such fireets, subdivider for such services as added costs areawide services as fire and police iciently of fire and police protection, the construe- Protection." subdi- tion of a new city hall, or even a general [5,6] Associated claims that section rement contribution to defray the additional cost 11546 constitutes a special burden upon the nafter, S of all types of governmental services ne- future inhabitants of the subdivision since eld ex- ' cessitated by the entry of the new rest- the amount the subdivider must contribute section dents. will ultimately be reflected in the increased of new This proposition overlooks the unique cost of homes to the future residents. It is 'J problem involved in utilization of raw asserted that a double tax will be imposed ; It is ! land, undeveloped land in a community is on the nciv residents because they must not t h c tY 3'f: gibed a limited resource which is difficult to only pay for the initial cost of the park but err conserve in a period of increased popula- will also be required to assume property ?: '° of s` hon pressure. The development of a new taxes which will be used for its develop- subdivision in and of itself has the coup- meat and maintenance.e Double taxation snh- • rail- tcrproductive effect of consuming a sub- occurs only when "two taxes of the same If, stantial supply of this precious commodity, character are imposed on the same proper- tthr. %chile at the same time increasing the need ty, for the same purpose, by the same tax- it of i for park and recreational land. In terms ing authority within the same jurisdiction inlier of economics, subdivisions diminish supply during the same taxing period." (Rhyne, re7 and increase demand. :mother answer to Municipal Lain, p. 673.) Obviously the i the •lssociated's assertion is found It) the pro- dedication or fee required of the subdivi- iablc visions of section 11546 itself. As we have der and the property taxes paid by the la- il - Ih°"' 7• The unl} c:isc ritr•d hy -�ssoeiatcd Khi h this connection ire cote that the Attor•ner i`'`e11 1 de-lared it st,itutr• similar to section 11 r4(i General has filed rut auiicns ,•urine brief nit) to be uneou..titutiou:il reengui•red the need expressing com evn that our holding re- Ile. for rcer•eational fac•iliiiis mused by the ill- gording the ynlidity of se:-tion 11546 may "r flux of heir residents but hchl that the refler•t npoir the constitutionality of tu•o t nl- need for such faeilitics unrst be 'apeeif recently t•iuu•tetl statutes requiring sub- sule ic:dly and unielnely attributable•• to Ili,, dividers to provide public access to coast- nh° sub,lirider's nctivities and ihnt the record lines and to inland waters oKned by it as 'i dial not indicate that this requirement had public: agency. (Bus. & M'rof.Code, been inet. (Pioneer Trust & Say. Bank r. 11610.5. 11(i111.7.) Tliuse sections are Ir Village of 'Mount I'rosp,•,•t (1t1(i]I• "' Mil. not inyolycd illthis proree•ding anal uoth- 01 ''d :;75, 176 N.E._'d 799. .S02.) NC'(, harm ing ie,• haro said here is intended to rr•- r' rejecnd this rationale in our l:rerinns dis- fleet nrwn their yrdidit3'. rcet r fission. ig n 9. If _lssocintcd dues not nrtnallt• pn? the ';1e do not imply that duly thuse exn,•- exactiml but merely passes the cost on �eil.'d tion front a mbilivider are valid which to t1o, consumer. :i tlm•stion arises :is to 'htad, j present the sgxcial cunsiderations set its strnxling in this prof-el-dine since it ]5_ forth Kith regard to section 1154ti but suffers no detriment and is not anthorized t rz ,� hold only tli:it the cxa,aions required by to represent the ,-ousnniers echo it asscrt� the section are jnstifi,a by -g,vrial far-tors Kill he ta.r-ed. Mather ihnn relying upon 4 hot applicable to such tir:rtters as the in- that proposition, hoiyerer, lye prefer tit ,451 creased cost of goxernim-wal services. In decide the nintter on the merits. c s 6.38 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Cai.3d 642 4 C ter residents of the subdivision do not meet sions and the erection of the apartments is, �U ' this definition. If Associated's claim were therefore, not decreasing the limited supply havt valid the prior residents of a community of open space to the same extent as the rev) could also claim double taxation since their formation of a subdivision. This signifi- i uph< tax dollars were utilized to purchase and cant distinction justifies legislatively treat- b Simi r maintain public facilities which will be ing the builder of an apartment house who has r used by the newcomers who did not con- does not subdivide differently than the ere- ' der tribute to their acquisition.10 ator of a subdivision. be u Itpgs (7] Another contention by Associated [8,9] Finally, Associated attacks the stipr; is that section 11546 arbitrarily imposes its constitutionality of subdivision (f) of sec- 802) requirements only upon subdividers where- tion 11546, which specifies that a city or cone': 'a _k43 as those who do notLsubdivide are free county must state when development of lowsl from its exactions. The example is sug- park or recreational facilities will begirt, l'2d gest'ed of an apartment house build on land It is claimed that the city could in one case affir: which is not subdivided. The future occu- postpone development for 10 years and in either pants may live the same distance from a another begin development within a year, ens public park and have the same right to use and that this discretion amounts to an anti- {J(J N the recreational facilities as the residents trary delegation of power to the local gov- ?d 6i of a nearby subdivision, yet the builder of ernmental body and a denial of due process Fallsthe apartment house is not required to con- and equal protection of the laws. Obvious- ANr., tribute to park facilities because he has ly, the need for park and recreational fa- r`= constructed his apartment without subdi- cilities will vary from one community to re tion viding. This point has some arguable mer- another and from one neighborhood to an- dedir. it in the sense that the apartment builder, other within the same community. The that ii s by increasing the population of an area, provides that im- fit of city's resolution 2225 r o' t`i i may add to the need for public recreational r- ' ' pro -ements to the parks shall be made as the fe facilities to the same extent as the subdivi- { land l der. However, the apartment is generally the subdivision area develops and park fa- becomevertical, while the subdivision is horizontal. ces necessary. Constitutional (Aunt 1. f The Legislature could reasonably have as- considerations do not require a more lire- "'ng i! 6 cise standard; the courts are available to Conri.! sumed that an apartment house is thus or-ar - " dinarily constructed upon land considerably redress any unreasonable delay in develop- [10 smaller in dimension than most subdivi- ment. 11 ing caai f .. 10. A related contention is advanr-ea that appears to be that it diserimiwiles n•qu' the exaction constitutes a special assess- against owners who subdivide into more lion ment against the future owners of prop- than 50 parcels. It is true that the size lKrrti eriy in the subdivision who have no right of a parcel is not defined in section the to a hearing or to protest. Similar irgu- 11546 so that one subdivider may be re- thnt merits were rejected in Jordan v. Village quired to dedicate land for a park be- Innd of Menomonee ),ills (19651 28 R'is.2d e. .e he divides his land into more Chan 111011e 608, 137 NAA72d 442, 450, and Jenad, 54) unreels whereas another subdivider or di Inc. N. Village of Scarsdale, supra. 1$ with the same total ncreage bat who sub• N.Y.2d 78, 271 N-.Y.S 2d 955, 958, divides into less than 50 parcels may onl3 12. See 218 N.E.2d 673. (Put see Reps and be required to pay a fee in lieu of dedivm- M61 Smith, Control of Urban Land Subdivi- tion. However. we eannot. see how t.)fix Conn, sion (IiM.l 14 Syracuse L.Rev. 405, 407 difference discriminates against the. fiat 3ti7 et seq.) subdivider since the value of the land l•:xnei '<? taken from him and the amount of the and 11. An additional argument of Associated is fee exacted from the second subdivider 73 Tr _ --- -— - - -that subdivision--(g)-is-unconstitutional in are fixed in accordance with the wine trot c "k that it provides only the payment of fees 1 1 population-density formula except tout 14 ti, as opposed to dedieation of land may be the fee to be paid by a subdivider with Nubdi required for subdivisions containing 50 less than 50 parcels is calculated not by parcels or less. The basis of this claim the value of the land he would have been ings I � ,,rra, ;{ �`'=n'A`• 4. -q,,�.2s :• ,t- ..v • T a�NY, � Mkq �4 tiR ' '``-e� a �a .� h-' �t' �.0 yS � }'. e' -.dy"y L`5 4 ,,. .,. '.?.•.w aK. x.i`- ,,,.�Y .41 �i-y.,aK• $ ats " r+ v E 2 �K -` Z Cal.Sd 642 ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 639 }; 4 Ca,1,5d 645 Cite as,Sup.,134 Cei.RPtr.430 rtments is, tt jNfany of the issues raised by Associated statntes are valid under the state's police iced supply have been discussed in the cases and law power. They reason that the subdivider ,-It as the reviews.l° The clear weight of authority realizes a profit from governmental ap- i.- !is signifi- upholds the constitutionality of statutes proval of a subdivision since his land is rely treat- similar to section 11546. While Illinois rendered more valuable by the fact of snh- i house who has held an ordinance requiring a subdivi- division, and in return for this benefit the 7 an the cre- der to dedicate land for park purposes to city may require him to dedicate a portion be unconstitutional (Pioneer Trust & Sav- of his land for park purposes whenever the ings Bank v. Village of IXIount Prospect, influx of new residents will increase the tracks the supra, 22 111.2d 375, 176 N.E.2d 799, 801- need for park and recreational facilities. f) of sec- 802),73 ?Montana has reached a contrary (Jordan v. Village of 'Menomonee halls, a city or conclusion (Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yel- supra, 28 \Vis.2d 608, 137 N.\V 2d 442, 448: opment of lowstone County (1964), 144 'N'Iont. 25, 394 Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone Will begin. 1-1.2d 182). New York and Wisconsin have County, supra, 144 -4ont. 25, 394 P2d 182, t, in one case affirmed the validity of statutes requiring 187.) Such exactions have been compared ars and in either dedication or a fee in lieu thereof to admittedly valid zoning regulations such yin a year, (Jenad, Inc. v. Village of Scarsdale, supra, as minimum loLLstze and setback require- _t 4s to an arbi- 18 N.Y.2d 7.8, 271 N.Y.S 2d 955, 218 X.E. ments. (Jenad, Inc. v. Village of Scars- ?' local gov- 2d 673; Jordan v. Village of Menomonee dale, supra, 18 \.Y.2d 78, 271 N.Y.S 2d due process Falls (Wis.1965), supra, 28 Wls.2d 608, 137 955,958, 218 N.E 2d 673.) - Obvious- N,W.2d 442). 1n Conne.ticut the dedica- z. ational fa- tion requirement has been upheld but the Constitiitionolit' of Section 10-1.516 of the nmunity to requirement that a fee be paid in lieu of 1.11'alwa Creek Municipal Codc food to an- dedication was struck down on the ground Turning from the state statute to the nity. The that its use was not confined for the hene- . i :Municipal Code, associated argues that the t that im- fit of the subdivision but to the contrary to made as the fees could be utilized to purchase park fees the subdivider mast pay to lieu of ; l for the residents of the entire town dedicating land are, tinder nder the city's ordi- A park fa- Hance, determined arbitrarily and without a ' (Atn.t Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Plan- nstitutional reasonable relationship to principles of Wing Commission of Danbury (1967), 27 more pre- equality. It is claimed, for example, that a ' Conn.Su 774, 230 A.2d 45, 47 r available to p' )' subdivider who develops high-density land in develop- ct [10] The'rationale of the cases affirm- may he required to pay a higher fee in lieu ing constitutionality indicate the dedication of dedication than one who develops low- ^ riminates n4juire.d to Qedir•ate within his snhdivi- 13. Pioneer Tr uxt retied upon .l yrex, in- nto more lion but by the value of the land in the tenweting it :is holding that a developer t the size portion of the local part: required to serve Tway be contpulled to lirovide the streets ,. n section the neeyls of the subdivision. The fat•t which are required by the activity with- )`' ny be re- that in one case tho payment is made in in the :subdivision but cannot be required park be- :; land whereas in another it is nrnde in to provide a major thoroughfitre, the none than money does not appenr to be significant need for which stems from the total ar- >ubdivider or discrminatory. tivity of the community. The court in who sub- Pioneer Trust goes on to state that in may only 12• See, e. g.. Zilavy. Cununent, supra, the light of this pritwiple n dedication } of dedica_ INN 1Cis.L.Rev. 310: Cutler, Controlling requirement may be upheld only if the ; Lon;, this Cmnmmnitc Growth, 1fK1 Wis.L.Rey. 370. burden oast, ulKm the subdivider is slrecifi- / Y. the first 357-391: Johnston. Subdivision Control eally nnrl uniquely attrihut:rlole to his nv- the land I:xacrions. 52 Cornell L.Q. 571: Heyman tivity and that no sneh showing was :mil Gilhool, Inerensed Conunnnit• Costs, nuole. The s case eonnot be inter- ly Ayres re nt of the - tubdi•vider 73 Tale L.J, 1121: Iteps and Smith, Con- preted in this rnanaer. One eommentator the same s trol of L-Own Lind Subdivision, supra, leas written that Pionrer Tr ie,t mniplete- ' ept that 11 Syracuse L.Rev. 405: Cunningham, ly misonderstoo-1 floe holding of .lures. 4 ider with Subdivision Control. 66 :tlich.L.Fcv. 1. (See Johnston. Subdivision Control Fx- -v, 5 �d not by Taylor, Subdivision Control. I3 Hast- actions, snout, 52 Cornell L.Q. 871. fNt7— '.rave been ing. L.J. 344. 3:50. 05 ' &10 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Cal.�d 645 4 density land even though both builders may courts and no authority cited requires a st be responsible for bringing the same num- more precise definition. A subdivider need vi her of new residents into the community. not delay his development because of a dis- ? st This may be true because the higher-densi- pute over this issue. Nor can it be said, tv. ty land is frequent])- more valuable and the for the reasons pointedlout in the margin cc fee is measured by the amount of land re- below, that there are insufficient criterI ty quired by the number of persons in the for determining when a fee should be re- ni 'i subdivision.14 quired in lieu of dedication." vi F [11] While the owner of more valuable The ordinance and resolution also pro- al land which will support a greater number vide that if the subdivider designates open of living units may be required to pay a space for recreational areas and facilities, €r( higher fee for each new resident than the this reduces the demand for local recrea- ct tr owner of less valuable land with a lower tional needs and if the subdivider gives do k density, it does not follow that there is no guarantees that the land will be perma. ?' aE reasonable relationship between the use of nently maintained for such use the city '- i kf the facilities by future residents and the may give credit to the subdivider, reducing 1t fee charged the subdivider. . It is a proper the exactions required of him. Associated be assumption that persons occupying housing complains that this provision may result in sL 'e in ahigh-density area will use the public unequal treatment of subdividers in that f x� at recreational facilities more consistently there arc no reasonable standards for de- 4 {c than those residents in single family homes termining when the city will afford credit t who have private yards and more open to one subdivider and deny it to another. space readily at their individual disposal. [14] We note that section 11546 con- to [12,13] Another series of contentions tains no requirement that a city reduce the � bf 4 made by Associated relates to assertedly dedication or fee requirement in the event w t`j i indefinite and arbitrary standards and pro- a subdivider has voluntarily provided rce- r th I ` cedures set forth in the ordinance. It is reational areas. There is a sound basis for la : urged (1) that the concept of the fair mar- such omission. The Legislature has es_ se j . _ ket value is too indefinite and that a subdi- pressed a policy of encouraging cities and _k47 to eider would hesitate to incur the delay and counties to adopt long-range master plans uE expense of testing value in the courts, and for the recreational needs of the communi- t "1 .ryF (2) that the city has absolute discretion to ty. Such a plan takes into account the wdetermine that the dedication of land is not overall requirements of the city's residents, jg feasible and that a fee should be charged present and future, including the local fig in lieu thereof. These contentions are needs of subdivision residents. If a Iegis- 4.,. h. without merit. The question of fair mar- lative body were required to give credit for i >A ket value is litigated frequently in the private recreational areas furnished by a , :` 14. As, pones as an example a sub- tion by the same number of new resi- divider who opens 25 acres of land val- dents. .=~ ued at $20,000 an acre• who divides his 15. Resolution 2225 provides that land dedi- land into 100 lots for single f;uuily resi- cation «'ill be required if park land des- devices and one who owns 50 acres worth ignited on the master plan is incorl�o- . $10,000 each, which he ilicides into 100 rated within the subdivision and if the lots, two to an acre. The city assumes l of the site sir slol pe. topography and geolog} four occupants to each single fancily as well as its surroundings are suitable home. Eaeli subdivider brings 400 leer- ' for the intended use of the park. Hoe-- � sons .into the community and each must ever, if dedication is impossible, im- r:, contribute one acre or its crib equivalent practical, or undesirable, a fee will be re f for park purposes under the city's for- quired. The impracticality of dedication i; mula. Therefore, the first subdivider con- occurs whenever the lihysical character- tributes $20,000 while the second is re- istics of the land or its surroundings reu- quired to contribute only $10,000 although der the land within the subdivision un- both increase the eommunity's popula- suitable for park or recreational purposes. -*r•.,Y` ;;k.. ,' a� .tiS�„, ....... _ e. .. i .b.- --. �T -fir'-". x,t �#' •�'�� '�.� y_ �c�'"" ¢3-,r� '%^���y ". •�. 5`s �` r � .� � �f''�x� -•.y. .-�--` .� """,ram v--- t'•-r�"''�?..3 - 4"�. �. ,..-...,�. u ,:;ir� .x _t a � ` - 6 s a ,.¢ `+'' t ",r �, ..max• � v z - f ' ♦ X r 1�'�, "" i 1.2 -p. c k S +"fit F ! } 71 CaY.3d 645 ASSOCL46TED HOME BUILDERS v. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK 641 ; I Cal.Sd 647 Cite as,Sup.,N Cal.Rptr.630 requires a subdivider in his proposed subdivision, the The word "purposes" may be somewhat vider need viability of the master plan would be de- broader then "facilities" but we must look e of a dis- stroyed and the subdivider would be substi- . to the underlying object of the legislation if be said, toted for the city as the arbiter of the in interpreting its scope. It is clear from he margin Jj4c community's park needs. It is just this what has been said above that the Legisla- 3t criteria type of haphazard response to the commu- ture was concerned largely with the main- 141d be re- nity's recreational requirements that subdi- tenance of open space for recreational use. vision (d) of section 11546 was intended to We conclude that it is consistent with this also pro- allay. purpose for fees to be utilized, either for fates open the purchase of park or recreational land r p [15] While the city is not required to or, if the cot deems that there is sufficient facilities, y c :al recrea dive credit for recreational facilities con- land available for the subdivision's use, for r firer ivies n iributed by the subdivider, if it chooses to improvement of the land itself as, for ex- j`.. g 1; )e perma- do so it must be given broad discretion to ample, for drainage or landscaping, but �- the city assure that the proposed facilities are in not for purposes unrelated to the acquisi- t;_ y keeping with the master plan. Section `t reducing � tion and improvement of land. 10-1.516' which provides that credit shallA Associated i be given if the facilities designated by the.� The City's Ordinances and Resolu- y result in subdivider "satisfy the * * * principles •s in that tions Comply with Section 11546 t and standards" in the master plan, sets Is'for de- =•T;t forth a sufficiently defined standard. [17] On this topic a few additional ' Qrd credit matters require brief elaboration. Asso- 7i•i another. [16] The parties are in disagreement as ciated argues that the city has enacted no " 1546 con- to whether fees in lieu of dedication may definite principles for park and recreation- reduce the be used only for the purchase of land or al facilities, as required by subdivision (dj the event whether they may also be employed under of section 11546. The city's general plan 3; vided rec- the provisions of section 11546 to improve indicates the location of various types of M I basis for land already owned by the city which parks and recreational facilities and there , has ex- serves the needs of the subdivision.16 Sec- is a sufficiently detailed set of principles `=u cities and JJ47 tionj11546 provides that the fees may be and standards for the development of these a' ster plans used for "park or recreational purposes" or facilities to satisfy the requirements of the communi- " f'' park and recreational facilities." section.1R .- count the 7. residents, a. 16. The parties have stipulated that if n 17. Associated makes the untenable argu- the local subdivision is located within three-fourths went that because the Legislature failed If a legis- of a mile from elementary school ;,,rounds to adopt n proposed amendment to see- or a neiehborbood or community park, tion 11511 of the Business and Profes- credit for the city uses the fees provided by the sub- sions Code, it manifested its intention to ;bed by a divider for improving such recreation areas permit the use of in-lieu fees only for ^4 rather than for the purchase of nddidonal purchase of land. Proposed model leg- Pw resi- park land. The children in the school islation, which was not ndopted, provided as well as other residents of the area that the fee in lieu of dedication could be *y nci deli- 1 use es. e c s e such facilities. In the irin- used in the purchase and improvement and des- ciples and standards for park land it is of park and open space facilities and the ir,^orpo- declared that park facilities and school amendment of section 11511 merely de- 1 if the sites can be more efficiently built and fined improvement as including work to the,site operated rhea several facilities are be done by the subdivider on land which suitable grouped and that a neighborhood park he had dedicated. should be integrated with an elenientnry How- 18. The standards set forth various gen- sr•hool to provide simee for indoor- and file, •im- eral principles under -which park and 11 be re- outdoor activities. -Neighborhood parks recreation laud is acquired and developed, r` dication should eontnin a neighborhood center ✓ the amount of park laud required for aracter- building, park area. playground, etc.. and the vity•s population and for different 3gs reu- the deign should be b:ilancrd to meet types of parks, the niininiutn areas there- ion un- the needs of the school and the neighbor- in. and the vnrious facilities which each [z urposes. hood. type of iirk should contain. 1 ': 94Cal.Rptr.-41 -642 94 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 4 Caud 647 � 17 Cal.. 1 [18] Associated complains that al- homes in the subdivision, thereby to though subdivision (b) of section 11546 re- extent increasing the price of house; t, J of Yhe PE quires that a city's ordinance set forth the newcomers. While we recognize the standard for determining the amount of noes possibility that the contributions r, # land to be dedicated or fee to be paid by a quired by a city can be deliberately "Cl SUPER s 48 subdivider16rdinance 10-1.516 contains no reasonably high in order, to prevent the It provides instead that the flux o economically „ = forn! such standard. f depressed persons int, Ronald G standards shall be set forth by resolution; the community, a circumstance +,•;it,.t, a it is resolution 2223 rather than the ordi- would present serious social anti ir}at r nance which specifies these matters. problems, there is nothing to indicate Ill.,. There is no showing in the record as to the enactments of Walnut Creek in tht r'I,u the circumstances under which the resole- present case raise such a spectre. tion was adopted. sirability of encouraging subdividers {. He a.. build low-cost housing cannot be It has been held that even where a stat- ri Origi ute requires the municipality to act by or- and unreasonable exactions could lief,:,. dinance if a resolution is passed in the this object, but these considerations nit,, hrrntt ht 1 manner and with the statutory formality be balanced against the phenomenon of th• .n,n of c " required in the enactment of an ordinance, appallingly rapid disappearance of „p t'uurt of f' it will be binding and effective as an ordi- areas in and around our cities. V1%c li':1,. „here off nance. (Central Manufacturing District, section 11546 constitutes a valiant auctu ' „urge of w Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1960) 176 to solve this urgent problem, and wl c,l; .,nil not + } ®-`' ,. Cal.App.2d 850 860, } Ca1.Rptr. i33.) not say that its provisions or the cite'., .Intl t,.-cli} s- a r'cs ,Un' �1 Since there is no showing in the record as actments pursuant to the section arc c,n; :, tutionall deficient. :nrindin .�_ to the circumstances under which the reso- }' x; _ - %%hu had" `'i hition was adopted, ++e presume its validi The judgment is affirmed. `, r .,rrcst occ. t It may come to pass, as Associated nl r of nft " € e states, that subdividers will transfer the \VRIGHT, C, J., and McCOMI', 1'1 ht gttan - ' cost of the land dedicated or the in-lieu fee TERS, TOBRI\ER, BURKE and S1 1 hcruni w A " to the consumers who ultimately purchase LIVAN, JJ., concur. 5 a a was be u}ut•}t was .:nut seized :ri siich ci ` t;1:uid for a purpose pr make a7 >< Pc•rem i. Arrest C \Vherc a the coil ►­t tun and �" irtat, and �k.ur in res tl,tns, Inclu It one wh "f i leer pre PT �, .:. y`z.kt ''eer r^ v,3 • ,� �'S t mot'' ss. r G} $kra ac a ear + cry.' y F r -. Yt aF ^S,r& ...�-.tea--.. ' `.. - -t .'A •a - "3c„t*s.' '-% �`.e•ri '-x d` 't`#a� '`'"` .t."''" `-�+?' "Y�'�+- '".ty,r--r.m7s ''' ,,- s�#�-� :. ,t-��"2,..'•r s {�•t'r`'" ?r c,.."t. .?iryt a• - `t�s nLx,t ''Y`3s.`L' � ^aE "�'�, rt..�`��,.�.*?' t., ac = *�'� ' 1,, �# ,�;-r :�}s E _ -t-�*3 �'° .. 1m•* n ,,, ..44s ., m� tttw -,.e .,� s ."� ,+• .- '' 'a HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council : The Huntington Seacliff Homeowner Association regrets not being able to provide the Council members with a comprehensive written present- ation for their review prior to the February 2, 1976 Council meeting because of obtaining at the last minute necessary information for in- clusion in our presentation. However, we have asked that the below listed documents or exhibits be enclosed in your packets for your review to provide you with background information. This material will be incorporated in our oral and writ- ten presentation to City Council on February 2,1976. The documents which we included are: 1. Copy of Homeowners' Park Presentation to Park Commission on December 10, 1975 2. Copies of City Attorney's opinions regarding park fee utilization. 3. Copy of Quimby Act 4. Copy of Walnut Creek Case 5. Minutes of December 10, 1975 Park Commission Meeting regarding action taken on Seacliff Parks 6. City ordinance 9741 7. Copy of Huntington Beach Company .letter requesting def- ferment of park fees in filing tract map for tract 7421 At the February 2, 1976 Council meeting we will present the information in an organized manner. Your review of this material will be helpful and appreciated. Sincerely, Huntington Seacliff Homeowner Association D � -�� Dale D. Dickey 3� Park Committee Chairman t �j lQ i "FRIENDSHIP AND UNITY BUILDS OUR COMMUNITY" �i 3 _ MINUTES, Recreation & Parks Commission December 10, 1975 call a meeting of the Committee shortly. Mrs . Kennedy informed the Commission of having spoken with Mrs . Lorraine Faber, former Recreation and Parks Commissioner who is very active with the Golden West Homeowners Association. The Association is donating $1 , 000 for use at the Nature Center with the stipulation that the City match the amount in cash or labor. Mrs. Faber expressed concern for the need to improve the maintenance of all the parks , especially along the nature trail in Huntington Central Park. She suggested the money might possibly be used for black-out drapes at the Nature Center . Mr . Worthy and Mr. Bushard will meet with Mr. Dave Winkler, the new Park Ranger/Naturalist and Mr. Jim Gilmore of the High School District to determine programs and schedules . for the Nature Center and how the gift might best be utilized there . Mr. Mossteller mentioned the $1 , 000 prize money from the Sports Foundation, Inc. Mr. Worthy stated that he is still open to suggestions from the Commission on where to apply this money. SEACLIFF PARK SITES REQUEST r . Dale Dickey, sp spokesman for the Seacliff Homeowners Association, advised the Commission they would make an oral and a written presen- tation of their park needs in the Seacliff sub-division. He introduced Mrs . Judy Wright, 6871 Evening Hill Drive , who would be giving the oral presentation. He distributed the written presentation to the Commission. Of the two potential park sites in the northern area, the Association feels the Manor Point-Evening Hill site is the best due to its central location. This H.B. Company three lot oil drilling site is presently in escrow with the Lusk Company for development of single family homes. She stated the .Lusk Company has agreed to cancel their escrow if the City will act quickly to acquire this land for a park. The H.B. Com- pany has ..offe.red -to_ dedicate this site at current market value if re- quired to by the City. Approximately $92 , 000 of park fees were gene- rated from the .Seacliff development and they are being held by the H.B. Company as a commitment toward future parks . These fees could be used to. acquire and develop park -sites within the Seacliff community right away. . Mrs: Wright reque-stied the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend the --City acquire and develop these parcels at Manor -Point- Evening Hill within the Huntington Seacliff community-_and Morningtide Drive as park--sites -as soon as possible. Mr. Mossteller -stated that perhaps -this- -item -should go before the Park Priority Committee on January 8th. Mr. Worthy referred to the agreement with -the -H.B . .Com- pany to land bank two park sites , one being a . 3 acre .site directly across from the Seacliff development at Palm and Golden- West adjacent to the proposed 8 acre school site in that area. Mr. Dickey informed the Commission that Mr. Palmer of the City School--District had told him -they no longer intend to build a school in that -area. The. home- owners -are concerned about the -children having to" cross --Golden West at Palm to a .park "site at that corner. Mr. Dickey stated that the Manor Point-Evening- Hill site has been in escrow -for the -last six months and -they were told that if they could get -a_ positive recommenda- tion from the Commission the Lusk Company would be willing to wait i 4 - MINUTES, Recreation & Parks Commission . December 10, 1975 a little longer. Mr. Worthy stated he had discussed this request with Mr. Dick Harlow, Planning. Director , and he indicated their proposal would have to be studied -bylthe Planning Commission as a possible amend- ment to the Master Plan of Parks , Open Space , Schools and Recreation since this concept is not a part of the current plan. Mr. Dickey stated that should the issue go before the. Planning Commission, an affirmative recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Commission would add a little weight in their favor. The total park area would be 19, 000 sq. ft. less than 11 acre, and it was the consensus of the Commission that the site was very small. It was noted by Mrs. Wright that development costs could be reduced since water, power, and sewer facilities are already in. Also, they could use the present landscaping and reduce the cost of trees and shrubs. She also mentioned that some large play equipment had been donated. MOTION: Mr. Flanagan.moved that -the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend that staff write to the developers of the Seacliff com- munity informing them that the requested park site is under conside- ration by both the Planning Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission and that their continued cooperation in delaying construc- tion of homes on the 3 lot oil island is sought for short period of time. Mr. Duarte seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Worthy will contact the Planning Department and inform them of the request to study the feasibility of an amendment to the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation. Mr. Dickey asked if it would be permissable.- to_ contact Lusk and Son to inform them. of the Commission' s action- this---evening--and arrange for a meeting soon. - -Mr. Mossteller indicated his approval. The regular meeting__o.f the Recreation and .Parks Commission recessed at 8: 50 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 06 p.m. DOWNTOWN -PLANNING._ S.TUDY --- - NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS e Commission -reviewe =t a par section -o _ the Downtown Planning Study Draft -Report -recently adopted by- the City Council as it related -to the Master Plan-"of Parks-,- -Open-Space,- .Schools , and Recreation-.- - MOTION: Mrs. .Betty_-Kennedy moved the Recreation__and---Parks -Commission enJorse- the park conc-ept --as- depicted- by the :Planning -Department-- staff in "Modified Destination Resort" of the Downtown :Planning-..Study draft report. Mrs.-- Janey --Koch seconded .-the motion._=-_Motion carried. "DRAFT" 1974-75 RECREATION $ PARKS COMMISSION_ ANNUAL REPORT r. F-inestone -st-ate _t at the-annual Commission -report-, -ad-been separated into three---sections : -a brief history-; the role of the City Council and the Recreation -and =Par cs- Commission and finally statistical ..in ormation relating to the - -r-owt - of:-the "pro ram over -.a 5-year . period--_-(1969-1974) . Mr. -Tinestone -as a or the Commission s opinion on- the--format and content. -of the report.- - Mr. Mossteller commended -Mr. .Finestone for pre- paring a -fine -repor-t. -The other Comm issioners-_--concurred. Mr. Mossteller J huntington beach planring deportment staff � --report. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: January 13 , 1976 SUBJECT: Huntington Seacliff Parks Request On January 6, 1976 , a request by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association for acquisition of two mini-parks was transmitted for your review. The request identified two sites for acquisition and sought immediate consideration because of time constraints on the availability of the properties. Staff analysis of this request is now complete and presented below. If the Commission desires to accommodate the Association request, an Amendment to the General Plan will be necessary before park fees are expended. Such 'an Amendment could not be processed until June. To assist the Association and the landowners in their plans, however, we are presenting the request now to get your earliest directions on the matter. The following paragraphs address four items: a park supply-demand analysis , an identification of important considerations that will in- fluence any decision on the subject, an investigation of alternatives available, and a staff recommendation for Commission action. Park Demand Within the area under consideration there are 333 existing single family units and a population of 1202 persons.l Based on the General Plan' s neighborhood park standard of 1. 5 acres per 1000 population, existing demand for neighborhood parks equals 1. 8 acres. No neighborhood parks currently exist within a quarter mile2 of the developed portion of Seacliff leaving a 1. 8 acre deficiency. At ultimate development (based on existing zoning) the Seacliff Area may support a population of 18 , 419 and require about 22. 5 acres of neighbor- hood parks. (It must be noted, however, that it is questionable whether further development will proceed according to existing zoning.) As indicated on existing plans, twelve acres of City-owned neighborhood park land will be provided west of Goldenwest for Seacliff at ultimate development. Four sites - #951; 955, 966 and 967 - at 3 acres each (and in conjunction with planned school facilities) are projected for develop- 1 Based on 3. 61 persons/household as determined by the 1973 Special Census in the Seacliff Area. 2 Standard service area for neighborhood parks. `Page 2 ment in fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1982 and 1979, respectively. With development of these sites, however, a deficiency of about 10.5 acres of neighborhood park land remains. West of Goldenwest, two relevant park sites are planned - 870 and 845. Planned for the northeast corner of Palm and Goldenwest, 870 is a neighborhood park site of three acres planned for development in 1982. At Seventeenth and Main Street, 845 is a community park site of 6 acres planned for development in 1977. All of these sites - both east and west of Goldenwest - are related to park needs of the Huntington Beach Company properties. Figure 1 itemizes neighborhood park needs and Figure 2 identifies planned neighborhood parks. Considerations From a statistical standpoint, as presented above, a deficiency of 1. 8 acres of neighborhood parks currently exists and a deficiency of 10. 5 acres may exist at ultimate development. In addition to park demand-supply analysis, several other considerations are also pertinent to this dis- cussion. 1. Planned Park Phasing According to the Master Plan of Parks, the first neighborhood site to be developed in the Seacliff area will be #967 near Palm and Goldenwest. This site would eliminate the acreage deficiency at present but development is not scheduled until 1979 at the earliest. Even this date is tentative, however, since all the planned parks in Seacliff were anticipated to be in conjunction with school sites which, according to school district officials, may never be utilized. The Parks Department may, therefore, be altering the phasing or even location of these sites. Other planned sites west of Goldenwest are not scheduled until the 1980' s and are also related to future school site development. The first park to be developed in the vicinity is Huntington Community east of Goldenwest. Neighborhood park site 870 is proposed for 1982 . 2. Accessibility The report submitted by the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association identifies what is believed by residents to be a major problem in addition to lack of existing parks; that is, poor access to planned sites for young children. The developed Seacliff area, as the report indicates, is surrounded by Palm Avenue, Goldenwest Street and Clay Street. Palm Avenue separates the homeowners from park site #967 and will eventually be a primary arterial highway in this location expected to carry between 13, 000 and 21, 000 average daily trips (ADT) at ultimate development. The design capacity of the street will be 30, 000 ADT. The homeowners express concern for children under 14 (the age range neighborhood parks are expected to serve) crossing such a busy street. Park access would also be 4 Page 3 difficult for residents of the northern section of the developed area as the golf course obstructs pedestrian travel between the north and south ends of the existing developed area. As a result ; Goldenwest Street, a highly traveled arterial, would be the only unobstructed way for pedestrians to move from the northern end to the southern end of the community. Park site #966 is planned to service the northern end of the community in conjunction with site #955, but development is not projected until 1982 and 1984, respectively. The Homeowners Association believes, however, that future traffic on Clay Street to other Seacliff tracts and the gas plant will discourage use of this site by smaller children who would have to cross the street. Clay Street west of Goldenwest is not currently identified on the Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and traffic projections are not available. The volume of traffic expected on Clay will depend on future development and .street align meets in other parts of the Seacliff area so its effect on park access cannot really be determined at this time. 3. The Desirability of Mini-Parks An important issue for City consideration raised by the Seacliff request is the desirability of mini-parks. Though there are two mini-parks in the City, such small open space areas have generally been discouraged in the past. Parks of such size are seldom able to accommodate the types of uses neighborhood parks are usually planned for. They are also more expensive to maintain. I Parks and Recreation Department maintenance- records for 1974-1975 , j for example, indicate that it entails approximately the same amount of man hours to maintain a one acre park as a two or three acre park. As a comparative study, that department selected Davenport Park which is one acre and compared it to Bushard Park which is two and one-half acres. - Davenport Park required 227 man hours of maintenance time while Bushard Park required 244 man hours of maintenance time. i A major reason for such a disproportionate amount of time spent at a small park such as Davenport Park is that all work has to be done by hand or with small machines. Its size does not allow for tractors to do such tasks as mowing, aerifying, etc. And even though it is a small area , it still must be routed for a two man crew to drive to for weekly maintenance and clean up. As a result, in these two examples yearly manpower spent on Davenport Park amounted to 227 hours for a $1966 per acre cost and spent on Bushard Park amounted to 244 hours for a $845 per acre cost. 4 . Potential Park Sites With the assumption that neighborhood parks should be provided within the developed portion of Seacliff itself (because of accessibility Page 4 problems caused by adjacent streets) , the Association report identified three potential mini-park sites that might meet existing needs. The proposed locations are identified in Figure 3. The southern site on Morning Tide is located on the golf course within Tract 6904. The two lot site (.4371 gac) is landscaped and already in use as a recreational area. ' The site is owned by the Huntington Beach Company, and because of oil easements is presently in open space use. The assessed value for these two lots is $2740. Though immediate purchase of these lots is not necessary to fill the request, the Parks Department believes that the City will have to commit to acquiring this area when development is possible. Because of the property' s location on a golf course near the beach, the true market value of the parcels will undoubtedly be much greater than land elsewhere in the City. This site does, of course, provide easy access for existing residents in the south end of the community as no major streets obstruct travel to the property. Adjacent to existing units, it is also a visible site, adding to its value for child safety. Two alternative sites are identified by the Association in the north end of the community (Figure 3) . Alternative #1, . 6 acres in size, occupies three residential lots in Tract 7421. Bordered by local streets and residential dwellings, it is located in a protected environment. This park site is centrally located in the northern end of the community. The assessed value of these three lots is $3600, but as with the southern site, market value can be expected to be significantly higher than the standard four times this amount because of its choice location, especially now that oil encumbrances have been removed. The Huntington Beach Company has estimated the value of these lots between $60, 000 and $70, 000. Alternative #2, of size as yet undetermined, is located outside the community. This property is bounded by Goldenwest Street, a high traffic major arterial in this location. Surrounding property is .residential on the south and vacant (zoned residential and industrial) on the north. This site is a planned location for a water pumping station which would occupy approximately 100 ft. x 160 f t. The Huntington Beach Company has offered to negotiate with the City for this site which could serve jointly as pump station, park, and historical landmark. (The site of the discovery well is nearby. ) The Homeowners Association contends, however, that this site is less desirable than Evening Hill because of its isolation from existing development and its proximity to Goldenwest. 5. Park Fees and Long Range Development The Huntington Beach Company owns the five lots desired by the Homeowners Association and is apparently willing to negotiate with the City for the mini-park sites as long as credit is given to the Huntington Beach Company toward park dedication requirements for the Seacliff Area. Generally, when land for park sites is supplied by a developer, it is deducted from the total park dedication require- Page 5 ment on an acre for acre basis. In this case, however, the Huntington Beach Compaay is requesting cash credit on the market value of the land, not the acreage involved. Because of the properties' choice location, their cost will be significantly higher than land in other parts of the City. As a result, the existing residents would be accepting less acreage than would be due them under the City' s park standards and less than could be provided for the same price in another location. According to the terms of agreement when the existing Seacliff tracts were approved, about 2 . 5 acres of park land or about $74 ,300 in fees were to be provided for the needs of existing residents. Should the Association request be granted, only 1. 08 acres of land will be secured at a cost of $60 , 000 to $70,000 and the City will still be committed to purchase the Morning Tide site at some time in the future. As a result, 1. 42 acres of required park land will be waived and the City will be spending most of the required fees. The City has never in the past granted market value cash credit to a developer for land allocated to park purposes. The long-range implications of this precedent should be considered in making a decision on the Association request. Alternatives . Several alternative solutions to the problem identified by the Homeowners Association seem worthy of investigation. 1 . Grant mini-park request: Statistical analysis indicates that a deficit in neighborhood parks is a reality for the developed portion of Seacliff. The northern and southern ends of the community are divided by a physical barrier and access to; all proposed park facilities requires children to cross potentially busy streets (assuming Clay plays an important role in future Seacliff development) . Mini-park sites are available and the owner is willing to negotiate purchase with the City. To accommodate the Association request, the Planning Commission could approve the proposal in concept, recommend it to the City Council for approval and request that Staff be directed to pursue an amendment to the General Plan identifying the five lots as park sites. 2 . Comprehensive Planning Effort: The existing residents of Seacliff do not have a neighborhood park, and they believe that those sites planned for acquisition are too far in the future and are made undesirable because potentially busy streets must be crossed to reach them. There are many areas of the City with similar situations. While it may be ideal to provide a neighborhood park within everyone' s immediate neighborhood, such cannot realistically be accomplished. While the concerns of the homeowners can be appreciated, several factors stand against their proposal: Page 6 a. The southern site on Morning Tide is an open space area currently maintained by the Huntington Beach Company and encumbered by oil easements against development for many years in the future. Should the City do nothing, these two lots will continue to be available to neighborhood children until per- manent facilities can be provided b. The cost of acquiring and maintaining these mini-parks is much greater than what it would be for providing typical neighborhood park land. c. To secure the lots the City would be setting a precedent with potentially undesirable consequences regarding market value credit for acreage dedication in meeting park requirements for development. d. Park land sufficient to meet existing need is scheduled for acquisition and development on both the northern and southern ends of the community. e. An alternative multi-purpose site at Clay and Goldenwest could be utilized on a tentative -basis until permanent sites are developed at 966 and 955. f . Normally, partially developed subdivisions (existing Seacliff represents only 86 acres of a total 600 acres) of similar size would not be provided with temporary facilities or mini-parks because planned park sites were not scheduled for immediate development. Based on these considerations the Planning Commission could recommend against the Association request but ask the City Council to direct the Planning Department and the Recreation and Parks Department to analyze the planned park locations in the Seacliff area in regard to changes in school site planning, changes in planned use from existing zoning , and development phasing plans for the remainder of Seacliff. Doing so would require designating a higher priority to development of a comprehensive plan for Seacliff - an existing item on the Planning Commission work program - but would enable development of coordinated parks plan that would hopefully overcome the problems generated by piecemeal approval of individual tracts - as illustrated in the park needs of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association. 3. Interim Measure: If the Planning Commission decides that the need for a comprehensive analysis of development potentials and park needs in the Seacliff area is necessary but that interim measures are desirable to offset the existing park deficit, the potential park site at Clay and Goldenwest could be utilized. The Public Works Department needs the site for the pump station and development of the mini-park is consistent with plans for historic preservation, conservation of scenic resources (this area is elevated above much of the City) and the Scenic Highways -Landscape Corridor concept along r Page 7 Goldenwest Street. While this would not be the ideal location from the Association' s point of view, it would provide for some of the park need for residents of the northern community and it would be consistent with several City objectives. Residents in the southern community could continue to utilize the Morning Tide site as an interim facility until the site south of Palm is developed. Recommendation It is the conclusion of the Planning Department that while a neighborhood park. deficiency exists for the developed portion of Seacliff, circum- stances do not warrant a City commitment to permanent mini-parks. Con- siderable park acreage will be supplied at ultimate development. While currently planned sites may be altered, the potential for developing a desirable parks system in the area is great. As a matter of policy, the City should not consider park needs on an isolated basis but rather in conjunction with an overall development scheme. The Department believes that the southern two-lot open space area will continue to remain vacant for many years and will certainly be available to .residents until the earliest planned parks are constructed to serve them. While residents may dislike having their children cross well traveled streets, this situation exists throughout the City and cannot be overcome. This fact does not justify committing the City to expensive mini-parks. Because of the coincidental need of the Public Works Department, a northern park at Clay and Goldenwest could be justified to meet the needs of northern community residents. This site could be considered temporary until planned sites are developed or as a core for later expansion into a permanent facility as additional development occurs. These measures could satisfy in part the real needs of the residents today whale a comprehensive development and parks plan was prepared for the entire Seacliff area. It is the recommendation of the Department that no City commitment be made for acquisition and/or development of mini-parks in the Seacliff area but that the Public Works Department and the Recreation and Parks Department pursue at least a temporary park site at Clay and Goldenwest in conjunction with the pump facility. It is further recommended that Staff be directed to pursue at the earliest time in cooperation with the Huntington Beach Company and the Recreation and Parks Departments a comprehensive development and parks plan for the total Seacliff area. A staff recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Department is attached for your information also. When the Planning Commission recommendation is made, it may either be forwarded to the City Council for action or referred back .to Recreation and Parks Commission which originally requested Planning Commission review. RAH:MF: ja I To : Mr . Tom Bushard From: Duane Jenkins Park Superintendent Park Supervisor Subject : Maintenance of Mini-Parks Date : January 12 , 1976 as Compared to Regular Size parks Our maintenance records for 1974-1975 indicate that it entails approximately the same amount of man hours to maintain a one acre park, a.s compared to a two or three acre park. As a comparative study we selected Davenport Park which is one acre and compared it to Bushard Park which is two and one half acres. Davenport Park required 227 man hours of maintenance time while Bushard Park required 244 man hours of maintenance time. A major reason for such disproportionate amount of time spent at a small park, as Davenport Park, is that all work has to be done by hand or with small machines. Its size does not allow for tractors to do such tasks as mowing, aerifying, etc. Even though it is a small area, it ' s still routed for a two man crew to drive to, and do its weekly maintenance and clean up. MANPOWER COST DAVENPORT 227/hrs. @ 8.66 per hr. 1,965.82 BUSHARD 244/hrs. @ 8.66 per hr. 2,, 113.04 ! Figure 1 Neighborhood Park Demand Neighborhood Park Demand - Existing 333 d.u. x• 3. 61 persons/household* = 1202 persons 1202 persons x 1. 5 acres park land/1000 population = 1. 803 acres Neighborhood Park Demand - Ultimate Residential Zone Gr Acs DU/Gr Ac Total DU Pop/Du Zbtal Population R1-0 107 5.4 578 3.58 2069 Single -family Rl-01 7 5.4 38 3.58 136 R2-PD-0 94 15 1410 2.47 3483 R2-PD-01 4 15 60 2.47 148 Mlti-family R3-0 39 25 975 1.99 1940 R4-0 153 35 5355 1.81 9693 R4-01 15 35 525 1.81 950 Zbtal 18419 Class Pop. Park N,ed per Park Need Park Acreage Net Deficit at 1000 Pop. to be Provided Ultimate Development Single-family 2,205 1.00 2.205 acs 12 acs 10.47 acs Multi-family 16,214 1.25 20.2675 acs *Note: This population per household figure for the Seacliff area is taken from the 1973 Special Census conducted by the State Department of Finance. The household population figures used to ampute neighborhood park demand at ultimate develoFuent are citywide estimates prepared by the Planning Department in January, 1975. 0 41) c RM r LCKKK)NS PWM 2 GAW IELO AVE W i i , NORTHERN W PARK SITE Alt. #2 I � I i s ti 0 NORTHERN PARK SITE - 0.64629oc X . Alt.#1 ^ SOUTHERN. Y PARK SITE" d' 0.4371 do -ep y 0 A ♦* \ f r'ate t POSSIBLE PARK LOCATIONS FIGURE 3 wo 'w A.4 CI OF HUNT"00TON DMEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Ho.®® 5 HUNT&GTON KACH To Mr. Dick Harlow, Director From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director Planning Department Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject Seacliff Park Acquisition Date January 12 , 1976 Recreation and Parks Department staff members have studied the Huntington Seacliff HomeownersAssociation request for the City to acquire and develop mini-parks in the Seacliff housing sector of Huntington Beach and make the following recommendations to your staff and Planning Commission: 1) That the H.B. Company be encouraged I'couraged to keep the southerly k acre site containing pipq lines as an open space green belt easement which can continue to be used as a park by the public. This encouragement could be in the form of an agreement which would give the City the first right to accept the land as a park prior to any contemplated change of use by the owners . 2) That the City and H.B. Company negotiate to provide a neighbor- hood-type park (2 to 5 acres) on the north-west corner of Clay and Golden West Streets which will serve several purposes: A neighborhood park and pl4yground ; a site for the commemorat- ing plaque for the "Discovery Well" of the H.B. oil fields ; a Water Department pump station site, beautification of the Golden West and Clay entrance to Seacliff; and the future po- tential of locating an eleiientary school adjacent to the park in accordance with our Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation. 3) That the proposed residential lot (19, 000+ sq. ft. ) site for a mini park at Evening Hill and Manor Point not be accepted because : a) The lots would have to be purchased at current fair market value ($60,0001to $70, 000) as it is not identified in the Master Plan and was 'contemplated 'contemplated for acquisition after the subdivision was constructed. b) In recent years the only similar size park sites acquired by the City were on the Hunt- ington Harbour islands andvere developed by the Huntington Harbour Corp. and given as gift with the City accepting the maintenance responsibility.; c) The mini-park activities would be severely restricted because of its small size yet expensive to build. Playground equipment would most likely be the main Pm theme. d) The costs for manpower to maintain the 1 acre Davenport Parkin Huntingtoli Harbour are nearly equal to the manpower cost to maintain 4 typical 2h acre neighborhood park such as Bushard Park (see attachment) . e) Because of the cri- tical acquisition time factor, in order for the City to acquire i 2 _ Memo to: Dick Harlow, Director' Date : January 12, 1976 Planning Department Subject: Seacliff Park Acquisition the mini-park would require diversion of funds from current high priority acquisition and developmer,t programs. f) If this mini-site is accepted as an amendment to the Master Plan of Parks , then approximately (11) eleven similar neighborhoods in the City, will also qualify for mini-parkas and they cost of such an acquisi- tion, development, and maintenance program would be staggering. rm Worthy, Dir ctor Recreation, Parks and Human Services NW:ac Attachments I I HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION January 26, 1976 `=ri City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Alicia Wentworth, City Clerk Dear Mrs. Wentworth: We request that representatives of the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association be allowed to address the City Council regarding the Seacliff neighborhood park which is scheduled for Council consideration on February 2, 1976. Your assistance in granting this request is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION a Dale D. Dickey Chairman of Parks Committee DDD/lo "FRIENDSHIP AND UNITY BUILDS OUR COMMUNITY" ASSOCIATfOH City of Huntington Beach Civic Center Huntington. Beach, Calif. 92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council : The Huntington Seacliff Homeowner Association regrets not being able to provide the Council members with a comprehensive written present- ation for their review prior to the February 2, 1976 Council meeting because of obtaining at the last minute necessary information for in- clusion in our presentation. However, we have asked that the below listed documents or exhibits be enclosed in your packets for your review to provide you with background information. This material will be incorporated in our oral and writ- ten presentation to City Council on February 2,1976. The documents which we included are: 1. Copy of Homeowners ' Park Presentation to Park Commission on December 10, 1975 2. Copies of City Attorney's opinions regarding park fee utilization. 3. Copy of Quimby Act 4. Copy of walnut Creek Case 5. Minutes of December 10, 1975 Park Commission Meeting regarding action taken on Seacliff Parks 6. City ordinance 9741 7. Copy of Huntington Beach Company .letter requesting def- ferment of -park fees in filing tract map for tract 7421 At the February 2, 1976 Council meeting we will present the information in an organized manner. Your review of this material will be helpful and appreciated. Sincerely, Huntington Seacliff Homeowner Association Dale D. Dickey �3 Park Committee Chairman "FRIENDSHIP AND UNITY BUILDS OUR COMMUNITY" J CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINC"BEACH To Mr. David D. Rowlands From Recreation & Parks Commission City Administrator Subject Sunset Heights park acquisition Date December 10, 1975 At a special adjourned meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission on December 4 , the Commission discussed the Sun- set Heights proposed six-acre park' site and expressed the need for the City to begin acquisition of the 208 25 ' x 50' . encyclopedia lots , since the area is no longer protected by a City Council imposed moratorium. Considering there is adequate cash in the Park Acquisition and Development Fund and that it will probably take two to three years to acquire the lots under eminent domain proceedings , the Commission made the following recommendation: MOTION: Mr. Harry Turner moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Administrator that he pursue acquisition of the six acres of small lots in the Sunset Heights area previously designated by -the City Council as a neighborhood park site through eminent do- main or whatever procedure necessary. Mr. Rudy Lozano seconded the motion. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, II)o0/ 9�t1b rm thy, Secyetary Recreation $ Parks Commission i NW: ac / cc: ' Recreation Parks Commission V John Cope , Planning Department Attachment y sacs cJ7/aJ — swer rn cr - -;Pt -- .- q---- ----- ---- "----- --- u=......✓x = - kI I -----—----- ^ ----- v------ &------ ----- ---- ut-----�w------•&L----- ----- a e e 21---_-- 9_O__fQ--_ d-O-� 3__-019L---- a I I � ' •__-_._.Jc -•-- v_ - ... ------ -----v ---- st n-----R'...... I I I O i i ex I � , ------ -----4P------ J.._.. i7___-__ f__....it L------,w------w_-_-- _.__ U----- /!Q___._ r ' I 1 • � v-...., -----.'i1Dt ILL-----M ' I I - .I LC___-- ' itI 1.. .__.y!- ._,'�J_._..,.r0•-.---AB-..•.__%°t-__- r ....... - --r�-- ••�- -'dt/ r __-•_./°4 Jt _JJ• {i, Ad � fe? Wer O' 4 _41 1 IB 1 1 aB 1 r I I � :larlM.i. "'1•".".°icrl""�t' *.'"^^tt'Pr'tt�h' „,".,.`�.'u, ur"�: 'k1 .'I,. r - .,i rgacr ; Q .fit•..____. 11 , r r 11 I J- • - ---- lQ_�_. -_-- �----_ 11 N rN! .._.-_r1V_.____Jr.-__-%__-__I L �' K_ _., 10!_.__ EP______ tl______CW_____11!t___.• ,' I i LI _ 97 I I _.....�d_-_.. •P__.___ •• sl r ro © w_®__'llf IJe �17a . i I I 1 1 ® 61 NO./Ba! 1U7 r1 t' ® ® — •O 1RnJ1 ® Leo lm S Alt m4. L W y ' m fx .1',. __•_ �(s1- - irN.9,1.. � ?:l�•� r "" lyq'" 11 i CR F M U. e Y5' l�flY OF HU*: ;'tp --q , CH 01TV CW N1>N'Y11Ma i10 AASIL �#�! N 0 V 17 1 t ��F rr TS x 3h wayk r1 ,} t` � i3 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Re=afiorl & attm p eat p $ • . ` 0 Sohn "l3brens From Dick Harlow Roz* Worthy Suite Sunset Heights Moratorium ®ate November 10, 1975. f F ;, .. On 'p L®r 3, the City Council adopted Resolution 4152 removing r the ition of residential uses in the small lot area (Txaa�te 184. 185, 186, and 187) thus erasing the contradiction be -.the .original tract conditions and existing xombig and I ene al plan designation. At this some meeting, the Council also heard the first ieafling of Ordinance 2021 which would remove certain parcels fry the q '. moratorium. Areas to be excluded are outlined on the. attached �. map. The second reading - and probable adoption- of .the ordinance ia' scheduled for November 17, 1975. RAH: :ja , .. ; { Y. i. J: • CITY OF Hurni 1GTon BEACH J/ F.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92448 PLANNING DEPT. 1714) 536-5271 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ATTN:. David D. Rowlands FROM: Richard A. Harlow, Director Planning and Environmental Resources Department DATE: October 30, 1975 RE: Sunset Heights Enclosed are two actions for your consideration regarding the Sunset Heights small lot area as requested at your October 14 meeting. First is a resolution removing residential use restrictions from the tract maps. As you recall, these maps currently stipulate that the lots are to be used for commercial purposes only. This is, of course, in conflict with both existing zoning and the General Plan. Second is an ordinance removing certain parcels from the moratorium imposed September 8, 1975. These lots are recommended for exclusion because they are newly developed, not to be affected by our current planning efforts or are officially designated as a park site. Respectfully submitted, e4o ( ' (4z� Richard A. Harlow Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Department RAH/s m m W ® W m PEARCE ST F F lz I Lots 6 be excluded RESOLUTION NO. 4152 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REMOVING RESTRICTIONS UPON RESIDENTIAL USE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF BOLSA CHICA AND PEARCE STREETS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHEREAS, in September 1921, Subdivision Tract Nos . 184, 1859 186 and 187 were approved by the Board of Trustees of the city of Huntington Beach; and These subdivision tracts created lots of less than 1,250 square feet ; and Each of these tracts restricted use of these lots to commercial purposes and expressly prohibited residential uses; and The California Government Code requires all zoning to be compatible with the general plan and these small lots are not feasible for commercial use , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds and determines that the prohibition of residential uses on said tracts is no longer reasonable because of the progressive development of the city of Huntington Beach as a residential community rather than the oil fields which existed in 1921 at the time of approval of these tentative maps . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds that it is necessary to eliminate the prohibition against residential uses to render the subject property compatible with the general plan, and the City Council hereby removes the restriction on resi— dential uses imposed by Tract Nos . 184, 185, 186 and 187 over the subject property . JOC:cs 1 . jPASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November, 1975 . ATTEST: ---Mayor r , City Clerk 1 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: i C ty dministrator y Attorney i 2. Res. No. 4152 STNI'P. OF CALIFORNIA ) C01mrilY OF ORAMF ) so: CITY OF HLWINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November 19 75 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Matney, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: gone m . City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 16 PLANNI Nc, Dr; ; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REMOVING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS IN THE SUNSET HEIGHTS DISTRICT AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2009 WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Huntington Beach has conducted a preliminary study of the area encompassed by the moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 2009; and Based on this study the Planning Department has determined that the moratorium may be removed from a portion of the area included within this moratorium; and The City Council is desirous of allowing the use and develop- ment of land within the city of Huntington Beach wherever feasi- ble, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. That certain real property west of Lynn Street and north of Pearce Street specifically described as follows , is hereby removed from the moratorium provision of Ordinance No. 2009 : Tract No. 185, Lots 1 through 156; Tract No. 184, Lots 34, 35 and 36; Lots 56 through 60; Lots 61 through 65; Lots 82R 83 and 84; Lots 85 through 89; Lots 105 through lots; Lots 109 through 112; and Lots 129 through 132; Tract No. 186, Lots 109 through 112; Lots 115 througgh 120; Lots 129 through 132; Lots 121 through 126; and Lots 133 through 156; Tract No. 187, Lots 116 through 120; Lots 122 through 125; and Lots 133 through 156. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach News, a weekly news- JOC :cs 1 . paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 1975. ATTEST: Mayor My Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ty Administrator City Attorney I 4 i 2. HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MINI PARKS IN THE HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF AREA PRESENTED TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10, 1975 WHAT IS HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF? It is a community comprised of 311 homes with 1400 residents of which _ 600 are children under the age of eighteen. Approximately 2/3 of these children are 10 years and younger with a majority of this group being pre-school ages. WHY DOES SEACLIFF NEED A PARK? Seacliff is bounded on one side by Golden West, a highly travelled street (See Exhibit 1 for traffic survey) ; bounded north and south by Clay and Palm Drives, both planned to be major travel streets for future developments; (Exhibit II) and on the west by Seacliff golf course (See Exhibit III) . Because of i.ts location and the above mentioned boundaries Seacliff is virtually an island from any park sites planned by the city. We believe that the Parks and Recreation Commission had planned to provide the children with a park via the proposed schools in the area. However the school district has cancelled or indefinitely suspended plans for a school in this area (Exhibit IV) thereby neces- sitating a re-evaluation of park needs. Land is. available -now and will not be after 1/15/76, unless purchased now for development of mini- parks for this area of Huntington Beach. Unless prompt action is taken the younger children in the Seacliff community will be denied the en- joyment and benefits of a park. Seacliff needs one site in the northern part and one site in the southeren part of the community. As well as being developed in such a way that Seacliff is surrounded in a manner such that smaller children cannot go elsewhere to play, Seacliff is also seperated into two sections that will not permit children to use one park. A mini-park in both sections is the only feasible solution. SOUTHERN SITE (EXHIBIT V) There is only one site available in the south end of Seacliff. This property cannotbe developed for residential use because oil and gas lines easements. This property is owned and has been developed by Huntington Beach Company as a greenbelt area. It is currently used quite extensively by the residents in the southern end of Huntington Seacliff. We therefore ask that the committee recommend that this site be dedicated as a greenbelt park or play area. NORTHERN SITE The northern section of Seacliff has no greenbelt area and currently children play in the streets. After a number of meetings it has been determined that there are only two possible sites which could be used as park areas, a site at Goldenwest and Clay, and one at Evening Hill and Manor Point. GOLDENWEST AND CLAY This site is actually located outside the Seacliff community. It is bordered by the high traffic arterial of Golden West. Per the survey in Exhibit I the traffic on this arterial will become in- creasingly more intense. The survey as prepared did not include the impact of the new Huntington Seacliff shopping center which i is scheduled to open soon. This shopping center is diagonally across the street from the Clay and Golden West site. Clay is currently used by residents and trucks to service Standard Oil facilities and traffic will increase with the addition of a planned gas treatment plant. -An extension of Clay to serve the new housing developments of the Huntington Beach Company will also impact the traffic intensity in the near future. A water pump is to be moved from east of Goldenwest to this site. This smaller site is so far removed from Seacliff homes that it would require supervision of the children during utilization of the facility. Such a site would not be extensively utilized by residents of Seacliff if it were developed as a park. (See red arrow on Exhibit II for location) . EVENING HILL AND MANOR POINT (EXHIBIT VI) This parcel is larger and centrally located within the northern portion of Seacliff. It is in a safe, low traffic area. Though acquisition costs may be higher than other site, development costs would be reduced since it already has water, power and sewer facilities. Development costs could be further reduced by using the present landscaping thereby reducing the cost of trees and shrubs. This site would be extensively utilized by residents (particularly the younger children) because of the central location, and protected environment. The design should be for all residents, but. with particular emphasis for the younger children. MONEY AVAILABLE Approximately $92,000 of park fees were generated from .the development of Seacliff (Exhibit IX) . These fees are currently being held by Huntington Beach Company. These fees could be utilized to acquire and develop the sites within the Seacliff community. In this way the City of Huntington Beach would not be- required to use funds cur.rently. in. the city- treasury and allocated for other projects. This plan would allow for utilization of funds in a community generated by that community. Huntington Beach Company has agreed to dedicate this land to parks if requested by the City and to negotiate the purchase against the fees already generated (See Exhibit VII) . They would also develop this site if requested by the City. This would be done in accordance with the City's specifications. PRIORITIES This parcel is currently in escrow to be purchased by Lusk Company for .development of residential homes (Exhibit. VIII) . If this .excrow is allowed to go through, the residents of this area will never have a park. Lusk Company has agreed to cancel this escrow if the City will act quickly to acquire this land for a park. To further assist the City, the residents of Seacliff have located playground equipment which will be donated for use on this park site. By utilizing the donated equipment, the present landscaping, and already developed utilities; the residents feel the development costs could be kept to a minimum. WHAT ACTION IS NEEDED? a Due to the critical time requirement we ask the Park Commission to expeditiously recommend to the city to acquire and develop these parcels within the Huntington Seacliff area as park sites e EXHIBIT I CITY OF HunTMGTon BEACH P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 �- PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 November •17, 1975 Dale Dickey 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Dale, Enclosed is the information that you requested regarding traffic along Goldenwest Street south of Garfield Avenue. The map shown as 2-C Talbert Deletion is the latest traffic projections along the City' s arterial streets. These pro- jections were prepared approximately 12-2 years ago by the traffic consultant firm of Herman Kimmel. The Huntington Beach traffic flow map shows existing traffic volume along the arterial streets. Traffic counts are --- updated each year_by. the Tr.affi°c` Engineer.ing= Department. - �- If I=-can =be of any fur the r==service=j?-lease_---contact=me:- -. Sincere-ly--your-s, -- Rich Barnard . . Planner RB/s Enclosure P. S. Mel --does- not have an extra ccpy_.of the Colony by the Sea EIR. G o � t ! 13 19 `-� 20 `" 30 A 3Z 9 23 R AVE 70 t 1 1 1 S" 14 /9 19 11 HEIL AVE lg q4 17 29 23- q7 19 Gp 55' nMUR AVE -' 19 ,2 o 21 o SLATER AVE 37 11 41 2-0 So P43 7 TMILURI AVE 4? d` 13 19 i 3 19 17 ELLIS AVE Yo o 31 3 CLAY -- �' --AVE - Is 0. AVE -41 - TALB ERT DELETION ut Q ut s le a a J V U pp = 0 Q Q 4600 66.00 u9'i0 13400 VA g O BOL SA AVE. Q N�.. lrwoo 870 2400 0 i' Y > M�FADCEN AVE. o 2400 `^ 9100 10600 a R800 , 17700 20300�Y 21600 28100 '\�7528 �— ,.-' 'F• EDINGER AVE. I 2800 5300 4900 5800 6800 ._ 7500 7500 750C 3800 I �� NEIL AVE. 169008 16400 16400 N 18900� 22300 72700 19900 +. 19100 19800�.�.21 - g g momirz WARNER AVE. O 4600 9200 v 7900 7f4O k 8700 "CD 0f 5200 r 02 SLA R AVE. - J 3500 4000 4400 a TALBERT AVE. LEGEN T \ 0400 SCALE90'� 000 I100 1000 ELLIS AVE. -� = y� AVERAGE TRAFFIC VOLUME 2 p PER 24 HOUR PERIOD Si2G Q 5000 � m m 3 b000 1900 - 2500 4000 {_ B300 6300 7900 B6C0 �y:-. 5400 I500 GARFIELD AVE" 20000 Ef R : g[, 30000 3600 4200 4300 4300 4300 ? 3600 YORKTGWN AVE 4000050000 S e E C� 6400 13500 N T00 ti.. 22200 19300 19B00 60000 . may, � .. ADAMS AVE" 70000 c o St 3600 4700 a 4700 4200 i400 197 4 /NDIANAPOLIS AVE. o 8 5400 8000 a 8000 6600 r 5100 A7LANTA AVE. fig y4 3300 Bloo c : HAMILTON AVE. CITY OF *J� 2500 m � BANNING AVE. HUNTI IGTON BEACH TRAFFIC FLOW MAP � Q V4 p IMILE SC JAN]4 0 620 2E40 3960 5030 FEET 7 EXHIBIT II moon, IMUMOMM MEMEM 2110 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9264E (714) 536-65B1 W. E. FOSTER VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER November 25, 1975 Mr. Dale D. Dickey, Chairman Seacliff Homeowners' Park Committee 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Dickey: You have requested an overview of our proposed sequencing of future surface development in the Seacliff area, particularly with regard to the area that would be served by a southerly prolongation of Edwards Street from its present terminus. As we have discussed, we currently foresee the 90 acres adjoining the 10th and llth fairways of HSCC as being the next development area. If this is the case, a logical development sequence-would then be northeasterly along the Bolsa Chica bluff line in three to five years, and thence into the area served by Edwards Street (between the front nine_ and .back -nine of the golf.course)_in an additional-three-- to-five---- years.--- In consi dering-_such a timetable,.;I.am certain :that you are. aware-of- = its tenuous=nature; many -things_ could occur--to- accelerates or�— --- decelerate--such a program, or to:change--the- sequence=of•=development= _-_ entirely_-___So we-would-_strongly--__:caution-youur_.group =or any- other --not to place any specific -reliance on such=a-generalized planning--sequence=.— It should also be noted that the timing of the proposed highway -linkage between PCH and the Garfield/Edwards intersection is still uncertain; and in fact could be required as a result of the next development area - along---Palm-Avenue, extended. If such a linkage does occur at an early date,=-it would-open some-of the -area -south-of-Edwards to-earlier development for specific land uses before the surrounding area is totally planned. I hope this -information -is -helpful--toyouu- in spite of-its necessary= lack of specifics. Very-truly yours, WEF/h t. T; oz tl.. � �.a �,.'t`.S_ �y '�Y�a�s 11 it ��y i r��r�,�,;�...1r.. ,' � �ji� j� ;�r •`. � '' u' �...r � yyy 3. 3. 4 � IM1•f �• �, r j zy , n A A e r,� x w 3:�at �y h� -: .,,�.`.r•.•.Fy r� - _ .;t: ._ +.-':i.aa. �;,-. - _ -t - - =.M;'�-, �.•._ «.-._.., .,X,+�r, .',,,`r.'�"Fa ar ""�u'`,�, - y , '•- .,y' 'I '-yf�. . `-�;w,,,,,�... iVi�: ._'.1kr 'ti. ..4.r, y t_1-,4�.,. >f'/'•t„ -j7•w '•�y ":.A,i."^ �.:�-}k� ":`F-S�.C'� :Y•'^. �G x ' ... `-�osl,^.f� Y- .. "'�: �s'�a.•.:,..+.� 1 .. -? �5: �~_.. .L'�.r.. s.�''_ _ r•. v" 'Y+'�'a �: d'C',� ,#`+ '=��#.i ��3X ..,�5.h-t.. - :, y <-:,-^ ,?a•�„�7 .���.�`Gj� ..�'Y :��4i�. b1y-• -=1.. _ +iam. _ '" #,.3� '�"+ ,� ,:� •+x-`,ay.. >. �`«y'�.,+"-':..7�v`�:.,r._-.ri .. y.d...M,"f'J,: .., � ,�,�;� �,,.,c�.. �....".'�.D - _.r k'x`�- Via'^•<r,.,,.'r*'-' ,4` �-:>. •-,'.<•;'�-,sue,. ,.j,z.�.,.,..x.- ..-' _. ...:; .. ,. ..�/�..., ,r:.-.. _..;tT.� .: . .: '. �..�C" +W.�,. i,.., ..>, :+r+',{,y�;�>�la"".. t. � •-"�4...t�GY��"k.�'L. ....._... .�,.. -.r!ty°F'�J..... „_ L _ '4��' - �:. ♦' �,c�- -« �TF ''�'.�,4,��� i•,r's.-d+ _ ,.'3^., `k ^>-..s'r.-_• __,.-,.- .•,...:ti - ay"':,, .-,. .. : �'�"'-•: ... z cTY. - _ '`v� �' - �t sr,, ,,t� �y5,,•':ri:s .. :•„3s .:: „-: -". .,-" .-- ""'�," " �,,,,.,...,-'Ec�. #-'__ - ,1_-:- ." '- -_.:ter �- .y. ..►"y,�s.4_�' _ _ -rn:.� 'r F.,.$,.:. c.dt ��z�E`'Y,nr•: - • Y•r.4.Ym-M! h3. � "-.. 'fay�,•YY �3..... .. . v_�..•�. * ..� .. .`L.+3_- �- �.�' •.�r' � �j'S• � -,j'..cR, T^.,� ,,\� T a.-.n ..'��- •'�"." �l� _ '-aa.+-•. �. 7_. Y ,tF.1lT� 'MteT�i".r+iG-•y. � '�+`' :•,' l. :: t•:. ". �'s <^ -�.�� ._ i,sx.. .:?.;• 'W'�: -.. wGr�. ." - �� �1Y 1-•�".d,,�;� '�•. .raxE. £y •Sn-,,..ssY! mow, `,* �� + yr+c3 „C �9F� v'� -�Zi 'di " 1 .�4.? $n? .. '`• ��. 3x �r # ; ,., r. $.:_ �".``f»., G, ... .,;��,,. ..�.i•• �,rs•'.,� _ .. S?i. ,•:..:. �-ia- r. »�.:�". 7,v_.a,-.t,E`'A ';ri,:: • =x `�,,r., �.s., ..: ... "^ �,.,.-Sy..- .$ +I ^:�... " - .. 1':ss:rrt;1 .,r - jP•v�;."ti.:r• ..Fat' s -~. -•"_.3ep�:i: S'`' _ .>:, ,g; c. •.F" j �.'- `i".�"',.t - ":.�-: , ���--" -�'� � �..'• ,.. ._: � ,,,K '. `.tJL`.�. - � _..�•�+-J a'. '."' -*-3,,,_`--... �Yr'l'i:�• �-^'�-_� 'err `"` •;' �`��.���--�'"=,.:. 4. j�i�"�_�r►b �'•�'-i': -", - �-, ._� ""r�-' R:""' s*�•:-�,., �-„��o..�7.?.•.'�y�` ;-'s5,. ��3�t•:.. ',r.��•► j`''-,..ems, ••.... :. "��,ri �,�.T �,F•. � �','4,r�� -..c.= .^�r+'R ,_ � .,�`!"......,... `:•�".n---',,,'-'..�. � .�. .., -_ .....,+� �•zV.,��; r» _ rr y,, ..:.fix..,.., �iR'.,c _ S �,.*�"• -. a'r'�'`*"�..t,'�,.,� ,is .,.. � ��. ...... --•,<.'.,..'--,,.. ,.. .+3 �c,,.yam„-. r e.:c.. ,t.:;•v ;a,..s 2`y�ia�v `r-i'�'u'..>.. �_-o_. -L y►+�`I.7 �f. `�• _ iuCe�+`Z"�... r'. .- � *.--i -. ..wC:- .:r.;!RR'�.. ... -� •.eS _'',J`'S`.,�.•t:.. -•yr«}" _�•-•,�-'..-,r: ;;.'"..'t. "v'a,�. -•r', a��; __,,/.• �,c�u w�.. ...s .,.`"�:�. ,'�'. -i.,.... -- .,..� +.'.•►� ,... ..a;..,-,.r 4'•'g. ",�!_f!� w,.;' �.�ac"<� ..,�'sCF►-�+?Y" '=�'. w �^' _-�^ _ _ _ 's w +�,�'"'` e'LA�,3� ar ,.�'r `a, .�s..�',.,,,. "-•","'til`T5': -• --y. :�,,.�•rr."""' a. .�.w ...i-� `�!- _ `�'';.�.,�a'�L _--r.r_ .,..�. -.y - _ -_ "5�`' � ay�;^,•_''.a,' '�-� `s.:�;�:st'�Fs >_ r_..ri- .�..•: :-- ,.. .- �M...,. .-�'•e� _,.-�,-- .,,a..:. ':y. � .,._ .�.0_ � - �,_�" +''�•--s '.1'- :.s+'�z' "O i��r��'"� ':'�.yn a, *r�, t''+r',1*� t» � .",- ". t--� .'•err_._...s._ _ - �.<��o��,�� s-'ice' :.:e+�y-:.:•',_ 1. o._.,r;•l'�, ,.�1,, '3i� �' � :r.�+" �t,•r� ::v a�•sr_-s •4, r 'k': �, *, w. r,,,,y�� _ ..... „",.: ,.: •...", ^'�^'O.. - a ...�.-��f.+�.,s _ _•,T.r='��!r.... �F'Oa� ,t�i_ 'r v*„: >� x 'e.,,t-.,,.�_ ". :- «;:r�«,.a-•.:.' .,... _ �-. � -«:. �J�vH�E+�'?` � .,, •ate'{e�'^"`",•:...7�'�.��__�,y''n .,..�tt s _;�t," �:-'�`, ''-�e•� __ - _ -e "m -.,�"S, `„-,,4.-v->;�€-. � .,....- a.0 Wy,!„-, ' ';(�,•: _::wIT7�,�,�." :r- Yt- _ idc,. .R, fo a'wy ,:3,xy:`-.f t �, -_'�.,., � ._ ,--_- .air .,.-- �: __- a: _,�.-.�>: ^'•S.�- _. _ >.'�"' - -"^ ,.� �'�`'�- F��;,�. - ,._.' ;. -.-•,.�;fs%.:;.^ s-E+ :,'�.-•`'. ..:4j"G 'ice.i"°.•-r saty'w°y+.at-�':. s.. - y - _ •A� _ ia`' a..a. 'a.,F a"':...,.«;w..,.:.:.L'.,: . .' - "' a� � �'.'.a .. `'i,� ._...`c: •,;«.�' _ '!i ,.^r,'.r•.• t� � .••� o'; ,.,; - Y '_,c ,t,• �Y.�, - '--`^-w. -.^..�`F"��r -aJt F•r•J -..: .--"- y. k�,:rS`t~r^,r,« _ 4a�_.x.„ <• _ _4 � � ����'n`S '�_ L � �_ �:N,',,,,:a��w. � "+r';�sT-�d .:i- .� s,^'�``np =s" Y.�[.�L: i �..: - ~-"'L '..r,- -z•� =�"'z<..i^. r `' -� ~`sue:, +r�,N*."•..Fs.41�'���-1' .,Y.rJzl�'�=F'-�.p�v �:.. -- �,.!.:. .fL' `-�� "�..>.� x ?. •_ ,..� v�< .. h-', �i-,-.�....sr1�"r'.3`r` ..Gi.., =c' Y•�t' +<�'•ti�- J �`.._.._- ___ - rr-.. r. ... �^�.,.�y.,,t��a-:�.,...zP�=�.'1G"'to,sl-"'L s �• .:,,�_�'. •�r:�t l r�� •oar. �wt" GYM- •='r' _,� �"". - ice.r'�}.-� �_,�..'�r' y�. ',�'-, .^:':�; •�'•. -` ..... ..���•',�..=`aaxr �/:•.�,"�, L�'�„��"..! Y'�,�a.�r'r•w„' iaa_.� -- 's'�.'- "�,'^- �--, -a. \t ;'a�.s.i?;,'. ,x ,,.. •...._ .♦,>.. -�,. �a.- •y..r��.:. _F'._ ._� •�.'^h�'�-c9•-..+'�',r'x'.�:.,.. ;""mow. "".+ „"J ,-"`s�•` ,. '^''r."t''�' -"...1Pa` .I_.1�� s►'�..�i „�•�.i•.,�".r _.-{' •;:. 1.,_`- •-:^r-""'� �• ..Sit^' .--""'�*�.p •Y,,:, - ��r�`���a".L-h _ `\ •'^w"•^,. r _�y ,, _ , ��0 i.,...r.•- _.. ,i' -s't. ».. •k .'.. ,.�i-',a; tK; •-�..,v.,. _ -.y s. o.y• t��r a„�>- _ •-a: �C.-,-'b �;13r•r=��,.t _ 3'•`..,� _ram „�-.4-.. � r, ,.......-s �"- F �' �a,.,t, "1-;''$."`�v+�+i.�;; +-s�.Y'-_-,.:' ...- .`y` .csx+ _ v"- ",L .s: .: ... ^� .... - .- r.-: � - ��" _.a-.;=,m`.'m•c,-.....,,tom". •- - _ -'- --.`•q�,. - - - �7C-`., ��'ar. � �� ... 1:. ^� S'3 ., v-„."..�� _ -- -. :',.-:�x� •.,'�_, ,. ,-�-�:_, ."t„z�- - a. >.x. ',\'`�*r'-�,' ~�z�,. ��r�3 '-•�..,..•. `te't, �. •,: �� ,. ,r``�' ..u-�����_...,.s,..,..,..,... �. - .... .,� s'� �p�n ;.;4,.r�-.-. - � t h'♦ ~`:�, I� •,. .' ,_s.-.-,/,'�a?r .r ...,....•._ ^.....,- ,x - ,.,,, ,tea"':= +':c'rf--- .x: .. _;.,:, � �.J,�r t+ ..r ;'�.,`�5,, Jr=-.;+^.,�. --. .. .- _.. - r_'mow' "�✓�?-.... ,... :"��'�' ems. `'"`..., � .--.�'^' 1 : - � . �- , .. ,...-- l is4 :.." ��Z?„' .;!a"---_. ...,'{`Y y �v.-. .n,.,'� �.,.. -L�... .;s -'.'`^�cY'r='..'�•:_" 7n... f ..► , r •. .�- „- _ i,..si�, .� .-, ,... .:4•:;s.,re..v ..• .�, r- !. t. Fk'� '.Y .a ���t:.,- ��� q. ?� '�,+•r` .;. sw ��.,�J�,. =.ice r- •,M'7.s �;.,,•._ �.�vs:.r,.,. __ �:� I .. "r{ ,~ `•� _"�"�`:'�a.,���`j l« '��" :,�--z'c, . - .y ._ w u_. -._ .. ...-..-._. .. . ..: ..-1;,t �y,c� ! :J'y .. �f� � _ .; 3,:, ate. _ r• ti-�w - ��{�.�.xr.•• ^�'� •:ys .s "n-: � ry,�.. .. < l'�:�A-. _ .._ I . ;e.�• ..yam�, �� �z�•. ��. ...«. Y i y-� �� \ _ a e .,�- 'Lsi _, - ,:.,..., '•:. ,.>.:-• _ yI.'[ , -� /�•'' J' „ta:u;. .., .w ,,.,., eF `i� _y�.,..:;+�,. : +.�-'-.. -,-:�,,_. .._ ,. '•c,,,._,..., , is_... �, - '..✓ r .� / j.. +.1. -.r.. #'. :.��^-�� w4. ''«Gt' �,_.::.y'i,.. �•r - _,. ,.c..,-":�. ...� _, _ .,.a e. _ � , ., ��`/fir'''• 'rw, .. :., ... _... -... a.,,.,. ..0 r. Y.-^4•r` r:. ".�_ ",,..��, t•• �+r: e` - _ _F .,a.'.L'.a" _.... ._..- ., e /. .»�-.-- ,«-R• „��-.,„,. .... y "„r...., , �:...�^F` :,W�- �.+id`,er _ 1 " �' .•.',',?.�7.: 'x-. Mom'_ .. ,. a-.�.., 1.,,,:.,., _.oa` .: ._ .>,.+ - ' .�_... .` !/t.. _ -: �-_'._,�r `. .. .n.,.th,,.. '�: t�'�'^�• - ..+ .•x. -.,.,,t,>:�"yi' '-.. .. -,:. ... ." � _:.,:,. ,_• � `"_. - --:' .-'�- 'r,fi�. K;.i- '>,� ':.. :;,.., ', ., ,- -_:.�„ r.... �'' `,*•:, :r-'t .i4�? ,ny .t... ,..r.•... -�. -.>:,, :- ,:,�;r,>....x... a' ,y: _ �-.-...'." Via- ,„. /fir .- .:��,•' ,,a:.. :.f "-'is�3•F a.... "am..---�_.. �-a e �+�.,•-�A- .»,.�'.' -y•+R..+g,;'• +:,�. - ,- � • � ! '.' .. .,...:.._'�' ±.>- iT. ., _" ,^-tis,i',. IL, �..3V .,...v.,,.. +..x.,..a�+ •^5.-_. .t .r:•.} -`E.+,. f. F.�_ .<.-'-,. ,..�,.,,� u- ~--"c .,. ,.s f w`'•,.is ,. _. :c - ,Tr , _ r: ._ 'i' -"S.. ':»• ..sue` .�` #�yc1.�� a•,f1"r '.�. ".. .,r^' ,, ... ,. _.«'--, - f t:_ �-- ._ - --; : ' ,_. -•�'.�- -ter'•«;, ;,, Y ,•c' 'cc� ..-�' �7;�-. ¢''.s - ..... .. .,�,... ,. --.a:',. i .. css,,.,.;,tc,,. t3�a• -._. "'�^'�, _ r:.. .t .:-a... _ - ....:rq•,.♦ n.:•t' ••�;�`.•. `•e_ i.- .e. •'wM. :K`,w ��� . ,... ». e. ix '.�... ...,,e,: .,>-r"_ "-r...r :5,- ., sJ !►_: Y.-�t '.ro 'N _,•"....+i. �r'ervy,�.•..•y�.:.• a,. '- .� ,,.. >-ti._. ..: ....r' ,>tj, x,. � ,,:��j� _x.�+,`C��c�•_ a; r 1-.aa :� rL,�w _ �••� _ ,�;� may_ ,..�X. .,.'+5�"+ »' r • , .<.,.. ,+,.,. t -•k`}. :::xfiY. :�:'.`..'.n•��.� :.! ..i 4•. yf�-•. �. # ��.a �,y�`.'1+Y ':7�,:,w ,p��y-" _ - +„'k-i ,r.:.Y �y. .�^+'T- .. _ - -..�. -a..1'' ,.-,.••1+.^,. , 1'4�,�. , ....y.,., "1,iV•. _.,„__ �-.-R•,:/` -+i,+�fw-..3A:-j€� e.m �+�� . . :_S.'�.•r.-•� �'.:a A e � .I _•_ .t .. :.:sE+"d... „Y. ,,_ ,,.mot.,.. .....3.,�`�: r: ,..-... }"� � ..n'•'Hi-� - ;.J..' .!!'.- .: ., -.-;.M,. ,". :.,.� 'r..:,.�`4' _ ,g'"Yg•:" -.--'`"` ,_..,. s.;..."' .,. 'a.' .,yam. �, .`I`^ '4,��'�'f rt'.. , n , -d:�: ,,. _, +.>-.. -�_ ..„, ,,.....,.. �><,`-^�+,v: .. „* r 3_. � s"neav `+r•"'i� _ ,r'�+�"�'^ `fie. �•.Y'' •r, :� .,c_.._- r ,... _..,r•._ f _, �.� -�'�. . ..... ,..+^ .- .. r_'a.S, -. ., ,:-.:. ! ,:rt'Y:,._,'.eT,M r• ':�'-` �: 'oa..: -&}••;a:�" •s.�,. <.� _.... „_ .. _. ,. 'a.- � _._ .�.s �s { --a �s`<. _��.„.. ;s •,r '-�•*'- �..�.���d^i.�,g ��d. £.>,+.�»^e f ,'`if!•ea" +�`*r.t� - --:'' 's`z. "„. r ,•c; +a ?�-"" :. "; - - <: :.a''- .'•-f �:.�- _•• ,- - `: �.=a' _,a< yc-•. ra''7 °.�f`:��w *�'.f� =�'�y,. .r`�t e+:++.. -.e.. `'�. '•�•$- - . F4 .rt�.. ..'»,•''�-•• :^" 'ac:. a.... 'r ,mot: 'ZMr � w, ;-.•• '.�cu,� _n -.t .!r.,t .. _ E•,..,. ay--, .v:,:. �.,,. .... .._ -C',� ..,;,.._,?- -..,na` ,,. --�FS� '14.�• �g=.g,,,. �i•- �' a - a..>w .,�rd�h'>• ..,. ...,r+,.- ,�' -:•. h'.;._......,, - ;-. , ,;C4A ':. .. - • .+ .. _ 4 r ,`'� s:',�-'ot�!'� - '.h'• : ,...�. _ ,. ,:. z - -a ..-,..,_..,. :_. �: r" :,... ynvss .•„•: .,.,a-R,. +a.'�,- •,nx.. .+I'."a s^ -'; 'C." '."!'' ...tea. .>.,,... s ems. .� .- :. _ ,. .,s.. „-;.. ...: ... ... �-•�--,. ;-,: � ..�. ... .x.,.. .. :N�: .:'. ' "cam.' ,..y,,,,>. :.;�.`�6'•'�'"_�--„'__ �.�.::.•,_� .�.,__�. N.." Tu _. .V'i•u....+•-'. .�/{ ..,: -_^.,� .. .?. •.w..,J.'r _i.. � ? .5�..-.. ..-• - _. .t, 3� -(,. ,'' e 4 �,SJC , l�� :;:1 .::-0 'F.'.,x, ''.4Y �� � ..a.:y"•'yY`.,... .. _ r ....Sr.... ,'.:Y.-_. .. 4�x� :..,. xro>�'ti_-+,+ .'t �L ..,52., ,Y?^�v^'_ �r.�. '`c: ;;�.'.`iti+K A�:. ',..C:.•.T.--i.",�.tY � .1F(Ys s. -, :-.:�'c.,. „1 K.. (],.. . � '-a-3-_ :�•-... .- .r,>...'- ��. ;.. ,y,_ ....mot �.i. "r..: :• _4:,. ..--.+�:" 3 .4 c y'�k't. ,.rt-" �+rt. t. �,..t c.-.� - .. r .. .., _x, _..•, ,.. �-*, �". , fS�+,.. _ ._ 6•:..e�.y-. .....,,,d�+a�� .,�'a ci> >•�..!+ "....�,...i-., { �'.a ...+.;-�y .fi..:�c._ 4.-rtk` "h;.•;, -�_ .� , �JM.�'• _..,; :. _r � ....,: l Q. ..,,....., -,.._.; aria -.�(y. `o,,..h•..3.. ��` '{;r &.`-' .Y -e,-'- ..,'a �" .& .. J~W. .. _ _. . ., � � -`a' .,-.c, lk'n..t ,,,Y..w k ~�f+' .,,.w.'.. i,';�•�.. ..,,�L, #= y�1*;4 _'P°.-:,.: � -`1....3. ,�F'.. _+'...- ..,ems, -. •:,n-� 'S. -.�•. .. ,•~ ., , -t � ,..�.r . ..+- ,.- '.� _ .m.. _ ..r.... .:. l,t. ..,-,. .. ..._ .. w� >--. •-•,tea,. '-.,. �°�`.,. ._. ,,. ... -_,.. _.� '�'�^ '• ��..'• ..�•Q�* 'Y ,t T ..-.-. ,,,.�. �. I. .!.,. :..: _. t.-,.; ,,, ., i' ..-a,r. ia;� 4.�,;s..,- r'.a-'�„ .{`3`,. ,f.. .xiY..., 4 '$ .�-w'�• .i:. ..Grp tsc: �. ..-:!v .!..-....,-' .[' ». s _ .. 'vT." .. _.. zraC" as ... .. J'. _ .�� '..i'a :c., 4.r. ..,,,,..w:,+i.• ;.'e ,�.,;..:. _.6........ . ems.- , .... ..,: ., .. .. ,., ."„. t,,.;�-',: .. ... .. ,., - _da^.t'=, ._,c�' •+tea;;s�:. si-' �''t �^•�_' tf ;�:r`-i:'4 .a �"�2vt..",:,. .,, .. r• ..'Y. .,d�k.� a.,>. ..,. ►.__ .- . r .._,-._ ':.. --' 7: .• .;.a_r ,..•X,,, +•-..;..- .:-' ?� fix,. �.�"�'.C'..:. v-^•.- c -aCr ,ri,,..:'::e - '+.-;„"-_ �:,.-....,- ., :., :.. _ ,, ...,.• � - ...... _ ._ ..,. .. 45 ,�,� ::s ,+n,r,... _--,-•5.i.:c-•, _ •^'''fir'"'-�" -,tn .y ;>tt."•,. •r.. -:, ''.. ,- .:... , -:...-.-.r-^ - .., , r- .,..-.. - t ?ty.,�.,.-:�- s '.. �1«. .tea •,zt*.. =i-g,r• x...a,_".... +•.�::.':.}•.,. �".r.:�: "� 'a.....zc,. `f,• ' - _.:.. .. - _, a .r :-.,. .a.-r.....:.-"•...... •..::< .p."„�+�,. r.. > y< `;!, �. -F' _.."..,k.....,.�.: .._�.- ;r•••e,m'.:,,-. ...�r .w1.� '"'t _. ''�, „�:: a ., ".� �, .-, .,. -s� .:�•'.,.•.-• :�+> k .'t. �. x - L x',` -,�.+. -.s F.��r'., "'�^ _�_,,,- � ► _ .... :.: : _ '. -. ,t - - ... .> _'•�- � :^ -� � ^•.,..max..,'� .•,�_�°- .r.�f_-':;;a�':.."-�"-�',+ter=• '-� - ,•'�^+; ,! � -••,.:' ._.. '�6i- ....",,.. _ - .. -.. -_ ., - .a..:,:-..+. "'t''v#`rt }, 1:-*k,.-•F.yr• �� vey �,'N,.»..ay. -i"-` ' .-•---�• mow.. .,,, :< - ,.....,:,e,.,•'� ^ _ ., � '" ..:^ ..s � k, m3' - t.. +.' v`. «._:..,... � ''.:$ -.ems a w.J .. •. r :'a' ...,,-,.,'• .s � - ,. J.,... -& _ ,.. _. .+r:vT ^ r. �w�, M• .'t, v. y,,. -.'3✓'a3. ..� s'S., e.' s..-4�-. .x ,.. .. .>:: -. . :. , .,.: .,... - - a} f L�... ryi .t=' t .✓\.. _- - "..4'� �"3•p+y}.r.Y:+Air':_�..y �'.....„3 4 .F y .++✓•• s..: ".s t a ':•t..- _ ^c. `��"-%" - -...'....v �,•. _ .,,,,,...,.._ ^ir i':t4, .&, �:`.r"5.":.. `F`,^„' •.�1. ../°S`- S v -. ,.:.,- " v �'.! " y ,,«.a..- �r, O �'•'h^. ..,,,,,, .:.--&-: 4• ,'.j•-l�•n ...�� .. -:', .4 ,!•Y. _; 1 p �"4 • -'•�.�" ,k. ��' _-s. . .. .^. a. n t P '�,'K` ,-,,: r.: ,.:.., ».•i '.+'' ..._,,:. •..., ,..� _«./"`�' G`iy^ .�".- "^'� ?f'..,' s� r'11::� '^&x ,: _. _.. '-�,.r - ' -'*' .�.. ,: .>. ,u-s,.7,."fi,`_.,,_ :1. :'� ;,f'- ,.:...:�. �"• r.... -- .#` �•+,_ -„ _ . .. .,. _., - ,.. r `"..sR' -x.»..Y:;tr '� - .qv:'.,`= ..?,T',i '. �' so-Y �� l� �3G;�itS,"��._r_ �,�"K,"`• VJ"` 4 t 'r `t .m_.9.rt•.6;'x ,:��.. �*,�p.,- ,. ..•. ,,... ?, _. - .z.e. .. 1...�_r::,:.+.. ++C. �.. �w.•„,,,. 1: 1""ie"-._n"Yx"'•<.... „'..v"i ry _ �. +-5 ..>' :�. � J,.•�-:.,. �a-. �:1� w.;:?„c`r,... r•„<,'�.- -,. •w.:_ '�* t- -,;.. .•,., ...:,... r x, � S _ � ..�,. _ .. .:..E � t. -1"'-.. • :. A.- � f. rr�4. .- ! ,'6-. s A. ,•x. -s. ..t,•T y.. �.:t' '+. - J"i .x,= _� cY -?y yam.•- .-> ,. /�.. -.rV ✓' ...,. -r � _. !. - -. _ ,,,a� -" - .�:-,., -� ,�, �'-� 5_. _.....�:.�=+. r, J ;.. - �F.x' ,,t„d',..rr'•,4::-..tv ,,�q+ � %Mle r�'-•' <..'ti;� ->_'+� - ''�, .,, _. .r .>. �„ .-h:- ! ., ..s,. -.x-,.-•-._ .' z•.. - n- a ... - i c� ';*,:d"^ie, s±S„cr.. Y. .�rff x tt �r•.�.� z`_ r ':Y, a »t - ' � .- ... � ..__._. rw mow•=-�`r , .Te... �:'w-'rt -1. N ,�,.• .S_T::.,•'. ` .. ._: ....., j .. ,.,.s _ .n_.. _ ,..-.s. `- ' = ,� s^ -.c„--,.�'.c*a"'... .ry3a�r -' - '+, :rq!x--+,, f � �:'3`. �5. ,�•..� .e.. '••fir ., ...mat - +:J -•e..:- r 'J' rt�-T"Yti:'v. <+"'t', - _1!-.- Y^✓'%- 1'r - ''.at. �> '14 _ s _ �,. ..<.. a -...„ • ,. .. ..-. .i='^i'i` •�„r �s!. '.r ':al-. l-"S" �L'.. rn +• ,r w-.'. ,. _ .. .h +k _ �'��,' u. �.- :.•' ,.- - . F -i•("�-tr`c 4...".r.CV•-�. �` �'.",',.i< r.,, ..i:'"z' `•S,T:� yf.Y� =1. .a�:,�.L N.> .'�* ; '?r:. ,. , .. - _"'rt: _.: .: .,:...i._ , ... ♦ x d 1 ? . .,-a•'t,N':£c �''S,w' 4_ - 3� a lq}�- •/i _ ",. -...i, ff i _ 1 ,.! .. i-.. .^• •y��y� •=,: Y' :., .. ...- • ,. w '-...•iptk.". ,.-•"', ^ y�`.i i.+'.'_ i�,i ,' '-+"�. R„'•4.,.:•r.: ..:,t.r - • -..f ,.. .. r,, -. ►3. -�„J t..•� ,aa,�y�'+W,r-,.;, JT. +,.'�., 'fix Tv ... - r - _. •- ..a :. __.s---,....._-. S-^},c: �> :>� �-". ': ,".F a� ��`, '�Q't .�•a'i - - 'We- .. , .,-> rt _.•,.... .>• ;. c ^",,.c=l'-• trc '�y:�`�:-.:�.- --• s"'•s'' +,3.� z.: .".c.�` "^�:�'! '.i -�i- �. ,y. ,. .. r1""y' �;tr. :.-; ". ,... .«.," ..-,�[., ,.. ,_"'., ':,;,.----',.. .,..-:,.>„-_....r. t +_as.,. -,.._ �:_ -'K= •� 'i x ....#:.. "•.+.,.r'.. >r. �. t?", �. >.,-"., _ ... .. - - .T _ �* �� r _. -.. -.;:.�.�,. .,,.,....... -��F-, ,� .i�.''_',f x ,:.�a�'"�`3?� .. .Y „� ea.-„ ksr.:._--a....-y=t>....-.-.�+.,.�. >.!:,.•' - k.. rX ; "''^t, '''"\ .,.vr r •'e.=�:• r W,r;' _ _ ' ... dam'.;. t* r.- ..:.; � o ," *,,:. _.-. .'�._ - -- '. � -_-•. _ - -,'„' �i'-*u'.. - A x a w. 'e". TYS< I./..` kh. � -.�!•.� ~1. .� a.. a�JJ p t EXHIBIT IV HUNTI GTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT December 5, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey President, Sea Cliff Homeowners Association 19341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Dickey: This letter is in response to your request for information in regard to school planning and construction in your immediate area. The Huntington Beach City School District has worked diligently with the Huntington Beach Company in "Master Planning" future development as to the ultimate location of school sites in your area. Please find enclosed a tentative map in regard to school site locations. This District presently has reached a leveling point in the relation to the tremendous growth we have experienced in the last ten years. This District presently has adequate space-to accommodate---all the students= living-in -our community:-=if there=-is=a-decline,i-n-school-=-- - age population East of Beach- Boulevard-and a corresponds ng--growth-_=-! in your_ area, there will . be_ a. trans por-tat-i.on—pr-obl-em- for-a.-peri-od.of-� time. ._ You should also know that this District has used-all of-the voted- bond--- money constructing -the ten. schools East-of Beach- Boulevard.- Prior to- construction of any schools, it will be -necessary to go -back to the people for new bond money. If I -can provide any further information,--please feel free to call .- Sincerely, C. C. Palmer Deputy Superintendent, Business CCP:lc Encl . cc: Willi-am Foster; Huntington-Beach-Company C. C. PALMER S. A. MOFFETT BETTY FUNKHOUSER DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT BUSINESS INSTRUCTION AND PERSONNEL 735 14TH STREET ■ P.O. BOX 71 ■ HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF. 92648 ■ (714) 536-8851 7 • _ zoo: ¢rTY i� �r { � .' ,-------- Jul • t 32B unll[ve.TY Y 1.9 u[n[ y;,:-,,. I[600.cr•. !^7 ]9.B.cn. _. 7 [ Ila9/a[r.• r. -l- .2/ear. � __� —71 f ..� �.,yr VL�•� L—j .oW o¢ti.TY \�,�,., 1,2)3 u ' - 19)Wn101Ne�TY •~� t.� /�� o,o 7 av[ 5A/aar. O Vl- 41. 1i/e<�� ]I 90 a SOW O¢M¢1T1( la�v O¢n¢[TY 340 60� isiaan.. `~I 30— 'I sw.oBwc +wo or¢ LAND UGH INVIRNTORY / HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF El,lMTP'NOTL_?A1 COMPANY F:1:M171:V�TGN L'.ACH CALIFO:.NIA Cu—,,TIS ARO DAV.S ARCHMMTM ' i S -7. OL h ry. o�s •g x � �'f w x � � �� y� � '`'fir ��- { °��f -s � k R Y , � a ✓ y ]� r^•�''�• ry '� � �il ���: r L"a�, � ^����`,��.'ti','#'S. f3\, {y;.�¢�f a✓fit.f � a ��� �m.°a�� 1 1��` e- :.o. "#�k x � ������ ��z " '�' ��r"���.t •zfppy'"�•.' � a" Liat$ ,-r ,�'v'Y Ws inn ., ...e.. •. .3 ;<< P ' �" g E c' 41 �� ,t� t. ".: *" ? t t..x-�'•ry 1 ;3 a } f � . S' dm � � ?{�` yv�x .x.d� tP !S �, a ,;c k ° r.J '� �'� 5'#�'7/N�(���� "•� !k/' . r �t , 5 � x -� e � I t t ky,•o ✓� � y � G rrg.,r of Rf �rf —Why ,7 `kt'vao- � f .`..�' 1�,e ',� $� �iC• ��t�^ r •� 'r�'��'''�"�6 f � �r+t5",s. ''°^s��+✓ `�,Epp,y�t '§y � ,` 1� ;q, a s�.I�e'�t}q� i . r '' b �7 �+' �� A �z��.{' � rya ,���lr ,✓^r a {� � � � .� � a+ t P'f �• a �fi ��� � ��r; j� ��`ram�j/��f( 1. L � l' a '�' �4 �✓ e q °.Mr �y;�: .�j�� D`. I .;tf F, ,r7 ia:j P b' •4 �� � { r f � .cif � ���a "��l x a I'� P� .. ,d�°,,. `� se`�.t 2r'� •,��9 � <<4,��`�l. a �f�R".' x.,s #± 4 P Wr tz, As 54 N" 1 QV 1 EXHIBIT VII November 6, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey, Chairman Park Committee Huntington-Seacli-tf--Homeowners'-Assoc. i9341 Manor Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear M.r. Dickey: This will confirm our previous discussions in which I 'have expressed our Company's willingness to dedicate for park purposes, and if requested, construct park improvements on the.three lots (56-58) on Evening Hill Drive. As you know, the subject lots are now in an escrow of sale, and this offer is conditioned upon a firm commitment by the city to accept the land and/or part: improvements in _partial satisfaction of our subdivision park fees before the date that the escrow is in condition to close. And in no event, does this offer extend past January 31 , 1976. This offer is also conditioned upon the city' s agreement to value the dedi Gated_I and=at- i is current--market val ue i n -computi ng the amount _-- of pa rk fees.to .be offset, and upon=our -Board -of_Di rectors-'=concurrence— with- such-a value.- -� - As we have--discussed---.our Company---wil-l—try to-coope:r-ate--to--the Jul Ies-t«` extent possible-with-the desires of -the surrounding -residents--and the = - various,_city- agencies involved: . -But in view--of the-fact-that we notified the -Homeowners'_-Association in April �--1974,-_of-,our_.plans_ for__ these lots , vie hope that firm agreements for their use can be reached- at an early date. Very truly yours,- 14EF/h EXHIBIT VIII JOHN D. LUSK & SON A MEMBER OF THE LUSK FAMILY OF COMPANIES 17550 Gillette Ave., Irvine Industrial Complex P.O. Box 2140, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 • (714) 557-8220 (213) 726-6841 November 13, 1975 Mr. Dale Dickey Chairman Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association Park Committee 19341 Manner Point Circle Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Lots 56, 57 & 58 Tract 7421 - Huntington Seacliff Dear Mr. Dickey: This letter will confirm our conversation of Thursday, November 6, 1975 relative to the request made by the Homeowners-Association that considera- tion-be-given by John D. Lusk &-"Son to allowing- ample_time for your_ Association--to-request-consideration of the- City-of_Huntin-gton_Be-ach-for- the purchase of -the_�_subject lots for- city park purposes,-_As you -are-aware,-__ John-D-. _Lusk-:& Son is- in_the proc;es_s_of -purchasing-the_ subject lots-from- the_Hunfingt6n_Be ach-C-a`mpany-on-which -John-D.--Lusk-&—Sonn plans-to--construct---- _ three_.single-family._r-e sidence.s=:--_ It is our further understanding that the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association has requested consideration by the City of Huntington-Beach for- the purchase of said lots for public park purposes and that-the request will be considered by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their first meeting _ in December--of 1975.----Based=on thi-s-knowledge, and-in=a-spirit-of cooperation with the. City and the Homeowners. Association, -John D. .-Lusk_&=Son has agreed to withhold the start of construction-of- the residences on-the subject lots until January 15, 1976. We believe this should enable the Association and the City to come to a determination relative to the use of these lots. We would emphasize that if the -City .determines to act favorably towards the purchase of the lots for public park purposes, an immediate escrow would have to be Mr. Dale Dickey Page Two November 13, 1975 opened providing for prompt purchase of the lots at a price yet to be determined. Should you have any questions relative to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, JOHN D. LUSK--& SON Donald D. Steffensen Vice President DDS/br cc: Mr. William Foster Huntington Beach Co. Huntington Seacliff Development �E'kimation of Fees Due Density Estimated Acreage/Fee Park Acreage/Fees Due # of Lots. Factor Residents Conversion Factor Acreage Fees 1st Development 106 ' 1 3'.,78: 400 27, 030 1. 000 $ 27, 030 1968-69 2nd Development 67 4. 04 271 31, 562 , 677 21, 367 1970 3rd'Development 138 4. 04 558 31, 562 1. 395 44, 029 1971 $ 92, 426 For every 1, 000 residents, Z. 5 acres are required or fees in lieu of land. A_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH :? COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA (� 37 HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Members Subject SUNSET HEIGHTS PARK SITE Date March 19 , 1976 The Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the enclosed real estate appraisal of the 6 acre Sunset Heights neighborhood park site as requested by the City Council and the following motion was made : RECOMMENDATION: MOTION: Mr. Harry Turner moved the Recreation and Parks Commission reaffirm their original position of December 4 , 1975 , recom- mending to the City Administrator that he pursue acquisition of the six acres of small lots in the Sunset Heights area previously designated by the City Council as a neighborhood park site through eminent domain or whatever procedure nec- essary. Mr. Joe Costa seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. i ' i If the City Council concurs with this recommendation , I will proceed to acquire the property. I will be bringing this matter before the City Council under Agenda Item No. M-2 . Respectfully submitted , Z., ,-4Z David D. Rowlands City Administrator ev DDR/NW:p ' v Enclosure lko •j j ' ff i Norm Worthy, To Director of Rec F, Parks Date 2/4/76 SUNSET HEIGHTS APPRAISAL The City Council authorized an informal o appraisal t be•obtaine in Sunset Heights area- in order to ascertain the value of the F property to be acquired for park purposes . Please contact Roger Slates to see if it is E possible for the Board of Realtors to provide the City with an informal_appraisal . I don't think the City Council has authorized the hiring of an appraiser at this point in time. Please report your findings to my office. � h PLEASE REPLY TO Signed �GJf'IV• David D. Rowlands j City Administrator i i i i i y '' Date Signed 4S 465 s SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. P*P.AIl0wbIM46S PART 3 WILL RE RETURNED WITH REPLY, �Cr. R. 0. SLATES REALTORS R"I E®eaee teal canunercial Industrial February 10, 1976 Mr. David D. Rowlands City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Subject: Fair market value estimate of the proposed Sunset Heights Neighborhood Park Site Dear ter. Rowlands: In response to a request fro® Mr. Norm Worthy to submit a value estimate for the proposed six acre park site, the following is submitted. I have inspected the subject property and also reviewed the Appraisal Report for the subject: property, done by Locke Land Services dated March 11, 1975. It is my opinion, based on investigation, study and experience, that the estimate of market value for the six acres, as of February 11 , 1976, is: TWO HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS 26 ►600. 0 I have on file in my office documents, factors, sources of information and comparables used in arriving at my opinion of the value estimate. This information and/or a more detailed value estimate is available upon request. I have attached for your information a copy of my qualifications to make this value estimate. If I may be of further service, please feel free to call on me at your convenience. V®r t r u yours, e D. Slates RDS:ja Enclosure cc Norm Worthy W5 Seventeenth Street, Hundngem Bach, Cakwnia 93M(714)336-8WI GENERAL QUALIFICATIO.._ IN THB YIELD OF REAL ESTATE, REAL PROPERTY VALUE ESTDIATES AND APPRAISALS of ROGER D. SLATES 305 17th Street Huntington Beach, Ca 9264E Phone: (714) 536-8801 PROFESSIONAL NMER Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors 1960 to dais, California Real Estate Association 1960 to d<itt' National Association of Real Estate Boards 1960 to date Urban Land Institute 1963 to date PROFESSIONAL, OFFICER Regional -Vice-President 1968 California Real Estate Association President 1963,1964, 1969 Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Director 1963 rhru 19tif, Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors 1969, 1970 PROFESSIONAL._ Mif—ornia SIB State o - Real Estate Broker 1960-to date Identification bluBmber 226827 CIVIC MMER Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce - President 1966, 1972 CIVIC ACTIVITIES Huntington Beach Planning Commission - Chairman 1969 & 1970 Member 1968 thru 1972 and February 1975 to date Orange County Planning Commission - Chairman 1973 iMember October 1.972 thru January 1975 Orango County Airport Commission - Chairman 1971 Member 1967 thru 1972 Chairman and Vice-Chairman of various Boy Scout,* March of Dimes and Cownwity Chest Drives HONORS - PROFESSIONAL Realtor of the Year. Award 1963 and 1964 Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of Realtors _HONORS - CIVIC Man of the Year Award - Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 1968 TYPES OF REAL PROPERTY APPRAISED hotels Industrial Buildings and Parks Apartment* Commercial and Special Purpose Properties Single Family Homes Service Stations Kobile How Parks Vacant Acreage Offico Buildings Shopping Centers C'hurchea Water Oriented Properties LIST OF FIRMS USING PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES (Partial) Security Pacific National Bank Procter and Gable Distributing Company LOKU Construction Company Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Thal Irivestmint Corporation Signal Oil and Gas Company Huntington Searh Company Foxx Development Corp. Huntington Harbour Corp. Qualified as Expert Witness in Cnurtia Huntington Beach .Stake, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintH Huntington Valley Bank (Southern California let National Bank) INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION NUN11WGMN MACH To Mr. David D. Rowlands From Recreation $ Parks Commission City Administrator Subject Sunset Heights park acquisition Date December 10, 1975 At a special adjourned meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission on December 4, the Commission discussed the Sun- set Heights proposed six-acre park site and expressed "the need for the City to begin acquisition of the 208 25' x 50' encyclopedia lots , since the area is no longer protected by a City Council imposed moratorium. Considering there is adequate cash in the Park Acquisition and Development Fund and that it will probably take two to three years to acquire the lots under eminent domain proceedings , the Commission made the following recommendation: MOTION: Mr. Harry Turner moved the Recreation and parks Commission recommend to the City Administrator that he pursue acquisition of the six acres of small lots in the Sunset Heights area previously designated by the City Council as a neighborhood park site through eminent do- main or whatever procedure necessary. Mr. Rudy Lozano seconded the motion. Motion carried. i Respectfully submitted, i rm Wort y, Secfetary Recreation $ Parks Commission NW: ac / cc: Recreation Parks Commission V John Cope , Planning Department Attachment fRACf --- )?------'+t----- il._-.__ t--- -tC_----j'--- W- - u+----- +---' 0 o co a L r s r D ; .......;t...._. ......et...... ----- -----emu---- �- t- - _x! - "c --- f+' , I O ti 1 i n' r -,/°------''I'-----'K)----- '-----:ot---- .... .O_ 0.... A-----a0i O ;ea------ --- ar r r 1 , r r I r I 11 ®• ' { I � (� � I hrl. ' ref 1 1 1 1 •••I w 1 1 , 1 rw�cf � I 1 I In w • O 1 IF I lu Nr 1 t--- O " 't-----J+'----- ; ot Iy- IV -- - Ir to, ;, O ly 17 1 ® ® A dj-- -fRj • ___ _�__ 11 M __fi ---n •f l /fl '/N Il • ' :b'.,v1'� ,.,.,.yr^■. „��� M`rir^aelMiMtP4�uwl+.�'.,:,;lir+,e'Tl•:i"gw'�41`l:an.hi.�.r. � - "�.A"++v�MgPR1.aaugtrrw�r�rv�aayp'�I�grr�er:: —� 1 wnw STNFFI i rRACf O r ,I r O s or Iro ul a ;.e ,, N)• ® 10 - • 1, i 0 1 ' � ----•t! — m--- 20F O-, °' -- 'd- n__.. "t-----''+ - Le A u ., N U) 1. s ,I n s ll • •• ..��_ �„• . o ro la O of r � 1 In_ APO ' or � r I r• - 1 ® t7 N � -i ✓Ir Olf R ! , �•. — swear — s e3 b -e ¢ FO � p3 4A, g � � }➢ �' T�" o;�° g_ 4 2'aril "''`�' r"t y i a � � " ..& �''s �Ea �§� i �� fit.. r .§} V2 ��5,j� '� +�� �.• e e=a PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Prepared by Huntington Beach Planning Department May 25, 1966 CERTIFICATIONS Plaiming Commission -I. hereby certify that this Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use was adopted by Resolution No. 66®1 of the City Planning Commission on this 21st day of June, 1966. Robert Do Bazil, Chairman ATTEST: Kenneth A, Reynolds, S cretary City Council I hereby certify that this Parks, Open ,Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use was adopted by Resolution No. 2419 of the City Council on this lst .day of August, 1966. J e . R. Stewart, Mayor ATTEST Paul Co Jones;, C' lerk PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS AND- RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Table of Contents — Section Title Page — Goals and Objectives i Foreword ii I Introduction 1 II Reasons for Initiating the Parks _ and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use 6 III Purpose of the Park and Recreation — Element to the Master Plan of Land Use 8 IV Criteria Pertaining to Developing a Parks and Recreation Plan 9 V Integration of Parks and Recreation Areas with the Master Plan of Land Use 10 -- VI Amenities of Park and Recreational Areas 11 VII .Types of Recreational Facilities 13 VIII Range of Recreational Facilities 14 IX Responsibility for Implementing a Parks and Recreation Program 19 X Role of the School System 20 XI Role of County Government 23 XII Inventory of Existing Neighborhood and Community Facilities 25 Table of Contents (continued) Section Title Pale XIII Inventory of Regional Facilities 27 XIV Analysis of Proposed Neighborhood Park Sites 31 XV Methods of Financing a Comprehensive Park and Re c re at i on P 1 an 36 XVI The Challenge 44 List of Tables and Illustrations Title Page Neighborhood Park Requirements - Table 1 15 Neighborhood Playground Size - Table 2 17 Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use 45 Master Plan of Regional Parks 46 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide a well-balanced recreational program for the citizens of Huntington Beach . ® Implement the Urban Land Institute recommendations. ® Provide a sound basis for purchasing park sites by estab- lishin-g criteria for the type of recreation, site location and' space required. ® Wherever possible , locate neighborhood parks adjacent to school sites . Acquire at least three recreation centers ; a municipal golf course and a central city lake and natural area. ® Purchase land for parks , open space and recreation prior to development, ® Utilize all financing programs that are available to the city . Coordinate the County's regional park plan with the City!s - plan for parks , open space', schools and recreation. • Continue the coordinated recreational program with the _ school districts. ® Re-evaluate the Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation. Element of the Master Plan of Land Use on a periodic basis. -i- f'l FOREWORD Planning for parks and recreation facilities should proceed from agreement on policies that reflect the best thinking of a community regarding the purposes, scope and general character of the public, recreation system. These policies will assure the citizens of Huntington Beach that decisions concerning par- ticular facilities will be consistent and these decisions will ultimately lead to a well balanced public recreational program, -ii- PARKS, OPEN SPACES , SCHOOLS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO- THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE I: INTRODUCTION Philosophy.Behind the City of Huntington Beach 's Parks and Recreation Program The Urban Land Institute, an organization contracted by the City - of Huntington Beach to evaluate the City's assets and liabil- ities and determine the proper course to pursue in improving the City ' s image , presented their findings to the City on December 3, -- 1965. In endeavoring to answer questions with regard to parks and _ recreation, the U.L. I. emphasized that the requirements of cities vary greatly. The City of Huntington Beach has one of the largest parks for a city of its size right at its front door. The beach greatly alters established standards as compared to any inland city . Because of its proximity to the beach, the City of Huntington Beach has been pursuing a policy of purchasing several small neigh- borhood parks in contrast to providing a few larger community parks . The U.L.I. panel felt thAt this was and should continue to be the _ proper procedure. They felt that smaller parks provide a wider spread and more complete coverage . The beach is already a regional _ park facility, and if the proposed Orange County Harbor District 's 160 acre aquatic park becomes a reality it will also serve as a major regional park in the northwest section of the City. The 248-480 acre proposed regional park in Fountain Valley, now in the planning stage, will also serve the broad recreational needs of the City. Therefore , since these regional facilities are strategi- cally located at the periphery of the City, emphasis should continue to be placed on acquisition and development of neighborhood parks . The Southern California Edison Company has a system of trans- mission rights-of-way emanating from its generating station in Huntington Beach. The towers are approximately 100 feet high and are located 1250 feet apart. The right-of-Way, owned by the Edison Co. , ranges up to 200 feet- wide -and appears to offer many advantages _ on the neighborhood recreational level . The City is negotiating with the Edison Company to utilize a portion of these rights-of- way as open space. It is anticipated that similar negotiations can be worked- out on the remaining rights-of-way to fulfill the necessary open space needs for the particular neighborhood that -- these rights-of-way transgress . In keeping with this concept, the City has contracted with a landscape architect to prepare a park development plan of all Edison rights-of-way within the city. Supplementing this program should be the further acquisi- tion and development of at least three recreation centers. The present recreation center at 17th Street and Orange Avenue is - very popular, successful and overcrowded. Since the City can eventually anticipate at least three community parks, a recrea- tion center should be a part of each one . These centers may be small in size but they do serve a community wide function . The school system plays an important role in the .City o s recreation program. School playground equipment is available for use by the community after school hours . Close coordination by school authorities and the City leads to a distribution of facilities and supervision, and eliminates a duplication of materials and expenditures. The creation of new neighborhoods results in the need for educational and recreational facilities within the same area. That is why it is important that parks be located, whenever possible, adjacent to school sites. The long-range recreational plans of the City should also include a central city lake and natural area of approximately 65 acres that would include a natural history museum, a wildlife center or other similar facility, The possibility of a munici- pal golf course in that area should also be given consideration in the long-range recreational plans for the City. Should the- . opportunity arise to acquire property in this area-- at a reason- able rate, the City should consider the _possibilityo -2- It should be noted that there are two planned communities in various stages of development within the City. Huntington -Harbour, a planned development consisting of approximately 877 acres , is basically a water-oriented community. Ultimately there will be 92 miles- of inland waterways , with a total of 258 acres. In ad> dition to these waterways, a neighborhood-park is planned adja- - cent to each of the two elementary schools located in the commun- ity. - Provision has also been made for 6 private beaches, 2 pri- vate parks and a beach club totaling 7.34 acres . These will be strategically located throughout the development . Since these inland waterways permeate the entire development , directly accommodating 40% of the total lots planned, credit should be given toward this development's overall parks, recreation and - open-space needs. The major drawback of the public recreational aspects of this - development is that it is virtually a contained community with little or very limited public access to public waterways . The:-Hunt ington Beach Company has commenced construction on -its 700 acre planned community. This development emphasizes low and high density residential development located adjacent or---near a 140 acre 18 hole golf course . This proposed golf course will originally be on a semi-private basis and may ultimately develop into a private golf course. Since this recreational facility will be satisfying a certain amount of open-space needs, both active (for the golfer) and passive (for the viewer), credit should be given toward this development ' s overall parks , recreation and open-space needs . Supplementing the golf course are plans for three neighborhood park sites, located adjacent to three elementary schools west of 23rd Street , and a private 7 acre park site that is located north- easterly of Palm and 23rd Streets . This private park site blends into two elementary school sites. With the proper design , and if existing oil lines will permit, it is possible to incorporate this 7 acre park site into a community complex involving the two elemen- tary schools and the existing high school. -3- There are also 14 special facility recreation areas (ranging in size from 12, 000 square feet to 15, 000 square feet each) that are planned to be used as forms of active recreation. With this as a philosophy to guide the City, a Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use is essential . This element will serve as a guide line to the overall acquisition and development of parks , recreation and open space facilities within the City. - History Behind the Parks Program Prior to 1960, the City of Huntington Beach, having less than 11, 500 residents, provided adequate recreational facilities . In addition to the 8 miles of beach frontage both within and contig- uous to the City, the City boasted of three small parks (Lake Park, Farquhar Plaza and Cirle Park) totaling 6.6 acres and a 2 acre recreation center. The recreation center was purchased by the City Council in 1948 at a cost of $20,000. It originally served as an Army Air Corps headquarters located at the Santa Ana Base. It was to be used primarily by the Boy and Girl Scouts. These volunteer organ- izations were unable to finish , repair or maintain the building; therefore , a Recreation -Commission was established and a full-time _ Recreation Department hired to conduct an organized recreation pro- gram within the City. _ When the urban sprawl descended 'upon Huntington Beach , in the early 1960°s , the City. was operating with an ineffective master plan . Although it provided guidance involving variations in resi- dential densities , commercial areas and industrial locations , it failed to take into consideration the future park and recreational needs necessary to provide a fully integrated community. The City Planning Commission held two public hearings on a proposed Master Plan of Parks and Recreation and adopted the pro- gram under Resolution No. 52 on November 18, 1958. The City Council adopted the Master Plan by minute action on December 1, 1958 , but failed to fulfill the legal requirements of formally adopting by resolution the Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. Subsequently, provisions of the Master Plan were never im- plemented. -4- The City's Growth Since 1960, the City 's growth has been accelerating at a rapid pace . The population increased to 34, 143 in 1962 ; 50, 269 in 1963; 64, 228 in 1964 and 80,738 by April, 1966. The City is expected to have about 132, 000 people by 1970. Building construction has been increasing at a rate comparable to the City's population growth . In 1962 , the City issued building permits at a valuation in excess of $66 million; in 1963, it rose to over $80 million; in 1964 it dropped down to about $63 million and in 1965 the City set a new Orange County record with a total — of almost $84 million in building valuation, ranking third in the entire State of California in this respect . -5- II : REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Necessity of Early Land Acquisition Growth of this magnitude requires long-range planning of the facilities necessary to service the community' s needs. Essentially, this would consist of adequate fire and police protection and a workable public works system. A long-range program for the provision of recreation areas and facilities, designed to serve the recreation needs of all the - people of a community, is also an integral part of this community' s Master Plan for future development . It is imperative that a positive direction toward ultimate acquisition and improvement of neighborhood parks be made to meet the human needs of its people. Without land, it is not possible to meet the challenge of tommorrowo Without land it is impossible to provide for the recreation needs of a community in the years to come . It is important that land be purchased for park and recrea- tional needs before the demand arises . There are good reasons for taking this approach. First, the cost of land, which is -- increasing at the rate of $2500 an acre per year, would be within reasonable limits ; and second, land would be acquired in strategic - areas that would eventually serve the recreational needs of the community. Space standards for parks should be met and the land acquired even if the limited financial resources of the City oblige it to delay complete development . Often the site can be developed in stages as funds become available. Development by stages requires an overall plan for the entire area before any work is undertaken. Another advantage is that land for parks and appurtenant facilities should be acquired well in advance of the development of an area. The City ' s need for recreational facilities becomes apparent as population density increases. These facilities become an asset to the community. Often the realization of the need for such facilities comes too late, and land values or lack of available land creates a hardship in the acquisition program. Opportunities e6® to select the best sites rarely present themselves once an area has begun to develop. The Demand for Recreation Area in Todayes Community The demand for all forms of outdoor recreation will increase enormously in the next few decades. There will be a substantial rise in the factors which most affect the demand for recreation; population, -higher,- income, mobility, education and leisure time. Growth in any one of these factors would be significant , but when the increases are combined, the impact on the need for parks and other open space becomes a major challenge. The increase in population, as well as diminishing available land, plus the fact that people will have more free time on their hands, indicates the important role the City must play in dealing with the future problem of leisure. Importance of Parks in the Well-Planned City Parks have long been recognized as an important feature of a well-planned city, *. The necessity of providing spaces , facilities and programs for active recreation has received much recognitions This necessity became apparent as cities became more congested and newer ways of living took away the open spaces where children for- merly played. Cars and trucks have turned streets into virtual death traps for the children who are forced to use them as play- grounds . Commercial types of amusement fail to answer the demand for wholesome recreation for children and grown-ups alike . The answer lies in the development of well facilitated parks , properly distributed throughout the City, -7- III: PURPOSE OF THE PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE . The chief purpose of this proposed Park and Recreation ele- ment to the Master Plan of Land Use is to suggest the types of recreation, their number, the amount of required area, and the location of sites which will be necessary to provide an adequate recreation program in the future. To provide adequate recreation services, it is imperative that the needs of each neighborhood be considered. Before a recreation plan can be developed, basic standards must be adopted. In adopting standards , the question., arises :as to- how extensive a program should be provided? The City of Huntington Beach should be interested in setting standa?rds that will offer adequate recreation facilities for its citizens in the future. -8- IV: CRITERIA PERTAINING TO DEVELOPING A PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN. By adopting a carefully considered set of principles , the City of Huntington Beach shows that it values the best in recrea- tion planning and wishes to proceed with deliberation and wisdom in creating a system of areas and facilities that will best serve the people . Specifically, principles are needed to: 1. determine the general approach to the selection and loca- tion of various types of recreation parks and facilities ; 2 , establish the relationship of one site to another in the total complex of recreation areas ; — 3, establish the relationship of the entire recreation system to other physical elements of the City; and 4, institute an orderly procedure for planning future devel- opment of the public recreation system. Recreation parks and facilities for the City should be planned as related parts of a unified, well balanced system. Piecemeal planning; the consideration of each site as a separate, unrelated area, almost inevitably results in the selection of sites that are improperly located in relation to schools and cultural facil- ities -9- Vo INTEGRATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS WITH THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE . Comprehensive planning will avoid overlapping service areas ; will assure that equal standards of accessibility are applied according to density of population, and will reveal opportuni- ties for relating recreation facilities to one another and to other local service facilities . The Parks and Recreation element of the Master Plan of Land Use, showing both existing and proposed recreation parks and facilities , should be integrated with all other sections of the — Master Plan for the City. Recreation areas can be located advan- tageously by considering their relation to residential areas, . — schools, industrial areas and particularly to streets , highways , and transit routes . One of the chief advantages of a master plan of land use showing the approximate locations of proposed neighborhood recreation parks and centers is that it serves as a guide to decision._ making when land is offered for recreation purposes or when funds are available for site acquisition. -10- VI : Amenities of Park and Recreational Areas Psychological and Sociological Effects of Park and Recreation Areas Outdoor recreation offers areas for family and social togeth- erness ; promotes healthful living and offers spiritual values , and it provides for exercise necessary for physical fitness. It is valuable for education in the world of nature . These — benefits are not to be justified on a cost accounting basis . Dike education, outdoor recreation is one of those elements of the full life that should be made available to the general public. The use of leisure is important to the health of individual so - Most Americans face the prospect of more leisure time in the future, and thus the challenge of using it for their own enrichment and _ development as individuals and as citizens . At its best , outdoor activity whether undertaken lightly or with the serious intent of the perfectionist , is essentially a "renewing" experience - a refreshing change from the workaday world. This is true no matter what an individual actually chooses to do in the outdoors . As long as the activity is freely chosen, because it is refreshing and interesting to do,. then it serves the basic function of recreation ; the task of re-creating human vitality. Latent energy is tapped; unused powers of the body, - mind .and spirit are employed; the imagination works on fresh material; and when all these things occur, the individual re.- turns to his work with a sense of renewal . Economic Effects of Park and Recreation Areas Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also brings about desirable economic effects . The effect of parks on adjoining land values is one example, The City of Minneapolis , noted for its fine park system, reports that the increased values in the City due to park develop- ments have amounted to several times the cost of the entire system, -11- A county in New Jersey found that land adjacent to parks increased in value three times as much as other property. It is sometimes argued that parks take land off the tax rolls . This is not necessarily a net loss . In many instances it is a gain for there is scarcely any lag between the removal of land from the tax rolls for public purposes and the establishment of new businesses to take its place ; often of an assessed value far exceeding any that was relinquished. Two other economic effects of outdoor recreation are the attraction of new industries and a tourist trade to the area. Many manufacturers and businesses searching for new sites list recreational opportunities as one of the deciding factors in _ the location of their facilities . -12- VIIo TYPES OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Since the City has embarked upon a program of acquisition and development of neighborhood parks and appurtenant facilities, a clear understanding of what constitutes a park or playground should be made. Park A park, whether it be of the neighborhood, community or _ regional variety, is essentially a passive form of outdoor recrea- tion. This type of, facility helps to relieve the nervous strain of urban life by providing open spaces where a person or a family might go to relax and take life easy. I Playground I A playground is an active form of outdoor recreation. It provides equipment which permits a wide range of no=al play activities , I I i -13- VIIIo RANGE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Neighborhood Park The most pressing need for recreational facilities in Huntington Beach appears to be at the neighborhood level. Shade, walks, benches and a pleasant vies are the chief requirements for passive recreation areas . Definitely desirable is an informal free-flowing design of park space, so that many families nay enjoy close proximity to a park and may walk through it on their way to work, school or other activities. This type of park usually serves the area which is served by an elementary school. Each neighborhood park should be centrally located within the area it is planned to serve and should be pro- vided with safe and convenient access for all residents of the area. Each location should be well removed from major highways, rail lines and other hazards since these sites primarily serve young children. Recreation facilities should be combined with school facilities . The two are closely related and their purposes, programs and activ- ities overlap. Moreover, it is more efficient to design, construct, maintain and operate these facilities jointly. A neighborhood park is planned primarily for children 5-14 years of age, for family groups, and includes areas for pre-school children, It must be carefully planned to achieve a maximum use of all interests and age groups , and is adapted to the specific needs of the neighborhood it serves. A service area radius of one-quarter (4) mile would adequately serve as a neighborhood park and recreation district since it. is bounded on all four sides by arterial highways. Whenever possible , the park should take advantage of natural or scenic features. Unbuildable land is often suitable or the park may consist of landscaped buffer strips between residential and commercial development.. In any forth, the neighborhood park should present a leisure atmosphere . A minimum of 2 acres is recommended for any neighborhood park. Park area requirements in relation to the size of a neighborhood are given in Table le In these recommendations , a distinction is made between developments -14- TABLE 1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons One or Two Family With private lot area per family of : More than 1/4 acre Parke No neighbor- hood requirement ®<_ m_m _-- --- Less than 1/4 acre B v, Parka Total Acres 1 .50 2 .00 2 .50 3. 00 3.50 Park: Acres per 1000 1 .50 1 .00 .83 .75 .70 persons I Multi-Family Or other predominantly without private yards Parka Total Acres 2 .00 3. 00 4.00 5.00 6 .00 Parko Acres per 1000 2.00 1 .50 1 .33 1 .25 1 .25 persons - i *Recommended by the American Public Health Association Committee on the Hygiene of Housing where families have private outdoor space and those lacking private yards - Private planned developments attempt to provide the neces- sary neighborhood park and recreational needs for its residents . If these needs meet the minimum requirements determined by the population served, it is necessary to consider only community or regional facilities for this group of people Neighborhood Playground Neighborhood playgrounds are the chief outdoor center for elementary school children . Equipment which permits a wide range of normal play activities should be provided. The playground should also be a place where pre-school children can play in a protected area under the supervision of a parent or older child, and where high school children and adults can enjoy games that require little space. A neighborhood playground should be located in the center of a neighborhood adjacent to an elementary schools Moreover, a playground site should be so located that children do�not have to cross a hazardous situation, such as an arterial highway, rail- road, industrial development or business centers Playground re- quirements in relation to the size of a neighborhood are given in Table 2, Community Park A community park serves several neighborhoods within a com- munity, and is designed and planned to serve the broader recrea- tion needs and demands of that area. It is planned primarily for youths and adults . The community park provides outdoor and in- door facilities and should be a minimum of 15-20 acres in size. There should be at least one acre of park for each 800 popula- tion, or 1.25 acres for each 1,000 population. Central City Lake , Natural Area and Golf Course A central city lake and natural area is a large area of natu- ral or manmade beauty that serves all the communities within a municipality or urban area and provides major recreation facilities not usually duplicated in other recreation parks, such as a sports center, golf course, lake for boating and an area for day camping, -16- Table 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND SIZE NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION PLAYGROUND AREA ' 1000 2000 3000 . 4000 5000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons Total Acres 2 .75 3.25 4. 00 5.00 6.00 Acres Per 2 .75 1.63 1 .33 1.25 1.20 1000 Persons a a' Recommended by the American Public Health Association Committee on the Hygiene of Housing Regional Park A regional park is a- land and/or water facility, scenic in character and large enough to serve at the inter-city, County _ or inter-County level. The regional park conserves a large natural open space for the use and enjoyment of people . The park is used by persons residing or working within a radius of 30 to 40 miles or by those who reach it in an hour's auto- mobile drive from or within a metropolitan center. Regional Recreation Area A regional recreation area is a large land and/or water facility reserved for special recreation activities. It supple- ments special purpose recreation facilities available in urban centers or supplies space for outdoor recreation activities not available in urban centers . It is used primarily by persons residing or working in a radius of 30 to 40 miles or by those who can reach it within an hours drive from or within a metro- politan center. However, the special purpose facilities may be such that users come from several regions, an entire county _ or several counties. I i i ^ -18- IXo RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING A PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM The entire parks and recreation program in Huntington Beach consists -of four phases . The first phase consists of site analysis and selection, which is the responsibility of the Planning Commis- sion and the Planning Department . The second phase involves acqui- sition of the site , through the City Administrator's Office with approval of the City Council and Recreation Commission. The third phase pertains to the design and development of the park site, - Ths ' is accomplished either through private contract or by the Department of Public Works. The fourth phase involves the develop- ment and implementation of a complete recreation program by the Department of Parks and Recreations It is through this coordination of responsibilities that an effective parks and recreation program can be effectuated. A breakdown in any one of these areas could seriously curtail the program indefinitely. -19- X. ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM The school system plays an important part in the City' s recrea- tion program. Under an annual agreement, which is entered into by the City and the Oceanvie w, Westminster, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach Elementary School Districts and the Huntington Beach Union High School District, these parties agree to cooperate with each other in organizing, promoting and conducting a joint program of community recreation to promote and preserve the health and general welfare of the children and people of the City of Hunt- ington Beach. These school districts make available to the City: ae all permanently operated playground areas that are suitable for . community recreational activities , these areas to be selected by the Director of Recreation and Parks of the City of Huntington _ Beach and approved by mutual agreement of the City Administrator and the Superintendents of the pv rtinent Districts ; be other selected school facilities for community recrea- tional programs under the same method of selection as set forth _ in "a" above; c , use of school facilities in accordance with pertinent _ district policies in granting permits for non-school use of facilities ; and d, schedules for use of said facilities for community recre- ational activities to be established by the Director of Recreation and Parks and approved by pertinent District Superintendents or designated representatives. The City shall provide certain expendable materials and supplies necessary for conducting community recreational programs for all ages . These supplies and materials shall be provided through the City General Fund . It is also agreed that certain equipment , as- specified by the pertinent District Superintendent, provided as part of the school program and suitable for community recrea- tional use , and that certain equipment and supplies provided by the Recreation Commission and suitable for school use, shall be mutually interchangeable for the common use of both parties , -20- The school districts provide custodial and maintenance services for all school facilities utilized for community recre- ational programs . The Recreation Director selects and provides qualified personnel to conduct recreational activ,&ties and events which .take place after school hours, on week-ends, and during holiday and vacation periods . Close coordination by school authorities and recreation officials leads to a distribution of facilities and supervision, - and a more efficient recreation system for the City without dupli- cation of tax monies . A good example of this coordination between the school districts and the City is found in Section 15004 of the . State Education Code, The governing board of each school district, before acquiring title to property for a new school site or adding to a present school site, shall give the Planning Commission notice in writing of the proposed acquisition. The Planning Commission shall investigate the proposed site, and within 30 days after re- ceipt of the notice, shall submit to the governing board a written report of its investigation and its recommendations concerning ,acquisition of the site . In this manner, the school districts keep the City abreast of their plans, and , at the same time, the City can plan for the _ parks , recreation and open space facilities based on these school locations . The creation of new neighborhoods results not only in the need for new schools, but also in the demand for recreational facili- ties within the same areas . If future school acquisition programs can be tied into recreation needs, both areas can benefit . The school site ' s service radius is set at approximately one-quarter (4) mile by school authorities , the same service area that would adequately serve as a neighborhood park and recreation district . The schools are designed for approximately 500 to 800 children. Each school will be able to accommodate 500 to 800 dwelling units, which represents a population of approximately 2,500 people per neighborhood area. -21- Enlargement of the Recreation Commission The Huntington Beach City Council, in April 1958, enlarged the Recreation Commission from five members to ten so that one _ member of each of the five school districts could be included. This enabled closer relationships in working out problems of rapidly expanding school sites for recreational purposes. The five school districts make available to the City all permanently operated playground areas that are suitable for community recreational activities . These areas are to be selected by the Director of Parks and Recreation of the City and approved by mutual agreement of the City Administrator and the Superintendents of the pertinent districts . Authority for the Total Program The administrative authority for the total Parks and Recre- ation Program is the Parks and Recreation Director, He is assisted by an Advisory Recreation Commission consisting of ten members , five appointed at large , each serving four year terms, and a member representing each of the four elementary school districts (Ocean- - view;: Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Westminster) and the Huntington Beach High School District, The five members represent- ing the school districts are all appointed by the Mayor with approval by the City Council. -All terms of appointment run concurrently with the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30e -22- XI : ROLE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT The primary function of the County of Orange in the field of parks and recreation is the acquisition, conservation, improvement and operation of large natural open spaces , making them available as regional parks and regional recreation areas for the use and enjoyment of Orange County residents and of tourists and other visitors to the County. County government is the primary supplier of day-use regional recreation facilities within the County, when such facilities are intended for use throughout the County. The County has intermediate - responsibility between the State and the local government as the primary supplier of regional parks and large outdoor regional recre- ation areas . To function at this intermediate level, future Orange County park and recreation acquisition should be regional in nature . Because of the rapid loss of open space in California, it is the obligation of county governments to acquire large sites ahead _ of the regional demands for park and recreation use. It should be kept in mind that a county regional park or regional recreation area does not duplicate or extend the neighborhood or community parks and recreation areas which are the responsibility of municipal government. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has adopted two signifi- cant master plans relating to County recreation . The Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails was adopted by the Board in January, 1965 . Pertinent information relating to this Master Plan may be found in the recent publication , "Recreation 65 - County of Orange" prepared by the Orange County,Planning Department. The Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County - Amend- ment Number One was adopted by the Orange County Board of Super- visors on March 16, 1966 . A map depicting all regional parks and their relationship to Huntington Beach is found, at the end of this report . -23- More detailed information relating to these regional aspects of parks and recreation can be found in the two reports , "The Naster Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails" , and "The Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County - Amendment Number One . " Both are available in the office of the Orange County Planning Department . Orange County is now actively participating in the newly formed Five County Regional Park Planning Council . The ultimate goal of this organization is the merging of the recreation plans of the counties of Orange, Los Angeles , Ventura, Riverside and San Bernar- dino into a coordinated plan for all of Southern California. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is the most promising regional governmental organization in Southern California and eventually, if accepted, will absorb the Five County Regional Parks Planning Council into its framework. The same recreational planning function would be performed with the added advantage of a more comprehensive environment within which to plan. SCAG offers the opportunity of bringing the experience and resources of existing local governments to bear upon regional recreation problems. Orange County' s close cooperative attitude with SCAG, in its infancy stage of development, is important to the entire regional parks program. -24- XII: INVENTORY OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD-"AND COMMUNITY= FACILITIES The City of Huntington Beach presently owns 15 park sites total- ing 78e82 acres, and leases 3 park sites totaling 15. 19 acres for a grand total of 94.01 acres of land under City jurisdiction. The City also has over eight miles of continuous beach front- age both within and contiguous to the City, all of which is open to the public for recreational purposes . The City owns 1.004 miles of this beach ; 2. 27 miles are privately owned, and 5.33 miles are owned by the State of California. More than four and one-half (42) million people visited the City and private beach between June 15 and September 15, 1965. Another 1,850 ,000 visited the State beaches during 1965. The City Lifeguard Department estimates that about 83% of all these people came from areas beyond the limits of Huntington Beach . A precise inventory of all existing park and recreational sites within the. City of Huntington Beach or contiguous to its borders follows . The Parks, Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report . C. Fred Schroeder Park - located north of Cornell Drive between Columbia Lane and Bolsa Park Lane; total area - 2.50 acres ; status - neighborhood. Colonel Jack Greer - located north of McFadden Avenue between Salisbury Lane and Goldenwest Street ; total area - 6.50 acres; status - neighborhood. Marina Park - located north of Edinger Avenue and east of Graham Street ; total area - 5.36 acres ; status - neighborhood. Earl To Irby - located west of Simonne Lane between Ruth Drive and Sylvia Drive; total area 3. 10 acres ; status - neighbor- hood . John A. Mudry,, Jr. Park - located east of Goldenwest Street and 737 ' north of Warner Avenue ; total area - 18 .60 acres ; status - community. -25- Thomas B. Talbert Park - located south of Talbert Avenue and 300' east of Goldenwest Street ; total area - 14.87 acres ; status - community. Un-named - located south of Talbert Avenue and 1100' west of Beach Boulevard; total area - 2.50 acres; status - neighborhood. Robert B. Wardlow Park located north of Pioneer Drive and east of Cannery Street ; total area - 2, 10 acres ; status - neighbor- hood , Recreation Center - located north of Orange Avenue and west of 17th Street ; total area - 2 .00 acres ; status - community. Circle Park - located at the intersection of 12th Street and Crest Avenue ; total area - .80 acres ; status - neighborhood. Lake Park - located east of Main Street between llth St . and 12th Streets ; total area . - 4.00 acres ; status - neighborhood. Farquhar Plaza - located west of Main Street between 11th and 12th Streets ; total area - 180 acres ; status - neighborhood. Un-named - located south of Slater Avenue and west of Edwards Street ; total area - 7.80 acres; status - neighborhood. Harry and Lois LeBard Park - located east of Brookhurst St, , on the south side of Warwick Lane ; ,total area-4.97 acres; status - neighborhood. Un-named - located at the northwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street ; total area 2.67 acres ; status - neigh- borhood ( leased from the U.S . Navy) . Un-named - located at the northeast corner of Lake Street and Memphis Avenue ; total area - 1.80 acres ; status - neighborhood ( leased from Huntington Beach Company) . Un-named - located between Atlanta and Hamilton Avenues and Brookhurst and Bushard Streets ; total area - 10.72 acres ; status - neighborhood ( leased from the Southern California Edison Company) . Un-named - located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Blvd ; total area - 1.92 acres ; status - neighborhood. -26- i XIII INVENTORY OF --REGIONAL FACILITIES Huntington Beach is indeed fortunate to have three large regional facilities strategically located at its borders . Regional recreation areas offer . recreational or scenic attractions that are of county-wide significance; areas that provide spaciousness which the typical small neighborhood parks do not provide . The Master - Plan of Regional Parks delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report . - Sunset Bay The aquatic park planned for Sunset Bay is a project of the Orange County .Harbor District . This recreation area, when fully developed, wi11' occupy about 160 acres of land and water.. It will - provide a public beach and picnic area, boat launching ramps and slips as well as a restaurant and other facilities . It is located _ adjacent to the northwesterly limits of the City' s boundary. Mile Square Mile Square is federally owned property and in time will be equally as important for an activities park for populous west- - ern Orange County-. A 248-480 acre. portion -of this .property is needed for develgpment as an activities park. It is locatod at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Warner Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley. _ Beach. The more than eight miles of beach frontage that are both within and contiguous to ,the City of Huntington Beach represents a regional facility of tremendous magnitude. During the height of the 1965 summer season, this facility accommodated more than six and one-half (62) million people. The Urban Land Institute, in their report to the City, emphasized that the right of the public to use the beach area throughout the eight and one-half mile length should not be de- nied, subject to just_ compensation being paid to private property owners. -27- I The key to upgrading the beach is through master planning whereby land use and facilities planning is based on accurate esti- mates of future demands . Unless study and necessary action are undertaken , the limited existing facilities will be sorely over- taxed by the overflow of visitors who will engulf the beach area in the near future. The U.L.I . recommended the following: 1. Parking on the Pacific Coast Highway should be prohibited. 2. Public access to the beach from the highway should be provided at intervals across the beach property of the Huntington Beach Company. 3 . All beaches should be fenced with specifically designated entrances for automobiles and pedestrians to allow for better beach control . 4. Control all parking within one-half mile of the beach . 5. Control the use of the beaches , excluding surfboards at all times in special areas set aside for use by families . A competent planning consultant is being sought to formulate a plan which will reflect an agreeable relationship between City �^ and State. beaches . The State of California has commenced a program of recrea- tional expansion on both the Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches . It is the State ' s objective to bring the potential for mass recrea- tional use of both State Beaches into better balance through the provision of needed public use facilities , and also to provide a response to unsatisfied visitor demand. for beach day use facilities within the Los Angeles - Orange County metropolitan region. Huntington State Beach The existing 78.5 acre Huntington State Beach with over two miles of ocean frontage and broad sandy swimming beach, ranks high among the better public beaches in Southern California. All of the beach area_.is,: sand which means that improvements for public use -28- such as roads , parking, sanitary facilities and concessions build- ings must be constructed on the sand thereby reducing the effective i area of this beach resource for public use and enjoyment. The suggested realignment of the Route l Freeway now being considered by the California Division of Highways would result in a surplus area of over 30 acres of flat upland between the proposed freeway right-of-way and the existing State Beach . This land is proposed to be acquired by the State for recreation-. purposes . The addition of 34 acres of upland to Huntington State Park would permit the development of an additional 1, 100 parking spaces for beach users , thus allowing the State to realize more fully the potential for visitor use of this excellent swimming beach. With these additional parking facilities, it would be possible to provide parking space for a total of 4,000 cars distributed throughout the` length of the existing beach . The estimate as to the capital cost of this project is $4,600,000 which would be paid from existing bond funds under the State Beach , Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1964. Bolsa Chica State Beach The 58.98 acres of State-owned land at Bolsa Chica is presently a narrow strip of undeveloped sandy beach with about three miles of ocean frontage. . The property does not have sufficient depth to permit development of public use facilities a safe distance above the high tide line . Beach visitors are now forced to cross private property in order to gain access to the beach area from the Pacific Coast Highway. -' The State proposes that this narrow strip of land, a railroad right-of-way averaging about 100 feet in width, be acquired for recre- ational use by the State or the City of Huntington Beach under an agreed upon arrangement . Full realization of the potential for v3:si- tor use at this fine beach will be made possible with the addition of this land. -29- The extremely high cost of land in this area has prompted the State to explore alternatives to the traditional acquisition in fee philosophy. If it is determined that acquisition in fee is necessary and •desirably, much thought has been given to increas- ing the capacity and use of the land by the use of parking structures and other means of concentrating use. The estimate as to the capital cost of this project is $6,275, 000 which could be defrayed from: 1. acquisition in fee by the State from the State Park Bond Act ; 2. acquisition in fee by the State from the sale of revenue bonds ; 3 . acquisition by local governmental bodies or parking authority from either a budget process or revenue bonds ; and 4. acquisition by a concessionaire with a long-term operation agreement in order to amortize his investment . -30- ......... . . . . XIV: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITES An analysis of proposed neighborhood park sites was made based on existing neighborhood park facilities, existing and proms posed school sites and available land. With this information, it was possible to eliminate numerous quarter sections in the City from consideration due to the fact that : to a school site, either existing or proposed, did not exist in the area; 20 a park facility or site already existed in the area; 31. the area was completely developed and no land was available ; and 4. the property was zoned or used for other than residen- tial use thereby precluding the necessity of a neigh- borhood park.. As a result of this objective analysis it was possible to classify the remaining potential neighborhood park sites into three priority ratings.. High Priority - There are seven sites throughout the City that rate a high — priority for fulfillment of park needs. These seven sites were determined on: 1. , the existence of a school site in the particular neighborhood; 2. the availability of land in the particular neighbor- hood ; 3. the number of people that would be accommodated; 4. its compatibility with existing and future land use; and 5, its orientation away from arterial highways . The location of these seven sites with their pertinent data follows. The Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report -31 1> SE-4 of Section 15-5-11 ; southeast of Edwards Ste and McFadden Ave ; adjacent to a pro osed elementary school site ; existing population (1265�; potential population (2500) ; master planned for low density (single family residential) ; approximately 65 acres of vacant land . - 2e NE-4- of Section 22-5-11; northwest of Goldenwest St, and Heil Ave ; adjacent to an existing elementary school site ; existing population ( 1382) ; potential- population (2200) ; - master planned for low density (single family residential) ; approximately 47 acres of vacant land. _ 3s NE4 of Section 23-5-11; southwest of Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave; adjacent to an existing elementary school site; existing population ( 1285) ; potential population (4000) ; master planned for low, medium and high density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 13 z acres of vacant land - 4, SE4 of Section 1-6-11 ; southeast of Yorktown Ave . and Newland St ; adjacent to an existing elementary school site; existing population (1080) ; potential population _ (2300) ; master planned for low density ( single family residential) ; approximately 67 acres of vacant land. 5. NW4 of Section 27-5-11; northwest of Slater Ave, and Edwards St ; adjacent to an existing elementary school ,site; existing population (656) ; potential population (3200) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 40 acres of vacant land . 6e SW4 of Section 12-6-11; southeast of Indianapolis Ave . - and Beach Blvd; adjacent to an existin elementary school site * existing population (12151 ; potential Qopulation �2500) ; master planned for low density (single family residential) ; approximately 27 acres of vacant land, NOTE. This site is the result of excess acreage.-to-be sold off from the existing Peterson Elementary School 7, NE4 of Section 12-6-11; east of Newland St , and north of Indianapolis Ave ; adjacent to a proposed elementary 9cNool site ; existing population (339) ; potential pop- ulation (2500) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 121 acres of vacant land, -32- Medium Priority - - There are fourteen sites throughout the City that rate a medium priority for fulfillment of park needs , These Iburteen .sltes were determined on: to the existence of a school site in the particular neigh- borhood; 2. the availability of land in the particular neighborhood, but not ne aessarily adjacent to the existing or proposed - elementary school site; 3 . the number of people that would be accommodated, (with emphasis on future -population) ; and 4, its compatibility with existing and future land uses The location of these fourteen sites with their pertinent data follows. The Parks , Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report,, - 1, SA of Section 22-5-11; southeast corner of Springdale St , and Heil Ave; separated from an existing elementary school; existing population ( 1466) ; potential population _ (3500) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 40 acres of vacant land. 20 NE of Section 26-5-11 ; north of Slater Ave . and east of Nichols St ; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population ( 1670) ; potential population (4500) ; master .p.la.nned for medium density (multiple family residen- tial) - and light industry; approximately 60 acres of vacant lands NOTE. This site is located on industrially zoned property and has frontage on a secondary highway. This removed its status as a high priority site, but because the industrial zoning on this property is out of context with the rest of the area and because of the potential population in the area, consideration should be given as a medium priority site. 3. SE4 of Section 28-5-11; south of Slater Ave, and west of Springdale St ; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population ( 1089) ; potential population -33- (3900) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 100 acres of vacant land, NOTE: This site is located outside the City limits of Huntington Beach, but will eventually be within the City ®s jurisdiction. Because of the uncertainty as to when this - property will be annexed to the City it was necessary to classify the site under the medium priority category. - 4, NE-4 of Section 7-6-10; east side of Bushard St, and north of Indianapolis Ave ; adjacent to a roposed elementary school site; existing population (4�; potential population _ (3000) ; master planned for low and medium density single and multip-le family residential) ; approximately 147 acres of vacant land, - 5e SE4 of Section 18-6-10; east of Bushard Ste. and south of Hamilton Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population (3) potential po ulation ( 5000) ; .mast.er planned for medium -and high density multiple family resi- dential) ; approximately 130 acres of vacant land. 6. SW4 of Section 23-5-11; east of Goldenwest St , and 737 ' north of Warner Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ;, existing population ( 15) ; potential popula- tion (3000) ; master planned for high density (multiple - family residential) ; located in the Murdy park site. This site would be a recreation center in conjunction with the community park. 7e NW4 of Section 35-5-11; south of Talbert Ave, and east of Goldenwest St; master planned for commercial and industrial_, located in the existing community park site. This site would be__a recreation center in conjunction with the com- munity parka - 8, NE4 of Section 13-6-I1; west of Cannery St , and north of Hamilton Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population (0) ; potential population (1200) ; master planned for .medium density (multiple family residential) and industrial; located in the proposed community park site. This site would be a recreation center in conjunction with the community park. 9&10o- Section 20-5-11; west ,of Algonquin St , and south of Edinger Ave ; each is adjacent to a proposed elementary school site; master planned for low and medium density (single and multi- ple family residential) ; located in the 877 acre Huntington Harbour planned development. NOTE. Since these two sites are located _on property that has not yet been developed, it was necessary to. classify them under the medium priority category. When develop- ment takes place, a re-evaluation of their priority status should be made. —34— 115 12 Sections 3-6-11 and 4-6-11; south of Garfield Ave . , west 13&14 of 17th St, , north of Pacifir. Coa§t Highway,and east of the City limits ; each is adjacent to a proposed element_ tary school-,site ; master planned for low and high densi- ty (single and multiple family residential) ; located in the Huntington Beach Companyes 600 acre planned community. NOTE., Since these four sites are located on property that has not yet been developed, it- was necessary to classify them under the medium priority category. When development takes place, a re-evaluation of their priority status should be made . Also the site located northeasterly of 23rd St . and Palm Ave, is planned as a private 7 acre neigh- borhood park. But, if plans for a community complex (involving the existing high school ,. proposed ele- mentary school and the 7 acre private park) are achieved, it is possible that this site will be dedicated for public use , Low Priority - There are two sites througghout the City that rate a low priori- ty for .fulfillment of park needs. These two sites were determined ont le the existence of a school site in the particular neighbor.- hood; 2:. the availability of land in the particular neighborhood; j 3_. the numbet" of people that would be accommodated (with emphasis on future population); and 4. its compatibility with existing and future land use,,, I The location of these two sites with their pertinent data follows , The Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Master - Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is- found 'at the rear of this report. 1. NEB of Section 27-5-11; south of Warner Ave. and west of Goldenwest St. ; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site; existing population (11); potential population (3500) ; master planned for-low and medium density (single and multiple family residential); approximately 155 acres of vacant land. NOTE6 This site was rated low because development is not ex- pected to take place in this area within the foresee- able future. If this status should change, a re- evaluation of its priority should be considered. 2. NW4 of Sec ion 36.5-11; east of Beach Blvd. and north of Ellis Ave ; �an existing elementary school site exists in this particular neighborhood; but not adjacent to this site- existing population ( 1233) ; potential population (29005 ; master planned for low, medium and high derisi7Ey (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 25 acres of vacant land. -35- XV: METHODS OF FINANCING A COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION PLAN It is essential to implement any comprehensive parks and recre- ation plan with a financial plan. When the comprehensive plan has been prepared with full consideration of long-range needs and the adequacy of the existing and proposed facilities to meet these needs , cost estimates should be prepared, financial resources studied, and priorities assigned to projects included in the comprehensive plan. Assembly Bill 1150 Assembly Bill 1150 allows the City to require a subdivider of land for residential development in Huntington Beach to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a final subdivision map. An ordinance implementing the provisions of this bill is in the process of being adopted and it is anticipated that it will become effective concurrently with the adoption of the Parks , Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use . Open Space Land Program The Federal Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 has ex- panded the benefits of the Open Space Land Program authorized under Title VII of the Housing Act of 1961. The purpose of this program is to help curb urban sprawl and to prevent the spread of urban blight and deterioration; to encour- age necessary recreational , conservation, and scenic areas by as- sisting public bodies in the preservation of open space land essen- tial to long-range development in accordance with plans for use of the land for open space purposes . In essence, this program provides the City with increased monetary assistance in the acquisition and development of land for park and recreational purposes .- -36- r A Federal grant for the purchase of three neighborhood parks was made to the City of Huntington Beach on April 2, 1964. This grant amounted to $22,430 which represented 20% of the total pur- chase price of $112, 150. Since that time , the benefits under the Open Space Land Program have been increased to .provide for a Federal grant of 50% of all costs (acquisition and development ) . In order to establish eligibility for grant assistance, two basic planning determinations must be made : 1 . An adequate comprehensive planning program for the urban area must exist in order to provide a basis for an open space acquisition and development program. 2. Consistent with comprehensive planning, there must exist an adequate open space acquisition and development program for the urban area. _ This program had been temporarily forestalled until a 5-county regional master plan of parks and recreation was formed . But, on April 13, 1966, the Federal Government released millions of dollars in grants based on the opinion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that sufficient progress toward the creation of an area-wide planning program had taken place. Park Assessment Districts George A. Pillsbury, a leader of a committee of park supporters in Minneapolis in 1893, asked a leading question that had a profound influence upon the future of that city. His question concerned the possibility of applying special assessments for the cost of a new park against the neighborhood that wants it and will enjoy it . In most cities the cost of a park is absorbed by all of the taxpayers . Therefore, Minneapolis initiated a comprehensive park acquisi- tion and development program based on assessment districts. The result has been a park system providing one acre of park for every 100 citizens due to this unusual system of "pay as you enjoy" finane- ing. -37- General Obligation Bonds Land may be acquired for park purposes upon the approval of a general obligation bond. This type of bond is payable from a property tax imposed specifically for their payment . General obligation bonds are usually considered the most secure risk and consequently carry the lowest interest rates . It is good practice to keep the City's bonded indebtedness within 15% of its assessed valuation. Passage of a general obligation bond requires approval of 2/3 of those voting in the election. State Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1964 This Act provides for allocation of funds to local jurisdic- tions for acquisition of recreation areas and facilities . Priori- ties must necessarily be established based upon the need to pro- vide as many projects as possible throughout the State to serve the greatest number of people at the earliest possible time . An application for a State grant must be accompanied by an adopted general plan, recognizing that the planning function is a continuous process . The completeness of general plans and their conformity to the State Development Plan will be considered from this standpoint . The following criteria shall be followed in determining the type of projects which qualify for State grant funds 1 . the project should primarily serve day use from urban centers of population, preferably within approximately one hour's auto travel distance from such centers ; 2 . the project shall primarily provide outdoor facilities and activities ; 3. the project shall provide for more than a single recrea- tional use or activity; -38- f 4« the project shall provide recreation uses traditionally or more appropriately developed and administered by a public agency rather than by private enterprise, 5, priorities shall be given to projects which will be open to the public within a reasonable period of time after the con- veyance of grant funds and completion of acquisition and develop- ment ; 6 . the project shall be designed to fulfill a demand for regional recreation use in the geographical location proposed at the time of application or within the foreseeable future ; 7. except under unusual circumstances® state grants will not be approved when other federal, state or local funds for _ regional projects are available unleas such funds are to be utilized on a complementary basis State grant funds for park acquisition purposes shall be limited to those projects contemplating the acquisition of fifty acres or more of real property, including water areas, or pro- jects- which are designed as additions to existing park areas, where the resulting total park area will be fifty acres or more. Expenditures for project purposes shall be limited to: land acquisition; clearing, grading, drainage, planting; construction of walks , roads, parking areas, buildings and other structures necessary for public recreation uses or necessary for the opera- tion and maintenance of the project ; installation of utilities ; and appraisal, legal, planning, engineering, or other fees per- taining to the project. Expenditures for equipment and supplies , or operation and maintenance are not permitted, Orange County has been allocated a total of $2 ,723,550 to be expended in the acquisition and development of recreational areas and facilities. Any city in Orange County may participate with Orange County in an application for a state grant under the provisions of this section, provided that the City apply for a grant only after re- ceiving the approval of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. -39- The City of- Huntington _Beach, in 1965, applied for a grant for beach improvements to the Orange County Board of Supervisors , but , in their opinion, the application did not meet the established criteria. Urban Beautification and Improvement Program The Urban Beautification and Improvement Program is designed - to help communities to become more pleasant desirable places in which to live, work, play and raise a family. This program will enable localities to take the lead in improving the attractiveness of their streets and other public places , thus encouraging the kind of neighborhood and community pride that is the best defense against blight and decay. Grants may be made for most beautifica- tion activities capable of providing long-term benefits to the locality. The City's beautification program must be carried out in an urban area; shall cover proposed activities for a full year, usu- ally coincident with the fiscal year; is limited to beautification and improvement activities directly related to open-space and other land that is publicly owned or controlled, such as streets , parks , i sidewalks , squares and plazas. To be eligible for Urban Beautification assistance, activities must be capable of providing long-taerft benefits to the City. For example , assistance will not be provided for the increased operating costs of keeping parks better lighted, but may be' provided for land- scaping or park furniture . Generally, assistance will not be pro- vided for the construction of buildings ; however, small structures I may be eligibile for assistance if they contribute to the greater use and enjoyment of parks and other public lands . Priority consideration will be given to applications covering a diversity of activities and representing a balance between park development and other types of beautification and , improvement activ- ities . Hence , the application for grant should contain proposed activities drawn from at least three of the four-' .following groups . -40- Group I - upgrading and rehabilitation of parks, including construction, renovation, or provision of basic water and sanitary facilities , interior paths , walks, roadways , landscaping, shelters , and other similar items normally associated with park and open space areas . Group II - design and construction, substantial upgrading, or other improvement of public places such as malls , squares, plazas and waterfront areas, including construction or installation of fountains , decorative pavement and lighting, planters , street furniture, kiosks , and similar improvements . Activities in behalf of the arts , such as construction of facilities for outdoor exhibits , may also be included. Group III - community-wide activities to upgrade and improve the appearance of streets , greenways , parkways , waterfronts, stream valleys, rights-of-way, and , other nonrecreational public places. Eligible activities incliude tree planting; landscaping; design, construction, and installation of special street furniture, signs , benches, and decorative fencing; and other measures to beautify the area over and -above normal maintenance. _ Group IV - activities to beautify and improve historic and other public building sites , including installation of special lighting or paving, landscaping, special fencing, and related work. Federal grant assistance for urban beautification is avail- able in an amount not to exceed 50% of expenditures made by the City for beautification activities which exceed its average ex- penditures for comparable activities during the two fiscal years preceding filing of the application. Two steps are necessary to compute the amount of the Federal grant 1. Establish the base cost of beautification activities for the 2 fiscal years preceding filing of the application. -41- 2. Compute the grant request on the basis of the increased expenditures proposed for the coming year (not to exceed 50% of the total increment) . The City of Huntington Beach applied for an Urban Beautification grant on April 28, 1966 to cover the period from July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967. The total cost of the projects is $143, 580. The base cost of beautification activities for the last two fiscal -' years was $52,952. -The total increment or difference is $90,628 of which the Federal Government would pay 50% or $45, 314. The City is anxiously awaiting Federal approval of this application in order to commence necessary beautification projects. Concessions The City could assess concessionaires a percentage of gross receipts to offset the cost of park operations . Lease - Purchase Agreements The City could lease property for parks, open space or recre- ational purposes with an option to buy. This method usually applies to marginal property not suitable for agriculture or other uses. Joint - Powers Agreements This method pertains to the joint exercise of powers to estab- lish parks adjacent to or across City and County boundaries. Private Grants Cities have obtained title to land for parks , open space or recreational purposes as a result of grants made 'by private citizens . These grants are usually made either for philantrophic purposes in which case the park would probably be named after its donor; or for the more mundane reason, to deduct its full current value on his federal income tax return, Surplus Property Act of 1944 This method is accomplished through the Federal Government who conveys surplus property for public park and recreational purposes at a price equal to 50% of its fair market value . -42- Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 This is a Federally sponsored program that permits the develop- ment of water resource areas for recreation such as improving natural _ lakes and streams for recreational use . This program is implemented through the Department of Agriculture. Pay-as-you-go This method involves acquisition and development of parks , open spaces and recreational areas without committing the City's full faith and credit as would be required through a bond issue . In effect , the City purchases land for park and recreational pur- poses from its general fund. This is the primary method the City of Huntington Beach has used for acquisition of its present park sites . . The major drawbacks to this program are, that the City must delay its long-range projections due to limited funds and also the tendency has been for land values to increase rather than remain stable . -43- XVI : THE CHALLENGE The City of Huntington Beach is faced with the prospect of a greater and more concentrated population with more free time. This will be a population that will need recreation and open space for play, relaxation and privacy - amenities that our already inadequate parks cannot provide . The City should take advantage of any opportunity for park acquisition and development assistance that is available to it , thus , relieving a part of the burden imposed upon its residents . A comprehensive. plan for parks, open spaces , schools and recrea, - tion, therefore, is essential to the overall development of the City. -44- CERTIFICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION wtsl Xixsl En THA CITY OF DAY LUTONE RE='ELEMEIT TO Of TIE CITY.°.°XIN°EDX.I=;Io"°°�°r�;`°,'°; o 0 F HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA ATTEST: XEX�& ED� F..1 FEET XhE CITY COUNCIL THE L°TI°X �F °__°E THE CITY C°°.CIETHAT THIS °X THIS I,OPEN ° ��I •; 1 AlEl afl xFDD F a® �■ o SEEM FE F F® F _ _ o F. 1 F �xE F — -- E Cr . t LEGEND a"EE° EXISTING PROPOSED A I F. SCHOOLS SITES SITES / ELEMENTARY F I- I .Ir`,'�'� �; JUNIOR HIGH •� op �j T F w FE. HIGH �� �{� ®� AF. ■ PARKS ADJACENT ^�� r COLLEGE �■ Qo TO THE CITY PARKS PRIORITY EXISTING PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD H10X G] A� MEDiux F D�Ax :®avE. Fes: COMMUNITY • LOW 0 xF®REGIONAL ® ❑ op■° ❑° ` � �aD SPECIAL FACILITIES RECREATION CTR. . O LAKE BI NATURAL AREA EDISON R/W +0 q PLANNED MARINA ] ®a{] GOLF COURSE PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS, e AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE XNND DEPIRTIEIT MASTER PLAN OF REGIONAL PARKS _ L°. AA C°.n, ,��•� T' Y _ HA .RAN G ETHORPE AVE RIVERSID ERWY �\ ^ ' 1 KATELLA AVE Y �yjJt Z., GARDE DARDEN QROVE RLVD o �aRT�a"� per. J V/i/l2e RA 0 (F � AVE Z ■ y \Z $ \f 7 Huntington Beach Y �� I M ern i les 5 6 7 m '� Soh p �T San Dicg° L, 0 Regional parks (camping or picnicking) Activities parks Expansion of existing facilities A Marina or aquatic park A Beach -46- HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. APRIL, 1966 a ORIGINAL COPS »:s° °E P� for Master File r k T BE RETURNED e . -TO CITY CLERK cow IV— ti d r<. , � c a d t g` P k §a T> �r '�`�,. �, �:.. „w. .,.e'-�-.. „,, »,ceaz �a�sy�,,,�,` � a✓^"�,r � .� �;'" mom` F y , e a w � k i , PARKS, OPEN SPACES , SCHOOLS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Prepared by Huntington Beach Planning Department I _ . May 25, 1966 CERTIFICATIONS P16-ming Commission -I.. hereby certify that this Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use was adopted by Resolution No. 66.1 of the City . Planning Commission on this 21st day of June, 1966-e Robert D. Bazil, Chairman ATTEST: rmeth A. Reynolds, Sdcretary City . Council - I hereby certify that this Parks, Open .Spaces, Schools and ,Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use was adopted by Resolution No,, 2419 of the City Council on this lst -day of August,. 1966. F J e R. Stew-aft, Mayor ATTEST: Paul C. Jones; lerk PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS AND- RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE_.. . MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Table of Contents -' Section Title Page Goals and Objectives i Foreword I Introduction 1 II Reas.6ns for Initiating the Parks and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use, 6 III Purpose of the Park and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use 8 IV Criteria Pertaining to Developing a Parks and Recreation Plan 9 V Integration of Parks and Recreation Areas with the Master Plan of Land Use 10 VI Amenities of Park and Recreational Areas 11 VII Types of Recreational Facilities 13 - VIII Range of Recreational Facilities 14 IX Responsibility for Implementing a Parks and Recreation Program 19 X Role of the School System 20 XI Role of County Government 23 XII Inventory of Existing Neighborhood and Community Facilities 25 Table of Contents (continued) Section Title Page _ XIII Inventory of Regional Facilities 27 XIV Analysis of Proposed Neighborhood Park Sites 31 XV Methods of Financing a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan 36 XVI The Challenge 44 List of Tables and Illustrations Title Page Neighborhood Park Requirements - Table 1 15 Neighborhood , Playground Size .- Table 2 17 _. Parks'; Open Spaces, Schools And Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use 45 Master Plan of Regional Parks 46 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Provide a well-balanced recreational program for the citizens of Huntington Beach. Implement the Urban Land Institute recommendations. ® Provide a sound basis for purchasing park sites by estab- lishinZ criteria for the type of recreation, site location and' space required. Wherever possible, locate neighborhood parks adjacent to school sites . ® Acquire at least three recreation centers ; a municipal golf course and a central city lake and natural area. Purchase land for parks , open space and recreation prior to development. Utilize all financing programs. that are available to the City . Coordinate the County's regional park plan with the City#s plan for parks, open space, schools and recreation. ® Continue the coordinated recreational program with the school districts, ® Re-evaluate the Parks , Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation. Element of the Master Plan of Land Use on a periodic basis. -i- FOREWORD Planning for parks and recreation facilities should proceed from agreement on policies that reflect the best thinking of a community regarding the purposes, scope and general character of the public, recreation system, These policies will assure the citizens of Huntington Beach that decisions concerning par- ticular facilities will be consistent and these decisions will ultimately lead to a well balanced public recreational program. _ Y P P g i I -ii- PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO--THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE I: INTRODUCTION PhilosoDby Behind the City of Huntington Beach 's Parks and Recreation Prograg_ - The Urban Land Institute, an organization contracted by the City of Huntington Beach to evaluate the City's assets and liabil- ities and determine the proper course to pursue in improving the City is image, presented their fiiidings to the City on December 3, 1965. In endeavoring to answer questions with regard to -parks and w recreation, the U.L.I. emphasized that the requirements of cities vary greatly. The City of Huntington Beach has one of the largest parks for a city of its size right at its front door. The beach greatly alters established standards as compared to any inland city . Because of its proximity to the beach, the City of Huntington Beach has been pursuing a policy of purchasing several small neigh- borhood parks in contrast to providing a few larger community parks . The U.L.I. panel felt thAt this was and should continue to be the proper procedure . They felt that smaller parks provide a wider spread and more complete coverage. The beach is already a regional park facility, and if the proposed Orange County Harbor Districtas 160 acre aquatic park becomes a reality it will also serve as a major regional park in the northwest section of the City. The 248-480 acre proposed regional park in Fountain Valley, now in the planning stage, will also serve the broad recreational needs of the City. Therefore , since these regional facilities are strategi- cally located at the periphery of the City, emphasis should continue to be placed on acquisition and development of neighborhood parks . The Southern California Edison Company has a system of trans- mission rights-of-way emanating from its generating station in Huntington Beach. The towers are approximately 100 feet high and are located 1250' feet apart. The right-of-way, owned by the Edison Co-. , ranges up to 200- feet- wide -and -appears to offer many advantages on the neighborhood recreational level . The City -is negotiating with the -Edison Company to utilize a portion of these rights-of- way as open- space. - It is- anticipated that similar negotiations can be -worked- out on the remaining rights-of--way to fulfill the necessary open space needs for the particular neighborhood that these rights-of-way transgress. In keeping with this concept, the -City- has- contracted with a landscape architect to prepare _ a park development plan of all Edison rights-of-way within the City. - Supplementing this program should be the further acquisi- tion and development of at least three recreation centers. The present recreation center at 17th .8treet and Orange Avenue is very popular, successful and overcrowded. Since the City can eventually- anticipate at least three community parks, a recrea- - tion center should be a part of each one . These centers may be small in size but they do- serve a community wide function . The school system plays an important role in the .City 's recreation program. School playground equipment is available for use-by the community after school hours . Close coordination by school authorities and the City leads to a distribution of facilities and supervision, and eliminates a duplication of materials and expenditures. The creation of new neighborhoods results in the need for educational and recreational facilities within the same area. That is why it is important that parks be located, whenever possible, adjacent to school sites. The long-range recreational plans of the City should also include a central city lake and natural area of approximately 65 acres that would include a natural history museum, a wildlife center or other similar facility. The possibility of a munici- pal golf course in that area should also be given consideration in the long-range recreational plans for the City. Should the-.- opportunity arise to acquire property in this area= at a reason- able rate, the City should consider the _possibility -2 It should be noted that there are two planned communities in various stages of development within the City. Huntington Harbour, - a planned development consisting of approximately 877 acres , is basically a water-oriented community. Ultimately there will be _ 9t -mi-les- of inland waterways , with a total of 258 acres. In ads.` dition to these waterways, a neighborhood-park is planned adja- ' cent to- each of the two elementary schools located in the commun- ity. -Provision has also been made for 6 private beaches, 2 pri. vate parks and a beach club totaling 7.34 acres . These will be strategically located- throughout the development . Since these inland waterways permeate the entire development, directly accommodating, 40% of the total lots planned, credit should be given toward this development's overall parks, recreation and open-space needs. The major drawback of the public recreational aspects of this _ development is that it is virtually a contained community with little or very limited public access to public waterways. The_­Hunt.ington _Beach,Company has commenced construction on Ata 100 acre planned community. This development emphasizes low and high density residential development located adjacent `.tir=near a 140 acre 18 hole golf course . This proposed golf course will originally be on a semiprivate basis and may ultimately develop into a private golf course. Since this recreational facility will be satisfying a certain amount of open-space needs, both active (for the golfer) and passive (for the v3L*wer), credit should be given toward this development 's overall _ parks , recreation and open-space needs . Supplementing the golf course are plans for three neighborhood park sites, located adjacent to three elementary schools west of 23rd Street , and a private 7 acre park site that is located north- easterly of Palm and 23rd Streets . This private park site blends into two elementary school sites. With the proper design, and if existing oil lines will permit, it is possible to incorporate this 7 acre park site into a community complex involving the two elemen- tary schools and the existing high school. -3- There are also 14 special facility recreation areas (ranging in size from 12,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet each) that are planned to be used as forms of active recreation. With this as a philosophy to guide the City, a Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use is essential . This element will serve as a guide line to the overall acquisition and development of parks , recreation and open space facilities within the City. -- History Behind the Parks Program Prior to 1960, the City of Huntington Beach, having less than 11, 500 residents, provided adequate recreational facilities . In addition to the 8 miles of beach frontage both within and contig- uous to the City, the City boasted of three small parks (Lake Park, Farquhar Plaza and Cirle Park) totaling 6.6 acres-.and a 2 acre recreation center. The recreation center was purchased by the City Council in 1948 at a cost of $20,000. It originally served as an Army Air Corps headquarters located at the Santa Ana Base. It was to be used primarily by the Boy and Girl Scouts. These volunteer organ- izations were unable to finish , repair or maintain the building; therefore , a Recreation -Commission was established and a full-time Recreation Department hired to conduct an organized recreation pro- gram within the City. When the urban sprawl ' descended 'upon Huntington Beach, in the early 1960' s-, the City}.was operating with an ineffective master plan . Although it provided guidance involving variations in resi- dential densities , commercial areas and industrial locations , it failed to take into consideration the future park and recreational needs necessary to provide a fully integrated community. The City Planning Commission held two public hearings on a proposed Master Plan of Parks and Recreation and adopted the pro- gram under Resolution No. 52 on November 18, 1958. The City Council adopted the Master Plan by minute action on December 15 1958, but failed to fulfill the legal requirements of formally adopting by resolution the Master Plan of Parks and Recreation. Subsequently, provisions of the Master Plan were never im- plemented. -4- The City's Growth Since 1960, the City's growth has been accelerating at a rapid pace . The population - increased to 34, 143 in 1962 ; 50,269- in 1963; 64, 228 in 1964 and 80,738 by April, 1966. The City is expected to have about 132., 000 people by 1970. Building construction has been increasing at a rate comparable i to the City's population growth. In 1962 , the City issued building permits at a valuation in excess of $66 million; in 1963, it rose , to over $80 million; in 1964 it dropped down to about $63 million and in 1965 the City set a new Orange County record with a total of almost $84 million in building valuation, ranking third in the entire State of California in this respect . -5- II : REASONS FOR INITIATING THE. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE Necessity of Early Land Acquisition n Growth of this magnitude requires long-range planning of the facilities necessary to service the community's needs. Essentially, this would consist of adequate fire and police protection and a workable public works system. A long-range program for the provision of recreation areas and facilities, designed to serve the recreation needs of all the people of a community, is also an integral part of this community's Master Plan for future development . It is imperative that a positive direction toward ultimate acquisition and improvement of neighborhood parks be made to meet the human needs of its people. Without land, it is not possible to meet the challenge of tommorrow. Without land it is impossible to provide for the recreation needs of a community in the years to come . It is important that land be purchased for park and recrea- tional needs before the demand arises . There are good reasons for taking this approach. First , the cost of land, which is increasing at the rate of $2500 an acre per year, would be within reasonable limits; and second, land would be acquired in strategic r- areas that would eventually serve the recreational need's of the community. Space standards for parks should be met and the land acquired even if the limited financial resources of the City oblige it to delay. complete development. Often the site can be developed in stages as funds become available. Development by stages requires an overall plan for the entire area before any work is undertaken. Another advantage is that land for parks and appurtenant facilities should be acquired well in advance of the development ' ,-. of an area. The City' s need for recreational facilities becomes apparent as population density increases. These facilities become an asset to the community. Often the realization of the need for i such facilities comes too late , and land values or lack of available land creates a hardship in the acquisition program. Opportunities -6- to select the -best sites rarely present themselves once an area has begun to develop. The Demand for Recreation Area in Today's Community -- --The demand for all forms of outdoor recreation will increase enormously in- the next few decades. There will be - a substantial rise in the factors which most affect the demand for recreation; population, higher income, mobility, education and leisure time. Growth in any one of these factors would be significant , but . when the increases are combined, the impact on the need for parks and other open space becomes a major challenge. The increase in population, as well as diminishing available land, plus' -the fact that people will have more free time on their ,hands, indicates the important role the City must play in dealing with the future problem of leisure. Importance of Parks in the Well-Planned City Parks have long been recognized as an important feature of a well-planned city, . The necessity of providing spaces, facilities and programs for active recreation has received much recognition. This necessity became apparent as cities became more congested and newer ways of living took away the open spaces where children far- merly played. Cars and trucks have turned streets into ,virtual death ,,traps for the children who are forced to use them as play- grounds . Commercial types of amusement fail to answer the demand for wholesome recreation for children and grown-ups alike . The answer' lies in the development of well facilitated parks, properly distributed throughout the City. -7- i III: PURPOSE OF THE PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE. The chief purpose of this proposed Park-and Recreation ele- ment--to the Master Plan of Land Use is to suggest the types -of recreation, their number, the amount of required area, and the location of sites which will be necessary to provide an adequate - recreation program in the future. To .provide adequate recreation services, ' it is imperative that the needs of each neighborhood be considered. Before a recreation plan can be developed, basic standards must be adopted. In adopting standards , the question. arises ;ems to--_how extensive a program should be provided? The City of Huntington Beach should be interested in setting standd ds that will offer adequate recreation facilities for its citizens in. the future. 1. -8- l E IV: CRITERIA PERTAINING TO -DEVELOPING A PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN. - By adopting a carefully considered set of principles, - the City of Huntington Beach shows that it values the best in recrea- tion- planning and wishes to proceed with deliberation and wisdom ~ in creating a system of areas and facilities that will best serve the people. Specifically, principles are needed to: 1. determine the general approach to the selection and loca- tion of various types of recreation parks and facilities ; 2. establish the relationship of one site to another in the total complex of recreation areas ; 3. establish the relationship of the entire recreation system to other physical elements of the City; and 4. institute an orderly procedure for planning future devel- opment of the public recreation system. Recreation parks and facilities for the City should be planned as related parts of a unified, well balanced. system. Piecemeal planning; the consideration of each site as a separate, unrelated area, almost inevitably results in the selection of sites that are improperly located in relation to schools and cultural facil- ities. e- F , Vo INTEGRATT N OF PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS WITH THE MASTER PLAN OF D USE. Comprehensive planning will avoid overlapping service areas ; will assure that equal standards of accessibility are applied according to density of population, and will reveal opportuni- ties for relating recreation facilities to one another and to other local service facilities. The Parks and Recreation element of the Master Plan of Land Use, showing both existing -and proposed recreation parks and facilities, should be integrated with all other sections of the Master Plan for the City. Recreation areas can be located advan- tageously by considering their relation to residential areas, schools, industrial areas and particularly to streets , highways, and transit routes . One of the chief advantages of a master plan of land use showing the approximate locations of proposed neighborhood recreation parks and centers is that it serves as a guide to decision,,-.-making when land is offered for recreation pux-poses or when funds are available for site acquisition. i r =10- i VI : Amenities of Park and Recreational Areas Psvcholoaical and Sociological Effects of Park and Recreation Areas Outdoor recreation offers areas for family and social togeth- erness ; promotes healthful living and offers spiritual values , and it provides for exercise necessary for physical fitness. It is valuable for education in the world of nature . Thes,e benefits are not to be justified on a cost accounting basis . 4 ke education, outdoor recreation is one of those elements of the- fUll life that should be made available to the general public. The use of leisure is important to the health of individuals . - Americans face the prospect of more leisure time in the future,MoSt`` and thus the challenge of using it for their own enrichment and development as individuals and as citizens . At .its best , =outdoor activity whether undertaken lightly or with the serious intent of the perfectionist, is essentially a "renewing" experience - r- a refreshing change from the workaday world. This is true no matter what an individual actually chooses to do in the outdoors . As long as the activity is freely chosen, because it is refreshing and interesting to do,. then it serves the basic function of recreation; the task of re-creating human vitality. Latent energy is tapped; unused powers of the body, mind and spirit are employed; the imagination works on fresh material; and when all these things occur, the individual re- - turns to his work with a sense of renewal . Economic Effects of Park and Recreation Areas r Although the chief reason for providing outdoor recreation is the broad social and individual benefits it produces, it also r-- brings about desirable economic effects. The effect of parks j on adjoining land values is one example. _ The City of Minneapolis, noted for'' its fine park system, reports that the increased values in the City due to park develop- ments have amounted to several times the cost of the entire system. � -11- • i A county in New Jersey found that land adjacent to parks increased in value three times as much as other property. It is sometimes argued that parks take land off the tax rolls . This is not necessarily a net loss . In many instances it is a gain for there is scarcely any lag between the removal of land from the tax rolls for public purposes and the establishment of new businesses to take its place ; often of an assessed value far exceeding any that was relinquished. Two other economic effects of outdoor recreation are the attraction of new industries and a tourist trade to the area. Many manufacturers and businesses searching for new sines list recreational opportunities as one of the deciding factors in the location of their facilities . r i -12- VII : TYPES OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES r-. -Since the City has -embarked upon a program of acquisition and development of neighborhood parks and appurtenant facilities, a clear-understanding of what constitutes a park or playground should be made. Park A park, whether it be of the neighborhood, community or regional variety, is essentially a passive form of outdoor recrea- tion. This type of facility helps to relieve the nervous strain of urban life by providing open spaces where a person or .9 family 7 might go to relax and take life easy. Playground A playground is an active form of outdoor recreation. It provides equipment which permits a wide range of no=4- 1 play activities , I -13- VIII:- RANGE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Neighborhood Park The most pressing need for recreational facilities in Huntington Beach appears to be at the neighborhood level. Shade, walks, benches and a pleasant view are the chief requirements for passive recreation areas . Definitely desirable is an informal free-flowing design of park space, so that many families_�_,tnay enjoy close proximity to ,a park and may walk through it on their way to work, school or other activities. This type of park usually serves the area which `. .s sved by an elementary school. Each neighborhood park should be centrally located within the area it is planned to serve and should be pro- vided with safe and convenient access for all residents of the area. Each location should be well removed from major highways, rail lines and other hazards since these sites primarily serve young children. Recreation facilities should be combined with school facilities . The two are closely related and their purposes, programs and a6tiv- ities overlaps Moreover, it is more efficient to design, constxud'e maintain and operate these facilities jointly. A neighborhood park is planned primarily for children 5-14 years of age, for family groups, and includes areas for pre-school children, It must be carefully planned to achieve a maximum use -- of all interests and age groups , and is adapted to the specific needs .of the neighborhood it serves. A service area radius of one-quarter (4) mile would adequately serve as a neighborhood park and recreation district since it. is bounded on all four sides by arterial highways. Whenever possible, the park should take advantage of natural or scenic features. Unbuildable land is often suitable or the park r may consist of landscaped buffer strips between residential and commercial development- In any form., the neighborhood park should present a leisure atmosphere. A minimum of 2 acres is recommended for any neighborhood park. Park area reKquirements in relation to the size of a neighborhood are given in Table le In these recommendations, a distinction is made between developments -14- I TABLE 1 a'r NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons One or Two Family With private lot area per family of -. More than 1/4 acre Parke No neighbor- hood requirement e®® mmo mom --- —®- Less than 1/4 acre a Park., Total Acres 1 .50 2 .00 2 .50 3.00 3.50 Parka Acres per 1000 1.50 1.00 .83 .75 .70 persons Multi-Family Or other predominantly without private yards Park: Total Acres 2 .00 3. 00 4.00 5.00 6 .00 Park: Acres per 1000 2. 00 1 .50 1 .33 1 .25 1.25 persons *Recommended by the American. Public Health Association Committee on the Hygiene of Housing where families have private outdoor space and those lacking _ private yards . Private planned developments attempt to provide the neces- sary neighborhood park and recreational needs for its residents . If these needs meet the minimum requirements determined by the population served, it is necessary .to consider only community or regional facilities for this group of people , Neighborhood Playground Neighborhood playgrounds are the chief outdoor center for elementary school children. Equipment which permits a wide range of normal play activities should be provided. The playground should also be a place where pre-school children can play in a protected area under the supervision of a parent or older child, and where high school children and adults can enjoy games that require little space . A neighborhood playground should be located in the center of a neighborhood adjacent to an elementary school. Moreover, a playground site should be so located that children do- not have to cross a hazardous situation, such as an arterial highway, rail- road, industrial development or business center. Playground re- quirements in relation to the size of a neighborhood are given "^ in Table 2'. Community Park. A community park serves several neighborhoods within a com- munity, and is designed and planned to serve the broader recrea- tion needs and demands of that area. It is planned primarily for youths and adults. The community park provides outdoor and in- door facilities and should be a minimum of 15-20 acres in size. There should be at least one acre of park for each 800 popula- tion, or 1.25 acres for each 1,000 population. Central City Lake , Natural Area and Golf Course A central city lake and natural area is a large area of natu- ral or manmade beauty that serves all the communities within a municipality or urban area and provides major recreation facilities not usually duplicated in other recreation parks , such as a sports center, golf course, lake for boating and an area for day camping, -16- Table 2 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYGROUND- SIZE NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION j PLAYGROUND AREA 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons i i Total Acres 2.75 3.25 4.00 5.00 6.00 Acres Per 1000 Persons 2.75 1.63 1.33 1.25 1.20 a' * Recommended by the American Public Health Association Committee on the Hygiene of Housing -Regional Park r, A regional park is a-land and/or -water facility, scenic in character- and large enough to serve at the inter-city, -County or inter-County level. The regional park conserves a large natural open space for the use and enjoyment of people . The park is used by persons residing or working within a radius of 30 to 40 miles or by those who reach it in an hour's auto- mobile dtit e -from or within a metropolitan center. Regional Recreation Area A regional recreation area is a large land and/or water facility reserved for special recreation activities. It supple- ments special purpose recreation facilities available in urban centers or supplies space for outdoor recreation activities not available in urban centers. It is used primarily by persons residing or working in a radius of 30 to 40 miles or by those who can reach it within an hour's drive from or within a metro- politan center. However, the special purpose facilities may be such that users come from several regions, an entire county or several counties. r-e -18- i r-� IX: RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTING A PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM -- -The entire parks -and recreation program in Huntington Beach consists -of - four phases. The first phase consists of site analysis r- and selection, which - is the responsibility of the Planning Commis- sion and the Planning Department. The second phase involves acqui- sition of the site , through the City Administrator's Office with r approval of the City Council and Recreation Commission. The third phase pertains to the design and development of the park site, -� This is accomplished either through private contract or by the Department of Public Works. The fourth phase involves the develop- ment and implementation of a complete re.,Creation program by the Department of Parks and Recreation. �. It is through this coordination of responsibilities that an effective parks and recreation program can be effectuated. A breakdown in any one of these areas could seriously curtail the r program indefinitely. r, i i 1 X. ROLE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM The schojol system- plays an important part in the City's recrea- tion program. Under an annual agreement, which is entered into by the City and the Oceanvie w, Westminste;7, Fountain Valley, and Huntington Beach Elementary School Districts and the Huntington Beach Union High School District, these parties agree to cooperate witli each other in organizing, promoting and conducting a joint program of community recreation to promoteand preserve the health and general welfare of the children and people of the City of Hunt- ington _Beach. r- These school districts make available to the City: a. Al permanently operated playground areas that are suitable for community recreational activities , these areas to be selected by the Director of Recreation and Parks of the City of. Huntington Beach and approved by mutual agreement of the City Administrator and the Superintendents of ".th4�` prrtinent Districts ; b. other selected school facilities for community recrea- tional programs under the same method of selection as set forth in "a" above; c. use of school facilities in accordance with pertinent district policies in granting permits for non-school use of facilities ; and r d. schedules for use of said facilities for community recre- ational activities to be establ:1shed by the Director of Recreation and Parks and approved by pertinent. District-.Sup intendents or r� designated representatives. The City shall provide certain expendable materials and supplies necessary for conducting community recreational programs for all ages. These supplies and materials shall be provided through the City General Fund. It is also agreed that certain equipment, as- specified by the pertinent District Superintendent, provided as part of the school program anal suitable for community recrea- tional use, and that certain equipment and supplies provided by the" Recreation Commission and suitable for school use, shall be mutually interchangeable for the common use of both parties .! -20- 1 The school districts provide custodial and maintenance services for all school facilities utilized for community recre- ational programs . The Recreation Director selects and provides qualified personnel to conduct recreational act�vFities and events which take place after school hours, on week-ends', and during holiday and vacation periods . Close coordination by school authorities and recreation officials 'leads to a distribution of facilities and supervision, r and a more efficient recreation system for the City without dupli- cation of tax monies . A good example of this coordination between the school districts and the City is found . in Section 15004 of the State Education Code. The governing board of each school district, before acquiring title to property for a new school site or adding to a present school site, shall give the Planning Commission notice in writing of the proposed acquisition. The Planning Commission . shall investigate the proposed site, and within 30 days after re- ceipt of the notice, shall submit to the governing board a written report of its investigation and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site . In this manner, the school districts keep the City abreast of their plans, and, at the same time, the City can plan for the parks, recreation and open space facilities based on these school locations . �. The creation of new neighborhoods results not only in the need for new schools, but also in the demand for recreational facili- ties within the same areas . If future school acquisition programs can be tied into recreation needs, both areas can benefit . The school sites service radius is set at approximately one-quarter (4) mile by school authorities, the same service area that would adequately serve as a neighborhood park and recreation district . r- The schools are designed for approximately 500 to 800 children. Each school will be able to accommodate 500 to 800 dwelling units, which represents a population of approximately 2,, 500 people per neighborhood area. r- -21- r Enlargement of the Recreation Commission The- Huntington ,Beach City Council, in April 1958, enlarged the Recreation Commission from five members to ten so that one member of each of the five school districts could be included. This enabled closer relationships in working out problems of rapidly expanding school sites for recreational purposes. The five school districts make available to the City all permanently operated playground areas that are suitable for community recreational activities. These areas are to be selected by the Director of Parks and Recreation of the City and approved by mutual agreement of the City Administrator and the Superintendents of the pertinent districts . Authority for the Total Program The administrative authority for the t t'al Parks and Recre- ation Program is the P R i. g e arks and Recreation Director. He is assisted by an Advisory Recreation Commission consisting of ten members, five appointed at large , each serving four year terms, and a member representing each of the four elementary school districts (Ocean- viewi, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and Westminster) and the Huntington Beach High School District. Th+e. Live members represent- ing the school districts are all appointed by the Mayor with approval by the City Council.-All terms of appointment run concurrently with the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. -22- XI : ROLE OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT - The primary function of the County of Orange in the field of parks- and-recreation is the acquisition, conservation, improvement and- op e ration of large natural open spaces , making them available as regional parks and regional recreation areas for the use and enjoyment of Orange County residents and of tourists and other visitors to the County. County government is the primary supplier of day-use regional 4ecreation facilities within the County, when such facilities are intended for use throughout the County. The County has intermediate responsibility between the State and the local government as the primary supplier of regional parks and large outdoor regional recre- ation areas . To function at this intermediate level, future Orange County park and recreation acquisition should be regional in nature . Because of the rapid loss of open space in California, it is the obligation of county governments to acquire large sites ahead of the regional demands for park and recreation use. It should be kept in mind that a county regional. park or regional recreation area does not duplicate or extend the neighborhood or community parks and recreation areas which are the responsibility of municipal government. The Orange County ,Board of Supervisors has adopted two signifi- cant master plans relating to County recreation. The Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails was adopted by the Board in January, 1965. Pertinent information relating to this Master Plan may be ri found in the recent publication , "Recreation 65 - County of Orange" prepared by the Orange County=Planning Department. The Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County - Amend- ment Number One was adopted by the Orange County Board of Super- visors on March 16, 1966. A map depicting all regional parks and their relationship to Huntington Beach is found,-,-at the end of this report . -23- n I I � More detailed information relating to these regional aspects ^ of parks and recreation can be found in the two reports , "The faster i Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails ", and "The Master Pln of Regional Parks for Orange County - Amendment Number One. " Both are available in the office of the Orange County Planning Department . Orange County is now actively participating in the newly formed Five County Regional Park Planning Council. The ultimate goal of this organization is the merging of the recreation plans of the counties of Orange, Los Angeles , Ventura, Riverside and San Bernar- dino into a coordinated plan for all of Southern California. SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is the most promising regional governmental organization in Southern r- California and eventually, if accepted, will absorb the Five County Regional Parks Planning Council into its framework. The same recreational planning function would be performed with the added advantage of a more comprehensive environment within which to plan. SCAG offers the opportunity of bringing the experience and resources of existing local governments to bear upon regional recreation problems. Orange County° s close cooperative attitude with SCAG, in its infancy stage of development, is important to the entire regional parks program. =24- XII: INVENTORY OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY' FACILITIES - - The City -of- Huntington Beach presently owns 15 park sites total- ing-78e82 acres, and leases 3 park sites totaling 15. 19 acres for a grand total of 94.01 acres of land under City jurisdiction. The City also has over eight miles of continuous beach front- age both-within and contiguous to the City, all of which is open to the publi -' for recreational purposes , The City owns 1.004 miles of this beach ; 2. 27 miles are privately owned, and 5.33 miles are owned by the State of California. More than four and one-half (42) million people visited the City and private beach between June 15 and September 15, 1965. Another 1,850,000 visited the State beaches during 1965. . The City Lifeguard Department estimates that about 83% of all these people came from areas beyond the limits of Huntington Beach, A precise inventory of all existing park and recreational sites within the..-City of Huntington Beach or contiguous to its borders follows , The Parks, Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report . C. Fred Schroeder Park - located north of Cornell Drive between Columbia Lane and Bolsa .Park Lane; total area - 2.50 acres ; status - neighborhood. Colonel Jack Greer - located north of McFadden Avenue between, Salisbury Lane and Goldenwest Street ; total area - 6.50 acres; status - neighborhood, Marina Park - located north of Edinger Avenue and east of Graham Street ; total area - 5.36 acres ; status - neighborhood. Earl T . Irby - located west of Simonne Lane between Ruth Drive and Sylvia Drive; total area 3. 10 acres ; status - neighbor- hood, John A. Mudry. Jr. Park - located east of Goldenwest Street and 7371 _north of Warner Avenue ; total area - 18.60 acres ; status - community, r-. -25- 1r 1 Thomas B. Talbert Park located south of Talbert Avenue and 300, east of Goldenwest Street; total area - 14.87 acres ; status - community. Un-named - located south of Talbert Avenue and 11001 west of Beach Boulevard; total area - 2.50 acres; status - neighborhood. Robert B. Wardlow Park - located north of Pioneer Drive and east of Cannery Street ; total area - 2.10 acres ; status - neighbor- hood . Recreation Center - .located north of Orange Avenue and west of 17th Street ; total area - 2 .00, acres ; status - community. Circle .Park - located at the intersection of 12th Street and Gre st Avenue ; total area - .80 acres ; status - neighborhood. Lake Park - located east of Main Street between llth St . and 12th Sheets ; total area - 4.00 acres ; status - neighborhood. Farquhar Plaza - located west of Main Street between llth and 12th Streets ; total area - 1 80 acres; status - neighborhood. Un-named - located south of Slater Avenue and west of Edwards Street ; total area - 7 .80 acres; status - neighborhood. Harry and Lois LeBard Park - located east of Brookhurst St. , on the south side of Warwick Lane ; ,total area-4.97 acres; status - neighborhood. Un-named - located at the northwest corner of , Edinger Avenue and Bolsa Chica- Street ; total area 2 .67 acres ; status - neigh- borhood' (leased from the U.S . Navy) . Un-named - located at the northeast corner of Lake Street and Memphis Avenue ; total area - 1.80 acres ; status - neighborhood (leased from Huntington Beach Company) . Unm�a�rnd located between Atlanta and Hamilton Avenues and Brookhurst and Bushard Streets ; total area - 10.72 acres ; status - neighborhood ( leased from the Southern California Edison Company) . Un-named located south of Garfield Avenue and east of Beach Blvd ; total area m 1.92 acres ; status - neighborhood. -26- r-- f XIII -INVENTORY OF : REGIONAL FACILITIES - Huntington Beach is indeed fortunate to have three large regional facilities strategically located at its borders. Regional recreation areas offer recreational or scenic attractions that are of ,county wide significance,; areas that provide spaciousness which the typical small neighborhood parks do not provide . The Master Plan of Regional Parks delineating these sites is found at the re ar of this report . Sunset Bay The aquatic park planned for Sunset Bay is a project of the `This recreation area, when fully Orange County Harbor District . developed, will occupy about 160 acres ,of land and water. It will provide a public beach .and picnic area, boat launching ramps and slips as well as a restaurant and other facilities . It is located adjacent to the northwesterly limits of the City' s boundary. Mile Square Mile 'Square is federally owned property and in time will : be equally as important for an activities park for populous west- . ern Orange, County. A 248-480 acre portion of this property is needed for develgpment as. an activities park. It is locatgd, at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Warner Avenue in the City of Fountain Valley. r Beach The more than eight miles of beach frontage that are both within and contiguous to .the City of Huntington Beach represents a regional facility of tremendous magnitude. During the height of the 1965 summer season, this facility accommodated more than sik and' onemhalf (62) million people. r-> The Urban Land Institute, in their report to the City, emphasized that the right of the public to use the beach area throughout the eight and one-half, mile length. should not be de- nied, subject to just `compensation being paid to private property owners. -27 { The key to upgrading the beach is through master planning whereby land use and facilities planning is based on accurate esti- mates of future demands . Unless study and necessary action are undertaken , the limited existing facilities will be sorely over- taxed by the overflow of visitors who will engulf the beach area in the near future, The U.L.I. recommended the following: 1. Parking on the Pacific Coast Highway should be prohibited, 2. Public access to the beach from the highway should be provided at intervals across the beach property of the Huntington Beach Company. 3. All beaches should be fenced with specifically designated r- entrances for automobiles and pedestrians to allow for better beach control . 4. Control all pa-rking within one-half mile of the beach . 5.- Contro..l .the use of the beaches, excluding surfboards at all times in special areas set aside for use by families . A competent planning consultant is being sought to formulate ' a plan which will reflect an agreeable relationship between City and Mate beaches The State of California has commenced a program of recrea- tional expansion on both the Huntington and Bolsa Chica .State Beaches . - It is the State ' s objective to bring the potential for mass recrea- tional use of both State Beaches into better balance through the provision of needed public use facilities , and also to provide a response to unsatisfied visitor demand_ for beach day use facilities within the-Los Angeles - Orange County 'metropolitan region, Huntington State Beach The existing 78.5 acre Huntington State Beach with over two r miles of ocean frontage and broad sandy swimming beach, ranks high among the better public beaches in Southern California, All- of the beach area_._is;,..san,d which means that improvements for public use _28� . r-, such as* roads , parking, sanitary facilities and concessions build- ings must be constructed on the sand thereby reducing the effective area of this beach resource for public use and enjoyment. ,- The suggested realignment of the Route l Freeway now being considered' by the California Division of Highways would result in a surplus area of over 30 acres of flat upland between the proposed freeway right-of-way and the existing State Beach . This land is proposed to be acquired by the State for recreation: purposes , The addition of 34 acres of upland to Huntington State Park would permit the development of an additional 1, 100 parking spaces for beach users , thus allowing the State to realize more fully the potential for visitor use of this excellent swimming beach. With these additional parking facilities, it would be possible to provide parking space for a total of 4,000 cars distributed throughout the` length of the existing beach. The estimate as to the capital cost of this project is r $4,600,000 which would be paid from existing bond funds under the State Beach , Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1964. Bolsa Chica State Beach -� The 58 .98 acres of State-owned land at Bolsa Chica is presently a narrow strip of undeveloped sandy beach with about three miles of ocean frontage . . The property does not have sufficient depth to permit development of public use facilities a safe distance above the high tide line , Beach visitors are now forced to cross private property in order to gain access to the beach area from the Pacific Coast Highway. The State proposes that this narrow strip of land, a railroad right-of-way averaging about 100 feet in width, be acquired for recre- ational use by the State or the City of Huntington Beach under an agreed upon' arrangemento Full realization of the potential for irlsi- r for use at this fine beach will be made possible with the addition of this land, -29- fi i A i The extremely high cost of land in tlj.is area has prompted the State to explore alternatives to the traditional acquisition in fee philosophy. If it is determined that acquisition in fee is necessary and -desirably, much thought': has been given to increas- ing the capacity and use of the land by the use of parking structures and other means of concentrating use. M The estimate as to the capital cost of this project is $652755000 which could ,be. defrayed from: 1 . acquisition in fee by the State from the State Park Bond Act ; 2, acquisition in fee by the State from the sale of revenue bonds ; 3 , acquisition by local governmental bodies or parking authority from either a budget process or revenue bonds ; and 4, acquisition by a concessionaire with a long-term operation agreement in order to amortize his investment . r-. -30- r-, XIV: ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK SITES An analysis of proposed neighborhood park sites was made based on existing neighborhood park facilities, existing and prow posed school sites and available land. With this information, it was possible to eliminate numerous quarter sections in the City from consideration due to the fact that : to a school site, either existing or proposed, did not exist in the area; 20 a park facility or site already existed in the area; -� 31. the area was completely developed and no land was K available; and r 4. the property was zoned or used for other than residen- tial use thereby precluding the necessity of a neigh- borhood park, As a result of this objective analysis it was possible to classify the remaining potential neighborhood park sites into three priority ratings. High Priority - �H There are seven sites throughout the City that rate a high priority for fulfillment of park needs. These seven sites were determined on: r` L, the existence of a school site in the particular neighborhood- 2. the availability of land .in the particular neighbor- hood ; 3. the number of people that would be accommodated; 4. its compatibility with existing and future land use; and 5. its orientation away from arterial highways . The location of these seven sites with their pertinent data follows. The Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report . -31 l i 1. SE-4 of Section 15-5-11; southeast of Edwards Ste and McFadden Ave ,, adjacent to a pro osed elementary school site ; existing population (12655; potential population (2500) ; master planned for low density (single family residential) ; approximately 65 acres of vacant land , 2 . NE4 of Section 22-5-11; northwest of Goldenwest St, and Heil Ave ; adjacent to an existing elemeA-Ary school site ; existing population ( 1382) ; potential- population (2200); master planned for low density (single family residential) ; approximately 47 acres of vacant land. r 3. NE4 of Section 23-5-11; southwest of Beach Blvd, and Edinger Ave; adjacent to an existing elementary school site; existing population ( 1285) ; potential population (4000) ; master planned for low, medium and high density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 132 acres of vacant land. r- 4. SE4 of Section 1-6-11 ; southeast of Yorktown Ave , and Newland St ; adjacent to an existing elementary school site; existing population (1080) ; potential population (2300) ; master planned for low density ( single family r residential) ; approximately 67 acres of vacant land, 5. NW4 of Section 27-5-11; northwest of Slater Ave, and �- Edwards St ; adjacent to an existing elementary school ,site; existing population (656) ; potential population (3200) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 40 acres of vacant land, 6. SW4 of Section 12-6-11; southeast of Indianapolis Ave . And Beach Blvd; adjacent to an existin elementary school site - existing population (12151 ; potential population b500) ; master planned for low density single family residential) ; approximately 27 ' acres of vacant land, NOTE. This site is the result of excess aczeage` fia. be sold off from the existing Peterson Elementary School, �^ 7, NE4 of Section 12-6-11; east of Newland St . and north of Indianapolis Ave ; adjacent to a proposed elementary gch'ool site ; existing population (339) ; potential pop- ulation (2500) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 121 acres of vacant land, i -32- , i i Medium Priori There are fourteen sites throughout the city that rate a medium priority for fulfillment of park needs . These fourteeh .sites were determined on. 1 the existence of a school site ,in the particular neigh- borhood; 2. the availability of land in the particular neighborhood, but not neoressarily adjacent to the existing or proposed elementary school site; 3. the number of peop`1e„that would be accommodated, (with emphasis on future-,population) ; and 4, its compatibility with existing and future land use.. The location of these fourteen sites with their pertinent data follows The Parks , Open Spaces , Schools, and Recreation r Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found at the rear of this report., -- 1, SWk of Section 22-5-11; southeast corner of Springdale St , and Heil Ave; separated from an existing elementary school; existing population ( 1466) ; potential population (3500) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; appro .mately 40 acres of vacant land. 20 NE4 of Section 26-5-11 ; north of Slater Ave , and east of Nichols St ; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population ( 1670) ; potential population (4500) ; master ,planned for medium density (multiple family residen- tial) and light industry; approximately 60 acres of vacant 1.and NOTE. This site is located on industrially zoned property and has frontage on a secondary highway. This removed its status as a high priority site, but because the industrial zoning on this property is out of context with the rest of the area and because of the potential population in the area, consideration should be given as a medium priority site. 3e SE4 of Section 28-5-11; south of Slater Ave. and west of Springdale St; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site; existing population ( 1089) ; potential population i -33- i r^ 1 r (3900) ; master planned for low and medium density (single and multiple family residential) ; approximately 100 acres of vacant land. NOTE° This site is located outside the City limits of Huntington Beach, but will eventually be within the City's jurisdiction, Because of the uncertainty as to when this property will be annexed to the City it was necessary to classify the site under the medium priority category. 4. NE4 of Section 7-6-10; east side of Bushard Ste and north of Indianapolis Ave ; adjacent to a roposed elementary school' site; existing population (4�; potential po ulation r (3000) ; master planned for low and medium density (Mngle I and multiple family . residential) ; approximately 147 acres of vacant land. 5e SE4 of Section 18-6-10; east of Bushard St., and south of Hamilton Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population (3) potential po ulation ( 5.000) ; .master planned for medium 'and high density multiple family resi- dential) ; approximately 130 acres of vacant land; 6. SA of Section 23-5-11; east of Goldenwest St, and 7371 north of Warner Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary, school siteT existing population ( 15) ; potential popula- tion (3000) ; master planned for high density (multiple family residential) ; located in the Murdy park site. This site would be a recreation center ih conjunction with the community park. 7. NW4 of Section 35-5-11; south of-`Talbert Ave. and east of_ Goldenwest St ; master planned for commercial and industrial, located in the existing community .park site. This site r" would be_a recreation center in conjunction with the com- munity park. ., 8, NE4 of Section 13-6-11; west of Cannery Ste and north of Hamilton Ave; adjacent to a proposed elementary school site ; existing population ( 0) ; potential population ( 1200) ; master planned for medium density (multiple family residential) and industrial; located in the proposed community park site. This site would be ' a recreation center _in conjunction with the community _park; 9&10a Section 20-5-11; west .of Algonquin St, and south of Edinger Ave ; each is adjacent to a proposed elementary school site; master planned for low and medium density (single and multi- ple family residential) ; located in the 877 acre Huntington Harbour planned development, F- NOTE. Since these two sites are located _on property that has not yet been developed, it was necessary to.`classify , them under the medium priority category. When develop- ment takes place, a re-evaluation of their priority (� status should be made. J -34- l I 115 12 Sections 3-6-11 and 4-6-11; south of Garfield Ave , , west 13&14` of 17th St . , north of Pacific- Coast Highway,and east of the City limits ; each is adjacent to a proposed element_ tary school_,site ; master planned for low and high densi- ty (single and multiple family residential) ; located in the Huntington Beach Company4s 600 acre planned community, NOTE: Since these four sites are located on property that has not yet been developed, it- was necessary to classify them under the medium priority category. When development takes place, a re-evaluation of their priority status should be made . Also the site located northeasterly of 23rd St , and Palm Ave, is planned as a private 7 acre neigh- borhood park. But, if plans for a community complex (involving the existing high school.,. proposed ele- mentary school and the 7 acre private park) are achieved, it is possible that this site will be dedicated for public use , Low Priority - There are two sites througghout the City that rate a low priori ty for fulfillment of park needsp These two sites were determined on: 1.. the existence of a school site in the particular neighbor- hood; 2,:. the availability of land in the particular neighborhood; 3, the number of people that would be accommodated (with emphasis on future population); and 4, its compatibility with existing and future land use,, The location of these two sites with their pertinent data follows . The Parks , Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use delineating these sites is found 'at the rear of this report.- , 1. NE'k of Section 27-5-11; south of Warner Ave. and west of Goldenwest St. ; adjacent to a proposed elementary, school site; existing population (11); potential ,population (3500) ; master planned for.Jow and medium density (sin ''le and multiple family residential); approximately 155 acres of vacant land. NOTEt This site was rated low because development is not ex- pected to take place in this area within the foresee- able future. If this status should change, a re- evaluation of its priority should be considered. 2. NWk of Sec ton 36.5,11, east of Beach Blvd. and north of Ellis Ave ; `an existing elementary school site exists in this particular neighborhood; but not adjacent to this site- existing population ( 1233) ; potential population (29005 ; master planned for low, medium and high derisi-Ey (single. and multiple family residential) ; approximately 25 acres of vacant land. n -35- a XV: METHODS OF FINANCING A COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION PLAN It is essential to implement any comprehensive parks and recre- ation plan with a financial plan. When the comprehensive plan has been prepared with full consideration of long-range needs and the adequacy of the existing and proposed facilities to meet these needs , cost estimates should be prepared, : financial resources studied, and r priorities assigned to projects included in the comprehensive plan. Assembly Bill 1150 r- Assembly Bill 1150 allows the City to require a subdivider of land for residential development in Huntington Beach to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of. both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a final subdivision map. An ordinance implementing the provisions of this bill is in the process of being adopted and it is anticipated that it will become effective concurrently with the adoption of the Parks , r Open Spaces , Schools and Recreation Element to the Master Plan of Land Use . r-. Open Space Land Program The Federal Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 has ex- panded the benefits of the Open Space Land Program authorized under Title VII of the Housing Act of 1961. . The purpose of this program is to help curb urban sprawl and to prevent the spread of urban blight and deterioration; to encour- age necessary recreational, conservation, and scenic areas by as- sisting public bodies in the preservation of open space land essen- tial to long-range development in accordance with plans for use of the land for open space purposes. In essence, this program provides the City with increased monetary assistance in the acquisition and development of land for park and recreational purposes . -36- j I A Federal grant for the purchase of three neighborhood parks was made to the City of Huntington Beach on April 2, 1964. This grant amounted to $22,430 which represented 20% of the total pur- chase price of $112, 150. Since that time , the benefits under the Open Space Land Program have been increased to .provide for a Federal grant of 50% of all costs (acquisition and development.) . In order to establish eligibility for grant assistance, two basic planning determinations must be made: 1 . An adequate comprehensive planning program for the urban area must exist in order to provide a basis for an open r space acquisition and development program. 2. Consistent with comprehensive planning, there must exist an adequate open space acquisition and development program for the urban area. This program had been temporarily forestalled until a 5-county regional master plan of parks and recreation was formed. But, on April 13, 1966, the Federal Government released millions of dollars in grants based on the opinion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development that sufficient progress toward the creation of an area-wide planning program had taken place. Park Assessment Districts George A. Pillsbury, a leader of a committee of park supporters in Minneapolis in 1893, asked a leading question 'that had a profound influence upon the future of that city. His question concerned the possibility of applying special a"essments for the cost of a new -� park against the neighborhood that wants it and will enjoy it . In most cities the cost of a park is absorbed by all of the taxpayers . '- Therefore , Minneapolis,initiated a comprehensive park acquisi- tion and development program based on assessment districts. The �- result has been a park system providing one acre of park for every p - 100 citizens due tQ this unusual system of "pay as you enjoy" finane- ing. -37- r General Obligation Bonds Land may be acquired for park purposes upon the approval of a general obligation bond. This type of bond is payable from a property tax imposed specifically for their payment . General obll.;gation bonds are usually considered the most secure risk and consequently carry the lowest interest rates . I.t is good practice to keep the City's bonded indebtedness within 15% of its assessed valuation. Passage of a general obligation bond requires approval of 2/3 of those voting in the election. State Beach, Park, Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1964 This Act provides for allocation of funds to local jurisdic- tions for acquisition of recreation areas and facilities. Priori- ties must necessarily be established based upon the need to pro- vide as many projects as possible throughout the State to serve r. the greatest number of people at the earliest possible time . An application for a State grant must be accompanied by an adopted general plan, recognizing that the planning function is a continuous process . The completeness of general plans and their conformity to the State Development Plan will be considered from this standpoint. The following criteria shall be followed in idetermini,ng. the type of projects which qualify for State grant funds r- 1 , the project should primarily serve day use from urban centers of population, preferably within approximately one hour's auto travel distance from such centers ; 2, the project shall primarily provide outdoor facilities and activities ; 3, the project shall provide for more than a single recrea- tional use or activity; -38- r f" f i _ 4, the project shall provide recreation uses traditionally or more appropriately developed and administered by a public agency rather than by private enterprise, 5. priorities shall be given to projects which will be open to the public within a reasonable period of time after the con- veyance of grant funds and completion of acquisition and develop- ment ; 6s the project shall be designed to fulfill a demand for regional recreation use in the geographical location proposed at the time of application or within the foreseeable future ; -- 7. except under unusual. Circumstances, state grants will not be approved when other federal,, state or local funds for regional projects are available unleas such funds are to be utilized on a complementary basis. State grant funds for park acquisition purposos shall be limited to those projects contemplating the acquisition of fifty „r acres or more of real property, including water areas, or pro- jects, which are designed as additions to existing park areas, where the resulting total park area will be fifty acres or more , Expenditures for project purposes shall be limited to: land acquisition; clearing, grading, drainage, planting; construction of walks , roads ® parking areas, buildings and other structures necessary for public recreation uses or necessary for the opera- tion and maintenance of the project ; installation of utilities ; and appraisal,. legal, planning, engineering, or other fees per- taining to the project. Expenditures for equipment and supplies, or operation and maintenance are not permitted., Orange County has been allocated a total of $2,723,550 to r- be expended in the acquisition and development of recreational areas and facilities, Any city in Orange County may participate with Orange County in an application for a state grant under the provisions of this section, provided that the City apply for a grant only after re- ceiving the approval of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. -39M I i r The City of- Huntington._.BeaZ2�, in 1965, applied for a grant for beaA improvements to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, but , in their .opinion, the application did not meet the established criteria. Urban Beautification and Improvement Program The Urban Beautification and Improvement Program is designed to help communities to become more pleasant desirable places in which to live, work, play and raise a family. This program will enable localities to take the lead in improving the attractiveness of their streets and other public places, thus encouraging the kind of neighborhood and community pride that is the best defense against blight and decay. Grants may be made for most beautifica- tion activities capable of providing long-term benefits to the locality. The City's beautification program must be carried out in an urban area; shall cover proposed activities for a full year, .usu- ally coincident with the fiscal year; is limited to beautification r- and improvement activities directly related to open-space and other land that is publicly owned or controlled, such as streets , parks, sidewalks , squares and plazas. To be eligible for Urban Beautification assistance, activities _ must be capable of providing long-terft benefits to the City. For example , assistance will not be provided for the increased operating costs of keeping parks better lighted, but may be' provided for land- scaping or park furniture . Generally, assistance will not be pro- vided for the construction of buildings ; however, small structures may be eligibile for assistance - if they contribute to the greater use and enjoyment of parks and other public lands . Priority consideration will be given to applications covering a diversity of activities and representing a balance between park r development and other types of beautification and improvement activ- ities . Hence , the application for grant should contain proposed activities drawn from at least three of the four-,f ollowing groups . -40- r-- Group I - upgrading and rehabilitation of parks , including construction, renovation, or provision of basic water and sanitary facilities , interior paths , walks, roadways, landscaping, shelters , and other similar items normally associated with park and open space areas . Group II - design and construction, substantial upgrading, or other improvement of public places such as malls , squares, plazas and waterfront areas, including construction or installation of fountains , decorative pavement and lighting, planters, street furniture, kiosks , and similar improvements . Activities in behalf of the arts , such as construction of facilities for outdoor exhibits, may also be included, Group III - community-wide activities to upgrade and improve the appearance of streets , greenways , parkways, waterfronts, stream valleys, rights-of-way, .,and other nonrecreational public places. Eligible activities include tree planting; landscaping; design, construction, and installation of special street furniture, signs , benches, and decorative fencing; and other measures to beautify the area over and -above normal maintenance. GrouRIV - activities to beautify and improve historic and other public building sites , including installation of special lighting or paving, landscaping, special fencing, and related work. Federal grant assistance for urban beautification is avail- able in an amount not to exceed 50% of expenditures made by the City for beautification activities which exceed its average ex- penditures for comparable activities during the two-. fiscal years preceding filing of the application, Two steps are necessary to compute the amount of the Federal grant : r 1. Establish the base cost of beautific__a.tion activities for the -2 fiscal years preceding filing of the application. -41- i 2. Compute the grant request on the basis of the increased expenditures proposed for the coming year (not to exceed 50% of the total increment) . The City of Huntington Beach applied for an Urban Beautification grant on April 28, 1966 to cover the period from July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967. The total - cost of the projects is $143, 580. The base cost of beautification activities for the last two fiscal years was $52,952. 'The total increment or difference is $905628 of which the Federal Government would pay 50% or $45, 314. The City is anxiously awaiting Federal approval of this application in order to commence necessary beautification projects. Concessions The City could assess concessionaires a percentage of gross receipts to offset the cost of park operations . Lease - Purchase Agreements The City could lease property for parks, open space or recre- ational purposes with an option to buy. This method usually applies to marginal property not suitable for agriculture or other uses. Joint - Powers A_�Z`eements This method pertains to the joint exercise of powers to estab- lish parks adjacent to or across City and County boundaries. Private Grants Cities have obtained title to land for parks , open space or recreational purposes as a result of grants made 'by private citizens . These grants Are usually made either for philantrophic purposes in which case the park would probably be named after its, donor; or for r the more mundane reason, to deduct its full current value on his federal income tax return. r Surplus Property Act of 1944 This method is . accomplished through the Federal Government who r conveys surplus property for public park and recreational purposes at a price equal to 50% of its fair market value . -42- i Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 This is a Federally sponsored program that permits the develop- ment of water resource areas f or recreation such as improving natural lakes and streams for recreational use . This program is implemented through the Department of Agriculture. Pay-as-you-go This , method involves acquisition and development of parks , open spaces and recreational areas without committing the City' s full faith and credit as would be required through a bond issue . In effect , the City purchases land for park and recreational pur- poses from its general fund. This is the primary method the City of Huntington Beach has used for acquisition of its present park r sites. The major drawbacks to this program arc- that the City must delay its long-range projections due to limited funds and also the tendency has been for land values to increase rather than remain stable . r r r -43- I r^ f XVI : THE CHALLENGE The City of Huntington Beach is faced with the prospect of a greater and more concentrated population with more free time. This .will be a population that will need recreation and open space for play, relaxation and privacy - amenities that our already inadequate parks cannot provide. The City should take advantage of any opportunity for park acquisition and development assistance that is available to it , thus , relieving a part of the burden imposed upon its residents . A comprehensive. plan for parks, open spaces, schools and recrea- tion, therefore, is essential to the overall development of the City. I � r -44_ , r-� CERTIFICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION wEsl uxsl ep E,r°ExTIpY So.—. No El CITY OF 30 MOUN NO.T,E- of THE CITY_NNINo oOYMI,I o tx19 EI . Q N Qo a.Y° E. �T HUNTINGTON BEACH xo arrD.enzLsh +° r .TTEaT. �__ �� ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA i a s—e—E CITY COUNCIL r` N o A O �o°NTE,A T SE-LUTICHEx TOTTME uA9TPLAo UPSECEw,I —AxN No.2e19 or TIE CITY COuxolt offfTHIa IaTarF AUGUST,1966. � ATT EST: ..Y.. � a r A11: F� F. E® E o F. A& o 0 0 E® am afl F o E EAE FE p a LEGEND: �-r—=CA EXISTING PROPOSED `�� ©I I Sr,,SCHOOLS SITES SITES / rr ELEMENTARY F [ E b I JUNIOR HIGH •� 10 � T E HIGH H ®E F PARKS ADJACENT ^�--r�� e® COLLEGE �• Qoo \� A.A.. A, PARKS TO THE CITY MORITI EXISTING PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD H1GM G] I ME—A, COMMUNITY LOW 0 0' F. AS REGIONAL Q No ❑° ` �F— SPECIAL FACILITIES RECREATION CTR. O LAKE a NATURAL AREA OO r .EDISON R/W F77 qq PLANNED MARINA ] ®[}{] GOLF COURSE I o PARKS, OPEN SPACES, SCHOOLS, - AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF LAND USE - p y MASTER PLAN OF REGIONAL PARKS IMIERIA ' "� ���` '�• ANGETNORIE AVE ■ .` Slr� l/ i T- RIVERSIDE BRWY RATELLA AVE N -� f ■ � �-� Y LV�%�Jjt RWY DI.R.V. BLVD i ��1 C"� ❑ F / V RA O Y1�N /- ttFF :':WA -.;:I AVE ? 2 f Huntington Beach WY Iles D , s J 4 5 6 7 m r' g'M1 l p �T San Dire° f h Regional parks (camping or picnicking) f Activities parks �^ 0 Expansion of existing facilities AMarina or aquatic park r" Beach { _46— , HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. APRIL, 1966 i� ryv I HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IN THE HUNTINGTON SEA- CLIFF SUBDIVISION. I i i PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON FEBRUARY 2, 1976. i I i i i I, HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF I i The Huntington Seacliff is the first completed subdivision in The Greater Seacliff development. The community consists of over 300 homes. It was started in 1968 and completed in 1973. There are over 600 children under the age of eighteen of which over 2/3 are 10 years and younger with a majority of-this group being pre-school age. The Huntington Seacliff subdivision is an island cutoff from the existing developed areas of Huntington Beach. Its boundaries are Golden- west, an increasingly heavily traveled major arterial highway, Clay Avenue and Palm Drive, both planned.-to be major thoroughfares for future housing subdivisions and The Seacliff Golf Course. For further comments and exhibits concerning this, please refer to the Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Presentation made to the Park Commission on December 10, 1975. Exhibit III, in particular, will provide the Council members with a pictorial illustration of the concept of the Huntington Seacliff Subdivision as an island NEED AND LOCATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Per the Planning Department study, the current demand for neighborhood parks is 1.8 acres and ultimate demand will be 22.5 acres of which 12 acres will be city owned neighborhood park land. But none in the currently deve- loped Huntington Seacliff. Subdivision. We concur with this analysis which supports our position that there currently is a need to provide neighborhood parks in the subdivision as stated in our presentation. to the Park Commission. The Huntington Seacliff subdivision is divided into two parts, with Golden- west the only means of travel between the northern and southern sections. Thus our solution to the problem of providing the required neighborhood parks is to develop a park site in each section After a review of potential sites during a meeting held in the offices of the Parks Department attended by representatives of Park Department, Park Commission, Huntington Beach Company, Public Works Dept. and the Sea- cliff Homeowner's Association, the general concensus was that there were I, ,. 2 only three sites available, one in the south and two in the north. Discussion on the southern site will be reserved until we review the proposed recommenda- tions of Planning Department.Before we discuss the northern sites let's review what the "Parks, open spaces, schools and recreation element to the jMaster Plan of land use" a document prepared by Planning Department has to say about neighborhood parks. i "A neighborhood park is planned primarily for children 5-14 years of age, for family groups, and will include areas for pre-school children. It must be carefully planned to achieve a maximum use of all interests and age groups. and is adapted to the specific needs of the neighborhood it serves. A service area radius of one-quarter (1/4) mile would adequately serve as a neighborhood park and recreation district since it is bounded on all four sides by arterial highways." "Each neighborhood park should be centrally located within the area it is planned to serve and should be provided with safe and convenient access for all residents of the area. Each location should be well removed from major highways, rail lines and other hazards since these sites primarily serve young children." With this in mind, let's review the recommendations of Planning Commission and Staff:;and: the:.recommendations of the Huntington Seacliff .Homeowner's Associations regarding parks for the island. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Commission recommends that sites proposed by Homeowner's Association not be acquired or developed but: 1. Current park needs of the northern section of the community be met by a temporary park site at Clay and Goldenwest streets; 2. Park needs of the southern section be met by the existing open space area at Morningtide on a temporary basis; and 3. That the Planning Department be directed to increase the priority of the Seacliff Study on its current work program and begin a comprehensive development and parks plan for the area in coopera- tion with the Huntington Beach Company and The Recreation and , Parks Department to insure that future park needs can be accom- modated on a permanent basis. 3 Let's look at these recommendations in reverse order. The Homeowner's Association fully concurs with recommendation #3 as a definite plan of acquisition and development. is needed prior to any future development of the remaining open area. Such a review and development of a master plan would preclude a repetition of the situation now facing the residents of r The Huntington Seacliff Subdivision. Namely the development of a sub- - division without proper planning to provide the required land within the subdivision for a neighborhood park. Even though; this will provide no I direct benefit to existing residents of the Huntington Seacliff we concur with this action to protect the rights of future residents in other sub- divisions to be constructed in the Seacliff area of Huntington Beach. Turning to the second recommendation of the Planning Commission re- garding the southern site proposed by Homeowners. This site is adjacent to the Golf Course and is currently utilized by residents for open recreation. It is the general consensus of the residents in the area that this_ be left as designated open space as development of this property is limited because of oil and gas line easements. The Homeowners .recommend that this site be designated not as a temporary site but as a permanent open space area and that an _arrangeuient be worked out with the Huntington Beach Company for acquisition and also maintenance due to proximity to Golf Course to reduce total maintenance cost incurred by City. The first recommendation is the most pressing and is of major concern to the Homeowners. It is most pressing because the Lusk Company has graciously deferred acquisition and development of the .Manor Point Circle and Evening Hill site as outlined in Exhibit VI of the Homeowner's December presentation made to the Park Commission. The Lusk Company has delayed other efforts to allow the Homeowner's Association time to obtain a favorable definitive i action from the City for the acquisition and development of this site as a neighborhood park to fulfill the current and future needs of the northern section of the subdivision. Exhibit I to this report is a letter from The Lusk Company extending the time limit for such an action to February 15, 1976. As a result of the alternate sites meeting referred to earlier in this report, the location of a neighborhood park was limited to two locations; The Manor Point Circle and Evening Hill site (to be referred to as The Preferred Site in this report) and the Goldenwest and Clay Site (To be referred to as The Goldenwest Site) . i ' 4 It is the recommendation of the Planning Department -.that current park needs of the northern sections of the subdivision be met by a temporary _park at the Goldenwest Site. It is the recommendation of the Homeowners that the preferred site be acquired and developed to provide a permanent neighborhood park site to .provide for the current park needs of the community. We will examine each site and discuss its suitability under the guidelines provided in the Planning Department's "Parks, Open spaces, Schools and Recreation element to the Master Plan of Land Use." and the desires of the subdivision residents. Let's turn our attention to the Goldenwest Site. The Huntington Beach Company has provided us with a map of the area upon which they have outlined i the useable area free of existing oil wells. They also state that other facilities or encumbrances may alter or reduce the actual area suitable for park use. This map will be Exhibit II to this report. The ultimate size of this lot is limited to 1.7 acres. It is bounded on the East and South by arterial highways and on the north and west by oil field production areas. Abutting the boarders of this site are two producing .wells and a water pumping station. The Homeowners oppose the development of this site as a neighborhood park site..to fulfill the current needs of the northern section of The Island for the following reasons. 1. Its proximity to a highly traveled major highway is dangerous. To be specific, the 360 foot western edge of the site borders Goldenwest which is becoming more heavily traveled as outlined in our Exhibit I in presentation to Park Commission. The numbers in Exhibit I do not reflect the effects of the soon to be completed Seacliff Village diagonally across and down the hill from the site, or the affects of the now confirmed Gas Treatment Plant to be con- structed in the near future. f 2. Proximity to Oil Field operation, pumping station and Gas treatment i plant is dangerous. Looking at Exhibit II-notice the entrance to these areas is adjacent to the south west-\corner of the proposed site. This gate is currently left open during the day when the park I 5 is intended to be utilized. With the entrance at this location, oil production vehicles are required to pass by the southern border of proposed site. Residents intending to avail themselves of the pro- posed park facility would be requiqred to cross the portion of Clay which would be utilized by these oil production vehicles and residential traffic to and from northern section of subdivision. The corner of Clay and Gold.enwest is potentially one of the most dangerous as a result of the poor visibility afforded drivers due to the steep slope of Goldenwest.. 3. There is a possible health hazard resulting from noxious odors emanating from oil production facilities. During the recent Gas Treatment Plant hearings the problems of noxious odors and sound pollution were discussed. 4. ' It is not centrally located and doesn't provide for safe and convenient access by all residents of the subdivision. This site is far removed from the residential area. If an accident or tragedy occurred, a person would have to travel the distance of an eight to a quarter of a mile to reach the residential area to summon help. Let's -turn to the preferred site and examine it. Although it is smaller than the proposed Goldenwest site, it is within the subidivision and is centrally located with safe and convenient access to all-.residents in the northern section of the sub- division. At this -point the Association would like to reiterate to the Council that this' is the only existing site available within the northern section of the subdivision and unless prompt action is taken it will soon be lost to residents resulting; in the children of the subdivision being left without the park they need and deserve and have a right to. This site is located away from major highways and other hazards and would be primarily designed to serve the younger children. It is centrally located within the quarter mile serving area radius. Another benefit to the subdivision would be relief from the walled effect in the subdivision as a result of locating houses close to the street. Though acquisition costs may be higher, development cost would be reduced since it already has water, power and sewer facilities. Development costs will be further-.reduced by using the present landscaping, thereby reducing the cost of trees and shrubs and by the donation of equipment and landscape architectural services. (Exhibit III and IV respectively.) Since I 6 this location would be a permanent .site expenditures would not be lost. as would occur with expenditures on a temporary site. The developmental cost of the Goldenwest site would probably far exceed the cost of this site as the cost to provide adequate safeguards from hazards existing near that site would be high. The recommendation of the Homeowner's is that a permanent site be ' developed wi-thin the subdivision at the preferred Manor Point Circle location. Other important issues In the remaining parts of this report we will discuss other relevant issues contained in the Planning Commission's Transmittal. PARK FEES Under the Quimby Act and City Ordinances 9740 & 9960 the developers of the Huntington Seacliff Subdivision are required to dedicate an amount of land or fees in lieu of land at the time of filing the final tract map for the subdivision. The amount of dedication is determined by a standard formula which is explained in the copy of Ordinance 9740 enclosed in your packets for prior review. Please consider- this as Exhibit V of this pre- sentation. To avoid confusion we will refer to the amount of dedication in terms of dollars. q In Exhibit IX of our 'presentation to the Parks Department we indicate the amount of fees generated during the development of the Huntington Sea- cliff subdivision to be $92.,400: In the Planning Department Staff Analysis on page 5 they -indicate total fees of $74,300. The difference relates to a credit that could be taken by The Huntington Beach Company on all lots bordering the Huntington Seacliff Golf Course. In our discussion with the Huntington Beach Company, it is our understanding that at this time they have not and do not intend to exercise this option. Therefore the amount of fees available for development of neighborhood park sites in the subdivision is $92,400. At the present time, the fees generated by subdeveloper have not been remitted to the city, but are being held by Huntington Beach Company pur- suant to Letter Agreement between the City Administrator and Huntington Beach Company at the time of filing the tract map for .the subdivision. An example was enclosed for your prior review. Please consider this our Exhibit VI. I o 7 A similar letter agreement was presented for each Tract Map filed during the development of The Huntington Seacliff subdivision. Now that the Huntington Seacliff '.subdivision-of the greater Seacliff Area has been completed, for more than two years, it appears to the Homeowner's Associa- tion in reading Section 9961.14 that these fees should have been transmitted - to the City at the filing of the final subdivision map which was Tract 7421 referenced in Exhibit VI. Pursuant. to the Quimby Act (enclosed for your prior review and to be I considered as our Exhibit VII) , Paragraph C, funds generated by a sub division are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recrea- tional facilities to serve the subdivision. The City Attorneys office has { issued opinion 71-26 and 72-65 regarding this question of using funds generated I by subdivision for other purposes and acquisition of land outside the immediate subdivision. They concluded in opinion 7.2-65 that fees could not be used for main- tenance of land and in 71-26 they concluded that fees could be used to acquire land in Central Park Phase III. But no where did they address them- selves to the question of using fees generated in one subdivision to acquire ` land in another subdivision, which in effect is what the Park Commission is doing under their Park Priority System. This question should be addressed by the City Attorney's office under the direction of the City Council. I now direct your attention to the letter from Norm Worthy to Dick Harlow dated January 12, 1976 which is included in the transmittal from f The Planning Department. In section 3e, Mr. Worthy states' a reason for i not developing the preferred Manor Point Circle Site is that in order to acquire this site it would require diversion of funds from current high priority acquisition and development programs. This is confusing, in that our funds are currently being held by The Huntington Beach Company. In view of the legal point raised regarding uses of subdivision funds, the Homeowner's Association request a written identification of the high priority acquisition, and development programs and which funds he s.s referring to: The Association realizes that acquisition costs of the preferred site may be higher and. that size may be smalller than the other site, however we feel the development cost will be less due to existing facilities on the site and because of the elimination of the additional construction costs to provide the adequate protection which would be necessary as a result of the 8 hazardous location of the other site. The residents of the subdivision are willing to accept a smaller neighborhood park with the built-in safety features - of the preferred site rather than accept a larger more hazardous site.located outside the subdivision. At this point, let us re-emphasize that the pre- ferred site is the only site within the northern section which is available and once gone it is lost forever. MAINTENANCE COSTS This is another point .of concern of the Parks and Planning Departments as evidenced by the analysis contained .in the transmittal from The Planning Department. We have two suggestions or recommendations in this area regarding the northern site. First, the planning of the park could be done in such a way as to minimize the subsequent maintenance cost. Second, if the costs are prohibitive for the Parks Department to maintain the parks, perhaps a maintenance contract for the park could be let with a private gardener at a savings to the city, or better yet with some youth organization such as Boy Scouts, Little League, etc. to provide funds for their activities. The maintenance of the southern site could be performed by the Hunting- ton Beach Company in connection with their regular maintenance of the Golf Course. This should be pursued during the acquisition negotiations of this site. MINI PARK CONCEPT This will be the last item we will address before summarizing our position. Mr. Worthy closes his January 12, 1976 letter with the comment "If this Mini- site is accepted as an amendment to The Master Plan of Parks, then approxi- mately (11) eleven similar neighborhoods in the city will also qualify for mini-parks and the cost of such an acquisition, development and maintenance program would be staggering." Let's examine this generalized statement. First, we are not asking the Park or Planning Commission or The City Council to amend the Master Plan of Parks to incorporate mini-parks as a concept. We are merely asking the City to acquire and develop two neighborhood park sites within our community with funds generated by the development of our subdivision. Because of 9 the geographic layout of our subdivision, as explained previously, it requires two sites to serve the community. The fact that these sites are smaller than the recommended size is because the City did not require the developer to properly plan for the recommended size park sites prior to accepting final Tract Maps and they are the only sites available. The Association has used the term Mini-Parks only because of their size, but in reality they are still neighborhood parks. Second,'we obtained a list of the eleven similar neighborhoods and our committee toured these areas. Five of these neighborhoods had parks or school facilities either developed or planned to be developed. Five of the neighborhoods were totally developed with no available land. Only one of these areas was similar to our neighborhood in the fact they have .an open space and are generating fees for park development. In this area extensive multiple family units are being constructed and there is still open space available to construct the necessary park area. In reviewing the Park Depart- ment's map of proposed park sites we see an unnumbered proposed site for this area. After our tour of these areas of the city and our review of the park site location map we can only come to the conclusion that the Huntington Sea- cliff -Subdivision is not similar but is unique in that it has land fees not currently in the city treasury for the development of necessary parks. We do not feel the City Council would be setting a precedent in granting approval of the Association's request to acquire and develop the two proposed sites by residents of our subdivision. SUMMARY We have covered a large area in this report. We will be brief in our summation. We request the City Council to direct the proper department of the City to negotiate with the Huntington Beach Company for purchase and necessary development of the southern site on Morningtide and -the northern site on Manor Point Circle and Evening Hill. This action will provide our subdivision with the necessary park sites. The funds required to do this have been generated by the subdivision and are available to make this plan a reality. The Huntington Beach Company has offered to develop these sites. We have donations of equipment and landscape architectural services. We stand ready to assist in any 10 other way we are able. We ask that you, our elected City Officials, help us make our plan a reality in the very near future. I I f I JO N D. LUSK & SON A MEMBER OF THE LUSK FAMILY OF COMPANIES 17550 Gillette Ave., Irvine Inclusirial Complex P.O. Box 2140, Newport 5each, Calif. 92663 (714) 557-8220 (213) 726-6841 January 23, 1976 l�?r. Richard A. Harlow Director of Planning City of HunV ngton Beach P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Huntington Seacliff Tract 7421 Lots 56, 57 & 58 Dear Dick: I received a call today from Mr. Dale Dickey of the Seacliff Homeowners ' . Association asking what the current timing was on our anticipated start of construction on the subject lots. I advised Mr. Dickey that it was our under- standing that the possible acquisition of the subject property for public park _. purposes by the City. of Huntington Beach had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of January 20, 1976 and had now been forwarded to the City Council for consideration at their meeting of February 3, 1976. Based on this timing, we anticipate filing construction plans with the building department on approximately February 15, 1976 in the event that the City does not move forward in a positive direction towards the purchase of the subject lots. As you are aware, we have been holding up moving ahead with the construction on the subject Lots since early November in an effort to cooperate with the City and homeowners in reviewing the possible use and acquisition. -"7,e are hopeful that a definitive action will be forthcoming from the City Council at the February 3, 1976 meeting. I, I n Mr. Richard A. I-Iarlow Page Two, January 23, 1976 Should you have any questions relative to the above, please do not hesitate. to contact me. Very truly yours, JO -D. LUSK & SON .Donald D. Steffensen . Vice President DDS/br .cc: William Foster - Huntington Beach Co. Norm Worthy - City of Huntington Beach _Dale Dickey - Seacliff Homeowners Associatio I � r IrY its SUE G. WALLS 9342 LAJOLLA CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. 92646 ` f _.�t _ "' � ��.•c,.r,c,�.._��_,,�...-� _ -r..�._._r fC Wiz;! z.' XLx. l I _ _ Courtland Paul/Arthur Beggs �- &Associates Landscape Architecture/Planning. 359 South RosemeadBoulevard Pasadena,California 91107 Telephone 213:793-7181 3800 East Coast Highway Corona del Mar,California 92625 Telephone 714:673-8761 January 26, 1976 Mr. Dale Dickey Chairman Parks Committee Huntington Seacliff Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Dickey: Pursuant to our conversations re: Landscape Architectural services for your proposed Seacliff mini-park, we are here- with in response. We would like to take this opportunity to express our interest in your project. OF In as much as I am a resident of the Seacliff community and would share the benefits derived from this facility, our firm Principals: would like to donate its services and expertise to aid in the Courtland Paul' preparation of plans and necessary construction documents Arthur Beggs to help this park become a reality. Shinji Nakagawa Gerald Pearson Rae L.Price COr 11 Dennis M.Taylor Cal Olson i i DENNIS M. TAY R, LA Vice President DMT:df Members: American Society of Landscape Architects American Institute of Landscape Architects I, - CITY OF HunTmGTon BEA ( H � I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES �_ P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 �'714) 536-5271 1 Y TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D . Selich, Planning Director �►,/�p DATE: August 8 , 1977 SUBJECT: The' Huntington Beach Parks Analysis V STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Parks Analysis for Huntington Beach is being transmitted for your review and comment. The report presents: 1. A review of the existing Parks and Recreation Program. 2. An analysis of park need. 3 . A Park and Recreational District Plan upon which to base park dedi- cation and fee requirements. 4 . Recommendations for the future development of park and recreational facilities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize creation of a subcommittee to carry out extensive review and comment on the Parks Analysis. The subcommittee would be composed of two representa- tives each from the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission in an effort to represent the varied interests involved. ANALYSIS: As called for by the Open Space and Conservation Element (adopted by the City Council in December, 1976) , the Planning Department has prepared a comprehensive Parks Analysis, attempting to deal with every aspect of the City ' s Parks Program -park demand based on the characteristics of the neighborhood, acquisition, development, maintenance, etc. The Parks Analysis also offers recommendations for the future in an effort to keep pace with the needs of today' s leisure-oriented society. The Parks Analysis was conducted in an effort to make the City ' s Parks Program more responsive to the needs and desires of residents, as recreation is one of Huntington Beach' s strongest assets. Because of the importance of recreation, the Planning Department requests that a special subcommittee be established by the City Council, to consist of two representatives each from the City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission. The suggested composition of the subcommittee represents a variety of interests, which is critical for a thorough review of the Parks Analysis . Respectful submitted, Edward D . Selich Director EDS:EJ: ja �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor & City Council From Recreation & Parks Commission Attn: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator Subject Huntington Beach Community Park Date November 10 , 1975 design concept The design concept for H. B. Community Park was performed by Mr. Don Blackman, Draftsman, in the Public Works Department and was approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission last May. It was postponed by the City Council at the same. time as the three neighborhood parks designed by Recreation Land Planners. Recently the Recreation and Parks Commission upon motion by Mr. Tom Cooper and second by Mr . Darrell Carter recommended the working drawings for H.B . Community Park be completed by Mr. Blackman. RECOM"MENDATI ON: Approve the design schematic for H.B . Community Park and authorize the Public Works Department to complete the work- ing drawings . Respectfully submitted, 9 Norm Worthy, Secr tart' Recreation & Parks Commission NW: a c cc : Recreation & Parks Commission Public Works : Bill" Hartge & Don Blackman H.B.U.H. S. D. : Owen Miller Attachment L� Pal O V 1 __ 1975 CITY OF HMNTII4 OTON BEACH AOMINISTUTIVE OiF CE r--�, t �1 vOt&ETSAtt - 40 ' OfFKAl � l 77 {AS[FT"LL N/fMDMftI 1 \ TOT.LOT. Mt fitlrlEY'�Sii'- \\ a_; �@+ .'•�' - tENNfS � .' ~' . t� h THE PA R,KS ANALYSIS August 1977 t � LEa �r ABSTRACT As called for by the Open Space and Conservation Element (adopted by the City Council in December, 1976) , the Planning Department has prepared_ a comprehensive Parks Analysis, attempting to deal with �. every aspect of the City' s Parks Program - park demand based on the characteristics of the neighborhood, acquisition, development, maintenance, etc . Specifically, the Parks Analysis contains: (1) A review of the existing Parks and Recreation program (Section 2 .0) . (2) A comparison of park need based on existing City standards versus park need as perceived by residents (Section 3 .0) . (3) A Park and Recreational District Plan upon which to base require ments for park land dedication and in-lieu park fees (Section 4 . 0) . (4) Recommendations for the future development of parks in the City (Section 4. 0 and 5 . 0) . RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of the Parks Analysis have been prepared based . on the results of a survey of Huntington Beach residents conducted by six U .C . Irvine students in Spring, 1976; and extensive analysis by Planning Department Staff. Analysis by Staff was performed using existing zoning and General Plan land use designations as a base. r It is understood that should extensive revision to existing zoning and land use designations occur, additional analysis of park need versus supply will have to be performed in the required locations so that the Parks Analysis can remain current , The recommendations are as follows: n. PARK STANDARDS 1. The City should have two park standards: (a) 4 acres/1000 population - a reasonable goal that can be achieved citywide at ultimate development. L5 acres/1000 population - a park standard to be used in the formulas for land dedication and fee payment to implement the 4 acres/1000 population .goal . r Because the City is approximately 85% developed and park dedication and/or fee payment was not required when parts of the City were developed, it is necessary to employ a higher standard of 5 acres/1000 population to achieve the real goal of 4 acres, (Refer to Section 4 .1.3 for detail;) PARK AND RECREATIONAL DISTRICTS 2 . Park- and Recreational Districts should .be established within the City of Huntington Beach as shown in Figure 4-1, to gear recreation facilities provided in a locality to the residents and to control where park- fees are spent so that parks are sited in close proximity to the location paying the fees . The criteria used for mapping- out the districts are: (a) Recreational facilities existing in the particular locality (b) Income (c) Population intensity (d) Dwelling types (e) Park service areas. (Refer to Section 4 . 2 for detail . ) CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, 3 . Credit for private open space should be given to developers when private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed development and such space is to be privately owned and perpetually maintained and operated by the future residents of the development or owner . Credit would be given on an acre per acre basis against the neighborhood park requirement only, provided certain con- ditions are met (as outlined in Section 4 .3) , and the dis- cretionary body finds it is in the public interest to do so. PARK AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS 4 . The seven most popular features of parks in the City, as determined by the citizen survey conducted by UCI Interns should be emphasized by the City ' s Parks Program. The most popular features, in order of frequency of response, are: i i i children' s play area, open play area, tennis courts, picnic facilities, activity building, basketball and trails . (By developing more of these popular active recreational facilities within the existing and proposed neighborhood parks, the present and anticipated deficiency of community parks in the City and, therefore, of active recreational facilities could be reduced. ) 5. A survey of residents should .be performed for those park districts that will still experience a notable deficiency at ultimate development (Districts 2, 6 , 7 , 14, and 16; see Figure 5-2) as ,to what their recreational needs are. (The survey could be performed perhaps through the mail to be sent out with the City. water bill . ) Facilities could then be planned accordingly in order to maximize park use. 6. School playground facilities should be open to the public after school and on weekends, especially in quarter sections lacking a ,park. r PARK MAINTENANCE 7 . An effort should be made to increase park maintenance efficiency based on park size, facilities provided , park design, etc. 8 . The possibility of employing a private firm to maintain some or all of the City parks should be explored in an effort to increase maintenance efficiency. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND ACQUISITION/DEVELOPMENT -. PRIORITIES i 9 . The Park Priority Committee of the Recreation and Parks Commission, when reviewing park development priorities, should give special consideration to quarter sections not having "a park or a school or easy access to community and/or regional facilities . 10 . The possibility of acquiring a park site on the existing Rancho View School site should be investigated when the 1 school is converted to school administrative offices. Aft I I CVV TABLE OF CONTENTS --t 1. 0, INTRODUCTION 1 2 . 0 EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAM 5 2 . 1 Capital Improvements Program 6 2 . 2 Park Need 6 . 2. 3 Need for Further Study 10 3. 0 CITIZEN SURVEY ON CITY PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES 11 3 . 1 Ob'jectives 11 3 . 2 Research Procedures 12 3 . 3 Results 13 3 . 4 Implications 14 3. 5 Comparison of Need 15 3. 6 Conclusions 19 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS 21 4 . 1 Park Standards and Dedication Requirements 21 T 4 . 2 Park and Recreational Districts 25 4 . 3 Credit for Private Open Space 31 j 4. 4 Park and Recreation Activities and Programs 32 4. 5 Park Maintenance 33 4. 6 Acquisition/Development Priorities 33 5. 0 SUMMARY EVALUATION , 35 5 . 1 Existing Park Demand and Supply 36 5. 2 Ultimate Park Demand and Supply 39 APPENDIX At& i i I i I i i i ms. L QGVV t 1. 0 INTRODUCTION A review of the City ' s existing program of recreation and parks was conducted during preparation of the Open Space and Conservation Plan (adopted late 1976 by the City Council and Planning Commission as part of the Huntington Beach General Plan). The reasoning was that evaluation of the existing recreation and parks program for adequacy in meeting the needs of all segments of the community would lead to development of an Open Space and Conservation Plan -that would be truly responsive to the needs and wants of the Huntington Beach com- munity. This evaluation, as contained in Section 5. O of the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, led to a series of recommendations entitled "Improvement of Recreation Facilities" which were passed and adopted as part of the General Plan. They are: 1. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of park use and the cost- effectiveness of the parks system, to be initiated by the City ' s Departments of Planning and Recreation and Parks . 2 . Conduct a citizen survey seeking feedback on the physical attractiveness and enjoyability of recreation facilities. 1 3 . Increase the flexibility of the park standard - 5 acres per 1, 000 population - upon which the schedule of park fees is based . (This standard applies to neighborhood, community, and regional facilities . ) 4. Assign park acquisition and development priorities based on the needs of the community and the individual areas concerned. 5. Seek methods of providing parks if park fees are inadequate or non-existent as in areas developed prior to parks being required. 6. Increase control over where park fees are spent so that parks are sited in close proximity to the location paying the fees . 7 . Consider the possibility of improving landscaping treatment of neighborhood parks when reassessing the Parks Program, to in- crease their physical attractiveness and enjoyability. 8 . Consider providing more flat areas within neighborhood parks i when reassessing the Parks Program to permit active recreation. The first step involved in the implementation of these eight pro- visions of the General Plan was to conduct the citizen survey on rec- reation facilities in the City. Six students enrolled in the Social Ecology Program at U.C. Irvine were commissioned to conduct the door-to-door survey in Spring, 1976 , with the assistance of the Plan- ning Department Staff. The survey was designed to obtain feedback on the physical attractiveness and enjoyability of recreation facilities in the City so that the City' s parks program could keep pace with the changing needs of the population. Results of this 'sur- vey were then to be used as a basis for implementation of the other provisions of the Open Space and Conservation Program regarding im- provement of recreational facilities, as outlined previously. In order to utilize the results of the citizen survey most effectively to improve recreation facilities in the City, an all-encompassing , comprehensive Parks Analysis has been undertaken. The citizen survey on park and recreation facilities in the City comprises just one aspect of the Parks Analysis . Also presented is a review of the exist ing Parks and Recreation program; a comparison of park need based on existing City standards versus park need as perceived by residents; a Park and Recreational District Plan upon which to base re- quirements for park land dedication and in-lieu park_ fees; and recommendations for the future development of Dark and recreational facilities in the City, The Parks Analysis attempts to deal with every aspect of the City ' s Parks Program (park demand based on the characteristics of the neighborhood, acquisition, development, maintenance, etc . ) . The I 2 AM& r- rationale for this approach is outlined below. As pointed out in the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report (pp 66, 67) , the goals and objectives of the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation adopted in 1966 are not entirely in keeping with the community preference for recreation. (The Master Plan emphasizes passive neighborhood .parks while the resultsof the citizen .survey F.' indicate a desire for more active recreational facilities) .. In addition, it does not appear that the City' s existing program of parks and recreation is providing a completely balanced recreational system ' for the community, .a goal identified by the Master Plan and still con- sidered appropriate for today' s residents and their needs . The rec- reational program does provide a variety of facilities for use offered within neighborhood, community, and regional parks, but the emphasis I of the program clearly lies with the neighborhood park and passive forms of recreation. For these reasons as well as a desire to keep pace with the needs of today ' s leisure-oriented society, the Parks Analysis has been expanded from its more limited scope (as contained in Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report) to an ��- all-inclusive parks study addressing the entire parks system . i r!e 3 I L rLL r�v a -' • �� EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION }PROGRAM The City of Huntington Beach now has 123 acres of neighborhood parks (primarily passive, planned for children five to fourteen and family groups with a service radius of one-quarter mile) ; 56 acres of community parks (primarily designed for active recreation- al pursuits by youths and adults of several neighborhoods not to exceed 25, 000 population, with a service radius of 1 mile) ; and 170 acres of regional park (service area is 30 to 40 miles and provides for special recreational activities by affording a sense of remoteness from things urban) . Also helping to satisfy demand Ec>r. pa.r.k anc3 rocre('It:ion f'_rici L.i.ties i.n Hie City are: 1 . City, State, and County beaches 2. Fountain Valley Regional Park 3. Local school facilities made available to the public through a cooperative approach to recreation by the City and the School Districts. 4 . Meadowlark and Seacliff Golf, Courses . 5. Huntington Harbour Channels 6. Private recreational facilities. Additional park acreage of 265 acres is proposed to be acquired and/or developed over the next few years : Neighborhood 147 gr. ac. Community 18 . gr . ac. Regional 100 gr. ac. Total park acreage at ultimate development of the City will be 614 acres (neighborhood - 270 acres, community - 74 acres, and regional - 270 acres) . (Refer to Appendix B, C,' D, and E of this report for further detail . ) , T 5 2. 1 Capital Improvements Program The Capital Improvements Program is an implementing tool of the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools, and Recreation (adopted by the City Council in 1966 with the intent of developing a balanced recreational system with emphasis on the neighborhood park) . The Capital Improvements Program sets forth a list of improvements for a 10-year period that the Huntington Beach community will need to provide the desired level of recreation service. Projects to be undertaken are assigned a tentative date for execution in order of priority, and a probable cost. The Capital Improvements Program is periodically reviewed by a = standing committee of the Huntington Beach Recreation and Parks Commission known as the Park Priority Committee. This committee, made up of six Recreation and Parks Commissioners, reviews the development priorities of the Capital Improvements Program on a periodic basis in line with certain criteria in order to keep up with the changing needs of the population. The criteria are: 1. Proximity of park site to school or school site that could be developed through a joint powers agreement with the school district. 2. Special circumstances relating to neighborhood needs because of health, safety and welfare pertaining to that neighborhood. 3. Special conditions pertaining to preservation and conservation of historical, archaeological and ecological sites. 4. Size of area to be served by park site at ultimate development. 5. Relative age of site and neighborhood. 2. 2 Park Need ' Neighborhood and community park need, based on the City park r` standards, was computed in the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report (Section 5 . 5. 3) . (Regional park need could not be computed because no City standard exists. ) A comparison of supply and demand was then made, broken down into two categories - existing conditions and long-range projections. 2. 2. 1 Neighborhood Park Need Figures 2-1 and 2-2 indicate the results of the comparison of neighborhood park supply and demand for existing and ultimate development. The results of the supply and 6 ¢ ■ • ■ vim'�`'�,'� y. ROLSA ■ ■• irm ■ ■ ail ,;` II Ii EDRJGER ■■■ •,• _.. v�xaw••:aviae:cmnmxi VARNER I a. •. i k W� •��, .:.: .. 11AiBt R R. R VAMP M6 ME-4 .. % f ; OAREIELD �*- ��� V r ■■/■ •• • 10RKTOWN 41 T AQ4M5 BDIANAPOLIS j Demand Greater Than Supply ,• ••, ARANTA or wagon Demand Equal To Supply '• • '• HAMLTON Supply Greater Than Demand R /■/■■ MNNINO 0 No Demand ;u., .4 fi Community Park 04k, Regional Park July 1977 Figure 2-1 fi MIR ; ;, • Supply Versus Demand >Y Existing Neighborhood Parks %111-1 KA huntington beach planning department .r'y 7 y .•'�'.°• f q,��/�YfP • , �McFADDEN EDINGIM •••••.• •• •. • •.•• r• e : • • HELL g .�t• . : • :is•., �1•, •�••e p' O. •\•• ` •• C• •0•i N. •,• :•• l(,,••ty+,• •,, :• .. ., .0• � -... � �, `�• .�_..•. ,:• •,• ...k.,,.a,....�,........�i,„..,...x�.....� wear j R t' R• ;? •..,' .' •••• ' ........ .................. .. am r ..�.. y'r,, Ii ` " ' I •� OAIIFIELD Y• • • `'( WRNTOWN •1• •' ! •'• p. .�. ADAMS • ''•• MIANAPOIIS Demand Met or Exceeded Park but Demand Not Met ARANTA ;o No Park ;;•• •'• NAMITON �. NO Demand `_ .,i;r.G ��� L •,• \ BANNING �- J Community Park ® Regional Park ` July 1977 Figure 2-2 tpyy,::y Neighborhood Park Supply Ve r s u s t € Demand at Ultimate Development huntington beach planning department 8 I demand comparison are somewhat misleading as they are based on park demand computed from a general park stan- ard - 2 acres of neighborhood park per 1000 population. (Employing general park standards is a customary method of computing park demand. ) This kind of standard, however, does not take into account many features which help to satisfy neighborhood park demand in Huntington Beach. These features are: a. private recreation areas b. schools without adjoining park land C. community and regional facilities . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code does give park credit to developers for special facilities, specifically a j golf course and/or navigable channels designed to serve both the residents of a subdivision and the general public. (Park credit not exceeding 500 of the park requirement is ' ' i � given to residential units that abut such special i facility. ) This aspect of the Ordinance Code applies to the residential properties abutting Meadowlark and Sea- cliff Golf Courses and the channels in Huntington Harbour. Consequently, these special facilities have been attributed with satisfying neighborhood park demand to the extent that park credit is given for abutting residences. 2. 2 . 2 Community Park Need The general standard of 1. 25 gross acres per 1000 popula- tion, as set forth in the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools, and Recreation, was used to compare demand for community parks with supply: Existing Demand 157,800 persons x 1.25 gr.ac./1000 pop. = 197.25 gr.ac. Existing Supply = 55.50 Existing Deficiency 141.75 gr.ac. Ultimate Demand 220,000 persons x 1.25 gr.ac./1000 pop. = 275 gr.ac. Ultimate Supply = 74 gr.ac. Ultimate Deficiency 201 gr.ac. 9 Once again, note that these figures are probably inflated to some extent due to the existence of certain factors not accounted for by the general park standard: a. private recreation areas b. schools without adjoining park land C. regional facilities. Overall, there is an apparent shortage of community parks, even when assuming that the estimated deficiency is somewhat inflated. A community park shortage to any degree is considered critical due to the kind of facilities that these parks provide. Ballfields , courts y for tennis, handball, and basketball - these are all facilities which experience very high usage . 2 . 3 Need for Further Study Judging from the comparison of park supply and demand based on City park standards, one could conclude that a deficiency of neighbor- hood and community parks now exists and will still exist at ulti- mate development. However, based on a preliminary analysis of park usage conducted by the Planning Department (Open Space and Conserva- tion Element Background Report, Section 5 . 6. 3) , it appears that neighborhood parks are not being used to their full capacity. On the other hand, community parks, stressing active forms of recrea- tion like tennis, handball, and baseball, are experiencing very heavy use. (There are some facilities within the. neighborhood parks, however, which are experiencing a desired level of use. r, These facilities are tot lots , picnic areas, and baseball- diamonds >- and tennis courts, when provided. ) These observations on park usage lead to the conclusion that the existing deficiency of community parks (as determined by using the City standard of 1 . 25 acres/1000 population) is a very real problem, but that the City standard for neighborhood parks and/or the kinds of recreation pro- vided for by neighborhood parks are perhaps not keeping pace with the everchanging recreation needs of the population. This is evi- denced by an existing deficiency of neighborhood parks based on the City standard, but an apparent underuse of some neighborhood park facilities based on Planning Department observations. The preceding discussion is based on a preliminary analysis of park j usage conducted by the Planning Department. In order to determine just what action should definitely be taken, however, it was necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of park use and park needs in the community. The assistance of six interns from University of California at Irvine was then soughtand, in coopera- tion with the Planning Staff, a citizen survey was conducted. 10 3. 0 CITIZEN SURVEY ON CITY PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ' As a community matures, recreation needs change and knowledge of these changes is essential for good recreation planning. A survey of the citizens of Huntington Beach to identify public attitudes on recreation facilities and to assess park use offers a means to monitor these changes in community recreation needs. 3. 1 Objectives The objectives of the citizen survey are: a. To obtain feedback on the physical attractiveness and enjoy- ability of recreation facilities in the City. b. To determine which activities and programs are most popular among City residents, and, therefore, which activities and programs should be emphasized by the• City' s Parks Program. C. To determine the number of households and individuals who: 1 . use public recreation facilities and why. 11 C 2 . do not use public recreation facilities and why not. d. To determine to what extent the beach helps to satisfy park demand. e. To determine where park needs are not being met. 3. 2 Research Procedures 3. 2 . 1 Sample The sample for the survey was comprised of 300 residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Each respondent was instructed to speak for their entire family, representing _ a total of 1150 'people which is roughly 1% of the total - population of Huntington Beach. Thirty quarter sections were sampled, ten families in each. Quarter sections with a park totaled 12 , while quarter sections without a park totaled 18 . This ratio was chosen because it approximated the overall ratio in the City of quarter sections with and without parks. y Selection of the individual subject was determined by location within the quarter section and proximity to a park in cases where a park existed. Although the general location of the subjects within the quarter sections was specified, the interviewers were free to select the individual subjects on the day of the survey when out in the field. The interviewers were careful to select subjects from a range of dwelling types, however (single family, condominium, apartment, mobile home) . 3. 2 .2 Data Collection Technique A questionnaire was jointly developed by ,the Planning Department Staff and the Interns from U.C. , Irvine. (See Appendix F. ) The questionnaire was broken down into five sections. Each of the first .four sections addressed a specific facet of the City' s Park and Recreation Program. Though not stated as such on the questionnaire, the. concerns of these four sections were general park use , neighborhood park use, community and regional park use, and beach use . The fifth section concerned demographic data. f Responses to the questionnaire were obtained by the Interns during personal interviews. This survey technique was chosen because detailed information can be gathered and clarified, leads can be followed up, and the people being sampled feel more involved. At no time were inter- pretations of the questions or the answers themselves provided by the interviewers. Interviews were conducted 12 i 0 in the morning, afternoon, and evening during the week and on weekends. 3. 2 . 3 Demographic Comparison i � The validity of a survey depends to a great degree on the similarity of the sample to the population at large. Since recreation needs are a direct product of dwelling type in which the user lives and age of the user, this data was obtained for each respondent and their family, and then compared to the community at large. Persons living in single family homes with large lots have different recreational needs than apartment dwellers, for example. The results are presented below: ' Age of Families Responding 0-5 5-14 15-19 20-34 34-64 65+ Survey 9% 24% 14% 23% 28% 2% City wide 9% 21% 9% 27% 30% 4% Dwelling Type v? Single family Condominium Apartment Mobilehare Survey 84% 5% 10% 1% City wide 66% 12% 16% 6% The distribution of families responding to the survey throughout the different age categories is remarkably similar to the City-wide per- centages. A greater variation occurred in dwelling type, however, with a larger share of the survey respondents living in single family homes than is actually true for the community as a whole. The variation is not considered large enough to undermine the credibility of the survey results, however. 3. 3 Results The results of the citizen survey were tabulated on a quarter section by quarter section basis and then organized into categories approxi- mating those used in the Open Space and Conservation Element Back- ground Report. A comparison of park need based on City standards (as included in the Background Report) and park need as perceived by the residents can then be .made. The results for each of the five categories are presented in Appendix G of this report. The comparison of park need is contained in Section 3 . 5 . Ja 13 q. o , I i i 3 . 4 Implications i All in all, the Huntington Beach community appears to be satisfied with public recreation facilities in the City in general (87%) and in the individual neighborhoods (75%) . Half of those questioned would like to see the City maintain the present level of park _ service and half would like to see the level of service increased. Only 12% of those surveyed do not use public recreation facilities in Huntington ,Beach. The remaining 88% use the facilities to various ` degrees. The most popular facilities in the community are : f , Neighborhood 'Facilities Chris Carr Park Circleview Park Greer Park Harbor View Park Lake/Farquhar Parks Perry Park Wardlow Park Community Facilities City Gym Murdy and Edison Community Parks Regional Facilities The Beach Huntington Central Park `J Visiting the nearest park or playground by walking or by car is equally popular, with the bicycle just behind in popularity. Roughly two-thirds of those surveyed (62%) use recreation facilities in the City other than or in addition to the park or playground closest to them. Facilities used most frequently are : Chris Carr Park Lake/Farquhar Parks Murdy and Edison Community Parks Huntington Central Park One-third of the respondents use these other facilities more than they use the -park or playground closest to them. The most popular mode of transportation used by those surveyed to get to these other facilities is the automobile. 14 9 The most heavily used features of parks in the City are not confined to any one type of facility (neighborhood, community, or regional) , but rather are distributed among the three types of recreational facilities in the City: open play and children ' s play areas , tennis and basketball courts, picnic facilities, activity buildings, and trails (bicycle and jogging) . Based on what the respondents found as unattractive or undesirable about the City' s parks and the suggestions they made for improvement., it appears the City should focus their attention on better maintenance of parks, improving the landscaping,-- and providing more facilities within the parks for active recreation (playground facilities, tennis courts, etc. ) 92% of the Huntington Beach 'community visits the beach annually, half of whom visit. the beach more often than they visit the parks . City and State beach are equally popular among residents. Arriving by car is the most frequently used mode of transportation, with bicycling next in popularity, and walking not far behind. The bus is .not commonly used to get to the community beaches. Based on the number of people who visit the beach more often than the City parks (half of the families responding to the survey) , it appears that any or all of the following explanations could be offered: (1) The beach helps to satisfy park demand to a large extent, and this factor should be incorporated into the City park standards; (2) The parks in the City do not emphasize the kinds of facilities that the people are most interested ill; and/or (3) A dissatisfaction with the level of maintenance of the parks or a desire for improved landscaping and more facilities (as stated by the' respondents in the survey) leads half the people to seek out the recreation, atmosphere, or level .of maintenance provided at the beach over that available at, the parks. 3. 5 Comparison of Need ` The analysis of supply and demand for existing neighborhood parks based on the City park standard, as contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report, is broken down into three categories. The three categories and the share that each comprises of the residential portion of the City is listed below: Demand Greater Than Supply 61% Demand Equal to Supply 14% Supply Greater Than Demand 25% 15 i A � � The results of the citizen survey were tabulated according to these same categories to permit a comparison of neighborhood park need based on existing City standards versus park need as perceived by the residents.. The breakdown of the 30 quarter sections sampled is listed below: Demand Greater Than Supply 73. 006 with park 16 . 5% without park/with school ' 13. 5% without park and school 43 . 0o Demand Equal to Supply (with park) - 13. 50 Supply Greater Than Demand (with park) 13 . 50 A reasonable similarity is felt to exist, permitting a valid compar- sion. Only a comparative analysis of existing neighborhood park need is presented in the Parks Analysis because this is the only comparison possible which can provide meaningful conclusions about park need and park use. The reasons are: 1. An apparent conflict seems to exist between park need based on the City neighborhood park standard and park need as perceived by the residents and as observed by City Staff. a. Based on the analysis of park need using the City standard, there is a substantial deficiency of existing neighborhood park acreage in the City. b. After a preliminary analysis of park usage by the Planning Department Staff, it appears reasonable to conclude , based on this analysis, that some neighborhood park facilities are experiencing under-use. 2. The citizen survey and Open Space and Conservation Element Background Report analyses are set up so that a meaningful comparison of existing neighborhood park need can be performed on a quarter section by quarter section basis with relative ease and accuracy. The results of the comparison of neighborhood park need based on the City standard versus park need as perceived by the residents is presented by category in the following sections of this report. This comparison of neighborhood park need should also raise issues about the overall City parks program which can be dealt with in the remaining sections of the Parks Analysis . 16 T, �. 3. 5. 1 Demand Greater Than Supply With Park The quarter sectionssampled which fall into this category contain a neighborhood park, but the park is not sufficient in. size to satisfy neighborhood park demand based on the City standard. With this in mind, one might expect the citizens within these quarter sections to be dissatisfied with the park and recreation facilities in their neighborhood due to overcrowdedness. However, such was not the case. No mention of overcrowded conditions .. was made. In fact, roughly 800 of those surveyed in this category are satisfied with public recreation facilities in their neighborhood, and 96% are satisfied with the facilities in the City in general. These results suggest either that (1) the City' s general park standard (as employed in the Open Space and Conservation Element Back- ground Report) of 2 acres of neighborhood park per 1000 population is too high; or (2) residents satisfy their recreational needs by visiting the park closest to them as well as other recreational facilities in "the City. Because 750 of the persons in this park need category responded that they visit recreational facilities in the ^' City other than the nearby park- and 98% responded that they visit the beach, item #2 appears to be an important factor. Without Park/With School �. The quarter sections in this category contain a school without adjoining park land. Residents seem to prefer to travel to a park site (Lake/Farquhar, Chris Carr, Murdy, and Huntington Central Parks most frequently) rather, than use the school facilities within their quarter section. Even though more traveling is required, roughly 90o, of the people surveyed in this category are satisfied with the public recreation facilities in their neighborhood and in the City in general. Without Park and School Neither a school or a park is contained within the quarter sectionsfalling into this category. As might be expected, fewer respondents .in this category are satisfied with the public recreation facilities provided in their neighborhood. Roughly 60% of those surveyed in this 17 e � category do visit other recreation facilities in the City, with a high rate of satisfaction with recreation facilities in the City in general (90%) . Based on the results for this category, apparently those quarter sections not having a park or a school should receive a high priority for park acquisition and development. 3. 5. 2 .Demand Equal to Supply/With Park I j Quarter sections in this category contain a park of sufficient size (based on the City standard for neighbor- hood parks) to satisfy park demand. As might be expected, a high percentage of those surveyed are satisfied with the recreation facilities provided in their neighborhood and in the City in general (90% and 85%, respectively) . Roughly 60% of the people in this category do visit recreation facilities in the City as well as or other than the park or playground closest to them. Only 17% use these other recreation facilities more than the nearest park or playground. 91% of these same people visit the beach annually, over half visiting the beach more often than the parks. It appears that the City' s neighborhood park standard is obviously not too low because of the high degree of satisfaction when supply equals demand according to the standard and the existing population. Based on the number of people who visit the beach more often than the parks in the City (parti.cularly when a park is within walking distance), it appears that either (1) the neigh- borhood park standard is too high, (2) the parks do not emphasize the kinds of facilities that the people are y most interested in, or (3) a dissatisfaction with the level of maintenance of the parks or a desire for improved landscaping (as stated by the respondents in this category) leads half the people to seek out the recreation provided at the beach over that available at the parks. 3 . 5. 3 Supply Greater Than Demand/With Park This category contains quarter sections having a park of more than ample size which exceeds the demand of the neighborhood (as computed by using the general park standard) . Once again, as expected, a high degree of satisfaction with neighborhood and City-wide facilities was recorded (88% and 86%, respectively) . 18 Roughly 60% of the people in this category use recreation facilities in addition to or other than the park or playground closest to them. Only 14% use these other recreation facilities more than the nearest park or playground. 93% of the people in this category visit the beach annually, roughly 60o visiting the beach more often than parks . Based on the high percentage of people who live within walking distance of a park but visit the beach more often than the parks in the City, it appears that some of the same conclusions offered in the preceed- ing' section hold true for this category of respondents as well : (1) the parks do not emphasize the kinds of facilities that the people are most interested in, or (2) a dissatisfaction with the level of maintenance of the parks or a desire for improved landscaping and more facilities leads roughly 60% of the people in this category to seek out the recreation provided at the beach over that available at the parrs. 3 . 6 Conclusions Based on the results of the citizen survey, certain conclusions can be drawn: 1 . The beach helps to satisfy park demand. Consequently, this factor should be incorporated into the City' s general park standards. ,1 Half of the families surveyed visit the beach more often than the parks in the City. Especially of interest is the fact that over half of the residents of quarter sections with parks within walk- ing distance still visit the beach more often than parks . 2 . The public does not prefer one kind of park over another (such as community over neighborhood) , but they do prefer certain recreational facilities to others and would like more of these facilities provided within the parks. (Specifically mentioned in order of frequency were children' s play areas, open play areas, tennis courts, picnic facilities, activity buildings , basketball courts, and trails. ) Based on the survey results, these 2, features should be emphasized by the City ' s Parks and Recreation Program. 3 . The public desires better maintenance of the City' s existing parks and improved landscape treatment. The level of maintenance of the parks in the City was a frequent item of concern to sur- 19 i vey respondents , It appears- that existing parks are maintained at a level below what the public is willing to accept and that the level of maintenance should be improved. A desire for improved landscape treatment of City parks was frequently expressed by survey respondents. 4 . Quarter sections not having a park or a school or easy access to community,-.and regional facilities should receive special con- sideration when ordering park priorities for acquisition and development. 5. The population is a Highly mobile one and uses many facilities in the City in addition to the closest park or playground . The general standard of two acres of neighborhood park per 1000 population could possibly be reduced and still satisfy community needs for neighborhood parks. 6 . Six out of seven of the most popular features of parks in the City (as listed in Item #2 previously) are active recreational facilities. The emphasis of the Parks and Recreation Program, however, is on the neighborhood park and passive forms of recreation. In order to keep up with the everchanging rec- reational needs of the population, the City should develop more. of the popular active recreation facilities within existing and proposed neighborhood parks , 20 0 i 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4. 1 Park Standards and Dedication Requirements Park, standards should satisfy three criteria; a. They must adequately meet the needs to which they are related. b. They must be tested by experience. C. They must be reasonably attainable. On the one hand, these criteria check the temptation to establish low standards that would be easily attainable but inadequate to meet long-term needs. On the other hand, they discourage attempts to set unrealistically high standards that would be beyond the financial resources of .taxpayers. Keeping these three criteria in mind, the following sections evaluate the park standards for Huntington Beach and make recommendations for revising the City park dedication requirements and the schedule of park and recreation fees. 21 I u _• 4. 1 . 1 Evaluation of the Park Standards of Huntington Beach The general standard for park and recreation areas within Huntington Beach is 5 acres per 1,000 population. This standard is the basis of the City' s schedule of park fees and land dedication requirements. "Where a park or recreational facility has been designated in the City' s Master Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreational Facilities, . . .and is to be located in whole or in part within jal proposed development to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents 'of the development, the developer shall dedicate land for a park. The amount of land to be provided shall be de- termined pursuant to the following standards and formula: A = 5. 0 (D.F. X No. D.U. ) " 1000 (Source: Huntington Beach. Ordinance Code, Article 974 , Park and Recreational Facilities. ) The terms in this formula are defined as follows: (1) A- the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the development. (2) D.F. - density factor, as listed below, to be reviewed annually by the Planning Department in accordance with the latest available data: Type of Dwelling Density Factor Apartments/Condominiums Single Bachelor 1. 18 One Bedroom 1 .49 Two Bedrooms 2 . 30 Three or More Bedrooms 3 . 20 Single Family Residence 3 . 55 Mobile Home 1. 80 (3) No. D.U.- number of dwelling units proposed in the development. "If there is no park and recreational facility designated in the City' s Master Plan. . . to be located in whole or in , part within the proposed development. . .or if the proposed development contains five (5) acres or less, the developer 22 � I shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, in an amount determined by the following formula: L-� Park & Rec Fees = 5. 0 (D.U. X D.F. ) X $65,977 1000 ($ 65, 977 is the $/ac, fee established by City Council Resolution. ) Such fee is to be used for a park which will serve the residents of the area being developed. " (Source: Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Article 974 . ) The pre- i ceding formula results in the following $Fee/Unit: Apartments/Condominiums Approximate $Fee/Unit Single Bachelor 389 One Bedroom 492 Two Bedrooms 759 Three or More Bedrooms 1056 i Single Family Residence 1171 Mobile Home 594 The park fees collected are to be used only for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities reasonably related to serving the development by way of the purchase of necessary land, or if it is deemed by the City that .there is sufficient parkland available for the development, for improving such land for park and recreational purposes. The dollar per . acre fee of $65, 977 was adopted by City Council Resolution on July 18, 1917 , as the average fair market value per acre of land in all neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used or zoned for park or recreational purposes . The fair market value is determined by a real estate appraiser through periodic appraisal of neighborhood park properties within the City, excluding improvements. r 23 . y i 4 . 1 . 2 Evaluation of the Park Standards for Orange County As part of the Parks Analysis, a survey of park standards , dedication and in-lieu fee requirements was conducted for the other cities in Orange County . The results are presented in Appendix H and I . By comparison, the exist- ing City standard of 5 acres of park and recreational land for each 1, 000 persons is one of the highest in Orange County. Based on the comparison of dollar fees required per unit for Huntington Beach and the cities whose standards permitted a comparison, the existing City schedule for park and recreation fees is also among the highest in Orange County. 4 . 1. 3 Recommendation Regarding City Park Dedication Standard and Schedule of In-Lieu Fees Section 4 . 1. 2 evaluated the City' s park .standard (and resultant fee requirements) and found them to be among the highest in Orange County.. However, based on further analyses (refer to Section 4 . 1 . 3 ,1 for detail)., it appears that the standard for land dedication (and consequent fee schedule) must be kept high in order to achieve a lesser goal of .4 acres per 1000 population. This leads to the recommendation that the City have two park standards: (1) 4 acres/1000 population - a reasonable goal that can be achieved citywide at ultimate development. (2) 5 acres/1000 population- a park standard to be used in the formulas for land dedication and fee payment to implement the 4 acres/1000 population goal . Because the City is approximately 85% developed and park dedication and/or fee payment was not required when parts of the City were developed, it is necessary to employ a higher standard of 5 acres/1000 population to achieve the real goal of 4 acres . A city goal of 4 acres of park and recreational land per 1000 population is in keeping with the City Council goal of 4 acres per 1000 , and a general rule of thumb regarding park standards used by SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) and the California League of Cities based on nationwide surveys . 24 ' By using a goal of 4 acres of park and recreational land per 1000 population, it is assumed that 2 . 6 acres per 1000 would be provided by neighborhood/community facilities, and the remainder would be provided by regional facilities within and outside city limits (Huntington Central Park, Mile Square Park, Goldenwest College, and the beach within ,f^ and outside the City) . (Note: This breakdown was derived using a ratio of 3 . 25 acres of neighborhood/community and 1.75-regional as is presently employed for the present 5 acre standard/goal. ) 4 . 1. 3 . 1 Background analysis In order to determine a realistic goal for park land in Huntington Beach, as referenced in the preceding dis- cussion, a twofold analysis was performed: (1) Evaluation of the Capital Improvements Program of Park Acquisition and Development (Appendix D) in j terms of acreage yield . (2) Projection of park acreage to be dedicated to the City (or dollar equivalent, using a 5 acre standard) based on the remaining vacant land and what land uses are expected to develop. This projection .coupled with the acreage and fees already received by the City yielded an overall total as to how many acres of park land the City will actually have at ultimate development. The results of the analysis are as follows: (1) Acquisition and development of parks ,according to the Capital Improvements Program will result in roughly 4 'acres of park per 1000 population. (This pro- jected supply of 4 acreSper 1000 population at ultimate development recognizes the beach as helping to satisfy park need and gives appropriate park credit to this recreation area . (2) Using a park standard of 5 acres/1000 population, the City can realize 4 acres of park land for every 1000 residents. 4 . 2 Park and Recreational Districts The Parks Analysis recommends the establishment of Park and Rec- reational Districts, as shown in Figure 4-1 . . The concept behinJ25 Q• � I SOLSA M< 2 3 �:...... .._._.........`........... ............_. NEIL 4 2 7 .r...n.:. >........ - WARNER a 2 6 ..9 SLATER ' f i 8TALBERT • I 1® u .�.` u _..... ............... d Ell1$ � � '� ' •• GARFIELD �2 ...... ..........................._ ........... YORKTOWN .. ..,..... ADAMS 16� it INDIANAPO LIS �. .........................,, ATLANTA h j. 17 18 .......- ,.y...,.,,.,:..,. HAM11ON i b s ..,.,,.:::., ........ BANNING f j Figure 4-1 PARK RECREATIONAL Ing C"IT R I C huntington beach planning department 26 i individual park and recreation districts is that recreation need is determined by the particulars of a locality and the types of rec- reational areas and facilities provided within a locality should be a function of the features unique to the area. With this in mind, eighteen park and recreational districts have been created in an attempt to group neighborhoods with like characteristics and, there- fore, like recreational needs , The criteria used for establishing district boundaries are: i a. Recreational facilities existing in this particular locality i The park districts were designated so as to distribute com- munity and regional facilities throughout the various districts . Two-thirds of the districts contain a specialized facility of some type (community park, regional park, golf course, channels, the beach, or a high school) , with the neighborhood facilities in the City being evenly distributed. b. Income The park districts concentrate high income families together. and similarly low income families together while keeping these two categories separate from one another by park district boundaries , whenever possible. This distinction is critical in an attempt to group like neighborhoods and therefore like iA recreational needs. c. Population Intensity Areas of low population intensity and, correspondingly, high population intensity have been grouped by the park district boundaries . d. Dwelling Types The park districts attempt to concentrate similar dwelling types within each district since recreation need is largely a function of housing type. (For example, residents of single- family homes have different recreational needs than apartment dwellers . ) e. Park Service Areas Park service areas vary by type of facility: Neighborhood 1/4 mile service radius Community 1 mile service radius Regional 30-40 mile service radius 27 Park district boundaries have consequently been drawn so that a community or regional facility is centrally located within each district and neighborhood facilities are spaced at closer intervals throughout the district. The individual characteristics of the eighteen park .and recreation- al districts are as follows: #1 - Elementary and Intermediate Schools Neighborhood Park Single-family Residential Area #2 - Elementary Schools High School Community Park Site Neighborhood Parks and Park Sites Primarily Single-Family Residential abutting an Industrial Area #3 - Elementary Schools Community College Neighborhood Parks Community Park High Income Concentration Low Income Concentration (proximity of Goldenwest College to surrounding areas was felt to overshadow variation in income) Primarily Single-Family Residential in combination with Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, and Industrial #4 - Huntington Harbour Community High Income Concentration Elementary School and School Site Beach Navigable Channels Neighborhood Park and Park Sites #5 - Meadowlark Airport Neighborhood Park Site Low Income Concentration High Population Intensity Multi-Family and Mobile Home Development 28 #6 — Meadowlark Golf Course Elementary School and School Site Elementary Parks , and Park Site High Income Concentration Limited Low Income Concentration Primarily Single-Family Residential #7 - Elementary Schools Neighborhood Park and Park Site High Population Intensity Low Income Concentration Primarily Single-Family with some Multi-Family and Office Professional #8 - Huntington Central Park Elementary Schools Neighborhood Parks High Income Concentration Residential is primarily Single-Family (north of HCP) combined with Industrial (south of HCP) i #9 - Elementary School and Park High Schools Low Income Concentration Concentration of Multi-Family Residential abutting on Industrial Area #10 - Elementary School Neighborhood Park Sites Combination of Single-Family, Multi-Family, and Mobile Home Dwellings #11 - Neighborhood Park Site Low Income Concentration Concentration of Multi-Family Residential #12 - Seacliff Planned Community Seacliff Golf Course Neighborhood Park Sites High School High Income Concentration ,T 29 I'= #13 - Elementary Schools and School Site Neighborhood Park and Park Sites Newland House and Bartlett Park Site (totaling 30 'acres) High Income Concentration Primarily Single-Family Residential #14 - Low Income Concentration High' Population Intensity Elementary Schools Neighborhood Park Primarily Single-Family Residential with some Multi-Family #15 - Townlot and Downtown Areas Low Income Concentration High Population Intensity Neighborhood Park and Park Sites Community Recreation Centers Elementary and Intermediate Schools Beach #16 - High Income Concentration High Population Intensity Elementary School and School Site Neighborhood Park and Park Site Primarily Single-Family Residential #17 - Residential in combination with Industrial Uses (Edison Plant) Beach No parks - planned or existing #18 - High Income Concentration High Population Intensity Beach Primarily Single-Family Residential in combination with Multi-Family and Industrial (Sanitation District Plant) Elementary and Intermediate Schools High School Community Park Neighborhood Park and Park Sites 30 At!W& r-, Park and recreation districts offer a means to increase control over where park fees are spent so that parks are sited in close proximity to the location paying the fees, as called for by the adopted Open Space and Conservation Element and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code (Section 9741. 2) . The money collected from developers for park and recreation fees would have to be spent within the districts pay- ' ` ing the fee until the goal of 4 acres of developed park land per 1000 population is. reached. Then, and only then, could these funds be spent outside the district paying the fees. An analysis of park supply versus demand within Park District boundaries at present and at ultimate development is contained in Section 5. 0 of this report. 4 . 3 Credit for Private Open Space The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code gives park and recreation credit to developers for special recreational facilities (golf courses and navigable channels) designed to serve both the residents of a sub- division and the general public . The Parks Analysis recommends that developers receive credit for private open space as well. Credit would be given on an acre per acre basis against the neighborhood park requirement only, provided certain conditions are met and that discretionary body finds it is in the public interest to do so. The standards are as follows: (a) That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and (b) That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and (c) That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of 'the future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the Planning Commission; (d) That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into considera- tion such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access , including provisions for bicyclists , and location of the private open space land; and 31 n (e) That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, and are approved by the Planning Commission. (f) That the area for which credit is granted is a minimum of one acre and provides at least five of the basic local park elements listed below or a combination of such and other recreational improvements that will meet the specific recreation/park needs of the future residents of the project: 1. children' s play apparatus area; 2 . landscaped hiking and quiet area; 3 . family picnic area 4. game court area (basketball, volleyball, tennis) 5. turf playf field 6 . swimming pool 7 . recreation building 8 . jogging (.par) course or a suitable pathway for jogging . Areas less than one acre may receive some credit . on a prorated, basis, provided at least four of the preceding elements are included. 4 . 4 Park and Recreation Activities and' Programs ., One of the objectives of the citizen survey was to determine which activities and programs are most popular among City residents and, therefore, which activities and programs should be emphasized by the City' s Parks Program. The survey produced a list of * seven attractive and desirable features of the parks in the City which are used most often by the respondents and their families , a representative sample of the community-at-large. The seven features as . previously stated are, in order of frequency of response: 1. children ' s play area, 2 . open play area, 3 . tennis courts, 32 4 . picnic facilities, 5. activity building, 6. basketball, and 7 . trails. The Parks Analysis recommends that these seven features be emphasized by the City' s Parks Program, thereby making the Parks Program more responsive to the needs and desires of residents. By developing more of these popular active recreational facilities within the existing and proposed neighborhood parks, for example, the- present and antici- pated deficiency of community parks in the City (and , therefore, of active recreational facilities) could be reduced. 4 . 5 Park Maintenance Maintenance of park landscaping and rest rooms, dog debris, and trash was the most frequent criticism of the City parks in terms of attractiveness and desirability. The Parks Analysis recommends that an effort be made to increase park maintenance efficiency based on park size, facilities provided, design, etc . The Parks Analysis further recommends that the possibility of employing a private firm ^ to maintain some or all of the City parks be explored in an effort to increase maintenance efficiency. 4 . 6 Acquisition/Development Priorities The Parks Analysis recommends that the Park Priority Committee of the Recreation and Parks Commission, when reviewing park development priorities, give special consideration to quarter sections not having a park or a school or easy access to community and/or regional facilities. A921 J33 r-. i -EL LIJVV s� 5. 0 SUMMARY EVALUATION It is now necessary to reassess park demand and supply based on the recommendations made in Section 4. 0 : 1. That the City have two park standards - a. 4 acres/1000 population as a realistic attainable goal by which actual park supply and demand is calculated. b. 5 acres/1000 population as a means of reaching this goal to be used in the City formula for computing park land and fee requirement. 2 . That the beach be credited with satisfying park demand. 3. That park and recreational districts be employed to insure that park and recreation areas are suited to the individual character- istics of the user population and that these areas are equally distributed throughout the City. After a comparison is made within each park district between park supply and demand for existing and ultimate development, it is then possible to offer recommendations on the future development and im- 35 provement of park and recreational facilities in the City. 5. 1 Existing Park Demand and Supply Figure 5-1 indicates the results of the comparison of park supply and demand for existing development, by park and recreational district. The following factors were incorporated into the analysis to yield the results as illustrated on the following page: (1) The 4-acr"a-standard was utilized to compute actual demand. Of this 4-acre standard, 2 . 6 acs/1000 population would be provided by neighborhood and community parks in the City and 1. 4 acs/1000 by regional facilities within and outside City limits. (Note: As stated previously, this breakdown was derived using a ratio of 3. 25 acres of neighborhood/community and 1. 75 regional , as is presently employed for the present 5-acre standard. ) (2) Meadowlark and Seacliff Golf Courses and the channels in Hunting- ton Harbour have been credited with satisfying neighborhood/ community park demand in the amount that park credit has been given for abutting residences. ( 3) The beach has been credited with . satisfying 50% of the neighbor- hood/community park demand within a one-quarter mile radius and .25% of the demand within a one-mile radius. This approach is considered reasonable due to local use of the beach in addition to or instead of visiting the City parks, as proven by the . results of the citizen survey. The remaining beach acreage not attributed with satisfying neighborhood/community demand is counted as regional facility acreage. (4) Huntington Central Park has been credited with satisfying the entire neighborhood/community park need within Park District 8 in which it is located, even though it is technically a regional facility. Central Park has also been credited with satisfying 50% of the neighborhood/community park demand of residents I' within a one-quarter mile radius and 25% of the demand by resi- dents within a one-mile radius. This approach was taken to account for residents of outlying park districts traveling into Park District 8 to use this facility. The remaining acreage of Central Park not credited with satisfying neighborhood/community demand is counted as regional facility acreage. . (5) Murdy and Edison Community Parks were credited with satisfying the neighborhood/community park demand of outlying park dis- tricts to varying degrees, using the same guidelines discussed in #4 previously. (6) Golden West College has been credited with satisfying neighbor- hood/community park need within Park District 3 in which it is 36 G a k ■■®■®°a o °°•®°®° • a BOLSA ■ ■ ■ a a ° °• •° ■ °M •■ •Cmi ••. • amasses Ai EDINGER . . ■■■■■ ■nwa■owns ■ ■ ■ a ■a Q ■ -■e. ■■ .■.■ ■.■a a HER • • ■■■ � � a a ■ • a ■ ■ aa ■i ■ ■ ■■ a oa ® »■aa G m a-■ a ■ a ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ WARNER a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m In. ■ ■ ■ ■ <�, ...�...® .�...®... n-, __.. SLATER ■ ■ ■ ®�a■® ■a ■° ■•■°■° a ■ ■ � a ■ 4> ...■0■ :■ ■E m..w _ TALBERT ■ ■ 0 ■ ■ a ■ a ■ 10 .e.. ■-_.M....■... EWS ^ d •. �y ®.■v. GARFIELD 13 YORKTOWN n \ 1111 iii iii ADAMS •s•■s Demand Met or Exceeded "�. INDIANAROLIS �.. ■ ■ ■ ■ A ■ ■ .•■•a ■ ■; ■ ■ ATLANTA Demand Greater Than Supply ®: ■ ■ ■ a a « m ■ ■ ® ■ ■■■ 617 °a■°r°°■a �8°a°° ■ ■:a ■ ...;.:$... ...■...a...y...._m..•:�... HAMLTON a a ■ ■ e ■ a; ■ ■ ®a:a■a■ a■asora■a■ : ■ ■ • ■ a a as '...t; ■ ..n....o..�...■ BANNING I a a a'•6 a aw® a Figure S-1 P SUP Y VSa AN Xssfi:r.x �ca ,011 MOM. Y EXIST GDEVELOPMENT 3>f: huntingt®n beach planning department 37 I I located. As a rule, the analysis does not count school acreage not adjoining a park as satisfying ,park demand, because of the trend of survey respondents to travel to a more distant park rather than to use facilities of a nearby school which does not adjoin a park. However, due to the size of the college (79 acres of open space) , the nature of the facility, and the involvement of the City of Huntington Beach in the development of the college as a recreation area, this acreage has been attributed with satisfying park demand. Credits to outlying districts have been assigned based on the guidelines described pre- viously. 5. 1. 1 Evaluation of Existing Deficiencies I Certain park districts presently have a deficiency of park and recreational areas (Figure 5-1) . They are Districts 2, 6, 7; 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The following discus- sion evaluates each deficiency individually and makes recommendations for improvement in cases where the existing City Parks and Recreation Program could be altered to elimin- ate or reduce the existing deficiency. Park District 2 Development Deficiency - Robinwood (FY 77) and Marina Parks (FY 77) . Park District 6 Acquisition and Development Deficiency - Southeast Graham and Slater (Develop, FY 79) ; Signal Oil Site #960 (Acquire and Develop, FY 82, see Appendix D) ; Northwest Graham and Slater (Acquire and Develop, FY 83) . Park District 7 Development Deficiency - Pleasant View Park (FY 77) . Ultimate park deficiency will still exist. Park District 10 Development Deficiency - Terry (FY 77) ; Lambert Phase II (FY 79) ; and Faith Lutheran Parks (FY 79) . Park District 11 Acquisition and Development Deficiency - SE Yorktown and Huntington Park (FY 78) . 38 Park District 12 Acquisition and Development Deficiency - 5 total neighborhood park sites (FY 78 , 81 , 82 , 83) . Park District 13 �^ Development Deficiency - Yorktown (FY 79) ; Bartlett (FY 78) ; Newland (FY 77) ; Moffett (FY 78) ; Summerfield (FY 78) ; and Peterson Parks (FY 80) . Park District 14 ^ Facility Deficiency. This Park District has four existing schools and two existing parks . Further open space acquisi- tion/development is possible only through use of Edison right- of-way in this location (now occupied by wholesale nursery operations) , development of more recreational facilities on the two existing park sites, and/or eventual use of property r' along Brookhurst now occupied by mobile homes should this property ever be converted to another use. Recommendation: Investigate the possibility of developing more and/or different recreational facilities onthe two existing park sites. The specific facility type should be determined by the preference of area residents, sampled possibly through a mail-out questionnaire distributed with the City water bill, for example. Park District 15 ,. Acquisition and Development Deficiency - Fifth and Main (Dev- elop FY 82) ; Delaware and Indianapolis Park (Acquire and Develop FY 81) . Park District 16 Development Deficiency - Hawes Park (FY 77) . General Recommendation: Within those park districts that will still experience a notable deficiency at ultimate development (Districts 2, 6, 7, 14, and 16 , Figure 5-2) , a survey of dis- trict residents should be performed (perhaps through the mail to be sent out with 'the City water bill) as to what their recreational needs are. Facilities could then be planned accordingly in order to maximize park use. 5. 2 Ultimate Park Demand and Supply A similar analysis of park supply and demand has been performed for ultimate development . The results are illustrated in Figure 5-2 . The AILL39 1 ` i0o B«s, * ........... ..._........�................ ......... } � �MrFADDEN ' aI' / 2 �C C ...... ................{.. NEII ...........:.... 5 `C 7 WARNER .- \ ..,. ...... .........:.. � ........./........ ............... SLATER 8 ' .,. iAlBH27 • 10 .r ... ' ^.,v .. ............... Ell IS GARFIELD : 11 12 ..'.w.....,.. .. ......... YO13 RKTOwN ` L * * 1 LEGEND ADAMS ?k Neighborhood Park 4 *€ * * *l�t �Jc INDIANAROLIS C Community Park 'k s Regional Park ATLANTA ytt' i A'.............:. V.:,.:.:-:, NAMLTON AIr ,..:. ,::::.:.::::.. '...`,_.y ............... BANNING o i"n xe�o �xo free rrr� Figure 5-2 PARK SUPPLY & DEMAND ULTIMATE DEVE"O'LOIPMENT huntington beach planning department 40 Figure 5-2 , Cont. PARK SUPPLY AND DEMAND ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Estimated Surplus Park District Assessed Need or Deficiency 1 7 . 87 acs. - 1. 85 acs. 2 32 . 2 acs. - 10. 95 acs. 3 42 . 55 acs. + 77 . 61 acs. * 4 26 . 63 acs. + 6. 16 acs. 5 25. 73 acs. - 1. 15 acs. 6 25. 83 acs. - 6. 65 acs. 7 20 . 57 acs. - 14 . 89 acs. 8 32. 58 acs. +103. 31 acs. * 9 10. 0 acs. - 3. 75 acs. 10 * 15. 8 acs. - . 44 acs. 11 21. 38 acs. - 2 . 73 acs. 12 23 . 41 acs. + 11. 08 acs. 13 41. 18 acs. + 1. 09 acs. 14 22. 64 acs. - 12 . 14 acs. 15 42 . 43 acs. - . 34 acs. r 16 19 . 37 acs. - 10. 47 acs. 17 18. 95 acs. + . 54 acs. 18 45. 73 acs. + 20 . 23 acs. * *Note: Excessive surpluses within these park districts are due to the existence of large park and recreation areas. The specific areas are as follows: Park District 3 Golden West College (79 acs. ) Park District 8 Huntington Central Park (270 acs. ) Park District _ 18 Edison Community Park (40 acs. ) Excess park land within these districts acts to satisfy community/regional needs of outlying districts, acting to balance park need with supply overall. 41 approach of the previous analysis (as described in Section 5. 1, para- ), graph 1, points 1-6) holds true in this case as well with two addi- tional factors being incorporated: (1) Ultimate supply has been computed based on what the City already has in terms of park acreage and what can be expected- in terms of land dedication and fee payment. The amount of park acreage to be expected was calculated using a 5 acre/1000 population standard as a base for the park dedication/fee formula to achieve a 4 acre/1000 population goal. (2) Credit for Bartlett Park (ultimate size - 30. 5 acres) has been given to surrounding park districts using a one-quarter mile, 50% credit and a one-mile, 25% credit rule of thumb. 5. 2. 1 Evaluation of Ultimate Deficiencies Certain park districts will still have a deficiency of park and recreational areas even at ultimate development (Figure 5-2) . They are Districts 2, 6, 7 , 14 , and 16. The following discussion makes recommendations regarding courses of action the City should consider in order to reduce the deficiency (over and above those recommendations made in Section 5. 1.1 of this report) as appropriate. Park District 2 Those quarter sections lacking parks at ultimate development all have schools .except for one. Recommendation: Insure that school playground facilities are open to the public after school and on weekends. Park District 6 Estimated deficiency does not allow for the possible eventual development of Meadowlark Airport for residential use. Recommendation: Consider providing a park site within the quarter section containing Meadowlark Airport should the air- port be developed residential, especially if developed other than R-1, single-family residential. Park District 7 Recommendation: Insure that Rancho View School playground facilities are open to the public after school and on weekends to help satisfy park demand. Look into acquiring a park site in this location when this school site is converted to school .administrative offices. 42 ■ • , Underlying the proposal to establish Park and Recreational Districts in the City, it is understood that the district concept is purely a planning tool. Residents will continue to use park and recreation facilities both within and outside their district, depending on their own individual recreational needs and preferences. When making a City-wide comparison of park district surpluses and deficiencies at ultimate develop- ment, it becomes apparent that the supply and demand will balance out overall. Therefore, by employing the two park standards (5 ac/1000 population standard to implement a 4 ac/ 1000 population goal) , the City can equalize park supply and park demand within the community, assuming acreage is provided as outlined in the existing Capital Improvements Program for Park Acquisition and Development. r-, 43 fn APPENDIX A HUNTINGTON BEACH PARK STANDARDS GENERAL STANDARD 5 acres of park and recreational land per 1000 population. (This is to include a combination of neighborhood, community, and regional facilities. ) NEIGHBORHOOD PARK STANDARD TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION 1006 2000 3000 4000 5000 Persons Persons Persons Persons Persons One or Two Family With private lot area n per family of More than 1/4 acre Park: No neighbor- hood re- quirEbent --- --- --- --- --- Less than 1/4 acre Park: Total Acres 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Park: Acres per 1000 persons 1.50 1.00 .83 .15 .70 Multi-Family Or other predominantly without private yards Park: Total Acres 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Park: Acres per 1000 persons 2.00 1.50 1.33 1.25 1.25 (As recommended by the American Public Health Association Committee on the Hygiene of Housing) COMMUNITY PARK STANDARD 1. 25 acres of community park land per 1000 population. REGIONAL PARK STANDARD No existing standard. 3 APPENDIX B INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARKS Acres Acres Leased Acres Park Name ID No. Acquired Or Under Joint Developed (gr.acs) Powers (gr.acs) (gr.acs) NEIGHBORHOOD- Schroeder 700 2. 3 2. 3 Greer 705 10 . 6 10 . 6 Irby 710 11 . 0 3 . 0 Wardlow 720 2 . 3 2 . 3 Recreation 725 .2 . 0 2 . 0 Center Lake 730 4 . 0 1. 8 5 . 8 Farquhar 735 3 . 0 3. 0 Hope View 740 3. 1 3 . 1 Lebard 745 3 . 0 2 . 0 5 . 0 Perry 750 2 . 2 2 . 2 Gisler 755 1. 0 11. 0 12. 0 Eader 760 2. 7 2. 7 Oak View 770 2 . 5 2 . 5 ' n Sun View 785 2. 5 2. 5 Chris Carr 790 11 . 0 11 . 0 Circle View 800 2 . 0 2 . 0 Clegg-Stacy 805 3 . 0 3 . 0 Harbour View 810 3 . 5 3 .5 Lake View 815 3. 0 3 . 0 College View 820 2 . 5 . 5 3 . 0 Bushard 825 2 . 5 2 . 5 Seabridge 830 3 . 5 3 . 5 J Lark View 840 2 . 5 . 5 3 . 0 Arevalos 850 3 . 0 3 . 0 Franklin 855 2 . 0 2 . 0 Golden View 860 2 . 5 2 . 5 _ I INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARKS (Cont. ) C Acres Acres Leased Acres Park Name ID No. Acquired Or Under Joint Developed (gr: acs) Powers (gr. acs) (gr. acs) , NEIGHBORHOOD (cont. ) Burke 875 2 . 5 2 . 5 Sowers 880 2 . 5 2 . 5 Wellington Mini 900 . 5 . 5 Davenport Mini 905 1. 0 1. 0 Marine View 910 3 . 0 3 . 0 Haven View 915 3 . 0 3 . 0 Glen View 930 3. 0 3 . 0 Lambert 935 3 . 5 1. 5 Talbert 945 5. 4 5. 4 TOTAL 95 . . 37. 8 123.4 r COMMUNITY Murdy 715 15. 0 . 15. 0 Gym & Pool 780 . 5 • 5 Edison 835 27. 0 13 . 0 40. 0 TOTAL 42. 5 13 . 0 55. 5 REGIONAL r" Huntington Central 270 . 0 170 . 0 TOTAL 270 . 0 170 . 0 a I APPENDIX C INVENTORY OF PROPOSED PARKS Acres Acres Leased Acres Acres Park Name ID No. Acquired or Under Joint to be to be (gr ac) Powers (gr ac) Acquired Developed (gr ac) (gr ac) NEIGHBORHOOD Irby, Phase. •II 710 8 . 0 8 . 0 (FY 80) Huntington Harbour 775 2 . 5 2 . 5 (FY 80) Pleasant View 865 2 . 0 2 . 0 (FY 77. ) Huntington Beach Company 870 3. 0 3 . 0 (FY 81:) Hawes 885 2 . 5 2.. 5 (FY 77) Terry 895 5 . 0 5. 0 (FY 77 ) Peterson 920 3 .0 3 . 0 (FY 80) Robinwood 925 2 . 0 2 . 0 (FY 77 ) Lambert, Phase II 935 2 . 0 2 . 0 (FY. 79i Newland 940 3. 0 3 . 0 (FY 77 ) Huntington Beach Company 950 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 82 ) Huntington Beach Company 955 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 83. ) Signal Oil* 960 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 82 ) Huntington Beach Company 966 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 81 ) Huntington Beach Company 967 3 . 0 3. 0 (FY 78 ) Signal Oil* 968 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 84 ) Signal Oil* 969 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 83') Bartlett 970 19 . 6 10.9 30 .5 (FY 78 ) ,= *Outside existing City limits INVENTORY OF PROPOSED PARKS (Cont. ) Acres Acres teased Acres Acres Acquired or Under Joint to be to be Park Name ID No. (gr6ac) Power's (gr d(j) Acquired Developed (gr ac) (gr ad) NEIGHBORHOOD (cont. ) Moffett 971 2 . 5 2 . 5 (FY 78) NW Graham and Slater* 972 3 . 0 3: 0 (F1' 83) r� SE Yorktown and Huntington 913 30 5. 0 (FY 78) Delaware and Indianapolis 974 5,.0 5 .0 (FY 81) SE Graham and r Slater* 975 3 : 0 3 . 0 (FY 79) Summerfield 976 2 . 6 2 . 6 (FY 78) Fifth & Main 971 4 . 0 4 :0 (FY '82) Yorktown 978 10 A 6 .0 16 ;0 (FY 79) r' Signal Oil* 979 3 . 0 3 . 0 (FY 84) Sunset Heights - 340 -2 . 0 5 : 0 (FY 79) Faith Lutheran - 2 . 0 2 : 0 (FY 79) SE Brookhurst - 5 . 0 5 . 0 WY 80) Huntington Harbour Beaches=Parks TOTAL 6 : 5 6_: 5 WY 78) 73 : 7 24. 9 ------ _ - .�- - __ 46 5 147. 1 COMMUNITY Huntington 845 T : 0 7,• 0 (FY 77) Marina 795 11. 0 11. 0 (FY 77) TOTAL 11. 0 1 . 0 A.; 0 *Outside existing City limits r, INVENTORY OF PROPOSED PARKS (Cont . ) J Acres Acres Leased Acres Acres Acquired or Under Joint to be to be Park Name ID No. (gr •ac) Powers (gr ac) Acquired Developed (gr ac) (gr ac) REGIONAL Huntington Central Park no. 0 100 .0 r` TOTAL 100 . 0 100 .0 ,1 Aft 805 Q 700 705 800 930 925 E 795 �«.. 915 785 \-� 775 820 900 0 90 710 715 865 905 VNM. —�_ 972 840 770 960 1 860 815 75 979 .,,.r 7165 895 935' 968 W' E aurew 50 95966 750 978 .945 845 LEGEND 3 970 940 7� 825 850, ti� Identification Number 789 976971 885 t^. 9 4 745/ n 9W 880875 755 835 830 760 / APPENDIX D PARK LOCATIONS ellhuntington beach planning department 3/1/77 APPENDIX E '.PARK DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY Fiscal Year Site Acres. -Cost/Pa:rk Cost/Year 76-77 Robinwood 2 $ 50,000 $ Terry 5 150,000 Newland 3 75,000 Pleasant View 2 50,000 r Hawes 2.5 67,500 H;.C.P. (Phase II) 287,000 Misc. (8 projects) 308,000 $ 987,500 $ 987,500 77-78 Marina Community 11 330,000 G.W. College Fields 4.5 130,000 H.B. Community , (7) 210,000 Moffett 2.5 67,500 ' 8976 Summerfield 2.6 70,000 #973 Old Town (5) 125,000 0967 HB Co. G.W./Palm (3) 75,000 Misc. (12 projects) 97;500 $1,104,500 $1,104,500, 78-79 #975 Slater & Graham 3 75,000 N`978 Yorktown 10 (6) 400,000 Faith Lutheran 2 50,000 Lambert (Phase II) 2 50,000 Sunset Heights 3 (2) 125,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 79-80 , 0710 Irby (Phase II) 3 200,000 Bartlett 29 (6) 700,000 Esment S/E Brkhurst (5) 12S,000 4775 H.H. Edngr/Sybra 2.5 67,S00 $1,092,500 $1,092,500 80-81 H.C.P. Sports Complex 2,000,000 #974 Downtown S-E (5) 200,000 . #'876 H.B. Co. (3) 75,000 #966 H.B. Co. (3) 75,000 $2,350,000 $2,3'50,000 81-82 Old Civic Center 4 . 100,000 0960 Signal (3) 7S,000 -� 1,9S0 H.B. Co. (3) 75,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 82-83 4969 Signal (3) 7S,000 #9,7.2 Signal (3) 7S,000 #955 H.B. Co. (3) 75,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 83-84 H.C.P. Phase I $ II 100 2,000,000 0968 Signal (3) 75,000 #979 Signal (3) 7S,000 $2,150,000 $2,150,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (8 Years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$6,859,S00 ( ) Land not acquired as of 3/1/77 APPENDIX F PARK SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE In the introductory remarks, the interviewer: introduces himself explains purpose of survey - shows letter of identification (if necessary) explains how the respondent was chosen indicates that every interview is held in strictest confidence. SECTION ONE ri 1. What do you and your family think of the public recreation facilities provided in your neighborhood.> very good good fair poor In the City in general? very good good fair poor 2 . Would you like the City to increase, decrease; or maintain the present level of park service? increase decrease maintain 3. On a monthlyave-ragei how frequently do you and your family. .use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 15+ Which ones do you and your family use most frequently? (name or location) 4. How many hours do you and your family stay each time, on the average? less than 1 1-2 3-4 more than 4 What hours do you generally use these facilities? early morning late morning early afternoon el late afternoon evening SECTION TWO 5. What is the name or location of the park or playground closest to -you? C 6. On a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use this park or playground closest to you? Summer Fall Winter Spring Never Never Never Never 1-5 times 1-5 times 1-5 times 1-5 times 6-10 times 6-10 times 6-10 times 6-10 times 11-15 times 11-15 times 11-15 times 11-15 times 15 or more 15 or more 15 or more 15 or more times times times times (if never in all four categories, proceed to question 11 ) 7 . How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk car bicycle other 8 . Which facilities do you and your family use in this park or playground closest to you? u trails activity building swimming children' s play area ball diamonds open play area handball/racquetball picnic facilities volleyball tennis courts basketball other 9. What do you and your family find attractive or desirable in this park or playground closest to you? trails activity building swimming children' s play area ball diamonds open play area handball/racquetball, picnic facilities volleyball tennis courts basketball landscaping terrain other 10. In this park or playground closest to you, what facilities do you and your family find unattractive or undesirable? trails activity building swimming children' s play area ball diamonds open play area handball/racquetball picnic facilities volleyball ,._ tennis courts basketball landscaping I terrain other How do you feel this park or playground could be improved? i i If you and your family don' t use the park or playground closest to you, why not? (Omit if questions 7-.10 were answered. ) don' t know about facilities or programs i too far away too crowded you and your family are too busy not attractive too dangerous do not like other users activities not interesting other 12 % What would increase the likelihood of you and your family using the park or playground closest to you? increased landscaping activity building more varied terrain children' s play area better access open play area jogging trails picnic facilities bicycle trails tennis courts swimming basketball ball diamonds volleyball better security restroom facilities other SECTION THREE 13. Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities within. the City? yes no (if no, proceed to question 18 ) If so, which ones? (name or location) (name or location) (name or location) 14. Do you use these other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? r-. more less equally 15. How do you and your family get to these other recreation "facilities in the City? walk car bicycle bus other 16. What do you and your family find attractive or desirable in these other parks in the City? trails children' s play area swimming open play area ball diamonds picnic facilities handball/racquetball tennis courts volleyball landscaping basketball terrain activity building other 17 . What facilities in these parks do you and your family find unattracitve or undesirable? trails children' s play area swimming open play area ball diamonds picnic facilities handball/racquetball tennis courts n volleyball landscaping basketball terrain activity building other How do you feel these parks could be improved? n 18. If you and your family do not use these other parks in the City, why not? (Omit if questions1,4-17 were answered. ) r4; don't know about facilities or programs too far away you and your family are too busy not attractive too dangerous do not like other users activities not interesting other 19. What would increase the likelihood of you and your family using these other parks in the City? increased landscaping volleyball d more varied terrain restrooms better access activity building better security children' s play area jogging trails open play area bicycle trails picnic facilities swimming tennis courts ball diamonds basketball handball/racquetball other SECTION FOUR 20 . How often do you and your family visit the beach, on a yearly basis? never (if never, proceed to question 25) 1-20 days 21-40 days 41-60 days 60+ days .J 21. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? yes no equally r-, i 22 . Which-. beach do you and your family visit most frequently? City beach (between the pier and Beach Blvd. ) State beach (between Brookhurst and Beach Blvd; and between the pier and Warner Ave. ) r County beach(north of Warner) `J Other Why? 23. How do you and your family get to the beach? walk car bicycle bus other. 24. What facilities do you and your family use when at the beach? volleyball concessions fire pits parking bikeways other 25. What kind of facilities would you and your family like to see ' developed at the beach? SECTION FIVE 26. How many people live in your house? no. Age of each person: Sex of each person: less than 5 yrs. no. male no. female no. 5-14 years no. male no. female no. . 15-19 years no. male no. female no. 20-34 years no. male no. female no. 35-64 years no. male no. female no. 65+ years no. male no. female no. 27. How many years have you and your family resided at this address? under 1 year 1 year, but less than 2 2-4 years 5-10 years 10 years + n (.l 28. What is the total income for all members of the family, before taxes? a. below $5,000 b. $5, 000 - $10 , 0.00 C. $10 , 000 - $15 ,000 d. $15 , 000 - $20 , 000 e. $20,000 - $25, 000 f. $25, 000 - $30, 000 g. Over $3 0, 000 h. Won't say SECTION SIX 29. To be filled in by the interviewer: Date: Address: Type of dwelling: single family condominimum apartment mobile home Ethnic group of respondent: white black brown red yellow other APPENDIX G SURVEY RESULTS 1. Quarter Sections With Parks/Demand Greater..Than Supply Five quarter sections with ten respondents each fall under this category. The results ' of the questions having direct C implications for the City' s Parks and Recreation Program are as follows: Section One � 1. What do you and your family think of the public recreation facilities in your neighborhood? 26% very good -53% good 15% fair 6% poor In the City in general? 45% very good 51% good 4% fair 0% poor 2 . Would you- like the City to increase, decrease, or maintain the present level of park service? 69% increase 0% decrease 31% maintain r, 3. On a monthly average, how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 2% 1-5 45% 6-10 19% . .11-15 8% 15+ 26% Facilities used most frequently- , Edison Community Park Murdy Community Park ' 4 Huntington Central Park Section Two 4. On a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use the park or playground closest to you? Summer Fall Winter Spring Never 13% 15% 19% 13% 1-5 times 21% 25% 27% 25% 6-10 times 10% 19% 21% 12% 11-15 times 10% 8% 8% 15% 15+ 46% 33% 25% 35% 5. How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk 51% car 26o bicycle 21% other 2% Section Three 6. Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities within the City? yes 75% no 25% Facilities used most frequently: Edison and Murdy Community Parks Huntington Central Park 7. Do you use these other recreation facilities more or �y less than the park or playground closest to you? more 36% less 53% equally 11% 8 . How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? walk 4% car 65% bicycle 29% bus 0% Other 2% Section Four 9. How often do you and your family visit the beach on a yearly basis? never 2% 1-20 days 45% 21-40 days 260 41-60 days 4% 60+ days 23% 10. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? ye's 3 9% no 4 8 o equally 13% 11. Which beach do you and your .family visit most frequently? City beach 520 State beach 40% County beach 4% Other 4% 12 . How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 18% car 54% bicycle 23% bus -it other 2% 13. General observations a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desirable C i - features of the parks in the City, in order of frequency 1. children' s play area 2 . open play area 3. picnic facilities ^ J 4. tennis courts b. Items commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in the City 1. dog messes 2 . trash 3. lack of facilities C. Most frequent suggestions for improvement 1. better maintenance 2 . more landscaping 3. more facilities 2. Quarter Sections With Park/Demand Equal to Supply Four quarter sections with ten respondents each fall under this category. The results of the questions having direct implications for the City' s Parks and Recreation Program are as follows: Section One 1. What do you and your family think of the public recreation facilities provided in your neighborhood? 28% very good 62% good 2% fair 0% poor 8% unsure In the City in general? 25% very good 60% good 8% fair 0% poor 7% unsure 2. Would you like the City to increase, decrease, or maintain the present level of park service? 42% increase 2% decrease 42% maintain 14% no opinion 3. On a monthly average, how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 12% 1-5 48% 6-10 30% 11-15 0% 15+ 10% Facilities used most frequently Lake/Farquhar Parks Harbor View Park Huntington Central Park Perry Park Edison Community Park Circleview School and Park Section Two 4 . On a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use the park or playground closest to you? Sumner Fall Winter Spring Never 2A Never 24% Never 21% Never 21% 1-5 times 2% 1-5 times 45% 1-5 times 48% 1-5 times 37% 6-10 times 29� 6-10 times 16% 6-10 times 14% 6-10 times 21% 11-15 times 3% 11-15 times 5% 11-15 times 6% 11-15 times 8% 15+ times 21% 15+ times 10% 15+ times 11% 15+ times 13% 5 . How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk 42% car 28% bicycle 30% other 0% Section Three 6. Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities. within the City? (� yes 59% no 41% Facilities used most frequently : Farquhar/Lake Parks Murdy Community Park Huntington Central Park 7 . Do you use these other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? more 17% less 61% equally 22% 8. How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? walk 4% car 82% bicycle 14% bus 0% other 0% Section Four 9. How often do you and your family visit the beach, on C a yearly basis? never 9% 1-20 days 35% 21-40 days 22% 41-60 days 12% n 60+ days 22% 10. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? yes 54% no 32% equally 146 11. Which beach do you and your family visit most frequently? City beach 440 State beach 44% County beach 0% Other 1 % 12 . How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 10% car 68% bicycle 22% bus 0% other 0% 13 . General Observations a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desirable features of the parks in the City in order of frequency: 1. children ' s play area 2. tennis courts 3. picnic facilities 4. open play area 5 . activity building b. Items commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in the City: 1. trash, 2. dog messes 3. landscaping C. Most frequent suggestions for improvement: 1. better maintenance 2 . improved landscaping `� C� 3• Quarter Sections With Park/Supply Greater Than Demand Forty respondents fall within this category (four quarter sections with ten respondents each) . The results are : Section One 1. What do you and your family think of the public r' recreation facilities provided in your neighborhood? 19% very good 69% good 3% fair 6% poor 3% unsure In the City in general? 24% very good 62% good 7% fair 0% poor 7% unsure 2 . Would you like the City to increase, decrease, or maintain the present level of park service? 37% increase 0% decrease 63% maintain 3. On a monthly average , how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 7% 1-5 40% 6-10 30% 11-15 8% 15+ 15% Facilities used most frequently Edison and Murdy Community Parks Huntington Central Park Greer Park Section Two i 4. On. a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use the park or playground closest to you? Su mier Fall Winter Spring Never 16% Never 21% Never 26% Never 19% 1-5 times 26% 1-5 times 33% 1-5 times 49% 1-5 times 31% i 6-10 times 23% 6-10 times 24% 6-10 times 9% 6-10 times 31% 11-15 times 9% 11-15 times 9% 11-15 times 6% 11-15 times 0% 15+ times 26% 15+ times 13% 15+ times 10% 15+ times 19% 5 . How do ,you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk 44% car 36% bicycle 20% other 0% Section Three 6. Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities within the City? yes 58% no 42% Facilities used most frequently: r-, Murdy Community Park Huntington Central Park 7 . Do you use these other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? more 14% less 59% equally 27% 8 . How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? walk 4% car 74% bicycle 22% bus 0% other 0% Section Four 9. How often do you and your family visit the beach, on a yearly basis? n never 7% 1-20 days 25% 21-40 days 30% 41-60 days 10% 60+ days 28% 10. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? yes 62% no 24% equally 14% 11. Which beach do you and your family visit most frequently? City beach 30% State beach 50% County beach 0% Other 20% 12. How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 2% car 70A bicycle 26% bus 0% other 2% `d, 13 . General Observations a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desir- able features of the parks in the City in order of frequency: 1. children' s play area 2 . tennis courts 3. open play area 4. activity building 5. picnic facilities 6. handball/racquetball 7. basketball b. Items commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in the City: 1 . trash 2 . poor maintenance C. Most frequent suggestions for improvement: 1. more landscaping 2 . better maintenance 3. more facilities 4. Quarter Sections With School But Without Park/Demand Greater Than Supply Forty respondents fall within this category (four quarter sections with ten respondents each) . The results are:, Section One 1. What do you and your family think of the public recreation facilities provided in your neighborhood? 33% very good 55% good 5% fair ?7% poor 0% unsure In the City in general? 38% very good 52% good 10% fair 0% poor 0% unsure 2. Would you like the City to increase, decrease, or maintain the present level of park service? 41% increase 5% decrease 54% maintain 0% no opinion 3 . On a monthly average, how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 27% 1-5 55% 6-10 10% 11-15 2% 15+ 6% Facilities used most frequently Lake/Farquhar Parks Murdy. Community Park Huntington Central Park Section Two 4 . on a seasonal basis, how often do you andlyour family use the park ' or playground closest to .you? Sunner Fall Winter Spring. Never, 25% Never 33% Never 36% Never 24% 1-5 times 28% 1--5 times 41% 1-5 times 44% 1-5 times 42 6-10 times 24!% 6-10 times 15% 6-10 times 20% 6-10 times 16% 11-15 times 4% 11-15 times 5% 11-15 times 0% 11-15 times 6% 15+ times 19.% 15+ times 6% 15+ times 0% 15+ times 12% 5 . How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? r, walk 30'% car 40 % bicycle 301% other, 0_% Section Three 6. Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities within the City? J yes 58% no 42% Facilities used most frequently--: - Huntington Central Park Murdy Community Park _ Chris Carr Park 7 . 'Do you use these 'other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? ......... . .more 23 % less 59 % equally • 18 % 8. How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? , walk . 4 % car 75 % bicycle 21A bus 0 % other ,2 AM& n ,s Section Four 9 . How often do you and your family visit the beach, on a yearly basis? never 10% 1--20 days 27% 21-40 days 22% 41-60 days 1 6%. 60+ days �5% 10.' 'Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? t, yes 60 no 26% equally 8% 11. Which beach do you and your family visit most frequently? City beach 53% State beach 26 County beach 0 Other 21% 12 . How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 4% car 69% bicycle 27% bus 0% other 0% 13 . General Observations a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desirable features of the parks in the City in order of frequency: 1 . open play area 2 . children' s play area 3. picnic facilities 4 • tennis courts 5 . basketball b. Items commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in the City: 1 lands-gaping 2 . poor maintenance c. Most frequent suggestions _for -improvement: 1 . better maintenance , especially of restrooms 2 . more landscaping_ 3. more playground facilities v� 'ta 5 . Quarter Sections Without School or Park/Demand Greater Than Supply This category contains the most respondents - thirteen quarter sections with ten respondents each, totaling 130 questionnaires. The resijUts of the questions having direct implications for the City' s Parks and Recreation Program are as follows: �) 1 Section One _1 1. What do you and yc�ir family think of the public recreation facilit�_es provided in your neighborhood? 24 % very good 38 1) good 20% fair 13% poor 5_% unsure In the City in gene..,,al? 33% very good 56% `good 10% fair 1% poor 0% unsure 2. Would you like the 61ity to increase, decrease, or 17 maintain the present'i1level of park service? 39% increase 19. decrd�!ase 60% maintain 0% no opinion 3 . On a monthly average, how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 15% 1-5r_57% 6-10 14% 11-15 4% 15+ 10% Facilities used most frequently Murdy and Edison Community Parks Huntington Central Park Lake/Farquhar Parks Chris Carr Park Wardlow Park Section Two 4 . On a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use the park or playground closest to you? Sommer Fall Winter Spring l Never 28% Never 35% Never 43% Never 30% 1-5 times 30% 1-5 times 34% 1-5 times 36% 1-5 times 37% 6-10 times 14% 6-10 times 18% 6-10 times 11% 6-10 times '16% 11-15 times 7% 11-15 times 5% 11-15 times 4% 11-15 times 9% C 15+ times 21% 15+ times 8% 15+ times 6% 15+ times 8% 5 . How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk: 31% car 39% bicycle 29% other, 1% Section Three 6 . Do you and your family visit other recreation facilities within the City? yes 61% no 3 9% Facilities used most frequently: Huntington Central Park Murdy Community Park Lake/Farquhar Parks Chris Carr Park 7 . Do you use these other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? more 44% less 50% equally 6% 8. How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? walk 9% car 67% bicycle 23% bus 1% other 0% t� Section Four 9. How often do you and your family visit the beach, on a yearly basis? never 12% 1-20 days 40% 21-40 days 17% 41-60 days 14% 60+ days 17% 10. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? yes 48% no 38% equally 14% 11. Which beach do you and your family visit most -frequently? City beach % State beach County beach �o Other 8% 12 . -.How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 14% car. 67% bicycle 16% bus ` 3% other 0% 13 . General Observations -� a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desirable features of the parks in the City in order of frequency: 1 . children ' s play area r, 2 . picnic facilities 3. open play area 4 . tennis courts 5. trails 6 . landscaping 7. activity building , b. Stems commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in the City: 1. landscaping 2 . � . dog messes -� 3. poor maintenane C. Most frequent suggestions for improvement: 1. better maintenance 2 . more landscaping 3. more facilities A. more security/supervision 6. Summary Results This section of the Parks Analysis presents the results -� of all 300 surveys for all quarter sections, with and without a park. The summary results of the questions having direct implications for the City' s Park and Recreation Program are as follows: J Section One 1. What do you and your family think of the public recreation facilities provided in your neighborhood? 25% very good 50% good 12% fair 9% poor 4_% unsure r In the City in general? 32% very good 55% good 7% fair 1% poor 5% unsure 2 . Would you like the City to increase, decrease, or maintain the present level of park service? 43% increase 1% decrease 53% maintain 3% no opinion 3 . On a monthly average, how frequently do you and your family use public recreation facilities in Huntington Beach? 0 12% 1-5 51% 6-10 22% 11-15 4% 15+ 11% Facilities used most frequently Lake/Farquhar Parks Perry Park Circleview School and Park Harbor View Park Greer Park Chris Carr Park Wardlow Park r* City Gym Murdy and Edison Community Parks Huntington Central Park • Section Two 4 . on a seasonal basis, how often do you and your family use the park or playground closest to you? Summer Fall Winter Spring Never 22% Never 28% Never 33% Never 25% 1-5 times 27% 1-5 times 35% 1-5 times 39% 1-5 times 34% 6-10 times 18% 6-10 times 180 6-10 times 14% 6-10 times 18% 11-15 times 7% 11-15 times 6% 11-15 times 5% 11-15 times 8% 15+ times 26% 15+ times 13% 15+ times 9% 15+ times 15% 5. How do you get to this park or playground closest to you? walk 38,% car 35 % bicycle 26% other 1 % Section Three 6. Do you and your family visit other recreation r facilities within the City? yes : 62 % no 38 % Facilities used most frequently: Farquhar/Lake Parks Chris Carr Park Edison and Murdy Community Parks Huntington Central Park 7 . Do -you use these other recreation facilities more or less than the park or playground closest to you? more 33 % less 54 % equally 13 % 8. How do you and your family get to these other recreation facilities in the City? walk 6 % car 70 % bicycle 23 % bus .5% other Section Four 9. How often do you and your family visit the beach, on a yearly basis? never 8% 1-2'0 days 36% 21-40 days 22% 41-60 days 11% 60+ days 23% 10. Do you and your family visit the beach more often than the parks? yes 52% no 35% equally 1.3° 11. Which beach do you and your family visit most frequently? city beach 45% state beach 42,% county beach 2A other 11% J 12. How do you and your family get to the beach? walk 12 % car 65 % bicycle 21% bus 2 % other, l % 13 . General Observations a. Items commonly stated as attractive or desirable features of the parks in the City in cider of frequency: 1. children ' s play area 2. open play area 3. tennis courts 4. picnic facilities 5. activity building 6. basketball r, 7 . trails b. Items commonly stated as unattractive or undesir- able features of the parks in order of frequency: 1. poor maintenance 2 . landscaping + ' 3. dog messes 4. lack of facilities c. Most frequent suggestions for improvement: 1. better maintenance (restrooms specifically mentioned) 2'. more landscaping 3. more facilities (playground facilities speci- fically mentioned) 4 . more security/supervision Adft U I APPENDIX H LOCAL PARK STANDARDS CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY CITY ACREAGE STANDARDS PER 1, 000 POPULATION Park Acreage School Site Acreage Anaheim 1. 5 - 5 . 0 Brea 2. 5 1. 5 Buena Park 2 . 5 Costa Mesa 2. 5 1. 5 Cypress 2 . 5 Fountain Valley 4 . 0 Fullerton 4 . 0 Garden Grove 1. 6 Huntington Beach 5. 0 Irvine 4 . 5 Laguna Beach 1. 5 2 . 5 La Habra 2 . 5 La Palma 2 . 5 Los Alamitos 2. 5 Newport Beach 2 . 0 Orange 2 . 5 1. 5 Placentia 2. 5 San Clemente - .� San Juan Capistrano 7 . 0 Santa Ana 2 . 0 'Seal Beach 4. 0 Stanton 1. 25 1 .25 Tustin 4 . 0 3. 0 Villa Park 0 Westminster 2 . 0 ` Yorba Linda 2 . 5 1. 5 Orange County (Unincorporated) 2 . 5 1. 5 f-, Source: Orange County Environmental Management Agency, July, 1975 . Updated by the Huntington Beach Planning Department, January, 1977. r-� L APPENDIX I PARK AND RECREATION FEES CITIES IN ORANGE COUNTY ANAHEIM $578 .76/single-family unit (sf) $'436 .80/condominium (condo) $351. 00/multi-family unit (mf) - $294 .84/mobile home space (mh) BUENA PARK $215/un 1-6 du/ac $110/un 6-14 du/ac $ 89/un 14-40 du/ac $110/un mh (Based on an average fair market value of $60 , 000 per acre. ) BREA �* $673/sf $393/mf $329/mh COSTA MESA �. $455.20/sf $321 . 32/mf FOUNTAIN VALLEY $1000/sf $325/1 bdrm or bachelor unit (500-9496) (^ $392/2 bdrm (950-11490) $625/3 bdrm (>1150M FULLERTON $250/1 bdrm unit $300/2 bdrm $350/3 bdrm $400/4 bdrm GARDEN GROVE $300/sf $225/condo $200/apt. NOTE: The cities of Laguna Beach, Cypress, Newport Beach, and Stanton were also sampled. However, the method of assessing park and recreation fees used by these cities does not permit a comparison with Huntington Beach on a dollar for- dollar basis so their standards have not been included here. HUNTINGTON BEACH Single Family $1171/un Apartments/Condominiums Single Bachelor $389/un 1 Bdrm $492/un 2 Bdrm $759/un 3+ Bdrm $1056/un Mobile Home $594 un r� IRVINE $1697/un 0-6 . 5 du/gr ac .. $1454/un 6 .6-10. 5 du/gr ac $1091/un 10 . 6-25 . 5 du/gr ac $858/un 25. 6+ du/gr ac (Based on an average fair market value of $75, 000 per acre plus $26, 000 per acre for improvements. ) LA HABRA $300/sf $200/mf $150/mh LOS ALAMITOS $700/sf $440/duplex unit $500/ mf and condo $400/mh ORANGE $150/sf $150/mf $200/mh SAN CLEMENTE $400/unit (any type) SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO $400/unit (any type on developments less that 50 units) r• SANTA ANA $340/sf $150/bachelor or 1 bdrm unit ($50 for each additional bdrm) $150/mh SEAL BEACH $665/sf $420/mf $332/mh jf-. I j TUSTIN $900/du $768/du $504/du '{ $4 56/du (Based on an average fair market value of $60 , 000 per acre. ) I WESTMINSTER $785/sf $525/cluster unit, medium density $300/apt. , high density f $150/mh space I I r� i i t THE .PARKS ANALYSIS. ERRATA 1.. p. 21, Section 4 . 1, last three lines: . .and make recommendations tee- eis}fig-the-Ety-pa3� . eled�eat�en-�e�r���e�e�ts-anel-tke-sehee�t�le-e�-pa�3�-asel reereat4:a -tees regarding the .City' s Parks Program. 2 . - p. 25, Section 4 . 1. 3. 1, Item (1) , line 2 : (Appendix B E) i i a A e a p TO r 7� ai 5` c :w way a r Ayr v z r iy, 1 w r lam. v. '''. r Y xE q s `3:; 9 r at' r - . 1 � l BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ORANGE C. M. FEATHERLY, CHAIRMAN - District #I 1 DAVID L. BAKER - District # 2 WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS - District # 3 WILLIAM H. HIRSTEIN - District #4 ALTON E. ALLEN - District #5 t n Orange County REGIONAL PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 400 West Eighth Street, Santa Ana, California March 8, 1963 i ! To the Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House r- Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Submitted herewith is a proposed Master Plan for Regional Parks for Orange County prepared under the supervision of the Regional Parks Advisory Committee pursuant to the authorization of Reso- lution No. 60-1257, dated December 14., 1960. In the preparation of the plan, the committee has been particu- larly concerned with the protection and preservation of areas of natural and scenic beauty that lend themselves to recreational use. Beyond this, the committee has been guided by two main considerations: (1) the park areas should be of a truly regional nature, serving a broad range of existing and future recreational needs for the people and (2) an awareness should be maintained of existing and planned facilities in order to avoid duplication �-. of, efforts. This plan, in its present or an amended form could become a Recre- ation Element of the Orange County Master Plan of Land Use, pur- suant to the provisions of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California. It would then form the basis for decisions related to the development of recreational facilities needed for our greatly expanding population, and would insure that these J decisions are logical and consistent with orderly county develop- ment. It is the committeets suggestion that your Honorable Board receive this report, that the Clerk be authorized to forward a copy to each of the municipalities of the county, and that the report be referred to the Orange County Planning Commission for considera- tion and for adoption as a Recreation Element of the Orange County Master Plan of Land Use. j Respe2A�LPARKP lly submitted, REG VISORY MMITTEE �., arry B g , ai an j I MEMBERS ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Harry E. Bergh, Chairman Planning Director David G. Hitchcock Finance Director William A. Kingsley Superintendent of Parks A. S. Koch County Surveyor and Road Commissioner Stanley E. Krause Chief Right-of-Way Agent - H. G. Osborne Chief Flood Control Engineer Kenneth Sampson Harbor District Manager J. A. Scherman County Fire Warden and State Forest Ranger Fred Brosio, Advisory Member Deputy County Counsel i Report prepared by the Orange County Planning Department, R. E. Ramella Committee Secretary �' a-- R E S O L U T I O N O F T H E B 0 A R D O F S U P E R V I S O R S O F O R A N G E C O U N T Y , C A L I F 0 R N I A J u l y 2 3 , 1 9 6 3 R E S O L U T I O N O F T H E B 0 A R D O F S U P E R V I S O R S O F f 0 R A N G E C O U N T Y , C A L I F 0 R N I A J u l y 2 3 . 1 9 6 3 j On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and No. 60-1257, dated December 14, 1960, specifically page carried, the following Resolution was adopted: 3, lines 9 and 10. WHEREAS, the Orange County Regional Parks Advisory 3. To proceed with further consideration and Committee was established by Resolution No. 60-1257 of further study in respect to the recommendations of December 14, 1960, as amended, of this Board in order to cooperation with and encouragement to the expansion of provide responsible direction to the formulation of a Doheny Beach State Park. Regional Parks Program and Plan and was charged with the duty of preparing a proposed Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County, AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, WHEREAS, a proposed Plan of Regional Parka for DAVID L. BAKER, WM. HIRSTEIN AND Orange County has been prepared by the Orange County C. M. FEATHERLY Regional Parks Advisory Committee and has been referred by this Board to the Orange County Planning Commission NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE for consideration and adoption as a Recreation Element of the Orange County Master Plan of Land Use, ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE WHEREAS, the Orange County Planning Commission by its Resolution of June 5, 1963, has adopted said Master STATE OF CALIFORNIA1 Plan as a Recreation Element of the Orange County as. r, Master Plan of Land Use and recommended the same for COUNTY OF ORANGE adoption by this 'Board, and I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, this Board of Supervisors on the 23rd day of July, 1963, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution on the adoption of the proposed Master Plan of Regional was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a r Parks for Orange County as a Recreational Element of the regular meeting.thereof held on the 23rd day of July, + Orange County Master Plan of Land Use, 1963, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. i NOl4, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County is seal this 23rd day of July, 1963. hereby adopted as a Recreational Element of the Orange County Master Plan of Land Use subject to the following modifications: 1. In respect to San Clemente Beach State Park, the recommendations of cooperation and encouragement to L. B. WALLACE be given to the State on the project for the expansion County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of of San Clemente Beach State Park, appearing on pages 15 the Board of Supervisors of Orange and 27 of the Master Plan, are disapproved and not County, California adopted. 2. In respect to Doheny Beach State Park, the r— recommendations of cooperation and encouragement to be By 2l'7,1� given to the State on the project for the expansion of Deputy Doheny Beach State Park, appearing on pages 15 and 27 of the Master Plan, are reserved for further consider- ation pending further study and recommendations by the Orange County Regional Parks Advisory Committee. AE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County r Regional Parks Advisory Committee as established by Resolution of this Board is hereby continued in force and effect and is•instructed to proceed as follows: 1. To proceed with the formulation of 1 recommendations as to the methods of financing and implementing the Master Plan of Regional Parks. 2. To undertake further study and make -- recommendations concerning riding and hiking trails as an element of the Master Plan of Regional Parks, in implementation of the directions contained in Declaration of Intent of this Board, Resolution "- Resolution No. h3-1033 r CONTENTS Introduction --------------- ------------------------ 1 CAMPING DEMANDS AT O'NEILL PARK (Graph) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 f" RECREATION NEEDS (Graph) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b ThePlan: . --------------------------------------------- 7 1 SPECIAL RECREATION NEEDS (Graph) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Priority Group I ------------------------------------ 14 r- PRIORITY GROUP I (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate I I � r Priority Group II ----------------------------------- 18 PRIORITY GROUP II (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate II Priority Group M ----------- ------------------- ---- 22 a PRIORITY GROUP M (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plate III Alternate Sites -------------------------------------- 25 PARKS DEVELOPMENT CHART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 1Q r Summary and Recommendations __ 27 j PROPOSED MASTER PLAN (Map) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plate 7 i Footnotes --------------------------------------------- 31 1 r- INTRODUCTION r� This plan represents an evaluation of the regional recreation needs of the people of Orange County, together with an analysis of the existing facilities, and an inventory of the physical resources and areas suitable for recreation. Recommendations for the priority of acquisition of potential recreation sites as well as acquisition and development cost estimates are included. It is important to realize that the "regional parks" referred to r by this plan are of county-wide significance both in the terms of r recreation benefits to all the residents and in the financing program that will be necessary to provide them. r The Present Need: 1 It is generally agreed that everyone needs recreation for a r- wholesome, well-balanced life. The need for physical activity, 7 for self-expression, for release of pent-up emotions, for working off nervous energy are cited as reasons for recreation need. The relation of recreation to mental and physical health, to crime and delinquency, and to other aspects of individual and community welfare has often been demonstrated. The present recreation facilities in the County are inadequate to meet this need, and our problem increases with the realization that in the next several decades most or all of the social trends which have led to increased demand for basic recreation will r^ continue. i Orange County' s tourist oriented recreation facilities, such as -Disneyland, Knottts Berry Farm, The Los Alamitos Race Track, Movieland Wax Museum, etc. , can accommodate millions of visitors each year. Outdoor recreation for the Orange County resident, however, has not kept pace with the increased demands. Our limited number of regional parks and coastline beaches can handle only a comparatively few visitors and are generally over-used. r, OVER-USE PROBLEM : ';}:;UNSATISFIED A recent study of the camping facilities at O'Neill Park _ shows a 95 per cent over-use OVERLOAD of those facilities. O'Neill is just one of many recreation areas in the County faced with this problem. Doheny IDEAL C APACITY Beach State Park, for example, has a much more acute over-use problem than O'Neill Park, with turn away crowds each day throughout the summer monthso In addition to dis- couraging some recreationists and not satisfying the demands Camping Demands at O'Neill Park of others, over-use creates 2 many problems. It results in unpleasant over-crowding; in deterio- ration and destruction of the natural and man-made facilities; in undue stress on the water and sanitary systems; and in an increase I in maintenance problems. i Future Need: POPULATION: ` Orange County is the .fastest growing county in California W with a 225.6 per cent increase in population between 1950 and 1960. ` If our population continues to grow at the present rate of 6, 500 people per month, we will surpass the million mark by mid-1964, and by 1985 we will have almost three million people. ECONOMY: Employment is growing at an even faster rate than population. Statistics show that employment in Orange County has reached an F., k y.SS 1 all time high with a 19.1 per cent increase over last year; this 3 indicates a closer step toward full employment and a sound well- balanced economy. Thus it seems logical to expect that Orange County will continue to grow at a very rapid and substantial rate during the coming years. INCREASED NEED: Most of the new residents coming into the County will expect and seek recreation facilities. As a matter of fact, they will -- probably seek more recreation than they have in the past. They - will have higher incomes, they will be more mobile and have better educational opportunities, and undoubtedly the temperate climate will encourage them to spend more time outdoors, but most important, they will have more leisure time. LEISURE TIME : People are going to have more free time. The 39 hour work week that we know today will diminish to 36 hours or less by 1976 and by the year 2000 it may be down to 30 or 32 hours. Outdoor recreation consumes at least one-fifth of our free time now and it will take at least this much more in the future. 4 LOSS OF RECREATION LAND: It appears that today' s rolling hills and endless lob- lar orchards are going to be tomorrows subdivisions and shopping centers. Subdivisions, schools, businesses, industries and freeways swallowed up 1,444 acres of land previously used for agriculture during the first six months of 1962. In the last seven and one-half years 31,000 acres have been developed for residential uses alone. These statistics emphasize the fact that unless some definite measures are taken now to conserve our rec- reation and open space resources, Orange County will rapidly become a sprawling, monotonous suburbia. The Challenge We are faced with the prospect of a greater and more concentrated population with more free time. This will be a populatio' n. that will need recreation and open space for play, relaxation and, privacy things that our already over-used parks cannot provide* The demand for all forms of outdoor recreation will increase enormously in the next few decades. There will be a substantial 7 I rise in the factors which most affect the demand for recreation: population, higher income, mobility, education and leisure time. Growth in any one of these factors would be significant, but when the increases are combined, the impact on the need for parks and other open space becomes a major challenge. RECREATION NEEDS Local and regional recreational needs represented in total acres: 30,000 ACRES 25,000 I[ �1 20,000 15,000 10,000 '1 5 000 EXISTING 0 PRESENT 1970 1980 1985 REGIONAL PARKS ADVISORY .COMMITTEEtS PLANNING STANDARD 4. acres of local park space per 1000 persons. 6 acres of regional park space per 1000 persons. TO acres of total park space per 1000 persons. 6 L` r- The Regional Parks Advisory Committee In order to provide direction toward meeting the major challenge of recreation needs the Regional Parks Advisory Committee was r-, formed by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in December of 1960. The 'Committeets primary functions are: to develop a general plan of regional parks for Orange County; to devise and recommend an equitable method of financing the acquisition, development and r maintenance of a park program; and to report and make recommendations r on park matters referred to it by the Board of Supervisors. On September 8, 1961, the Regional Parks Advisory Committee sub- mitted to the Board of Supervisors a Progress Report on the work �- done to that date. The Report dealt specifically with the inven- tory of regional recreation facilities in the County and the 1 existing and future needs of the population. The report also defined the recreation standards adopted by the Committee for use in the development of a master plan of regional parks. r THE PLAN The nearly three million people who are expected to be living in Orange County by 1985 will require extensive recreation facilities. j The purpose of this plan is to indicate the potential sites adapt- able to recreation uses that will provide an adequate development program for the people living in Orange County, both now and in (' the future. r i 7 i REGIONAL RECREATION AREAS y The plan has been confined to regional recreation areas. Regional ^ recreation areas offer recreational or scenic attractions that are of county-wide significance; areas that provide spaciousness which the typical small neighborhood parks do not provide. A regional park is of sufficient size to offer the right environment for family and group picnicking, nature study, diversified play areas and facilities for all age groups. It is a park which, properly developed, can also accommodate swimming pools, sports fields, bowling greens and golf courses where size permits, but not limited to such facilities. Neighborhood and Community parks, although considered in the -, evaluation of recreation facilities, are not regional and have not been included as a part of this master plan. Various types of land areas lend themselves to regional park development, such as ocean beaches and harbors, hills and moun- tains, riverbanks and arroyos, reclaimed marshes, reservoirs and flood control basins, and reclaimed waste disposal sites. DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL PARK PLAN Regional recreation demands will be met only through wise decisions on resource allocation, sound planning, and effective development of facilities. These all require the support of thorough knowledge and extensive data—the product of research. The Regional Parks Advisory Committee was fortunate in having two comprehensive recreation studies available to aid in its research. The first, The California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan, Parts I and II,3 dealt primarily with the user-survey information, collected by interviews and questionnaires, concerning the rec- reation activities of over 150,000 Californians. The second was the Regional Recreation study of the Inter-County r j Recreation Planning Committee. The study was made for the r- California Supervisors Association by the combined forces of the twelve counties in Southern California, and consisted primarily r of an inventory of recreation resources. A method of rating the value of potential park sites was also a contribution of the study. r-, To amplify the information in those two reports, the Regional Parks Advisory Committee conducted a more thorough and detailed examination of specific Orange County recreation problems. A r r complete inventory and analysis of all recreation facilities in 7 the County was undertaken. The result of this study was the decision of the Committee to devote its attention to the three elements of regional recreation in the County that were the most seriously deficient—camping, picnicking and activities parks. r" SELECTION OF AREAS r It is not the intent of this study to suggest that the County l , r 9 SPECIAL RECREATION NEEDS UNITS 15,000 ACTIVITIES PARKS (ACRES) 10,000 PICNICKING (UNITS) CAMPING (UNITS) 8,000 . EXISTING 1,000 m 6,000 4,000 500 2,000 p 0 ACRES PRESENT 1970 1980 1985 10 ~, Los An 1- Count J IMPERIAL hrtl �T • • 4�ANA CYN RD ORANGETNORPE AVE SNP �i RIVER IO FR\YY 1 RATELLA AVE FRN'Y GARDE\ ROVE BL\'a ' F �1 �A 'o gILYERADO YN I Q ' 1'AR\ER m Al y` Rivc rside O P r I r� 4^_\ O1ST e A C Nu'1' 9 O F C' O NORTH 1 0 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 � S M1 CQ c SCALE N MILES pe San Dmv I Prepared By The Orange County Planning Deportment °o i January 1963 q H. I I Regional Recreation Facilities in Orange County . REGIONAL PARKS camping.or PITCH & PUTT OR picknicKing 9 HOLE GOLF COURSES l r • WATER ACTIVITIES A SPECIAL RECREATION USES *REGULATION GOLF COURSES RIDING & HIKING TRAILS l 11 I acquire and develop all of the recreation areas that will be needed j for our future population. Federal, state, and municipal govern- ments, special districts, and private enterprise all operate recreation areas in the County. It is expected that through sound planning and co-operation with these entities they will continue to carry and perhaps increase their share of the burden of supplying much needed recreation facilities in Orange County. It is the purpose of this phase of the study to identify and recommend areas of regional significance that will satisfy the pic- nicking, camping and activity park needs of 2,900,000 residents. In developing this plan, a total of 34 potential regional recrea- tion areas were studied. Five of these were existing and proposed projects of the State Division of Beaches and Parks and of the Orange County Harbor District. In order to avoid duplication of efforts detailed studies of these areas were not made. I However, the proposed recreational development of areas such as Sunset Bay, Upper Newport Bay, and Dana Point Harbor is encouraged by the Regional Parks Advisory Committee. As an aid in determining the comparative desirability of the remain- ing 28 areas, the Committee developed a value-rating formula. The formula takes into consideration such factors as population, travel- time, supply-to-demand ratios and types of uses to be included in each site. Application of the formula to each of the potential areas resulted in the elimination of six of the areas from further consideration. 12 Another important element of this study was the ranking of the potential recreation areas into three priority groups. These priority groups were selected on the basis of most effectively fulfilling the increasing recreation demand of the County's residents at each of three increased population levels. The factors considered in determining the proper placement of each potential park site into its pri_Drity group were: acquisition and development costs, water supply, access roads, geographic location, topography, vegetation, land value increase, value-rating number, and ratio of cost to value-rating number. E-A "WA ........... 4 , e k u, r m .{ key .fir a .. , k d rr ,r iar+ SF � r F 13 PRIORITY GROUP I IMMEDIATE PROGRAM 1962 - 1970 - Population 846,287 to 1,250,000 Camping Picnicking Activities Park (Units) (Units) Parks Area (Acres) in Acres 1,250,000 people 3851 4081 625 will need We Now Have 753 1101 - Suggested For Addition A O'Neill Expansion 400 100 - 100 B * Doheny Beach Expansion 635 - - 200 C * San Clemente Expansion 644 300 - 350 D Villa Park Dam 252 584 - 270 E Sycamore Flats 600 4$0 - 160 F San Juan Canyon 124 176 - 193 G Trabuco Canyon 292 73 - 897 H Nike Base 100 840 240 240 HI * Sunset Bay - - - 160 H 2 *, Upper Newport Bay - - - 700 H3 * Dana Point Harbor 200 TOTALS 3800 3654 240 3740 Deficiency or Surplus -51 -425 -385 Approximate Acquisition Costs $4,490,000 Approximate Development Costs 4,934.150 Group I Total Costs M 424,150 Not included in the cost estimates. ` 14 Los Angeles county , PRIORITY GROUP I A Part of The Proposed Master Plan of Regiooall Parks for Orange County Y IMMEDIATE NEEDS PtiA C N C . ORAKGETHORPE AVE RI\'ERSID FRV,*Y z _ KATELLA AVE ,,,, F RWY GARDEN GROVE BL\"D o 0� WARNER m A\'E < Riverside Ll F � � — \`— /` I C' '� LEGEND C, Proposed expansion of existing facilities f r� ElProposed activities park Proposed regional parks (camping or picnicking) d ? San Diego NORTH Proposed marina or aquatic park C 1 0 ;' 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 SCALE IN MILES Prepared By The Orange County Planning Department � January 1963 PLATE I I PRIORITY GROUP I Suggested Sites O'Neill Park (A) It is suggested that 100 acres be acquired and developed as an addition to O'Neill Park to relieve the over- use of, the existing facilities. There is sufficient acreage a on the southeast side of the park that could be developed for this purpose and easily absorbed into the present park r- system. Doheny Beach State Park (B) The expansion of this park is a part of the recreation development program of the State of California. The State plans to add 200 acres and 635 camp- sites to the park and relocate existing facilities to provide adequate space for picnickers and beach-goers. San Clemente Beach State Park ( C) The expansion of San Clemente Beach State Park is also a part of the State' s recreational development program. The expansion of the park downcoast between the ocean and U.S. Highway 101 will add 8,800 lineal feet of beach and provide 644 new campsites and 300 new picnic units. It is recommended that full co-operation and en- couragement be given to the State on these two projects. Villa Park Dam (D) This is an area of 270 acres between the Villa Park Dam and Irvine Park. A park in this location could easily be absorbed into the present system because of its nearness to Irvine Park. This area is readily accessible by 15 Santiago Canyon Road and is reasonably near the populous portion of the County. Infrequent flooding is a possibility, but would not hinder recreational development of this highly desirable site. Sycamore Flats (E) This 160 acre site is located in the Santa Ana Canyon about three miles from the County line. This location was once developed as a commercial recreational area and could easily be converted to a regional park. The year-round stream, abundant shade trees, and the excellent access from the popula- tion centers in the County make this a very desirable location. San Juan Canyon (F) The proposed San Juan Canyon recreation site is an area of 193 acres on the Ortega Highway in the Cleveland National Forest. The seasonal stream and rugged topography will encourage fishing, camping, hiking and trail riding. This area is included in the Federal Government' s Master Plan of Recreation for the Cleveland National Forest. Trabuco Canyon (G) The Trabuco Creek divides the 897 acres of this beautiful and rugged area. Two small camp grounds have been developed here, but they are excessively over-used. It is suggested that additional camping and picnicking facilities be developed in the lower and more level portions of Trabuco Canyon and the rugged canyons at the foot of Santiago Peak and Holy Jim Falls be preserved as wilderness areas. Nike Base (H) This is an area of 240 acres of federally-owned land 16 near the intersection of Katella and Knott Avenues. An activities park of this size is drastically needed in this highly populated area. The acquisition of this property is of the utmost importance and should be accomplished if or when the land becomes available. Sunset Bay (HI) The acquatic park planned for Sunset Bay is a project of the Orange County Harbor District. This recreation r ! area, when fully developed, will occupy about 160 acres of land and water. It will provide a public beach and picnic area, boat launching ramps and slips as well as a restaurant r and other facilities. r Upper Newport Bav (H2 ) Another Harbor District project is the development of the Upper Newport Bay. This potential recreation area is located in the northerly portion of Newport Harbor in the Central Coast area of Orange County. When fully developed, the Upper Bay could be one of the most important recreation j facilities in Southern California. It will supply drastically needed boat launching ramps, and slips, rowing and sailing courses, beaches, and other specialized recreation facilities. Dana Point Harbor (H3 ) The proposed Dana Point Harbor is located in the South Coast area of Orange County and is adjacent to Doheny Beach State Park. The harbor will cover 200 acres of water when developed. It will accommodate in excess of 23,000 berths for boats and will provide launching facilities for 12000 trailered boats per day. F 17 PRIORITY GROUP R NEAR FUTURE 1970 - 1980 _ Population 1,250,000 to 2,165,000 Campin Picnicking Activities- Park (Unit sl (Units) Parks .Area (Acres ) in Acres 2,165,000 people 6661 7059 $25 will need We will have 3800 3654 240 (if previous suggestions added) - SUGGESTED FOR ADDITION li I Limestone Canyon 472 200 - 225 ^ i 1 Fullerton Dam 450 420 183 183 K Mile Square 100 840 240 240 i L. Live Oak Canyon 116 - - 216 M Black Star Canyon 128 - - 340 N Laguna Lakes 430 576 - 147 O Hot Springs Flat 140 304 - 136 P Potrero Los Pinos 688 280 - 655 Q Carbon Canyon 80 272 - 114 R Olinda Disposal Station 240 320 160 160 TOTALS 6644 6866 823 2416 Deficiency or Surplus -17 -193 -2 Approximate Acquisition Costs $6,170,000 , Approximate Development Costs 9,717,250 Group II Total Costs $15,$$7050 18 L­ Angeles (­ntv PRIORITY GROUP H IMPERIAL i / A Part of The Proposed Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County C. NEAR ' FUTURE ORA\G THORPE AVE IRV--Rl',ERSII t KIN I JA RATE L LAN GARDEN RO%E BL',D 4( INARNER A\E A x LEGEND C Proposed regional parks (camping or picnicking) V C, Proposed activities parks S'. D,eg, 0 NORTH 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WINW 1 1 1 ISCALE IN MILES Prepared By The Orange Cou,nty Planning Department January 1963 PLATE H PRIORITY GROUP II Suggested Sites Limestone Canyon (I) The Limestone Canyon potential recreation area is located four and one-half miles south of Chapman Avenue. on the Santiago Canyon Road. There are approximately 225 acres of rolling hills, pasture lands, and tree shaded meadows, well suited to recreational development. Fullerton Dam (J) A 183 acre activities park is proposed for the land behind the Fullerton Dam. This property, subject to infrequent flooding, will be particularly valuable for rec- reation as the Orange State College develops and the pop- ulation of the Northeast Fullerton area continues to grow. Mile Square (K) The Mile Square, like the Nike Base, is Federally i owned property and in time will be equally as important for an activities park for populous Western Orange County. A 240 acre portion of this property is needed for development as an activities park. It is located at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Warner Avenue. The acquisition of this land should be accomplished as soon as it is declared surplus by the Government. Live Oak Canyon (L) The proposed park in the Live Oak Canyon region is located along Live Oak Canyon Road to the north of j O'Neill Park. This heavily wooded area of 216 acres would be a logical expansion of O'Neill Park, but it should be r^ 19 acquired soon, as it is rapidly being developed in other ways. Black Star Canyon (M) There are 340 acres of potential recreational land in Black Star Canyon. It is suggested that only 40 acres of camping facilities be developed and the remaining 300 acres be reserved as a wilderness area. Laguna Lakes (N) These 147 acres proposed for recreational development in the Laguna Canyon are endowed with two small lakes. Although not large enough for sailing or water skiing, these lakes could accommodate rowboats, canoes and fishermen. Playfields and picnic and camping areas could easily be developed on the surrounding shores, but a tree planting program should be initiated as soon as possible to provide an even more desirable recreation area. * _ Hot Springs Flat (0) Hot Springs Flat is located on the Ortega - Highway about twelve miles northeast of San Juan Capistrano. The San Juan Creek bisects an area of 136 acres which could be used for a regional park in the future, but an extensive tree planting program will be necessary to make the area more adaptable to recreation. - Tree planting would be an excellent project for some community service organization to undertake. The acquisition and development of several of these potential regional park sites will offer many opportunities to outdoor organization such as Scouts and Izaak Walton League, to engage in service projects of long-term benefit to all the citizens of Orange County. 20 Potrero Los Pinos (P ) The Potrero Los Pinos area, in the Cleveland National Forest, probably offers the most recreation potential of any area in the County. Secluded high in the Santa Ana Mountains, about twenty miles from San Juan Capistrano, this area affords vast panoramic views of Southern Orange' County. Wide meadows and an abundance of ancient oaks make this area 7 ideal for recreation. r I Carbon Canyon (Q) Park plans for the 114 acres behind the Carbon Canyon Dam have been developed by the Orange County Planning Department. This area, located about two miles north of r- Yorba Linda, would be well suited to intensive daytime rec- reation uses, but will need an extensive tree planting program. Olinda Disposal Station (R) The County owns a 160 acre waste disposal station about four miles north of Yorba Linda. It is expected that the filling operations at this station will (� be completed in ten to twelve years. A recreational use for I this site should be considered, and plans developed so that the final stages of filling and grading could be accomplished to meet any special requirements of a regional park. l 21 PRIORITY GROUP III FUTURE 1980 - 1985 Population 2,165,000 to 2,900,000 Camping Picnicking ' Activities Park (Units) (Units) Parks Area (Acres) in Acres _ 2,900,000 people 8923 9456 1450 will need We will have 6644 6866 823 (if previous suggestions added) SUGGESTED FOR ADDITION S Lighter Than Air Base 100 840 240 240 — T Chiquita Flats 836 360 - 730 U Hot Springs Canyon 216 - - 96 ^ V Silverado Canyon 92 - - 130 W Bell Canyon Flat 148 528 - 359 X Santiago Creek 700 840 300 300 Y Santa Ana River 100 360 101 101 TOTALS 8836 9794 101 1956 Deficiency or Surplus -87 + 338 + 14 Approximate Acquisition Costs $8,965,000 Approximate Development Costs 8,646,450 Group III Total Costs $170611,450 22 _ Los Angeles County _ PRIORITY GROUP III n 'MPE Htj A Part of The Proposed Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County FUTURE NA \A _ FD ORAIvG ET HOR PE AVE f� RI\"ERSID• FR\4'Y n_ RATELLA AVE r_I /FRI Y GARDEN GROVE BL\"D — a ti• z r G F N A \VARIER AVE r a• �� I L�/O< t /' �n< Riverside V ® 14 LEGEND - Proposed regional parks (camping or picnicking ) ® Proposed activities parks 9 � G— i Goy L San Diego ! �r R4; _ NORTH j 1 0 I) 1 2 7 4 S 6 7 SCALE IN MILES Prepared By The Orange County Planning Department January 1963 L PLATE III PRIORITY GROUP III Suggested Sites Lighter Than Air Base ( S) The Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana r ( commonly known as Lighter Than Air Base ) is another government facility which should have a portion devoted to recreational uses as soon as it becomes available. A 240 i acre activities park 'in this location (near the Santa Ana and Newport Freeways) will be necessary to serve the popula- tion of Orange County. It is more centrally located than any other proposed recreational area in the County. Chiquita Flats (T) In this study of potential recreation areas, Chiquita Flats had a higher value-rating number than any other site studied. It is located about three and one-half miles from San Juan Capistrano on the Ortega Highway and is bisected by San Juan Creek. Vast -groves of shade trees, meadows, and rolling hills cover the 730 acres that are proposed- for recreational development. When water becomes available, ,picnicking and camping facilities could easily be installed. Other recreational uses might also be possible when the flood control dam proposed for this area is constructed. r Hot Springs Canyon (U) Hot Springs Canyon is one of the most attractive recreational areas evaluated for this study. It is located near the Ortega Highway in San Juan Canyon about 23 twelve and one-half miles northeast of San Juan Capistrano. The usable area of the canyon is limited in size but is endowed with a seasonal stream and abundant shade trees. Silverado Canyon (V) It is suggested that the limited recreation facilities in Upper Silverado Canyon be expanded to 130 acres. The seasonal stream, with trout fishing pools, will serve as an attraction to fisherman, campers, picnickers, and horsemen. Bell Canyon Flat (W) Broad expanses of pastureland, shade trees, and a seasonal stream, make Bell Canyon Flat a highly desirable recreational area. It is located about seven miles northeast of San Juan Capistrano on the Ortega Highway. Santiago Creek (X) The proposed Santiago Creek recreation area is located five and one-half miles southeast of the inter- section of Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road. At the _ present time a County waste disposal station and a sand and gravel extraction company are operating on the property. This area of 300 acres will not be suitable for recreational development until these operations are terminated. Santa Ana River (Y ) There are extensive sand and gravel extraction areas on the north side of the Santa Ana River between the Imperial Highway Bridge and Jefferson Street. It is suggested that, when these operations are concluded and the extraction area filled, a regional park be developed. 24 I ALTERNATE SITES If a potential park site becomes unavailable or developed for purposes other than recreation, an alternate area should be selected to take its place. The loss of any one of the proposed areas i would be damaging to the whole recreational plan, because this plan has not been developed to meet optimum goals but simply to satisfy the basic recreational needs of the people. r-- The sites listed below have been investigated thoroughly and are considered as alternates for inclusion in the master plan, if it becomes necessary to substitute a recreational area at a later date. I Yorba Linda Reservoir (Al) The Yorba Linda Reservoir (about 80 acres) is located near the intersection of Mariposa and Lake View Avenues in Yorba Linda. When this reservoir is no longer needed for irrigation purposes it could be easily �-' transformed into an activities park. It is located near the center of an area that is planned for an eventual population of 701,000 people. The recently adopted Yorba Linda General Plan indicates this area for recreational use. Peters Canyon W ) Peters Canyon Lake (61 acres) and the surrounding shoreline (36 acres) are suggested for recreational develop- ment. This area, one and one-half miles south of Irvine Park, could accommodate water-oriented sports such as rowing, canoeing and fishing, as well as intensive camping and picnicking. It would be especially useful to organizations such as the Boy 25 V' Scouts and the Izaak Walton League. Starr-Viejo W ) The proposed Starr-Viejo recreation area (129 acres) is located on the Ortega Highway about eleven miles northeast of San Juan Capistrano. There are several other _ potential sites recommended in this vicinity and if one of them should prove impossible to obtain, this area would be a logical substitute. This site would require a tree planting program. Lower Santiago Creek (A4) The sand and gravel operations along ^ the banks of' the Santiago Creek offer several potential recreational areas. The excavation sites are scattered from the Villa Park Dam to the Newport Freeway. If these sites were developed for recreation, they would connect the existing paths, parks and golf courses to form a continuous greenbelt along the creek from Irvine Park to the Santa Ana Freeway. wv � ara 4 i x P s a � k w ro 26 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS During the course of study and research for this plan a great r- deal of data and information was assembled. Much of it appears in this report in summary form as it is not possible to present this information in the detail in which it was obtained. Field surveys were made, user studies were conducted, aerial photographs were analyzed, and reports and other written materials were reviewed. This considerable amount of investigation, analysis, �-, and determination oriented this plan toward the camping, picnicking and activities parks aspects of regional recreation. Although it appears that these are only a small part of the recreational picture, it is felt that a concentrated effort. toward achieving recreational development in these fields will also augment and promote the development of the facilities for other types of recreation, such as golf courses, amphitheaters, boat docks, and other specialized uses. And some of these facilities most certainly will be included in the proposed recreational areas. One of the results of this report should be the initiation of additional studies and recommendations for other recreational essentials, such as riding and hiking trails, a County-wide system � a of greenbelts and open-space programs. The Regional Parks Advisory Committee encourages co-operation with the Doheny Beach State Park and San Clemente Beach State Park expansion programs and the recreational plan for the Cleveland 1 . i 27 4 National Forest. A thorough understanding of the latter and the co-operative possibilities that would aid in its implementation are necessary. It is important that a liaison between the County and the Federal Government be established to promote the develop- ment of recreation areas in the Cleveland National Forest. This blaster Plan recommends the use of surplus lands for recreation sites whenever possible. Lands subject to flood control practices, military reservations, and waste disposal sites have been suggested, particularly in the western portion of the County where land has become expensive and difficult to obtain. The establishment of a means of obtaining or reserving these lands for recreational development is essential, especially in the case of military reservations. Three of the urgently needed activities park site.s are located on lands currently occupied by military bases and, here too, a liaison between the County and the Federal Government is important. Even though many of the proposed sites are "surplus" land, there still occur instances in which private property will have to be purchased at full value to fulfill the master plan and meet the recreational needs of the people. The Regional Parks Advisory Committee, upon the acceptance of this plan, will conduct a study to determine a method of financing the acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of the park program suggested by the plan. The estimated cost of 43 million dollars (at today's prices) for the 28 acquisition and development of these potential sites is obviously a tremendous deterrant to ready acceptance of the plan, but the beneficial, social and economic factors must be fully considered. -� Earlier in this report the Committee commented on the demand for outdoor recreation, but little was said about the benefits. It offers areas for family and social togetherness, it promotes healthful living and offers spiritual values, and it provides areas for excercise necessary for physical fitness. It is valuable for educational experiences in the world of nature. It 1 ? is impossible to justify these social benefits solely on an economic or dollar basis, but there are some important economic effects in the provision of outdoor recreation which should not be over-looked. r The effect of parks on adjoining land values is one example. The City of Minneapolis, noted for its fine park system, reports that the increased values in the city due to park developments have amounted to several times the cost of the entire system. City after . city throughout the United States cites the experience - parks enhance the value of surrounding property. A county in New Jersey, found that land adjacent to parks increased in value three times as fast as other property.4 The Yorba Linda Country Club, Mesa Verde Country Club and Newport Harbor, are just a few of the many examples right here in Orange County of what recreational development can do for surrounding land values. JI 29 It is sometimes argued that parks take land off the tax rolls. This is not necessarily a net loss, in many instances it is a gain for there is scarcely any lag between the removal of land from the tax rolls for public purposes and the establishment of new businesses to take its place-often of an assessed value far exceeding any that was relinquished: Usually the land-use competing for potential recreational space is residential development. It is a well known fact that governments often lose money on this type of development because it costs more to provide schools, streets, police protection and other services than is returned in new taxes. Thus, by placing the land in recreation use it may prevent a drain on the communityts finances while encouraging a long-term rise in surrounding property values. Two other economic effects of outdoor recreation are the attraction of new industries and a tourist trade to an area. Many of the manufacturers and businesses searching for new sites list recreational opportunities as one of the deciding factors in the location of their facilities. If a community can attract two dozen tourists a day throughout the year, it would be economically comparable to acquiring a new manufacturing industry with an annual payroll of $100,000.6 Thus, we have recreation bringing industry and a broader tax base into the community as well as the introduction of "new" money spent by visitors to Orange County. r 30 FOOTNOTES r 1 1. "Orange County Progress Report," September, 1962• 2. "Estimates of Decrease in Hours Worked, 1960-2000," Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. 3. Published by California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee, Sacramento. 4. Activities parks are recreation areas designed to accommodate intensive recreational uses such as field sports, court games, r swimming pools, golf courses, group picnicking areas and sports centers. r Activities parks should be located in heavily populated areas and designed to supplement, rather than duplicate, nearby community or neighborhood parks. -; 5. "Outdoor Recreation for America" January 1962. 6. "California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan, Part II.11 7. "California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan, Part II." 31 DARKS DEVELOPMENT CHART M CD cr) C" .E :.:7g 5 a E _C3 o ca. CL. %^ an A. O'NEILL PARK EXPANSION Q40 0 100 B. DOHENY BEACH EXPANSION 0 0635� 200 C. SAN CLEMENTE BEACH EXPANSION CP)Q G @ 350 D. VILLA PARK DAM 80, 502 0 0 0 270 E. SYCAMORE FLATS Q (DO (3) a 160 F. SAN JUAN CANYON Q @ (2) 0 193 G. TRABUCO CANYON g 2902 0 0 Q 897 H. NIKE BASE .00 1060 6 240 I. LIMESTONE CANYON @6_0 ,f 702 0 225 J. FULLERTON DAM @0 aso 0 6 (8) 183 K. MILE SQUARE 8400 (9) 240 L. LIVE OAK CANYON (a 0 0 216 M. BLACK STAR CANYON G 0 0 u 340 N. LAGUNA LAKES 5706 30 147 0. HOT SPRINGS FLAT 3004 1100 0 (:D (j) 136 P. POTRERO LOS PINGS 2800 6808 0 0 ru 655 Q. (ARBON CANYON (a 9 0d 114 R. OLINDA DISPOSAL STATION -0 2 160 400 0 S. LIGHTER THAN AIR BASE @ @ E> 240 T. CHIQUITA FLATS bo 8306 (5) 730 16 96 U. HOT SPRINGS CANYON V. SILVERADO CANYON 0 130 W. BELL CANYON FLAT sZa 1408 0 G 8 0 G 359 X. SANTIAGO (REEK 4o 17000 (D (a @ 300 Y. SANTA ANA RIVER . . . . . . . .AIIEIkt�AIF 03' (CO Q. . . . . . . .. .0 101 .. . . . . . . . . . . . �) . Al YORBA LINDA RESERVOIR SITES 04"0 00 0 00 80 A2 PETERS CANYON o4 (P 0 97' A3 STARR-VIEJO sb 1506 0 (2) f) @ 129' A4 LOWER SANTIAGO CREEK 0. 0. 0 46.0. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . HI SUNSET BAY 160 Pk6JEHS H2 UPPER NEWPORT BAY ld 700 '-9 H3 DANA POINT HARBOR 0 CO, 200 jp Special Uses include: O.Wilderness Areas, 1).Aphith..ter., (.Botanical Gardens, d.Fishing Places, e.Shorelines PLATE Il 7'1 �41e�enme fn ` THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAP ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK