Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Parks Department File #2 - Miscellaneous Documents Refering
COMPARISON OF PARKS & OPEN SPACE AMONG ORANGE COUNTY CI-::ES City of Santa Ana r1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it Acres In Average Total City Parks & O.S. Developed Undeveloped Acquisition City Standard Average Development Land City Population. Acres In Acres Per 1000 Aces Acres FY 1972-73 Acres Per 1000 Acquisition Cost Per � Ik :icatacr Parks & O.S. Population Parks (Open Space Not in Col:3 Population Cost Per Acre Acre I P,eau:rc-.ent Lana or Anaheim 286,200 400 2.14 230 170 10 1.5 $21,000.GO fee (1) (2) No lane Led; Santa Aza 170,000 321.85 1.89 240.35 81.5 36.0 2.0 $15,102.31 S15,379.67 fee i5 rcy. - 5.0 acres Huntington Bch. 1;3 SGO 482.0 3.36 338.0 144.0 SS 5.0 27 501.00 $17,666.00 la:d Geci. Land Or Garden Grove 122,500 125.0 0.34 104.0 21.0 0 1.6 : fee No land Dec; Fullerton 9C UCH 96.0 1.08 79.8 18.2 10 4.0 fee is rez. No land Dew; Oranae 84,000 117.0 1.4 70.0 47.0 26 4.0 35 000.00 S30,000,QQ 'ee is re 2.5 acres; Costa Mesa 75,000 120.30 � 1.6 92.26 28.0 4.0 S40,000.00 S15,000,00 1zk-1 gee Lana. , We-stminster 1 64.550 47.5 0.73 45.4 2.1 15.0 2.0 S40,000.00 wee I No land Dec. Buena Paris 63,900 103.7 1.62 1.0 �e (3) :o Nerort Bch. 55,692 138.0 2.48 72.0 12.0 0.3 3.5 000.00 : ordinance { � Fee & land c.untai., valley 49,550 588.3 15.2 23.69 64.8 3.0 $30,000.00 S22.106.001 Ded. reg. La Habra 44,200 59.0 1.33 2.5 'ee tt Land-o C vress 35 500 53.2 1.5 4.0 1 fee I.an.] or Seal Beach 27,400 44.8 1.65 22.4 22.4 45.6 4.0 S75,900.00 S14,308.00 fee No ' Tustin 25,875 34.0 1.3 22.0 ILA 14.5 2.5 °36 800.00 S24 733.00 orAnance No Stanton 22,500 21.0 0.27 6.0 15.0 None None $15,000.00 or"c_---.ce -- 2; acre Des. area 21 500 36.0 1.67 4.0 $25,000 to 1 K.5 acre Trvine 20 157 17.9 ; 2.05 17.9 28.2 13.5 4.0 $27,000.00 15,000lGG la:d . - La:d 3a.^. Clemente 18,150 29.3 F-1-61 ie � 1,aauna Beach 15,050 39.6 2.63 4.0 fee� .� ,a Palma 12,375 Edison R/W 0.094 Edison R/W -- 22.1 Edison 4.0 $33,000.00 $17,026.00 Fey req. E R/W 4 2.0 a_ e es�lz_-nitas 12 250 &ei.03 6.88 60.53 25.50 1.4 2.0 (' � 72 � i la�- r_; s;ec 5a ::n Ca: ist. 7,400 19.0 2.43 7.0 ! 3•--7. ace La or ?lacent'a _ 22,750 46.0 1.3 33.4 12.6 40.0 4.0 $16,000.0011 0 `c= i.anc. Or Yc,r';- nda 15 800 25.0 T.59 4.0 villa Par:{ � 3,700 Zero -- -- -- None Includes 32.75 Acres under develogneat; to be completed 1973 (3) Plus 224 Acres of Ocear. & Say Beaches (Regional.Faciiitips Ib be purchase 1973 q ._.__•.(.)_Proposed for lease & d (development (future) ` C5) 1:yOudeS"bile 5que-e"(VVW RegLOKAt NvYk _ •` _ "` 4/70 FHuntington C4 � Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 March 27 , 197 R F-.i TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission TO:--le --------- RE : COMMUNITY PARK SITE LOCATION O'6`00 ATTN: David D . Rowlands , City Administrator Gentlemen: The Planning Commission at their March 21 , 1972 meeting unanimously voted to oppose acquisition of the proposed 11 . 54 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Garfield Avenue and west of the Edison easement for community park purposes . 6 S`°� It is felt that a community park site at that location will not serve the best interests of Huntington Beach and that investigation should be made into acquiring the 2 . 7 acre parcel south of K-Mart , on the west side of Magnolia Street and south of Garfield Avenue . This parcel could be combined with the proposed high school site , Edison easement and perhaps K-Mart' s parking lot . The current proposal to acquire the 11 . 54 acre parcel combined with 14 acres of Edison easement will result in a 25 . 54 acre park in addition to the high school site . It was noted that a neighborhood park site will be provided on the existing Newland Elementary School Site and will be developed under a joint powers agreement between the city and school district . Respectfully submitted, K. A . Reynolds Secretary KAR: sen Encl : Map II I,l FGARFIELD AVE. �—Jii cP LA > _j DO DEAMILLE DR. LAU 21 CF-R PER CR 54 AC *A ELG CF—E PARK FIELD CR T DR SITE LDR CPU GRANT DR PARKS—T I HAYES CR F C -E A- DANBURY CR TYLER CR w X., PROPOSED HIGH P LK CR Z MJELF-5113. C;R, C SCHOOL 'j YORKTOWN AVE ALBATROSS DR I F ANCHORAGE DIR E CR HT f!NG:C'N 0 CAL CR Al CR CF-E BREAKERS DR. DOLPHIN DR SUN CR AL CR IF; CR CLIPPER OR -j z 0 Lu Do ADAMS AVE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A 0 HUNTINGTON IFACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING K". H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION wq� HUNTINGTON BEACH � w O To Mr. F . G. Belsito From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director City Administrator Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING GROUP Date July 12 , 1976 CAMPING FEES IN PARKS The following proposed ordinance is hereby transmitted to you and the City Council for consideration to charge organized youth groups for overnight camping in Lake Park, Farquhar Park, Huntington Central Park and Sims' Grove. The specific amount of charge will be determined by a subsequent resolution if the ordinance is approved. : Norm thy, Di ector Recreation, Parks and Human Services . C'� NW: ac V' E. D J U L 1 u 1976 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFIC \� rU} r CITY OF HUNTINGTON SEAL V hill N�� ! 1 �97 UAWDINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ((��f7�, S 1 BF HUNTINGTON BEACH VI(' 0), t-��,���'�,1t1�7-Ftll 1 '� ,`• :1�3F To Honorable Mayor & City Council From Recreation & Parks Commission Attn: David D. Rowlands , City Administrator Subject Adventure Playground, Days , Date November 13, 1975 Hours of Operation; Insurance Cost Analysis Attached, is a copy of a letter dated November 5 , 1975, from Roger Shears of Occidental Life Insurance Co. underwriter of Adventure Playground for Jones, Gillespi, and Goppert, insurance agents for the City. The letter from Mr. Shears to Mr. Belsito was in response to City Counci.l 's request to investigate the potential savings in insurance premium for. Adventure. Playground should the City elect to close the playground -aft'er school during the fall , winter, and spring. He indicated potential savings of 10% ($650) of our yearly $6, 500 premium could be achieved if we limited our activity to weekends and summer only. He emphasized, however , that a hazard would still exist during the week-days from tres- passers and felt the 10% savings would not be worth the risk. The Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the proposal and in light of the continued play value received in "Adventure Play- ground" by the participants , they justified the additional cost . Since a 10� charge has been in effect during after-school hours , staff projects an income of approximately $310 for the school year which -would be lost if the playground were closed during the week. RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner Rudy Lozano moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Council that we continue the current hours of operation for Adventure Playground: 3- 5 p.m. Tuesdays through Fridays ; 11 a.m. - 5 p .m.. Saturdays ; closed Sundays ; open Mondays to special groups and the admission fees of 25¢ for full days and 10� after school also be retained to help offset the insurance premium. Motion seconded by Mr. Turner. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, _ v Norm -Worthy, Secret ry Recreation & Parks Commission NW:ac cc: Recreation & Parks Commission The City Center 8 City Blvd.,East,l4o Fin.. :ial Centre Orange,California 92668 True unjeri,•a (nrpurution' sss-o114 and 6j4-4see 11 Decide I Wo of California o - P{. Al 0i t November 5, 1975 10ra 7 Mr. Dud Belsito ; City Manager r: City of tluntinrton Beach Main Street Huntington beach, California Dear Bud: This letter will confirm our phone conversation regarding the dates of coverage for Adventure Playground, Policy :Number XCA016254, with the dates of coverage for. Saturdays and Sundays and the beginning of summer recession, June 11 to September 13, 1976, those dates inclusive. T wish to warn you that there is still an existing Hazard during the Monday through Friday periods, ` such as invitees and trespassers; entering' into Adventure Playground on those dates other than the summer session, thus a 10y discount savings might not be in the City's hest interests. Kind re arils, Roper rs RS:1 k f)� Fi CITE' Or lii" lih(JILN oL;---11 i • CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH J� P.O. BOX 190, CALIFORNIA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. (714) 536-5271 V in TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 04 FROM: Planning Department ATTN: David D. Rowlands, City Administrator DATE: November 13 , 1975 RE: OAKVIEW AND OLDTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Under the umbrella of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 , the Oakview and Oldtown Community Development projects combined are one of nine projects of the City' s first year Community Development Program. As originally outlined in the City' s Housing and Community Development Application, the Department of Housing and Urban Development approved a $460 ,000 entitlement in June of 1975 . Of this total, $100, 000 was appropriated towards a park and/or community center for the Oakview and Oldtown neighborhoods. In an effort to further define the project proposals and deter- mine the assessed needs of the residents, the City staff pre- pared questionnaires and surveys as well as conducted a series 13 of community meetings with residents of the project areas. Through the initial process of direct citizen input, the Planning Staff with the assistance of the Recreation, Parks and Human Resources Department and other City Staff formulated the project proposals. Contained within the Oakview and Old- town documents is a complete description of the proposed projects. In summary, the project proposals consist of equally dividing the $100, 000 entitlement towards providing two separate recreational facilities in the Oldtown- and Oakview neighborhoods. The Oldtown project consists of applying $50, 000 towards the physical improvement of a two acre lease site located at the northwest corner of Utica and Florida Streets. Intended to be used as a neighborhood recreational activity area, the project includes the following items: 1. Improvement of the softball field 2 . improvement of the playground equipment area 3. Provisions for a picnic area 4. Construction of woodwall handball courts 5. Construction of a basketball court 6. Miscellaneous landscaping and chain link fencing Oakview & Oldtown Community Development Projects r Page Two Regarding the Oakview proposal, the project consists of pro- viding a 3000sq. ft. trailer unit structure to be located on the existing Oakview Elementary School site property. The proposed structure is intended to be used as a Community Service Center that will provide a wide range of recreational and social- human services for both youth and adult needs. Additionally, the proposal includes provisions to partially furnish the facility and landscape the grounds. It is the staff' s belief that both projects are reflective of the expressed desires and immediate needs of the area residents. Both project proposals were reviewed and recommended for approval by the Recreation and Parks Commission at their regular meeting of November 12 , 1975. The Planning Department recommends that the City Council approve the projects as submitted. Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Harlow, Director Planning and Environmental Resources RAH-:ARM:gc Enclosures: 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 Odd Town and Oak View Project: Date November ,13 , 1975 Housing and Community Develop- ment Funds The Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the proposals for expenditure of $100, 000 of Housing and Community Development Funds ($50 , 000 at Oak View School site and $50 ,000 at Old Town park site) as prepared by the City Planning staff with input from the citizens of these 'respective neighborhoods and pertinent city- staff members . RECOMMENDATION: Upon motion by Pair. Tom Cooper, the Recreation and Parks Commission recommended the City Council accept the proposals for expenditure of $100 , 000 of Housing and Community Development Funds at Old Town park site and Oak View school site as submitted by the City Planning staff and endorsed by the Recreation and Parks staff. Mrs . Betty Kennedy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, orm Worthy, Secre ary Recreation $ Parks Commission NW:ac cc: Recreation & Parks Commission Ed Selich, Planning Department 0 � Huntington Beach Design Review BoardVl7 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 TO : Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Design Review Board DATE: January 9 , 1975 RE: Robinwood Little League Use of the Marina Park Site DR #73-15 Annual Review ATTN: Mr . David D . Rowlands , City Administrator Per City Council directive , the Design Review Board annually reviews the use of Marina Park site by the Robinwood Little League . Based on information obtained from the Recreation and Parks Depart- ment , construction of the Marina Park is tentatively scheduled to begin after the Little League baseball season is over . The baseball season will begin on April 12 and end in the last week of June 1975 . Consequently, the Design Review Board approved the above extension of use of the park site by the Robinwood Little League . The Board recommends approval of the extension of use by Your Honorable Body . b Respectfully submitted, 4W M;:�^ Al Montes DRB Secretary AM/s cc Richard Harlow, Planning and Environmental Resources Director Norm Worthy , Recreation and Parks Director Chris W. Snapp , Robinwood Little League President STATEMF OF THE ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall j= . Huntington Beach, California Monday, December 10, 1973 Mayor Matney called the regular adjourned meeting of the City . Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:00 P.M. Councilmen Present: Shipley Green, Coen, Matney Councilmen Absent: Bartlett, Gibbs, Duke EXTENSION OF USE - MARINA PARK SITE - ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE - APPROVED The City Clerk presented a communication from the Design Review Board recommending that Council grant the Robinwood Little League a one year extension of use of the Marina Park site. Per Council directive, the Design Review Board annually reviews the use of the park site ,by the Robinwood Little League, however, action was delayed pending completion of the park construction time-table by the Recreation and Parks Department. On motion by Green, Council approved a one year extension of use to September, 1974 by the Robinwood Little League of the Marina Park Site. The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Green, Coen, Matney NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Bartlett, Gibbs, Duke On motion by Shipley the regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned at 9 :30 P.M. to Mondaay., Dec. 1973 at _ 5@30 P.M. in the Administrative Annex The motion was passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shipley, Green, Coen, Matney _ NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Bartlett Gibbs Duke Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City ATTEST: of Huntington Beach, California. Alicia M. Wentworth .Terry A. Matney City Clerk Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) -" 1, ALIG:Uk M. WENTWORTH, the duly appointed, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular adjourned meeti*gg held on the loth day of December 19 73 WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 14th day of December_, 19 73 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ±BY -�a Deputy 0 Huntington Reach Design Review Board P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 nrr <<�E'IVEO .iY.1,5 F TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IIIiHTi r .-EiACH C LIF FROM: Design Review Board DATE: November 8, 1973 RE: Robinwood Little League 14. Pil a S ATTN: City Administrator City Clerk Per City Council directive the Design Review Board annually reviews the use of Marina Park site by the Robinwood Little League. This usually occurs in September, however, action was delayed pending resolution of the park construction time- table by the Recreation and Parks Department. It is our understanding that the park will be developed at the conclusion of the 1974 little league seas4ah. At the meeting of November 7, 1973, the Board approved the extension of use by the Robinwood Little League for one year, to September 1974 . A letter encouraging continued maintenance of the facilities has been sent to Robinwood. The Board recommends approval of this extension by Your Honorable Body. GoA�l.,Gt�` Resp tfully submitted, �� C,i 1�\ Al Montes Secretary AM:sp np NOV 141973 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFF'�� A� • Huntington Beach Design Review Board PJAN .O. BOX 180 CALIFORNIA 92648 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Design Review Board DATE: November 8, 1973 RE: Robinwood Little League ATTN: City Administrator City Clerk Per City Council directive the Design Review Board annually reviews the use of Marina Park site by the Robinwood Little League. This usually occurs in September, however, action was delayed pending resolution of the park construction time- table by the Recreation and Parks Department. It is our understanding that the park will be developed at the conclusion of the 1974 little league season. At the meeting of November 7, 1973, the Board approved the extension of use by the Robinwood Little League for one year, to September 1974. A letter encouraging continued maintenance of the facilities has been sent to Robinwood. The Board recommends approval of this extension by Your Honorable Body. Respegjtfully submitted, Al Montes Secretary AM:sp 1% . ' I F a. COPY November 6, 1964 Mr . William Stevens 6931 Canterbury Circle Huntington Beach, Calif. Re: Baseball Diamond, Robinwood Little League- Peck Estate Dear Mr. Stevens: You may enter and take possession of the property requested by you to be used as a baseball diamond for the Robinwood Little League, subject to the following- conditions : (1) After the City of Huntington Beach receives your insurance policy in which the City of Huntington Beach and the Peck Estate are named as additional insured. (2) Inasmuch as the property involved is being paid for by the taxpayers of the City for use as a public park it is agreed that you will remove your facilities and abandon the property immediately at the time the taxpayers and citizens desire the use of this property for public park purposes. Please sign and return a copy of this letter at your earliest convenience. SEAL Attest : Paul C. Jones City Clerk S/Donald D. Shipley, Mayor Cityof Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach S/William Stevens Robinwood Little League ` �esher 6� 1NS� Mr. sillier Stevens, A031 .4ncwrbury Cirale Wuntin[ton Bewoh, C14111. Res Baseball Oi*nand-Robi emood Little League - Peck. ¢stet• Door Mr. ste+ensI ion way enter and take rossession of the prop- erty requested br you to be Wised on. * Baseball Di 1—4 for the Beblsrood Little League, subject to the follow tad oo-dttiaose 1. Atte1 the City of Maeting"a Beach reoeiees your in- ewr wee policy is vh i ch the City of Run t inSMe Mesas am the loot Estate ere Issued as e+.itional Insured. 2. Sae soMM as the property insured to being paid for by the taxpayers of the City for use as s public pert, it is sdreed thet you will remove our foeil- Sties one abandon the property iwMistely, et the time the texpaysrs and eltisene desire the use of this property for p9blie part purposes. noose sign end return a copy of this letter at your eorlieet oon•entones. CITY OF NUBTINOTOif a"=. ATTLMs Voity 94MR01I D LITtLt ty iam stowwas . �'�-"'� • OFFICIALS DOYLE MILLER oE�uNTIN6T�N�A ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BRANDER D. CASTLE G' SISTANT ADMINISTRATOR y CITY OF (�i(/[f/Z r/(iVV11/ V DAMES R. WHEELER ------------------_---------------------- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS L- ¢ CALIFORNIA FRANK B. ARGUELLO P. �' BOX 9O FINANCE DIRECTOR �' ���ie`Oe•P `O 92648 • �` HOWARD ROBIDOUX POLICE CHIEF DELBERT G. HIGGINS COUNCILMEN FIRE CHIEF DONALD D. SHIPLEY. MAYOR VINCENT G. MOORHOUSE ERNEST H. GISLER October 19, 1964 LIFEGUARD CHIEF ROBERT M. LAMBERT OLLIN C. CLEVELAND JAKE R. STEWART BUILDING DIRECTOR THOMAS H. WELCH WILLIS C. WARNER PLANNING DIRECTOR PAUL C. JONES EDWARD R. STANG CITY CLERK WATER SUPERINTENDENT JAMES D. PLUNKETT CITY ATTORNEY BETTY DIEKOFF TREASURER To the City Council, of the City of Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: In regard to the possibility of the use by the little league a piece of property which has been donated by Senator Murdy to the City. Please be advised as to the following: 1) I have contacted Senator Murdy and he seems to be agreeable to the use, providing that there is adequate insurance, and that he is held harmless to liability. 2) Also, Senator Murdy is somewhat concerned about the execution, because he says that they have a way of becoming permanent. In other words, I think that the Senator is concerned about the ultimate use and the city under the particular piece of property concerned. At any rate, Senator Murdy said that he would discuss the matter with us soon and try and map off a place that can be used. This is not to say that he has, as yet in fact, given consent. We will try to make a future report at the next council meeting. Submitted also is a separate letter to me from William D Moore, who is the attorney for the Peck Estate now under condemnation proceedings for the City. It is self-explanitory. Very truly yours, .i' JAMES D. PLUNKETT City Attorney JDP: jp LAW OFFICES OF O'M ELVENY & MYERS 433 SOUTH SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90013 TELEPHONE 620-1120 BEVERLY HILLS OFFICE CABLE ADDRESS"MOMS" 9601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD BEVERLY HI LLS,CALIFORNIA 90210 Sept. TELEPHONE 273-4111 EUROPEAN OFFICE 17th12,RUE HAMELIN 1 PARIS 16•,FRANCE 7 TELEPHONE PASSY 13-39 OUR FILE NUMBER 273,730-13 James D. Plunkett, Esq. 412 Olive Avenue Huntington Beach, California Re City of Huntington Beach v. Dorothy T. Peck, et al. Dear Mr. Plunkett,;-- This will confirm our recent phone conversa- tion regarding the above-entitled condemnation action. We represent the owners of the parcels sought to be condemned. However, there have been some changes regarding the proper names and capacities of the persons who appear of record as owners. Mrs. Peck has recently remarried and her full name is Dorothy Thayer Peck Flynn. Individually she owns an undivided one-fourth interest in the parcel. She is also trustee under the will of Aldrich Peck as to an undivided one-fourth interest. Title Insurance and Trust Company has been replaced as co-trustee by Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association. Mrs. Flynn. and the Bank of America are co-trustees of the Carrie A. Peck Trust as to an undivided one-half interest in the property. Charles H. Thatcher, formerly a co-trustee, has resigned. If it is necessary to answer the com- plaint, these changes will be appropriately set forth. As you know, I am attempting to have the #2 - James D. Plunkett, Esq. - 9-17-64 parcel appraised with the hope that we may be able to agree upon the fair market value. Your coopera- tion is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, William D. Moore for O'MELVENY & MYERS WDM:dp LAW OFFICES OF U O•M ELVENY & MYERS 433 SOUTH SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90013 TELEPHONE e20-1120 ■MCRLY MILLS OFFICE CABLE ADORES 4"MOMS" 9601 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS.CAL-ORNIA 00210 TELEPHONE 273-4III EUROPEAN OFFICE October 12.RUC HAMELIN 14thPA RIS IB•.ERANCE TELEPHONE PASTY 13.30 1 9 6 4 OUR TILE NUMBER 273,730-12 James D. Plunkett, Esq. City Attorney City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California 92646 Re City of Huntington Beach v. Dorothy T. Peck, et al . Dear Mr. Plunkett ; This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 6, 1964, regarding the use of the property to be condemned in this action for the Robinwood Little League. I have not had an opportunity to check with the owner or the trustees regarding your request . ?-however, in all likelihood, they would permit the use of the property for this purpose. This would raise some serious problems regarding any prospective liability on behalf of the property owner. May I suggest, therefore, that we might arrange to give the City of Huntington Beach immediate possession coupled with a hold-harmless clause from the City to the property owner. In this manner the City could make whatever improve- ments it wished with regard to a baseball diamond (or other park purposes ) and at the same time my clients would be relieved from prospective property owner ' s liability. We have retained Stan Goode of Santa Ana to give us a preliminary appraisal on this property. He advised me that -he has done considerable work for the City. Since our respective clients each have the utmost confidence in Stan ' s judgment and inte~rity, do you think it possible to retain ,jointly Mr. Goode for the purpose of appraisal, each party agreeing to be bound by his figure? I have not discussed #2 - James D. Plunkett, Esq. - 10/14/0-4 this with my clients as yet, but I feel certain that they would be willing to enter into such an arrangement . This would certainly simplify the money and time problems involved. Please advise me of your thoughts on this matter. Very truly yours, William D. Moore for O 'MELVENY & NYERS WDM:dp I - J June 7 , 1972 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney Ra SUBJECT : Edison Park Project S At the request of the City Administrator, the attached resolution is transmitted for adoption approving the application for land and water conservation funds for the Edison Park project . Respectfully submitted, DON P . BONFA City Attorney /er Attachment CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 73-67 COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Members Subject RESOLUTION 3699 Date May 30 , 1973 MEDIAN FAIR MARKET VALUE- NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Resolution No . 3699 establishes a new median fair market value of land at our neighborhood parks for the purpose of determining the amount of fee required to be paid in lieu of dedication of land by subdividers for development. The median fair market value has now been determined to be $33,076 per acre based on a recent appraisal of all neighborhood parks within the City. This figure represents an increase over the previous median fair market value of $31 ,562 per acre. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No699 'stablishing a median fair market value for ne. 3 ghbo -ho��od parks to be $33,076 per acre. Respectfully submitted, V", A c?.--V� David D. Rowlands City Administrator DDR/b j s 30 May 1973 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT : Fair Market Value of Land in Neighborhood Public Parks At the request of the City Administrator, we transmit resolution changing the fee per acre for land in all neighborhood public parks, based on a recent valuation, from $31,562 to $33 ,076 per acre . Respectfully submitted, DON P . BONFA City Attorney /ahb ch- July 25, 1973 3 3 3 s i� 1 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney. SUBJECT: Resolution. Authorizing the Purchase of the Holtz Easement Portion of the Yorktown Community Park At the request of the City Administrator and the Finance Director, we transmit herewith a resolution authorizing the purchase of 6. 07 acres of property for the sum of. $20,000. to be used for the Yorktown Community Park facility . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPBylm Attachment CITY- OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76-138 COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH To . Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito , City Council Members City Administrator Subject GROUP CAMPING IN SELECTED Date August 31 , 1976 CITY PARKS (RESOLUTION #4302) The Recreation, Parks and Human Services Department has prepared Resolution No. 4302 which will institute a $ . 50 per night per indi- vidual charge for group overnight camping 'at Lake Park, Farquhar Park, 'Huntington Central Park and Sim' s Grove. A $1 . 00 charge per vehicle per night will also "be instituted. The establishment of this fee , which must be prepaid at the time of registration, is expected to provide. approximately $5000 in revenue. Because the department cur- rently has a park ranger operating in Huntington. Central Park, there will be supervision available on weekends as well as a cross-check to determine if adequate fees have been paid. A similar .arrangement will be established for all other group camping facilities offered in the city. However, there will not , be an increase in cost to the city associated with this supervision. This resolution will only deal with group camping and individuals will still be prohibited from utilizing the park areas . Those indi- viduals who are allowed to camp in the parks under" the regulations established by the Recreation, Parks and Human Services Department are considered to be attending an organized community activity as established in the Municipal Code and will therefore be expected to conform to both department rules and the City Code while camping. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 4302 establishing fees for use of certain city parks as camping facilities . Respectfully submitted, Floyd Belsito , City Administrator. FGB :p Attachment M • CA OF HUNTINGTON MACH ADMINISTRATIVE COMMUNICATION NUNTINCTON MACH Honorable Mayor and City Council Members To Recreation and Parks From Tom Severns , Director of Commission Environmental. Resources .David D. Rowlands Subject City Administrator Date February 8, 1973 PROJECT DESIGN AND BID STATUS - NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS The park bids to be opened January 29th were readvertised due to inconsistencies in the soil amendment section. Bids will be opened on February 20th and it is anticipated that Council will award construction contracts that date . There are eight parks involved in the bid process and two additional will be built by a developer at cost. All construction should be completed within four to six months . The parks up for bid are : a. 860 (Golden View) b . 910 (Marine View) C. 915 (Haven View) d. 830 (no name) e . 875 (Burke) f. 880 (Sowers) g. 945 (Talbert) h. Edison Community Park The parks to be constructed by developer are: a. 705 (Greer Annex) b . 930 (Glen View) i Tom Severns TS:eh 3 �` x U �• C OF HUNTINGTON ACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HI\IIV61(A'HIM 11 - - TD Mr. David D. Rowlands,. City From Recreation & Parks Commission Administrator & City Council Sui,jec" Park Name recommendations Date November 19, 1973 At the November 14 meeting of the Recreation and Parks. Commission upon motion by Mr. Scott Flanagan they unanimously recommended to the City Council that park sectors of Huntington Central Park and four neighborhood parks be named as follows: No. Park Inventory Suggested Name 765 Huntington Central Park Huntington Central Park 1) Fenced. compound $ nature building Donald D. Shipley Nature Center 2) 13 acre lake west of Golden West Huntington Lake 3) 20 acre lake east of Golden West Thomas B.' Talbert Lake , 4) Area east of Library $ Talbert Lake Alvin M. Coen Group Campground 5) Area between Edwards $ Huntington Lake Henry A. .Kaufman Play. Ctr. & Picnic Area " 6) Area north of Talbert Lake Jack*4 Green Nature Observation & Play 7) Trail system west of Golden West Norma Brandel Gibbs Trail Ctr. " 8) Trail system east of Golden West Henry H. Duke Trail 9) Area north of Huntington Lake George M. McCracken Meadow & P1ay. Ctr. 10) Gothard Hill Jake R. Stewart Viewpoint Picnic Area 11) Mesa west of Golden West Jerry A. Matney Mesa. . 830 South of Atlanta, east of Bushard Roy Seabridge Park 895 Taylor Street WEst of Beach Victor Terry Park 93S North 'of Ellis, West of Newland Robert M. Lambert Park 970 North of Adams, East of Beach Ted W. Bartlett Park R ectfully submitted, ort Py, Secr a -. -- Recreation & Parks 11an v nY' sCj.,ry COUNCIL NW:ac. . _.................. 9.� Attachments -----------------------np _ L N O'v CITY OF HUNTiNGTON BUi Cill ADMINISTRATIVE O('r;M - AN YA 29. March 1971 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Relating to the Purchase of Certain Land At the request of the office of the City Administrator, I submit for your consideration a proposed resolution relating to the purchase of certain land from the Getty Oil Company for park site purposes . Respectfully submitted, DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:WM: lm Attachment �" 1 J. Huntington Beach Design Review Board P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 February 22, 1972 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Design Review Board RE : Shade Structure for Arevalos Park ATTN : Brander Castle Acting City Administ ator ,.a"' Paul Jones, City Clerk Presentation to be coordinated by the D.evelopm Coordinator. At its regular meeting of February 9, 1972, the Design Board reviewed the design by three Design Teams from Golden West College and APPROVED the shade structure presented by Project Architect Greg Benton. The first presentation was made by Project Architect Ben Antel : The members of this design team were Cliff Peininger, Tim Hulme , and Greg Henss. With respect to this design, the Board had the following comments : 1. This design was the most imaginative. 2. The dominance of the roof design may be in conflict with the design of the school . 3. The roof structure was well designed to exhaust air. The second presentation was made by Project Architect Pat Beasely : The members of this team were Martin Harvey, Fred Glover, and Eric Mossman. With respect to this design, the Board had the following comments : 1 . The smoke stack needs to be a stronger design element: possibly more mass and the use of bright color. 2. Pat shows a lot of promise in his ability to illustrate three dimensions in drawing; this is a basic prerequisite. 3. The use of skip—trowel stucco and consideration for existing structures was commended by the Board. The third presentation was made by Project Architect Greg Benton: The members of this team were Al Blank, Larry Martin, and Doug Evers. With respect to this design, the Board had the following comments: 1 . There was more flexibility in this design with the use of . three firepits instead of one . 2. The use , honesty, and low maintenance of materials was commended by the Board. 'p, .-:. �i► February 22, 1972 Shade Structure for Arevalos Park Page 2 With respect to all three designs, the Board had the following comments: 1 . The three designs were well done and they all met the need : The choice was difficult. 2. The three presentations were professionally executed. 3. It was hoped that this program would be ongoing, in view of the benefits to the City and College. approval of Greg Benton's design The Design Board recommends/by your Honorable Body. Respec su 'mitted, ober _ e Vas ez Don Hartfelder Secretary Chairman 2. ---------------03 n N I1N00 ----------------------- a31N34 03A0HddV NIV SSV Huntington Beach Design Review Board - � 1N3J8V • ✓ S30N P.O. BOX 190 CALIF RNIA 926 ------------------------------ S3,kV May 3, 1971 �A��, -------------------------CN003s O �� - NOIlOW 4 4- c;. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �` r FROM: Design Review Board `ter, ATTN: City Administrator �� -�. 1� City Clerk RE: Graphics/Edison Community Park f �r,;•.- At its regular meeting of April 22, 1971, the Design Board noted, that Edison Community Park will require graphics of such a quantity that they should be coordinated by one firm. The Board suggested that the firm of Blurock and Partners be contracted to do the graphics for all the requirements of Edison Community Park. The Design Board recommends approval by your Honorable Body. Respe lly submitted, 0 obert-Joe Va quez J. Don Hartfelder Secretary Chairman I ,ko Huntington Beach Design Review Board I-N3SsV NIA.!), .N9ox 190 CALIFORNIA 926 .....-•--r_...-- y 3, 1971 ---------------...- ONo03S TO- HONORABLE MAYOR AND C M COUNCIL FROM: Design Review Board ATTN—. City Administrator City Clerk E: Graphics/Edison Community Park At its regular meeting of April 22, 1971, the Design Board noted that Edison Community Park will require graphics of such a quantity that they should be coordinated by one firm. The Board suggested that the firm of Blurock and Partners be contracted to do the graphics for all the requirements of Edison Community Park. 'The Design Board recommends approval by your Honorable Body. Respe lly submitted, t r t obert-Joe Va uez J. Don Hartfelder fSecretary Chairman 4�- T C 7� 0 3 O Cr 0 and T V O 7 m a s 0 y OAKVIEW COMMUNITY CENTER community development project no. 75 8A september. 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 1 1. 2 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1 1. 3 THE EXISTING OAKVIEW YOUTH FACILITY 5 1. 4 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 5 1. 5 FORMULATING THE FINAL PROJECT PROPOSAL 6 SECTION TWO: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2. 1 INTRODUCTION 9 2. 2 THE PROJECT PLAN 11 SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION 3. 1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION 13 3. 2 PROJECT WORK PROGRAM 14 APPENDIX section 1 introduction SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Intent and Purpose of the Project The proposed Oakview Community Center project is a City community development project funded under the Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 . Combined with the Oldtown Community Development project, it is part of one of nine projects outlined in the City' s first year application for HCD funds (see Figure 1-1) . The proposed project is intended to provide a community multi-use center in the Oakview area (see vicinity map Figure 1-2) . The project is intended to help alleviate existing neighborhood youth and family problems and to meet the urgent needs of the area resi- dents. 1. 2 Scope of the Project The scope of the project consists of providing a 3000 square foot trailer complex to accommodate various activities, programs, and human social services that will meet both youth and adult needs. The center will be located on the existing Oakview Elementary School property (see Figure 1-3 Project Area Map) . lipAIM HF NTINGTOS BF.\CH HOL-I\G \ND CVAINIL MI N DE\F.LOP\IE',T PRO(:H A'1 First Year Communitc De%elopment Program Communiti Center or Park Facility and Programs Wheel Chair Senior Citizen Projects For Depressed areas For Handicapped Ramp Installation Oak%ie%and/or Old Town Phase I �cistance to Orange Count} (:itizen Participation Community.analysis Lp_-rade Substandard ReioMu+^Fund- Housing_Authority: Program for�e�,nu1 - Project—(:itc Nide Rater Facilities: For Lot f=nn=nlidation Year fWD \Pplication Hoirir4•Assistance Inspection Program Phase 1(Townlot/Oldto%n) Plan No.One Figwg 1.1 ................. .......... BOLSA _ _ �.. MW10DEL1 4..<.,<....e«.o..u...........:,..,,.,..<...,.:,.,....,.,._...,.:..,.,».....•..•.............. E..........�.....�............•-•.......,.._..e+,.�...•-..., EDNG6t is .. ........... ...... ................... ....... HEB 5j ..vr.. ,�•ew,,.,,. :.:.ww...p;eo<oroww:c. ..r+vw'• mma�u�,wo. c:<+o� WNp®I OAKV EW-ym k, ti 5 i � r, ..... SLAnR ........... TALBERT ._ ....._....: .__........F ELLS s r GARFIELD t 3 < ........ ........... -.... ......-.... y ...-.---..-..-. PORK TOWN 1} OLDTOW1 . E S ADAMS "''..,�`[. fir.`. t ..............A............ ._. t ........ INDIANAPOLIS ATLANTA • `�\. ................... AMLTON e '...J:."1 \..,. ♦ �........................ BANNING Figure 1.2 <. ; it in Vicinity Map huntington beach planning department IL - A O C F C O CO- 4. o L WARNER `� I AV E lil I - FIR DR. C. AVE CF-E I NIII I:::•;ii:i::.:Ili!:I: ;1<:I I.:�.r:i I , :-..-I. J P .-._ .. ` _-__ Y CF-R I�M�E�PS-EII-L��LE};I---'��' I- [DAP IE u I i -- — CF-E -- MANptELL I DR PROJECT SITE - -- , --- --- - OUII I C F-C -- - BARTON DP _- -- -- HOLLAND_ - I I -- - - z z > i z w D�=a�]x AVE IN SLAYER silid I I LIBERTY i AVE NEW. rr 1. 1 fit�; t�� Illl��llll 1 1 1.�: 1.:i. RONALD Figure 1.3 AN . Project Area Map huntington beach planning department The structure will be designed to accommodate a wide range of recreational, counseling, educational, health and other social human services and activities. 1. 3 . A Word About the Existing Oakview Youth Facility Presently serving the project area residents is the City' s Oakview Youth Center. An existing 20 ' x 55 ' trailer currently houses the various youth programs offered by the center. Under the direction of the Recreation and Parks Department, the center has been in operation since July of 1974 . It provides various youth recreation programs, adult education classes, adult and youth counseling and rap sessions, overall community involvement and awareness activities and a number of other functions. Indicative of a recent budget allotment increase, the youth center is continually expanding its scope and is in the process of initiating a wider range of both youth and adult activities. However, the present facility is somewhat limited in space and function. Intended to be used primarily for youth activities , the existing Oakview trailer is too small for the expanded range of programs planned for the center. The types of programs and the number of people that would need to be accommodated are beyond the trailer' s size. Because of. the trailer' s physical constraints , existing programs must be staggered to avoid crowding and conflicting youth and adult activities. Due to close quarters , noise generated from high activity functions is a nuisance to more passive type programs. 1. 4 Needs Assessment As implied in the previous sub-section, the need for a larger facility is quite evident in order to meet the assessed needs of the project area. Based on an assessment of the project area needs conducted through surveys, questionnaires, and general community input, the following major items were identified: 1 . An adequate recreation facility for children of all ages, with various constructive and creative activities to keep them occupied. This would, of course, necessitate adequate personnel and equipment in order to have a successful program. 2 . Emergency food, clothing and referral services . 3 . Family, child, marriage , drug abuse and rehabilitation, problem pregnancy, runaway, legal and social welfare counseling. 5 4 . Adult education classes such as arts and crafts , furniture refinishing, ceramics, bookkeeping, shorthand, general math and U.S. history. Also, living with divorce, effective parent training, psychology, alcohol abuse and first aid. 5. A mediator to communicate with various agencies such as the police department, probation department, social welfare and others that the people come in contact with. These same agencies have also expressed their need for an effective connection to the community. 6 . Headquarters for free lunch programs. 7 . An expansion of knowledge concerning the service agencies outside the immediate area and resources available to the community. Also, trips to areas of interest and educational outings. Due to the project limitations of the HCD Act, not all of the above needs can be funded through the City' s Community Develop- ment Program. As outlined, the majority of the stated needs are in the areas of human social services and/or community programs. The emphasis of the HCD Act is towards physical im- provement projects; social needs are assigned secondary im- portance in that most of these social services are funded under other programs. Consequently, the Oakview Community Development Project Proposal provides the physical facility to house the various services and programs that may be formulated to meet the majority of the needs of the Oakview residents . Thus, it is- with this understanding that the project was structured and formulated as discussed in sub-section 1. 5. 1. 5 Formulating the Project Proposal In May of 1975, it was brought to the attention of the Oakview Advisory Committee that federal funds under the Community Development Program had been appropriated for the Oakview area. The Oakview Advisory Committee is a group of Oakview residents and City staff primarily concerned with the operations of the Oakview Youth Center and its neighborhood activities. It was explained to the committee that seemingly $50, 000 is to be used to provide a new community center building for the Oakview residents. The remaining $50 ,000 is proposed to be used towards meeting the needs of the Oldtown area residents. Two types of structures were considered by the Oakview Committee : (1) a mobile home type facility and (2) a permanent structure. Because of the higher costs of providing a permanent structure , it was the consensus of the committee members to request the 6 acquisition of a mobile home type facility. . It was felt that the lesser cost of providing a mobile home type structure as opposed to a permanent structure would release portions of the $50, 000 towards purchasing furniture as well as landscaping the facility. An effort was made by City staff to further investigate all possibilities of various types of construction and determine the actual costs involved. A preliminary. floor plan of the center was drawn and various companies were contacted and requested to furnish general cost estimates. Excluding a mobile home type facility, the construction costs of any office type structure of approximately 3000 `square . feet would exceed $50,000. Estimates ranged from $51, 000 to $55,000 for a pre-engineered steel building to $60 ,000 for a modular unit type complex of 3000 square feet. The higher costs of constructing a permanent type structure eliminates the possibilities of purchasing furniture for the facility and/or landscaping the site. Regarding the acquisition of a commercial office trailer complex, estimates indicate that a structure of this nature could be purchased for approximately $35, 000 to $40, 000. Recognizing that a structure of this type is somewhat limited in design flexibility and appearance , and does not contain materials of the higher grade usually associated with a permanent type of struc- ture , it none the less can be provided at a reduced cost as compared to a permanent structure. Thus, the staff formulated the final project with the understanding that in order to provide a facility and furnish it as well as landscape it, all within the $50 ,000 entitlement, it would be necessary to pursue the acquisition of a mobile home type complex. Through the assistance of the Recreation and Parks Department, a schematic plan of the proposed center was provided to the Planning Department Staff. Approximately, 3000 square feet of floor area is needed to accommodate the following: (1) A large recreation room (2) Counseling rooms (3) A class room (4) A rap room (5) A kitchenette (6) Office (7) Restroom facilities Applying the above activity area needs, the staff formulated the final project plan as outlined in the following section (Section Two) . 7 section 2 general description of the project SECTION TWO: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2 . 1 Introduction The final project proposal consists of (1) construction of a com- munity center building, (2) partially furnishing the facility, and (3) landscaping the grounds. All three of the above tasks are intended to be accomplished within the $50 ,000 portion appropriated under the 1974 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Entitlement. A brief description of the project is outlined in the following sub-section. 2 . 2 The Project Plan At a cost of approximately $40, 000, a mobile trailer type facility shall be acquired. Encompassing approximately 3000 square feet, the facility shall consist of the following rooms: A. Recreation Room Intended to be used primarily for recreational activities and larger group functions, approximately 1500 square feet or half of the total area of the facility will be used for this purpose. 9 B. Counseling and Rat Rooms Approximately 500 square feet shall be provided for counseling and rap session rooms. Individual and group discussions and counseling functions and other services could be conducted. Three or four rooms could be used for this purpose. C. Class- Room One large class room of approximately 220 square feet shall be set aside for youth and adult educational and recreational functions. D. Kitchenette A small area shall be used for miscellaneous food preparation and service as well as storage. Approximately 80 to 100 square feet will be needed for this function. . . E. Office Office space of approximately 100 square feet shall be pro- vided for supervision. F. Restroom Facilities and Storage Both women and men'srestrooms shall be provided with the required amount of fixtures. A storage room shall also be provided for miscellaneous storage and maintenance . G. Miscellaneous Items Accessory items to be included in the interior of the facility are carpeting throughout, drapes, paneling where requested and other miscellaneous items. The facility shall also be adequately heated, insulated and fully serviced with utilities. Exterior wall treatment shall consist of a masonite type finish. Also, step-up porches; pads and an entryway ramp shall be provided for the handicapped. Furniture and Landscaping The facility will be partially furnished and landscaped accordingly with the remaining $10, 000. Estimates indicate that it will cost approximately $3 , 000 to landscape the facility. Hopefully, City crews may be able to conduct the work and thus reduce the labor costs somewhat. The remaining $7 , 000 to $8 ,000 will be totally absorbed towards purchasing furniture. Not all of the needed furniture can be acquired with this limited amount. However, cost estimates indicate that most of the basic furniture needs can be purchased for ap- proximately $7 , 000 to $9, 000. A preliminary floor plan of the proposed center is depicted in Figure 2 . 1. ACOL 10 .i i 4� 1 . .. 1 " a 2EC2EATION ROOM P02CP 1 .I 1 EXtT SERVICE COU10=2 — ;,. b�sra�t W Q _ SINK c COUNSELING OFFICE KITCHEN ^.ati5c C 7VEN Q - PE=. .N n ' PASSAGE r WOMEN I COUNSELING - RAP RM. al CLASS 2M. -` = OAk/VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER MEN COUNSELING COMMUNITY (DEVELOPMENT P20JECT NO.75-8A H x 0 2 4 6 8 10FT. - - - I'RI=L1 M! NARY FLOOR PLAN section 3 implementation SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES 3 . 1 City Review and Other Agency Approval The following steps will be taken in seeking approval of the proposed project. Step 1: Final Staff Review. A final staff review shall be afforded to all affected departments for their final input and recommendations. Step 2 : Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental documents shall be submitted to the City' s Environmental Review Board. Any additional information or description of the environmental impact of the project shall be provided on request by the ERB. Step 3 : Recreation and Parks Commission. The City' s Recreation and Parks Commission shall review the project proposal , make any necessary changes, and transmit its findings to the City Council. Step 4 : City Council Approval. The City Council shall have the Final review of the project proposal. It may set forth any modification or changes it deems necessary and in the best interest of the community. No official action is necessary. FIP 13 3 . 2 Project Work Program Upon receiving City Council approval, the City shall commence the bidding process towards the acquistion of the mobile home type facility. To assure an accurate bid submittal, final plans and specifications shall be provided to competing companies. It is anticipated that acquisition of furniture shall be pursued through the City' s Purchasing Department. Regarding the provisions of landscaping the facility, indications are that the work may be conducted by City Staff after plant material is acquired. Aft IFIP 14 ,tea S C m O 7 Cr 0 O S V C 7 m IL s O 1 y OAKVIEW COMMUNITY CENTER community development project no. 75 8A september 1975 r TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT 1 1. 2 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1 1. 3 THE EXISTING OAKVIEW YOUTH FACILITY 5 1. 4 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 5 1. 5 FORMULATING THE FINAL PROJECT PROPOSAL 6 SECTION TWO: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2. 1 INTRODUCTION 9 2. 2 THE PROJECT PLAN 11 SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION 3. 1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION 13 3. 2 PROJECT WORK PROGRAM 14 APPENDIX section 1 introduction SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Intent and Purpose of the Project The proposed Oakview Community Center project is a City community development project funded under the Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 . Combined with the Oldtown Community Development project, it is part of one of nine projects outlined in the City' s first year application for HCD funds (see Figure 1-1) . The proposed project is intended to provide a community multi-use center in the Oakview area (see vicinity map Figure 1-2) . The project is intended to help alleviate existing neighborhood youth and family problems and to meet the urgent needs of the area resi- dents. 1. 2 Scope of the Project The scope of the project consists of providing a 3000 square foot trailer complex to accommodate various activities , programs, and human social services that will meet both youth and adult needs. The center will be located on the existing Oakview Elementary School property (see Figure 1-3 Project Area Map) . lip AWL H(\TI\GTO\ RE lt:N HOL-;I\(, %%DCVNHL\IT)DECELOPNE\TPROGRAM First Ye" C,onuuumtc De.elopment Program T T Community Center or Park Wheel(hair Senior Citizen Projects For Depressed Areas Facility and Programs Ramp Installation OaWew and/or Old To%-n For Handicapped Phase I Vsistance to Orange Counh (:itizen Participation Commrmitr Analysis P Housing Authorih: l puade Substandard Re%okin^Fund= Pru:ram(or Second Project—Cith Wide hater Facilitie: For Lot Ctm=olidauon lear HCD 1pphcation Housing Assistance Inspection Program Phase I(To%Ttlot/Oldtown) Plan No.One Figtwa 1.1 a neeme�ceas.r.i,,. >.�y BOLSA 3 z A4F.ADDea e:,..»...ua.w.:.....,:......._.w..,,,.,. 3�_..,....,...,.,.;:................ ..:��..._.,.,,........_...,.,.......�.......�..�o-�....�.....-:H, EpRiO . ............................ E ......... ...... ........... ..... ...... ................. HE x B q¢ S WARP" OAKV EW--o- E ->♦ .`�5 I ............ .._... ....._......... _...._.-. SLAM q •••• TAIBHlT N. ELUS a Kyp� '4�r. .. ...... ..................,.:...:..�cao> >ruwv.,,..:...v. ... GARFIELD OLDTOWI \ \ EE.m ..: —4.., ADAMS '♦..,..�!.' E .....:........'............-. i ...i............ INDIANAPOLIS ` ^ ...................................:..........::...:::......... .....:.:.:..y�: „�.:. ATLANTA \. ! \ NAMLTON ....�„♦ \ ...♦ t.........................._ BANNING Figure 1.2 Rii RM VicinityM.;. ap huntington beach planning department Dann•,. v I�..(�/1�,. � I! D C r C D Ce- LZ-1- r� C3 CO ICI III( a I F11 WARNER F cur nv E FIR DR. CHIN AVE I CF_E - 1 - - -- - - -_ � - - 3 Lj — � T I C F-R ----- R _- PRESS A iJ o MER CEDAR AVE !.I j I . VPL ENCIP - _ CF-E j ---- �: MPNDRELL DR FRIE ^ J PROJECT ITE --- -- -- CF-C DR - -- ----- DIR I E JU OL- 5LATER IT I !.III � I I,I. I I j ICI IJ I ..DPI 1-- SREER AVE W.n m it 11'N _ I RONALD rDR -' T�1 !iH!H!HWHi1111IIHtfi+.1 ow Figure 1.3 Project Area Map huntington beach planning department The structure will be designed to accommodate a wide range of recreational, counseling, educational, health and other social human services and activities. 1. 3 A Word About the Existing Oakview Youth Facility Presently serving the project area residents is the City' s Oakview Youth Center. An existing 20 ' x 55 ' trailer currently houses the various youth programs offered by the center. Under the direction of the Recreation and Parks Department, the center has been in operation since July of, 1974. It provides various youth recreation programs, adult education classes , adult and youth counseling and rap sessions, overall community involvement and awareness activities and a number of other functions. Indicative of a recent budget allotment increase, the youth center is continually expanding its scope and is in the process of initiating a wider range of both youth and adult activities. However, the present facility is somewhat limited in space and function. Intended to be used primarily for youth activities, the existing Oakview trailer is too small for the expanded range of programs planned for the center. The types of programs and the number of people that would need to be accommodated are beyond the trailer' s size. Because of the trailer' s physical constraints , existing programs must be staggered to avoid crowding and conflicting youth and adult activities. Due to close quarters , noise generated from high activity functions is a nuisance to more passive type programs. 1. 4 Needs Assessment / As implied in the previous sub-section, the need for a larger facility is quite evident in order to meet the assessed needs of the project area. Based on an assessment of the project area needs conducted through surveys, questionnaires, and general community input, the following major items were identified: 1 . An adequate recreation facility for children of all ages, with various constructive and creative activities to keep them occupied. This would, of course, necessitate adequate personnel and equipment in order to have a successful program. 2 . Emergency food, clothing and referral services . 3 . Family, child, marriage , drug abuse and rehabilitation, problem pregnancy, runaway, legal and social welfare counseling. lip 4 . Adult education classes such as arts and crafts , furniture refinishing, ceramics, bookkeeping, shorthand, general math and U. S . history. Also, living with divorce , effective parent training, psychology, alcohol abuse and first aid. 5. A mediator to communicate with various agencies such as the police department, probation department, social welfare and others that the people come in contact with. These same agencies have also expressed their need for an effective connection to the community. 6 . Headquarters for free lunch programs. 7 . An expansion of knowledge concerning the service agencies outside the immediate area and resources available to the community. Also, trips to areas of interest and educational outings. Due to the project limitations of the HCD Act, not all of the above needs can be funded through the City' s Community Develop- ment Program. As outlined, the majority of the stated needs are in the. areas of human social services and/or community programs. The emphasis of the HCD Act is towards physical im- provement projects; social needs are assigned secondary im- portance in that most of these social services are funded under other programs. Consequently, the Oakview Community Development Project Proposal provides the physical facility to house the various services and programs that may be formulated to meet the majority of the needs of the Oakview residents . Thus , it is with this understanding that the project was structured and formulated as discussed in sub-section 1. 5 . 1. 5 Formulating the Project Proposal In May of 1975 , it was brought to the attention of the Oakview Advisory Committee that federal funds under the Community Development Program had been appropriated for the Oakview .area. The Oakview Advisory Committee is a gr.oup of Oakview residents and City staff primarily concerned with the operations of the Oakview Youth Center and its neighborhood activities. It was explained to the committee that seemingly $50,000 is to be used to provide a new community center building for the Oakview residents . The remaining $50 , 000 is proposed to be used towards meeting the needs of the Oldtown area residents. Two types of structures were considered by the Oakview Committee : (1) a mobile home type facility and (2) a permanent structure. Because of the higher costs of providing a permanent structure, it was the consensus of the committee members to request the 6 acquisition of a mobile home type facility. It was felt that the lesser cost of providing a mobile home type structure as opposed to a permanent structure would release portions of the $50, 000 towards purchasing furniture as well as landscaping the facility. An effort was made by City staff to further investigate all possibilities of various types of construction and determine the actual costs involved. A preliminary floor plan of the center was drawn and various companies were contacted and requested to furnish general cost estimates. Excluding a mobile home type facility, the construction costs of any office type structure of approximately 30OO square feet would exceed $50 ,000. Estimates ranged from $51, 000 to $55,000 for a pre-engineered steel building to $60,000 for a modular unit type complex of 3000 square feet. The higher costs of constructing a permanent type structure eliminates the possibilities of purchasing furniture for the facility and/or landscaping the site. Regarding the acquisition of a commercial office trailer complex, estimates indicate that a structure of this nature could be purchased for approximately $35,000 to $40,000. Recognizing that a structure of this type is somewhat limited in design flexibility and appearance, and does not contain materials of the higher grade usually associated with a permanent type of struc- ture , it none the less can be provided at a reduced cost as compared to a permanent structure. Thus, the staff formulated the final project with the understanding that in order to- provide a facility and furnish it as well as landscape it, all within the $50 , 000 entitlement, it would be necessary to pursue the acquisition of a mobile home type complex. Through the assistance of the Recreation and Parks Department, a schematic plan of the proposed center was provided to the Planning Department Staff. Approximately, 3000 square feet of floor area is needed to accommodate the following: (1) A large recreation room (2) Counseling rooms (3) A class room (4) A rap room (5) A kitchenette (6) Office (7) Restroom facilities Applying the above activity area needs, the staff formulated the final project plan as outlined in the following section (Section Two) . AfWk section 2 general description of the project SECTION TWO: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2 . 1 Introduction The final project proposal consists of (1) construction of a com- munity center building, (2) partially furnishing the facility, and (3) landscaping the grounds. All three of the above tasks are intended to be accomplished within the $50 , 000 portion appropriated under the 1974 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Entitlement. A brief description of the project is outlined in the following sub-section. 2 . 2 The Project Plan At a cost of approximately $40, 000, a mobile trailer type facility shall be acquired. Encompassing approximately 3000 square feet, the facility shall consist of the following rooms: A. Recreation Room Intended to be used primarily for recreational activities and larger group functions , approximately 1500 square feet or half of the total area of the facility will be used for this purpose. lip Aft B. Counseling and Rap Rooms Approximately 500 square feet shall be provided for counseling and rap session rooms. Individual and group discussions and counseling functions and other services could be conducted. Three or four rooms could be used for this purpose. C. Class Room One large class room of approximately 220 square feet shall be set aside for youth and adult educational and recreational functions. D. Kitchenette A small area shall be used for miscellaneous food preparation and service as well as storage. Approximately 80 to 100 square feet will be needed for this function. E. Office Office space of approximately 100 square feet shall be pro- vided for supervision. F. Restroom Facilities and Storage Both women and men'srestrooms shall be provided with the required amount of fixtures. A storage room shall also be provided for miscellaneous storage and maintenance . G. Miscellaneous Items Accessory items to be included in the interior of the facility are carpeting throughout, drapes, paneling where requested and other miscellaneous items. The facility shall also be adequately heated, insulated and fully serviced with utilities. Exterior wall treatment shall consist of a masonite type finish. Also, step-up porches; pads and an entryway ramp shall be provided for the handicapped. Furniture and Landscaping The facility will be partially furnished and landscaped accordingly with the remaining $10 , 000. Estimates indicate that it will cost approximately $3 , 000 to landscape the facility. Hopefully, City crews may be able to conduct the work and thus reduce the labor costs somewhat. The remaining $7 , 000 to $8 , 000 will be totally absorbed towards purchasing furniture. Not all of the needed furniture can be acquired with this limited amount. However, cost estimates indicate that most of the basic furniture needs can be purchased for ap- proximately $7, 000 to $9, 000. A preliminary floor plan of the proposed center is depicted in Figure 2 . 1. 10 -i -%41 1 1 i ; tl 1 1 1 i 22EC2=ATI0N ROOM `J w SF-W4CE COUF1tEQ Q SINK ,r- m c COUNSELING KITCHEN H2FFICEZANc =-7VEN w = v :I•• PASSAGE •-i.• ,: ` FM MEN CCUNSEUNG ' RAP RM. �I CLASS RM _ OAI&IEW COMMUNITY CENTE2 N COUNSELING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PCOJECT NO.75-8A t•- X 111 0 2 4 6 8 10 FT. - PRc LI M! NA.Q FLC)Df2 PLAN section 3 implementation SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES 3 . 1 City Review and Other Agency Approval The following steps will be taken in seeking approval of the proposed project. Step 1: Final Staff Review. A final staff review shall be afforded to all affected departments for their final input and recommendations. Step 2 : Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental documents shall be submitted to the City' s Environmental Review Board. Any additional information or description of the environmental impact of the project shall be provided on request by the ERB. Step 3 : Recreation and Parks Commission. The City' s Recreation and Parks Commission shall review the project proposal, make any necessary changes, and transmit its findings to the City Council. Step 4: City Council Approval. The City Council shall have the final review of the project proposal . It may set forth any modification or changes it deems necessary and in the best interest of the community. No official action is necessary. Adft 13 3 . 2 Project Work Program Upon receiving City Council approval, the City shall commence the bidding process towards the acquistion of the mobile home type facility. To assure an accurate bid submittal, final plans and specifications shall be provided to competing companies. It is anticipated that acquisition of furniture shall be pursued through the City' s Purchasing Department. Regarding the provisions of landscaping the facility, indications are that the work may be conducted by City Staff after plant . material is acquired. Aft lip 14 ob OLDTO\ N COMMUNITY .DEVELOPMENT PROJ ECT project no. 75 -8B september, 1975 huntington beach planning department SYNOPSIS Located in the south-central section of Huntington Beach, the project area is generally bounded by Garfield Avenue on the north, Beach Boulevard on the east, Adams Avenue on the south, and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way on the west. Consisting of pockets of older, established residential neighborhoods , vacant land, oil production and current .residential development, the project area is intermixed with diversified levels of social, economic and physical conditions. Within certain sections of the project area are smaller neighborhoods that merit special attention. Containing primarily economically deprived family _households, the i neighborhoods are in need 'of physical mprovement. Additionally, the neighborhoods have existing problems of crime; delinquency, loitering and a lack of recreational uses- __ - ------ It is the intent of the 616town Community Development Project proposal to help mitigate these neighborhood problems and to meet the urgent needs of the total .project area. Funded under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 , the project proposal consists .of using approximately $50,000 to physically improve a two-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Utica and Florida Streets. Intended to service both youth and adult activities, the project proposes to provide various recreational facilitiss .and._programs for neighborhood use. In essence, the final project proposal meets an important community need that directly reflects the wishes and desires of the area residents. Furthermore, it avoids committing the City to long-range activities that . will add woes to an already burdened budget, and finally, it can be accomplished in the City' s first year HCD program period (June 1975 to June 1976. ) Contained within this document is an introductory section explain- ing the nature of the proposed project and its evolution. A comprehensive description of the project and a general estimate of the costs involved is provided in Section Two. Outlined in Section Three is the task of implementing the project. An analysis and evaluation of alternative proposals that were discussed during the course of formulating the final project proposal are provided in Section Four. CONTENTS Synopsis SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Nature of the project 1 1. 2 General description of the project 4 1. 3 Methodology of approach: Needs assessment 6 and citizen participation SECTION TWO: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATE . 2 . 1 Physical improvements 11 2. 2 Costs summary 20 SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION 3 .1 Review and adoption 22 3 . 2 Project work program including youth 23 participation 3. 3 Oldtown community advisory committee 23 SECTION FOUR: AL•TER14ATIVE. PROJECTS 4. 1 Alternative one: Use the entire $50 , 000 26 HCD entitlement money toward providing a community service center facility 4 . 2 Alternative two: Use $50 , 000 toward the 27 acquisition of a portion of Yorktown/ Huntington Park site 4 . 3 Alternative three: Use $50 ,000 toward 28 development costs of the Yorktown/ Huntington Park site. 4 . 4 Alternative four: Use a portion of the 29 $50 ,000 to physically improve the two-acre lease property and use a portion toward the Yorktown/Huntington Park site Appendix section 1 introduction n , SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Nature of the Project Under the umbrella of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Oldtown Community Development project is part of one of nine projects of the City' s first year Community Development Program. (See Figure 1-1) As requested by the City of Huntington Beach, a first year HCD entitlement of $460, 000 was approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in June of 1975. As outlined in the first year' s HCD application, $100,000 is to be used for the physical improvement of community facilities located in the Oakviewl and Old Town (Oldtown) neighborhoods. (See vicinity map Figure 1-2) A major objective of the Housing and Community Development Act is to encourage physical development projects that will meet urgent community development needs. The Oldtown Community Development project proposal fulfills both the intent of the Act and the pronounced objectives the City' s "Community Development Decision Team" formulated to generate potential HCD projects . The project proposal is designed to accomplish the four major objectives set forth in the preparation of the Community Development Program: 1 HUN-nNGTO\BEACH HOC-SING AND COAIMLNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM First Year Communih Development Program Communih Center or Park wheel Chair Senior Citizen Projects For Dekessed Areas Facilih and Programs Ramp Installation Oak-view and/or Old Town For Handicapped Phase) n Assistance to Orange Citizen Participation —T'm Count, GOmmunih Analysis Upgrade Substandard Revohuw_Fw�ds Pro:_am for second Housing Authority: Project—Gh Aide Rater Facilities: Year HCD oration llous*—stance Inspection am For Lot Con=otidation Application Plan No One t� Pros{ Pha-e 1(Townlot/Oldtown) Figum 1.1 .I -....... ....... BOLSA it.,:.. \� MdAD0B1 EDINGIER :.................j.... MEL Nnvrel B i QAKV EW. � ■ e ........_.._................ SLAM TALBERT VC ___. - ._ -_--- LUS > GARFIELD .................:............. ........... ............ ........ TORKTOWN ADAMS \` .....a....... ................. ......_.._._... .......... ........... INDIINAPOLiS I { ear / _4 ......................�.... ._.: ATLANTA HAMLTON` 3 C�1 ,\\'�,•` }................. _Y.:.. BANNING / Figure 1.2 Vicinity Map huntington beach planning department r a 1. Meet important community needs that might otherwise be neglected because of inadequate financial resources. 2. Comply with federal criteria by presenting a balanced program addressing the problems of blight, the plight of low income residents, and community development needs . 3. Avoid committing. the City to activities that will add long- range costs to the already burdened financial structure. 4 . Initiate a program -that can realistically be accomplished in the first program year, thus meeting HCD requirements and avoiding difficulty in securing HUD funds in succeeding years. In addition, the project proposal is reflective of direct citizen input (see sub-section 1. 3) . It represents a direct approach towards mitigating identified physical and social problems and is an attempt to provide a project that meets the "grassroots" needs of the project area residents. The Oldtown Community Development Project proposal is outlined within the contents of this document. A general description of the proposed project is provided in sub-section 1. 2. A complete project description is discussed in Section 2.0. 1. 2 General Description of the Proposed Project The Oldtown Community Development project proposal consists of physically improving a two-acre site located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Florida and Utica Streets (see Figure 1-3) . Presegtly under a 5-year lease from the State Transportation Depart- ment, the two acre site is used as an interim recreation area. Upon the ultimate development of a nine acre park site (No. 973) , located south of Yorktown Avenue between Delaware and Huntington Streets, the two acre site is presently planned to be phased out. As stated in Section 4 .0, Alternative Projects, the expenditure of HCD money on a non-permanent development was at issue. However, the general consensus of City Staff and those residents who partic- ipated in the formulation and discussions of alternative project . proposals was that of providing a project that would satisfy the immediate needs of the residents and prove to be economically worthy of the costs incurred. It was felt that improving the two acre site would accomplish the most in the shortest time frame and would provide a community project that residents could immediately identify with and use. Aft AVE. OARFIELD i / I I I I I I I L d"GIW 11 — ii _ E7 . _ I 1 0 -I- m j. D ��M N — §A- 11 l�-LLIJ.a� cn WILLIAMS UULJM d Y TOWN • AVE. CF-C 7 IMIC CEHTF:N) e~ n N I V �~®AVE. P E SIT AVE. LLE AVE. 1 LU _ AM AN ON lai z € s AVEa w aF o a= l Ong ADAMS AVE. I Figure 1.3 Project Area Map huntington beach planning department Also, recognizing the interim marginal use of the two acre site, the proposed Community Development project is structured to contain salvageable items that can be used when permanent park development occurs. In other words, when a. permanent park site is developed, most of the items on the two acre site can be relocated. Specifically, the following project items are proposed: 1. Improvement of Softball field 2 . Improvement of Totlot Area 3. Picnic Area provisions 4. Construction of woodwall handball courts 5. Construction of a basketball court 6. Miscellaneous landscaping and site improvements 7 . Provisions for miscellaneous costs A complete item description and costs summary is provided in Section 2. 0. 1. 3 Methodology of Approach: Needs Assessment and Citizen Participation Furthering the methodology used in . the formulation of the overall Community Development Program, the Oldtown project proposal evolved from direct citizen input and extensive staff work. As early as March, 1975, it was brought to the attention of City officials that problems .of vandalism, litter, loitering, gangs and destruction of autos were increasing within the project area. In June of 1975, the City extended an invitation to area resi- dents to seek their advice and opinions as to how HCD money could be applied towards meeting the needs of the residents . As a result of the meeting, the area' s socio-economic as well as physical problems were discussed, and many general suggestions were made as to how to resolve these problems. However, it was explained that the emphasis of the HCD program was towards physical development projects and that social services are assigned only secondary importance in that most of social services proposals are fundable under other programs. Af Consequently, it was explained by City staff that in the preparation of the Community Development Program, approximately $50, 000 was geared towards providing a community facility or park project in the area. Several concepts were explored, and it was agreed to conduct a community survey that would be distributed among area residents to get as much citizen input as possible. In the middle of June, 1975, a community survey was prepared by City staff. Written both in English and Spanish, it summarized the nature of the HCD Act and stated the City' s desire to receive opinions regarding the community facilities and/or park project concepts and any other suggestions as to what other physical development projects could best serve the needs of the area residents. The questionnaire was structured in the following manner: Please rank the following alternative projects. Use number one (1) to signify first choice, number two (2) second choice, and so on. Please return to the Huntington Beach Planning Department by June 24, 1975. ALTERNATIVE ONE: All .the money should be used to acquire an initial phase of the land necessary for future development of a neighborhood park to be located in the area. ALTERNATIVE TWO: All the money should be used to provide a community service center that would provide various social . . . ....... human services and family programs. ALTERNATIVE THREE: Portions of the money should be used for both a neighborhood park and a community service center. ALTERNATIVE FOUR: (Other Suggestions) Name Address If you wish to receive further information regarding this project, please check box. (See Appendix for complete community survey questionnaire. ) Over 1300 questionnaires were sent to volunteers from the project area to distribute the questionnaires . In the last week of June, a total of 130 questionnaires were returned to the City' s Planning Department. The total represented slightly less than ten percent of the estimated households within the survey area. (The survey area is bounded by Beach Boulevard, Adams Avenue, Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and Garfield Avenue. ) Typically, a ten percent response is considered a good measure in conducting surveys. 7 r The results of the community survey revealed that Alternative Three was the number one selection of the vast majority of those residents who answered the qestionnaire. Of the three proposed alternatives, the second and third choices average out somewhat equally; indicating that if both a community service center and a park proved economically unfeasible or could not be accomplished, both alternative one and two would be equally acceptable to area residents. Additionally, under Alternative four (other suggestions) , a number of alternative projects were listed by area residents. The following suggestions were provided by residents of the area. 1. "Complete the baseball diamond, landscape the property, and provide park equipment (i.e. , swings, +slides, picnic areas, etc. ) all within the $50, 000 -entitlement. " 2. "Money should be used towards existing proposed projects, not exceeding amount proposed. At recent City Council meeting, I observed the usual overspending proposals. " 3. "Landscape the temporary park along Utica - the surrounding area is established. Put the park where the people are. " 4. "Finish the park or playground someone has started on Florida and Utica. " 5. "Lighted tennis courts. " (Second choice. ) 6. "Develop the park at the corner of Utica and Florida - inexpen- sive, then use major portions of $50,000 to build a community service center. " 7. "The money should be .used to clean up the streets 'of the City and to plant some trees around streets. We have lived in the surrounding community for years; to our surprise we find the City kind of dirty. " 8. "May not be related, but nevertheless. . .place the money in some fund where it can be used partly or wholly for emergencies - like flood control or others - instead of possibly asking tax- payers, State of Federal aid; in times of difficulty. Every little sum will help. " On July 10, 1975, another .community meeting was held between local residents and City staff to discuss the results of the community survey and other suggested projects. Using the results of the survey and other suggested projects, a series of alternative project proposals were presented and discussed. I P ACOL Basically, two alternative projects were focused on, (1) Use HCD money towards the. physical improvement of a two acre lease site, presently used as a recreational area located at the northwest corner of Utica and Florida Streets or (2) Use HCD money towards the acquisition of park property south of Yorktown Avenue between Delaware and Huntington Streets. (Refer to Section 2. 0) After considerable deliberation on the positive and negative aspects of the various proposals, it was the consensus of area residents and city staff that the project should fulfill the immediate needs of area residents. It was determined that the final project proposal should accomplish the following items: 1. Meet the immediate recreation needs for both youth (specifically the younger children) and adult activities. 2. Help to alleviate existing problems of crime, vandalism and lottering. 3. Help to improve the physical appearance of the neighborhood. 4 . Assure that both short-term and long-range benefits of the project will exceed the costs incurred. 5. Be developed within the first year period. 6. Be totally within the $50, 000 HCD entitlement. 7. Provide a community facility that will be actively used. In conclusion, it became evident that improving the two acre lease property could accomplish the most towards meeting the above objectives . The Staff pursued this direction and formulated the final project proposal as outlined in the following section. 9 section 2 project description SECTION TWO: DESCRIPTION AND COST ESTIMATE OF FINAL PROJECT PROPOSAL A general description of the items of the proposed project is provided in this section. A list of the tasks and cost estimates of the proposed items is outlined. The cost estimates are general and, of course, subject to change as more detailed plar_s are prepared. A Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan is also provided in this section (see Figures 2 : 1 and 2.2) : am 11 2. 1 Physical Improvements 8ac�csToP SO1:T6ALL FIELD I Item One: Improvement of Baseball Field A large portion of the two acre site presently contains a softball field area that is in need of improvement. Tasks : a. Installation of Turf The project proposal provides for the installation of approximately 1.5 acres of turf. b. Expansion of an automatic irrigation system Four removable head sprinklers presently irrigate the field. The system will need to be expanded to adequately water the field and surrounding area. The proposed project will include the installation of an automatic irrigation system. c. Grading Portions of the site will have to be graded in accordance with the final site plan. General Estimate: a. Installation of turf $ . 2, 500 b. Expansion of automatic 5 ,600 . irrigation system c. Grading 3, 000 Total Costs $11,100 12 cs Ca TOO dam wont Item Two: Improvement. of - playground equipment area Located in the northwest portion of the 2 acre site is a dirt play area: A merry-go-round, swing set, teeter- totter, slide and two high climbing poles are presently located in this section of the site. The project plan provides a larger play area consisting of both new and existing playground equipment. Tasks : a. Construction of tot sandbox area Intended to provide a separate play area spcifically for tot and small child play, the project proposes the construction -of a sand box area. Approximately 1000 sq. ft. will be used..-f-or this purpose. It shall contain new _playground equipment and additional space for ."self-made" playground equipment. b. Additional Play Area Smaller sect ions_._adj_acen_t to the sandbox area shall be set aside for .additional playground equipment. Space will also be available for creative playground equipment that may be con-. structed by youths. General Estimate : a. Construction of tot sandbox area $ 2 ,000 b. Additional-playground--equipment 10,000 Total Costs $12, 000 Atoll 13 r nt v�J�r.- rl J,�..,. .M►+�� « _„fir 1wJ( �,.�.�.�. Item Three: Provisions for Picnic Area Approximately 400 sq. ft. is proposed for picnic activities. Portions of the area may be surfaced with grass or possibly concrete. Included in the proposal are provisions for 3 to 5 sets of Picnic tables, benches, and barbecue pits.. General Estimate : a. Picnic tables and benches $ 550 b. Barbecue Pits 250 C. Possible concrete surface 200 Total Estimate $1,000 14 ,i Z Ila 0.3 cw SERVt 0 LINE to' ' 91 ts� Item Four: Construction _of Wood Wall Handball Courts A major item of the proposed project is the con- struction of wood wall handball courts. Sub- stantially less expensive than reinforced concrete walls and completely salvageable (excluding foundation) the construction of handball courts would provide a high activity use for older youths. The final project proposes 4 playing courts of 3 wall handball to be located in the middle north section of the 2 acre site. General Estimate : a. Reinforced concrete pad $ 4 , 080 b. Wood walls 10, 920 Total Costs $15 ,000 15 N M 85� Item Five Construction of Basketball Court Proposed to be located in the northeasterly section of the site is an asphalt concrete top basketball court. An area of approximately 4,000 sqare feet will be needed to accommodate a full court plan. General Estimate: a. Asphalt Concrete $4, 500 b. Painting 200 C. Backboards and Rims 300 Total Costs $5, 000 AML 16 r i do • y �rM rI�Nrr` 1♦� I1 ♦ � 1 Item Six: Additional Items Other items that may be provided are listed below a. Miscellaneous Landscaping In. an effort to further upgrade the 2 acre site, various types of landscaping including trees, shrubs and ground cover could be planted throughout the site. b. Additional Chain Link .Fencing Additional chainlink fencing could be installed to secure the entire 2 acre site or physically separate certain sections of. the area. Approxi- mately 500 linear feet of fencing would be required. General Estimate: a. Miscellaneous landscaping $3, 000 b. Additional chain link fencing 2, 500 Total Costs $5, 500 17 t°LAY AREA TOT SAND6oX NANGBOLL $4.SKET5ALL Ag" COURTS COURT PICNIC AKEA � I SOF'f#SALL FIELD IL i UTtCA AVE Conceptual Plan huntington beach planning department PROJECT ITEMS IO SOFT5ALL FIELD 0. O2 FSA5KET6ALL COURT WOC?DWALL NANDEALL COURTS PLAY AREA SANDBOX NEW PLAY EQUIPMENT ``- EXISTING PLAY EQUIPMENT ° Q PICNIC A¢EA ! TAP�LES AND 5ENCNES PEAR R�EGUIr C'ITS ti-,_ - 31k� _-- -_ En 1 :K ;a 1 0 =" o 1 LL• OLDTOWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (SRO GT" NO. 7S-515. UTICA AYE, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 0 20 40f* 2. 2 COSTS SUMMARY ITEM ONE: IMPROVEMENT OF BASEBALL FIELD a. Installation of turf $ 2, 500 b. Expansion of irrigation system 5, 600 C. Grading 3,000 $11,100 ITEM TWO: IMPROVEMENT OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AREA a. Construction of tot sandbox area $ 2, 000 b. Additional playground equipment 10, 000 $12, 000 ITEM THREE: PROVISIONS FOR PICNIC AREA a. Picnic tables and benches $ 550 b. Barbecue pits 250 C. Possible concrete surface 200 $ 1,000 ITEM FOUR: CONSTRUCTION OF WOODWALL HANDBALL COURTS a. Reinforced concrete pad $ 4, 080 b. Wood walls 10, 920 $15 , 000 ITEM FIVE: CONSTRUCTION OF BASKETBALL COURT a. Asphalt concrete $ 4, 500 b. Painting 200 C. Backboards and rims 300 $ 5, 000 ITEM SIX: ADDITIONAL ITEMS a. Miscellaneous landscaping $ 3,000 b. Additional chain link fencing 2, 500 5 .500 Sub-Total $49, 600 contingencies 400 Total Estimate $50, 000 20 section 3 mple.,.me.ntation SECTION THREE: IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES 3 . 1 City Review and Other Agency Approval The following steps will be taken in seeking approval of the proposed project. Step 1 : Final Staff Review. A final staff review shall be afforded to all affected departments for their final input and recommendations. Step 2 : Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental documents shall be submitted to the City' s Environmental Review Board. Any additional information or description of the environmental impact of the project shall be provided on request by the ERB. Step 3 : Recreation and Parks Commission. The City'.s Recreation and Parks Commission shall review the project proposal , make any necessary changes, and transmit its findings to the City Council. Step 4 : City Council Approval. The City Council shall have the final review of the project proposal. It may set forth any modifi- cations or changes it deems necessary. No official action is necessary. 22 Step 5: State Approval. As stipulated in the conditions of lease agreement between the City and California Transporation Department, "The City. (lessee) will submit development plans to the State (lessor) for approval and will- not proceed with the development until approval has been received from lessor. " 3 3. 2 Project Work Program including Youth Participation Conceivably, a large portion if not all of the proposed project could be conducted by city crews. A lessening of the costs could be experienced with the elimination of the profit motivation and other incidental costs associated with private enterprise. Prelim- inary staff investigations indicate that the project work program could be totally accomplished through city departments. However, it shall be the City Council' s decision if the proposed project can be put into the city's overall work program for this fiscal year. The idea of seeking volunteers or possibly hiring youths from the . project area to actually participate in the construction of the project was seriously considered. In addition to saving construc- tion costs, a work program of this nature could create beneficial side affects . Providing an opportunity for youths to be involved in implementing the project could promote a sense of "pride of ownership; " in essence, a respectability toward something you helped to construct and thus, less incline to destroy. Additionally, if funds are available for employment, the program could provide youths an opportunity to earn wages while participa- ting. Certainly, wages would provide a greater incentive to parti- cipate. Basically, the inclusion of youths in the work program could be a very positive and constructive learning process for the youth and would further a good relationship between city hall and community residents. 3. 3 aldtm nn Community Advisory Committee During discussions regarding the community development project, a strong concern was expressed as to what future activities were I 23 planned for the area. What other future funds will be available? What types of recreation programs and activities shall be provided? How will other community needs be satisfied? These questions represented an important inquiry on the part of the residents as to what the future destiny of the area will be. The underlying answer is the need of. having residents of the Old Town Neighborhood more actively involved in determining their own future. The Staff feels that local residents should formulate an advisory committee that could assist the City Council .and other decision making bodies on manners relative to the area. The establishment of a committee would provide a direct communication link between the area residents and the city and create a better opportunity of citizen input. The committee could serve as an advocacy group that could promote its essential and specific needs and desires of the area residents. 24 section 4 alternative projects SECTION FOUR: ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS During the course of formulating a final project proposal, other projects were taken into consideration. An explanation and brief discussion of each alternative is provided in the following paragraphs. 4. 1 Alternative One: Use the entire $50, 000 HCD entitlement money towards providing a Community Service Center Facility. Similar to the Oakview Community Development Project proposal, this alternative would entail the construction of a permanent structure and miscellaneous improve- ments. The center could serve to provide various social human services such as recreational activities, counseling, family programs , adult education, and other programs suitable to area residents. Two sites were considered: (1) the future park site No. 973 located south of Yorktown Avenue between Huntington and Delaware Streets, and (2) the two- acre lease property located on the corner of Florida and Utica Streets. Site One requires the acquisition of a parcel or parcels large enough to accommodate a structure of approximately 3 ,000 square feet. Toward this end would be an effort to change the ME 26 . u priority park acquisition schedule of park site No. 973 . Presently, the park site is scheduled for acquisition in fiscal year 1977-78. The constraint in pursuing this Alternative is the difficulty of shifting the park development priority schedule. Established park development commitments, time, and lack of city funds are the major obstacles and most critical when considering that the Community Development Project must be implemented.in its first-year period. (June, 1975 to June, 1976. ) Regarding the second site selection (two-acre . lease property) , it was questionable as to whether or not $50, 000 should be used to construct-..a permanent structure on a temporary site. The strong possibility of providing a building that can be relocated after it has been constructed would make it salvageable. However, the costs to con- struct the foundation, walkways, landscaping, utilities and miscellaneous items would be loss. Perhaps the most negative aspect of providing a community service center facility is the fact that there presently exist two other quasi-public community centers : the Boys' Club located north of Yorktown Avenue between Huntington and Delaware . Streets, and the new YMCA building located on Garfield Avenue between Crystal and Holly Streets. Both facilities combined offer a wide range of youth and adult programs and activities. Thus , recognizing that the project area is within the radius of service of both the Boys ' Club and YMCA, it would seemingly be an unnecessary cost to provide yet another community service type facility that may duplicate program activities. 4 . 2 Alternative Two: . Use $50 ,000 towards the acquisition of a portion of Yorktown/Huntington Park Site No. 973 . As an outgrowth of discussions regarding the con- struction of a community service center building on park site No. 973, the idea of using HCD money to acquire a portion of the park site was suggested as an alternative. It was believed that the $50,000 ACE!, no R 0001 27 could supplement the cost of acquiring the entire park site; hence, influencing the possibility of changing the park development priorities and having the Yorktown/Huntington Park developed this fiscal year. However, even with the possibility of using the $50 ,000 HCD money as a down payment or supplementary funds , the costs of acquiring the needed acreage coupled with the costs of developing the park were thought to be beyond the City's available funds at this time. The very most that could be expected would be the sole acquisition of land that could be purchased with the $50 ,000 HCD money. Recent land sales indicate that the vacant residential property in the immediate area is selling for approximately $50,000 per acre. Since the park site property has recently been changed from Industrial zoning to Medium Density Residential zoning, the value of the _property has increased significantly. Thus, without additional funds, the end product of this alternative would be that of simply acquiring one acre of vacant park land. It is apparent that this alternative only has a long-range advantage and does not fulfill the immediate needs of the residents . In addition, it is questionable if HCD money should be used to acquire land for city park development which can be acquired by park funds. 4 . 3 Alternative Three: Use $50,000 towards development costs of the Yorktown/Huntington Park Site No. 973 . As explained in the previously discussed alter- native, the dim possibility of altering the park development priority program presents a major block in applying any HCD money towards the Yorktown/Huntington Park site. However, while it may not be a strong possibility, it nonetheless was not totally ignored. Consequently, there exists .the alternative of applying HCD money towards the physical development of the Yorktown/Huntington Park site. Again, this alternative necessitates the acquisition of a large portion or all of the park site No. 973 within this fiscal year, 1975-76. Using the $50,000 towards the physical development, of the proposed park site would be consistent with 28 the intent of the Housing and Community Development Act and would further the objective of encouraging physical development projects. If the City desires to pursue the acquisition of the park site, the $50,000 HCD money could be used towards the construction costs of either landscaping, recreational facilities , lighting, walkways, structures or other physical construction costs . It was felt, however, that this alternative cannot be viewed too strongly because of the time constraint and the high costs of acquiring park land. 4 . 4 Alternative Four: Use a portion of the $50 ,000 to physically improve the two-acre lease property and use a portion towards the Yorktown/Huntington Park site. This alternative provides for a limited amount of work and, consequently, a reduction of costs to be geared toward improving the two-acre lease property. Basically, it would consist of upgrading the two-acre site, but less than that which is provided under the final project proposal. Perhaps it would involve the elimination of the handball courts or limiting the amount of new playground equipment or -deleti:ng some other major item that could *significdntly reduce the costs. The remaining portion of the $50,000 could then be used toward acquiring park land. As stated earlier, approximately $45 , 000 to $50 , 000 would be needed to improve the two-acre lease site as recommended in the final project proposal. The elimination of certain items would decrease the total costs of the improvement project on the two-acre site. For instance, eliminating._the handball courts and the provisions for new playground equipment would save approximately $251, 000. However, even if $25, 000 or $30, 000 could be. used to acquire park land, less than one- acre of prime vacant land could be purchased.. The acquisition of less than one acre of land would not accomplish much in terms of immediate needs, and would only have a long-range benefit. MM 29 In addition, the elimination of major items from the proposed project lessens the scope of the project and consequently, negatively affects the range of recreational uses. It is Staff' s conclusion that because of limitations of the $50 , 000 HCD money, the City should either pursue the physical improvement of the two-acre site, or use the entire $50,000 toward the acquisition of land. In any event, it would seem inappropriate to attempt to use the money to accomplish both objectives. 30 r hunti beckh p� c�rtmene0 ngbn ng staff ire o 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 - #9C 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. AM& C 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 thn ::ast:c= 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 1482. s 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_ cess to planned sites for young children. The developed Seacliff area, as the - report indicates, -Ts 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 130000 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 5 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- ments in other parts of the Seacliff area so its effect on park access cannot really be determined at this time. i 3. The Desirability of Mini-Parks An im ortant issue for Cit consider re uest is a desira 1 it o mini- arks. Though there are two mini-parks in the City, stc-h--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 a planned for. They are also more ex ensive to m intain. 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 man 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-iio—F-a-i'lTo Mr tractors o suc 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 $845 per acre cost. 4. Potential Park Sites t With the assumption that neighborhood parks should be provided within the developed portion of Seacliff itself , (because of accessibility r ,4� _ _ 1 Page 4 problems caused by adjacent streets) , the Association retiort identified three potential mini- ark sites tha-t_mi. meet existin locations are identified in Figure e southern site on Morning Tide is located on the golf course within Tract 6904. The two tnt cite l.4371 a cl c 1"aS- a M And alrea v i n_u_ e a reati onal t a_ ' 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 h&JiPves th-at�he City will have to commit to aSaIlLiga this area when develo merit_ i __ s�_ss bl Because of the property' s location on a golt course near t e beach, the true market value of the parcels will undoubtedly be much greater than land elsewhere in the City. This S, of course, provide eas a is in_ the south end_ e communit _as. no- m or streets obstruct travel to t�e�p� _rQp@ wy. Adjacent to existing units, it is- a' "sr a vVi"Is"InIe_site adding to its value for child safety. Two a- *ur^W};..... -a-: t_a are identified by the Association in the north end of the community (Figure 3) . AltPrnativAi , . 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 AI fPrnA+-���� �, of size as yet undetermined, is located outside the community. This. property is bounded by Gol enwes re , a ig ��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 i�omeo -ers Association an is apparent y-wr r - - _ with -- ---Ct�- _ -- --_ _ Hunt; na -on Beach_Company toward—paw i-ca Zen-requrrr the Sea-cliff 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. th rage., however, the Run ti gto -e. r ap is_Y�=rn�P ; nr, r�ash nrcA i t o-n the market_YA_jug. f_ tb l n not thj olved 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 ac _ _nd_mw Lim wa ' die-=C t-Wi -- —__oS a uired 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: Tie existing residents_ of S ariiff 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 s them. There many areas of the City with similar situations. While it may be i'Teal to provide a neighborhoo —park within everyone's immediate neighborhood, such cannot realistically be accomplished. While the concerns of the homeowners can be appreciated, severrl 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 >f 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 olic the City should not consider park needs on an isolate asis ut 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 recommendatio 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 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, 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. @ 8.66 per hr. 1,965.82 BUSHARD 244/hrs. @ 8.66 per hr. 2, 113.04 i 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 a Neighborhood Park Demand - Ultimate Residential Zone Gr Acs DU/Gr Ac Zbtal DU Pop/DU Total Population R1-0 107 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 NAilti-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 Tptal 18419 C lass Pop. Park ?deed 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 ocapute neighborhood park demand at ultimate development are citywide estimates prepared by the Planning Department in January, 1975. m m AN � � 0 GARFELO - - AVENM NORTHERN W PARK SITE N Alt.#2 . e NORTHERN PARK, SITE _ 0.646Z Sac Alt.#1 SOUTHE41M PARK SITE, 0.4371 di ♦ y� \\ ` .S A \ i POSSIBLE PARK LOCATIONS FIGURE 3 L • � is 'JAM CITY CW H&MTRM 11% 111 BK=H •, INTER-DEPARTMENI0, COMMUNICATION MUNTRGMN KACN 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 ..tbe following recommendations to A your staff and Planning Commission: 1) That the H.B. Company be encouraged to keep the southerly S acre site containing pipe lines as an open space green belt easement which can continue to be used as a park by u 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 play ground; •a site for the commemorat ing plaque for the "Discovery Well" of the H.B. oil fields; a Water Department pump st4tion site, beautification of the Golden West and Clay entrance to Seacliff; and the future po- tential of locating an ele�entary school adjacent to the park in accordance with our Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, _:k : Schools and Recreation. 3) That the proposed residential lot (19,000+ sq. ft. ) site for a mini park at Evening Hilly and Manor Point not be accepted i 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 andwere developed by the Huntington Harbour Corp. and given asa 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 equipe ent would .most likely be the main theme. d) The costs for manpower to maintain the 1 acre Davenport Parkin Huntinptotx 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 2 r Memo to: Dick Harlow, Director- Date: January 12, 1976 i . 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-parkas and the! cost of such an acquisi- tion, development, and maintenance program would be staggering. rm o-ft y, Dir ctor Recreation, Parks and Human Services f NW: ac Attachments 1 , ti i F I t 1 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS CLARENCE HALL *' ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS WOODIS CHADDICK rt„ JAMES CARVELL JOHN RAJCIC OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 7972 WARNER AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 714-847-2551 December 3, 1970 Mr. Norman Worthy, Director Huntington Beach Recreation and Parks Dept. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Norm: The attached excerpt from the minutes will suffice from the point of view of the District as fulfillment of an agreement. You will note that the action approved the plans as presented, without reference to a specific footage of infringement. This was done so that the action would not preclude the plantings shown on the plan that exceed the 50-foot limitation we had talked about. The word- ing also allows for the additional plantings throughout the school site that we understand to be a part of the plan . Thanks very much, Norm, for your consistent good help in moving the City and School District toward a long range plan that will provide very functional and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood recreational facilities. �ncly, Clarence L. Hall Superintendent of Schools CLH/js - Attachment cc: Mr. Tom Severns 1 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS CLARENCE HALL ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS WOODIS CHADDICK JAMES CARVELL JOHN RAJCIC OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT 7972 WARNER AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92647 714-847-2551 December 3, 1970 The following is an excerpt from the official minutes of a regular meeting .of the Governing Board of Ocean View School District held December I , 1970: It was moved by Mr. Knox, seconded by Mr. Shaffer, that approval be granted for neighborhood parks adjacent to Lark View and College View, to infringe on school property along the contiguous boundary as shown in the plans presented to and approved by the Board; that this area be developed and main- tained at City expense; and that this approval be granted in accordance with conditions outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement executed between the City and the SchoolDistrict for the development of Circle View and Lake View neighborhood parks. Motion carried AYES : KNOX, SHAFFER, BAUER NOES : NONE ABSENT: ZINNGRABE, LOGAN Clarence L. Hall Secretary to the Board of Education CLH/j s _'4,_ .}`.� a s.�, - a. �..af,':awl ---"'"� -....�.:w`�.. '"«.,"R,�'rr#°-f`%�#:c N✓-;:1i'id ✓ RESOLUTION NO. 4083 �G A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE POPULATION DENSITY FACTOR TO BE USED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED BY DEVELOPERS FOR PARK PURPOSES WHEREAS, Sections 9741..1 and 9961 . 5 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code provide that the population density to be used for the purpose of determining the amount of land to be dedicated by developers for park purposes shall be established by the City on the basis of the most recent data available in the form of Federal or State census or records of the City of Huntington. Beach: and On the basis of such census records, it is the desire of the City Council to establish such population density factor, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that on the basis of the most recent ' data found in the Federal or State census , (or the records of the City of Huntington Beach) , it does establish the following as the population density factor for said city for the purpose of determining the amount of land to be dedicated by developers for park purposes: TYPE OF DWELLING POPULATION DENSITY I Apartments / Con(lominiurns . Single/bachelor 1 . 18 One bedroom 1. 49 Two bedroom 2. 30 Three or more bedrooms 3 . 20 d 1. -- ;.�";� , . ' - -". !:' .4 N- Z Fft. 4NW�"s ow II Rl single family 3 . 55 III Mobilehome 1. 80 Resolution No. 3214 is hereby repealed PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May, 1975. T4ayor ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City At orney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Administrator it Re: No. 4083 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE (;1TY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH ) I, -'ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of th*`,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 thb members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 19 75 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Wieder Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Deputy City Clerk �' y ah vi " 7r r �, yY .r 3`k aa4.-ti *�a, i+-'' io. i �1 z tF .gyp � /r�i Ue' a�r Srx. �F;�iy n.�^ fc i.s;75 �� �2*'�"•h-,h, i•� v Voio RESOLUTION NO. 4084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE MEDIAN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF LAND IN ALL NEIGHBOR- HOOD PARKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF FEE REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN LIEU OF DEDICATION OF LAND Pursuant to Sections 9741.4 and 9961. 8 , an appraisal of all neighborhood parks within the city by a qualified real estate appraiser, has been performed for the purpose of deter- mining the fair market value of such parks, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve that the median fair market value of land in all neighbor- hood public parks within the city is $42,700 per acre, and that said amount shall be used to determine the amount of fee to be paid in lieu of dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. Resolution No. 3699 is hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May, 1975. M or ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Alicia M. Wentworth „sa City Clerk B Deputy City Clerk City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Administrator _ A. Re No. 4084 STAXE' OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE. CITY OF HUNTINGTON 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 19th day of — May 19 75 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Matney, Shipley, Duke, Gibbs NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Wiedgr Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and .ex-officio Clerk of the City ty Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By Deputy City Clerk CA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH M RECREATION, PARKS $ HUMAN SERVICES PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND DECEMBER NOVEMBER BALANCE $280 ,171 . 15 $280 , 171 . 15 REVENUE Subdivision License Fee 73,132 . 73 Unit Lot Fee 38 387 .00 �,519 . 73 111 ,519 . 73 EXPENDITURES Huntington Central. Park - 115 . 78 Newland Park - 3 .26 319.04 -119 . 0 4 Debit 6/30/75 1970 Park Bond Construction (8 ,511 . 10) -8 ,511 . 10 TOTAL $383,060 . 74 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GA RECREATION, PARKS & HUMANS SERVICES PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND November, 19�'St OCTOBER BALANCE $253 , 862 . 85 $253 , 862 .85 REVENUE Subdivision License Fee 22 , 438 . 50 Unit Lot Fee 34,046 . 00 56,484. 50 56 ,484. 50 EXPENDITURES Golden West College -Plans 5 , 154. 10 Huntington Central Park - Small Lot Acquisition 300 . 00 Pleasant View Park -Plans 872 . 65 Hawes Park - Plans 2 , 136 . 75 t Terry Park - 11 , 569 . 90 6 $6, 993. 00 Plans 4, 576. 90 Transporting of Building Newland Park - Plans 1 , 631 . 70 21 , 6M.10 -21 , 665 . 10 Debit 6/30/75 1970 Park Bond Construction (8 , 511. 10) - 8 , 511 . 10 TOTAL $280 , 171. 15 a. nD J DEC 10 1975 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECYCLING OF STREET SWEEPINGS PARKS DIVISION P This unit will be used for spreading organic material that is composted by this division from waste materials received from . other departments, as well as our own. Also, it can be used to spread inorganic fertilizer. The materials used in the organic fertilizer are as follows : 1. Street sweepings from the Street Maintenance Depart- ment. 2. Grass clippings from the Huntington Beach Elementary School, Huntington Beach High School, and the Park Maintenance Division. 3. Manure from neighboring stables, when available. 4. Chips from Street/Tree Department. At present there is quite an involvement of men and equip- ment in transporting and spreading this material. This unit will reduce this operation from a 1 loader, 3 trucks, 2 tractors, and 1 manure spreader with operators for each, to a 2 unit (1 loader and truck/spreader) 1 man operation. When using inorganic fertilizer it is still necessary for 2 men to spread with a tractor and truck. This unit will cut 1 tractor, therefore, the extra man will only be used to load. Not only will it cut the cost of spreading inorganic fertilizer by having 2 men spreading (at present each spreading is 10 tons @ $165 per ton) , but it will reduce the amount of trips, there- fore reducing the wear on units. This division has tested this compost material and has found great success with it. It was tested with the debris in it, then the debris consisting of cans, glass, paper, and various other materials was picked out by hand. At present this division is using the Beach Department sanitizer to separate the debris from the compost. This could possibly mean that the shreader which is in the budget this year will not be needed. In return for using the Beach sanitizer, this division will pay half the cost of a belt for the sanitizer, which will be $500. I In the past the City' s Parks Division has used a con- ventional fertilizing program, but for the past five years the division has been experimenting with the recycling of various waste products of other City departments, the mush- room factory, and various stables and dairies. These waste products were first used in a last effort to save money and cut cost, as these products were used more and more it was noticed that they were giving as good, and in some cases better results than when conventional products were used. Some of the recycled waste products used are the follow- ing: 1. Tree chippings from Street Tree Department used for weed control and in compost 2. Mushroom compost from mushroom factory as top dress and soil amendment 3. Steer and horse manure from stables and dairies . used in compost for top dressing 4. Grass clippings used in compost for top dress- ing 5. Street sweepings used in compost for top dress- ing The most dramatic results have occurred at Edison Park where the soil has such a high salt content that it will not support grass. PROCESS USED TO MAKE COMPOST MATERIAL Mix two loads of grass clippings, which are litter lifted from parks that have been mowed, to one load of street sweepings. Then it is mixed with a loader and watered with sprinklers. Impact type sprinklers are used in order to cover the pile with one watering. After a weeks time, a grader is used to mix it again, this breaks it down even more by the rolling action of the grader blade. It is then left to dry for a week before running it through the Beach Department sanitizer for end results. The finished product is fine and can be spread the same day as it is run through the sanitizer. After application the -sprinkler system waters it into the turf. Until now there has been no use for street sweepings, just a cost factor for disposal. This division has tested it for the past two years and found great success with it. This report shows a cut in disposal cost and a cut in the cost of park materials for top dressing. With the new type of spreader, which this division will purchase this year, it will cut the cost in half again. It will cut inorganic fertilizer to one spreading to bring up the nitrogen count. Also, it will cut down on watering as organic materials hold the water. The organic fertilizer has proven to be the most effec- tive material used to reduce salinity to get better growth and good color where all others have failed. It can be very useful as inorganic material becomes harder to obtain. Another factor is cost cuts in maintenance and cuts in prices of inorganic materials, which are $150 per ton at present and going higher. The soil has not been tested as the organic material has only been on six months and the results are based on growth and color. To dispose of street sweepings and clipping it. presently cost the Street Department the following to haul the materials to Coyote Canyon: EQUIPMENT COST 1 - 3 axle dump truck @ 7.00/hr for 8/hrs. 56.00 2 - 2 axle dump truck @ 5. 50/hr for 8/hrs. 92.00 1 - loader @ 11.00/hr, for 8 hrs. 88.00 LABOR COST 3 men @ 9.00/hr for 8/hrs 216.00 Total cost of equipment and labor 452.00 Total number of loads that can be hauled to Coyote Canyon in an 8/hr. day 15 Cost per load to haul to' Coyote Canyon 30.13 Total number of loads that can be hauled to Parks Yard in an 8/hr. day 37 Cost per load to haul to Parks Yard 12.00 This is approximately a 250% increase in production PLEASE NOTE: The above cost for disposal of street sweepings and clippings may double, due to the closing of Coyote Canyon. PARKS DIVISION COST FOR SPREADING EQUIPMENT COST 1 - loader @ 11.00/hr for 8/hrs 88.00 2 - tractors @ 24.00/hr for 8/hrs 192.00 2 - 2 axle dump trucks @ 11.50/hr for 8/hrs 92 .00 2 - tractors to sanitize @ 24.00/hr for 8/hrs 192.00 LABOR COST 4 - Equipment Operators & 1 - Landscaper @ 8.66/hr 346.00 Total cost of equipment and labor 910.40 $910.40 to spread 26 loads, plus 12.00 per load for Street Department 1, 222 .40 Total cost per load for spreading 47 .00 COST TO SPREAD WITH NEW UNIT EQUIPMENT COST 1 - tractor @ 12.00/hr for 8/hrs 96.00 1 - tractor/sanitizes 12 .00/hr for 8/hrs 96.00 1 - loader @ 11.00/hr for 8/hrs 88.00 1 - truck/spreader @ 13.60/hr for 8/hrs 108.00 LABOR COST 1 - man @ 8.66/hr for 8/hrs 69.28 Total cost of equipment and labor 457.28 $457.28 to spread 26 loads, plus 12.00 per load for Street Department 769.28 Total cost per load for spreading 29. 58 PLEASE NOTE: The above loads are approximately 5 yards each. RESOLUTION NO. 3833 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF,HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE COUNTY .OF ORANGE PRIORITY PLAN 'OF EXPENDITURE OF ALLO- CATION UNDER THE STATE BEACH, PARK, RECREA- TIONAL AND HISTORICAL- FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974 WHEREAS, the State Beach, Park, Recreational and Histori-, cal Facilities Bond Act of 1974, if approved by the voters in June 19.74, will provide $90,.000,000 for grants to counties, cities, and districts for acquisition and/or development of real property for park, recreation area, beach and historical purposes; and Information received from the State Department of Parks. and Recreation indicates that approximately $6 .9 million. would• be allocated under said Act to local jurisdictions within . Orange County; and Said Act provides that the County shall consult with all cities and districts within the County which are authorized to provide park and recreational services and shall develop and submit to the State a priority plan for the expenditure of the County's allocation under said Act; and Said Act provides that 'said priority plan of expenditure of the total County allocation must be approved in the manner specified therein by cities and districts within the County as well as by the County Board of Supervisors, . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach that the .State. Beach,. Park, Rec- reational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974, County of Orange Priority Plan of Expenditure whereby $2 million would be set aside for projects of regional and countywide signifi cance with the balance to be shared on a pro rata basis be- 1. /ahb tween the incorporated cities . and the unincorporated areas of.'.. . the County, as submitted by the County Board of Supervisors to individual city councils and boards of directors -of local parks.. and recreation districts for ratification, is hereby approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January, 1974 • 90AA,. Ma r ATTEST: AP ROVED AS TO FORM: . City Clerk City Attor 2. r . . No. 3833 k STATE OF, CALIFORNIA ) ' COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF _HUNTINGTON -BEACH L.4ICIA M. WENTWORTH,: the duly appointed, qualified City. Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of-the: . E' 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 21st ` day of January 1. 74, by-the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Shiplev., .Bartlett,. Gibbs, Green, Matnev. Duke, Coen NOES: Councilmen: ` None ABSENT: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-o c o of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California y . k Tel CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 74-4 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator City Council Members Subject RESOLUTION NO. 3833 ' (STATE BEACH, Date January 15 , 1974 � PARKS, RECREATIONAL AND HISTORICAL FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974 PRI01tqe p e� PLAN OF EXPENDITURES) The State Beach, Parks , Recreational and Historical Facilities Bond Act of 1974 will be on the ballot in June 1974*. It provides $90 million for grants to counties , cities and districts for acquisition and/or develop- ment of real property for park, recreation, beach and historical purposes . If the Bond Act is approved by the voters , the State Department of Parks and Recreation indicates that approximately $6. 9 million will be allocated to local jurisdictions in Orange County. This estimated allocation is based on the State Department of Finance ' s present estimate of the County' s population for July 1 , 1980. Section 5096. 86 of the 1974 Bond Act provides that each county shall consult all cities and districts within the county which are authorized. to provide park and recreation services , and shall develop and submit to the State a priority plan for the expenditure of its allocation including expenditures for city and district projects . The resultant priority plan of expenditures for the total county allocation must be approved by at least 50% of the cities and districts representing 50% of the population of the county and by the county Board of Supervisors . On November 6 , 1973 , the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved submittal of a proposed state bond fund priority plan of expenditure to individual City Councils and the Boards of Directors of local park and recreation districts for ratification. As a result of this action, the Board of Supervisors requests action from the City of Huntington Beach to adopt the resolution ratifying the priority plan.. Under this priority plan, it is estimated the City of Huntington Beach will receive approxi- mately $457 ,460 for acquisition and/or development in Huntington Central Park should the bond be approved. Upon receipt of resolutions ratifying the plan by at least 50% of the cities and districts representing 50% of the population of these agencies within the County , the Board of Super- visors will certify that an approved priority plan for the expenditure for the County has been adopted in accordance with Section 5096 . 6 of the 1974 Bond Act. This certification and the priority plan will be submitted to the State. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 3833 Respectfully sub Vited, David D. Rowlands City Administrator DDR:eh H I STATE BEACH, PARK RECREATIONAL AND HISTORICAL FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 1974 COUNTY OF ORANGE PRIORITY PLAN OF EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED TYPE OF BOND FUND REQUESTING AGENCY PROJECTS PROJECT DISTRIBUTION INCORPORATED AREAS: AfvAHEIM Juarez Park Development $ 504i356 Rio Vista Park Development J Poincianna Park Development Canyon Site No. 1 Development BREA Brea Jr. High School Park Development 91_,o952 Brea Municipal Plunge Modernizing BUENA PARK Boisseranc Park Development 173.�1559 Bellis Park Development COSTA MESA Fairview Park Development 214,478 CYPRESS Bicycle Trail Development 137,928 FOUNTAIN VALLEY Mile Square Recreation Development 149,422 Complex FULLERTON Lake Placentia Development 275,855 GARDEN GROVE Trask Avenue Park Acquisition 294,706 Stanford School. Park Acquisition Euclid Park South Acquisition Twin Lake Park A,di.lon Acquisition HUNTINGTON BEACH Central Park Acquisition 457,460 Central Park Development IRVINE ColleSe Park Development 182,984 Irvine Athletic Facility Acquisition LACUNA BEACH Open Space Acquisition 45,976 Beach Access Development ESTIMATED TYPE OF BOND FUND RE E.S I I NG AGENCY PROJECTS - PROJECT D I STRI BUT ION LA ',;BRA Esteli Park Development $ 128,733 Portola Park Development Dexford Street Park Development Vista Granda Park Development LA PALMA Central Park Development 36,781 LOS ALAMITOS Youth Center Phase 2 Development 41 ,378 NE';:PORT BEACH Balboa Island Park Development 206,892 C1iff. Drive Park Development Corona Highlands Tot Lot Acquisition Bayside Drive Park Development ORANGE neighborhood Park Acquisition 225,282 Linear Park Acquisition PLACENTIA Lake Placentia . Development 87,354 SAN CLEMENTE San Gorgonio Park Acquisition 68,964. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Arterial Highways Bike Trail Development 57,470 SANTA ANA West Reservoir Park Acquisition 459,759 Silver Acres Park Acquisition SEAL BEACH Beach Recreation Area Development 68,964 STANTON Mary Perez Park Development 58, 160. . Edison Easement Right-of-Way Development Catherine- Avenue Park Development Ramblewood-Lowell Mini Park Development Orangewood. Mini Park Development TUSTIN Peters Canyon ;Dash Park Acquisition 149,422 VILLA, PARK Bridal Trails Development 16,321 Tennis Court Lighting Development WESTMINSTER Melanie Park Acquisition 195,398 Dike Site Acquisition I I YORBA LINDA Yorba Linda Commun.ity. Park Acquisition 91 ,952 Yorba Linda Community. Park Development TOTAL INCORPORATED AREAS'. $4,42-1 ,506 (Continued) . t - ES I t?ATED TYPE OF BG"dD Eli JD R Ui S T I AGENCY PROJECTS P?OJECT DISTRIBUTION UNiAiCORPO RAT ED AREAS: LAGU'N'A NIGUEL Sea View Community Park Development $ 80,000 SEEN i CE AREA P.O. 3 LEISURE 440RLD Santa Vittoria Park Development 40,000 SERVICE AREA N0, 4 EL TORO El Toro Community Park & Development 100,000 SERVICE AREA NO. 6 Retarding Basin OSO VALLEY Alicia Community Park Development 90,000 SERVICE AREA NO, 9 EAST YORBA LINDA Woodgate Park Development 45,000 SERVICE AREA NO. 18 ROSSMOOR COUNTY Surplus School Site Development. 123,494 MAINTENANCE DISTRICT TOTAL UNINCORPORATED AREAS $ 478,494 REGIONAL AND COUNTYWIDE: HARBORS,. BEACHES & PARKS DISTRICT TOTAL REGIONAL AND COUNTYWIDE $2,000.1000 RECAPITULATION: TOTAL INCORPORATED AREAS $4,421 ,506 .TOTAL UNINCORPORATED A.REAS 478,494 TOTAL 'REGIONAL aND COUNTYWIDE 2,000,000 TOTAL EST 1t1TEJ 30ND FUND DISTRIBUTION $6,900,000 I I 1 4 � II Via', I.«jII� � -I1��'1"711��ii'•'•,t y,,,a�,'�1"r1}'� � �* L� �♦f. I 1 �_ �I� r V E I,:�,�IM�. `n'Velrf �� µ�- _�,� 'I' i ���'I��I ♦ � aau Lam... �I"'1l r i-". t�y�, - I I r I `,�j+. ,'� .I4i r►1y i-, 1. �'r � far .y; ��IC 4n S ®+�.•.. �I ITT r c.� I , . j,_ • t � ',,pc► s •j� lip•'•".� y�.��: ITj 7T. =Sljrg;1 �'i,a WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINI i,'TON BEACH No. GREEN-CITY ADMINISTRATOR - CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department 6/5/72 Tom Severns Administration INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Administrator's Office quickly as possible but not later than noon, one week prior to the Council Meeting.at which it is to be introduced. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney's use in preparation of ordinance. In a separate paragraph outline briefly reasons for the request of Council Action.Attach all papers pertinent to the subject.All appropriation requests must be cleared and approved by the Director of Finance before submitting to City Administrator's Office. Preparation of an Ordinance or Resolution is hereby requested: A resolution as per attached draft Edison Park Desired effective date Signed: Approved as to availability'of funds Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: City Administrator 0 CITY OIP HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mr. David Rowlands and From Recreation & Parks City Council Commission Subject Chris Carr Park - Playground equipment Date June 11, 1973 At the City Council' s request several pieces of playground equipment have been added at Chris Carr Park. The current inventory now includes : 14 tables with benches 4 barbeques (there was. evidence of minimal use of the 2 checked) 4 totem poles for climbing 3 teeter totters 1 large climber with slides 4 (of 6 eventual) swings a patio area with questionable usage RECOMMENDATION: At their last regular meeting the Recreation and Parks Commission recommended that the budget for playground equip- ment at future parks be increased and that in keeping with the natural design concept of Chris Carr Park that any addi- tional apparatus there be limited to the original budget . Respectfully submitted, Jvigo rt y Sec etary Recreation & Par s Commission NW:ac cc : Recreation & Parks Commission i I 'Al CITY OW HUNTi BEACH_ r INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION • I' "IING100i MACH E-. r To Honorable Mayor $ City Council From Recreation $ Parks Commission Attn: David D. Rowlands, City s� Administrator s Subject Huntington Beach Community Park Date November 10, 1975 design concept i The design concept for H.B.. Community ParkUwas performed by Mr. Don Blackman, Draftsman, in the Publigo rks Department r. and was approved by the Recreation and Par �Commiision last May. It was postponed by the City Council It the same time C: 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. is RECOMMENDATION: Approve t e cFesign. schematic for H.B. Community Park and authorize the Public Works Department to complete the work- ; ing drawings. r 4 Respectfully submitted, r. orm ort y, Secretary Recreation $ Parks Commission NW:ac cc: Recreation $ Parks Commission Public Works: Bill Hart e $ Don Blackman g H.B.U.H. S.D. : Owen Miller i Attachment F PV ydUUS p - rwpr�ery �v l (1-T nINI SAC C10H H _.2 heke Ott-tSU9ai� e. � Pax) o.NcwI SOFTSAU f \ s-� • BASORIALL t \ tot WI /• '' _ —_—_ ---- 1 fN1 rtET L7: \ Reims /K71K► I --— ` P� -E-&LUAU GH--W R-A�LK d-ROGRAK i N'7_X TJTRI P Na T A* AGREE LOCATION TI©H LAKE PARK 4.00 Bounded by 12th St. an the North, lth St. an the South, Lake S' . 0 on the East and plain St. on the West. �2. `FP.RQUHA.R PLAZA � 1 a `�5 . � �° � � S i. Bounded b� 12th St. �� the �@�°tihq Main s�. �� the ����� lath an the South egad Crest Ave. an the West. A_ 0IRCLE PARK ��_ `� 9� S' � 1211,h St. and Crest Ave. RECREATION CEHTR -/ � 280b � Noorthweaterly cornor of l a t'x St,. and Orange A-ve. 5. �3:RUN���?I..K PARK �- 6.50 � South side of Brunswick Drive, West of Golden West St. aRa.n. 17 s 0 East side of \xoAUten West St. mile North of Warner'� Ave. adjacent to Flood Coontrol Chmnel. �.�.� Loma •(�j/Eh til4w' W a a�E a�, side of Cannery St i+=or wh -f Adams Ave ' -; e to Tar + (� Gotha'lot .; r s• �.d. South �q y. .�° Talbert p T.j. q w �nz -.�.m ('i p��] J G*'d . o Go"-hard \}�/6 South GS �a�islbert �"6 o. S"(11d 11rangt,- Voun-'i T11dup South of Hclsa A.ae. ,Xartn of Cornell Dr. ,Weo; of _1y"ardo St. 9 East of Springdale St. Adjacent to Schrader Schooa. .,�..o Dr s v•cr R / 30. f 5-6 SQUt'h of Garfield Ave. , East aide of Eushard St. (Edis an Co. RIW) t?-1 L 2.51 Northwest corner of Edinger Ave. and Ealea Chad St. IV4YY PIA-V 5 _ (Navy Net and Ammunition Depot) 112. R C k. FA North side of Edinger Ave. gEasa side of Graham St. Adjacent to Marina High School. �3. 2.50 forth side of Taylor Ave. ,West of Beach Blvd. UZ/ v � i 15271 Nottingham Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 February 23 , 1970 Re : Approval of building on Marina Park site. City Council City of-'Huntington Beach. P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California .- 92646. Dear Councilmen, When driving up Graham Street last Tuesday afternoon, my eyes were jarred' by the sight of a two story building skeleton on Marina Park site. I. stopped for a closer look; then went home to call City Hall. ' The kind gentleman who answered the telephone in the Building Department informed me that City Council had the previous evening ..(February 9th) given go—ahead approval to thin" Robbinwood Little League building project although no building plans or location drawings had been submitted and/or approved prior to construction start Well, I .thought that he was pulling -my leg! ' -But it- seems that he wasn't: . My immediate reaction. was to' seek your re.—consideration of approval. But both Paul Jones and Mayor Green have discouraged me from this course of action in view of your unanimous .approval. May I ask whether Council required a clean-up. bond on this temporary permanent building as the city does. on .oil well operations? Will 'I have. to help pay the bill ' for .city .crew removal of this "build— ' ing at . a future date? ;How many years does the Robbinwood "Little League have. remaining .on their lease for the 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? Does the Council plan to make a outright gift of the acreage to Little League? Will, '- . at .a future date, a park_ architect find himself having to. design a community level park on the Marina site working around the location of both this building and the temporary library .on the Graham Street frontage? May I bring to your attention another action of your February , ninth meeting. You approved."the sale of all . s_ix million dollars .of our city park bonds. Marina site is in line with three other community .level park sites to share development funds in the amount of $lt0569000.00t (cont. ) as outlined in the Proposed.'Park Bond Expenditure Sheet . (see enclosed) as approved by your body. If the . dilemma requiring your after—the-fact approval decision .was the result of city staff error in having allowed the project to reach construction stage prior to approvals of site location and cons truction..blueprints,, the. question to .be asked is WHO, HOW AND WHEN???? Alsog `WHAT' 'STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO AVOID SIMILAR SITUATIONS IN: THE FUTURE? 'Please find enclosed photos of the building you have .approved.. Very best regards., ;,`Lorra;ine Paber- P:. S. If rion-prof=it, organizations are ;to"be- allowed :'s'quat.f r ..rights on-Huntington Beach'_s undeveloped park sites, I'm going to- pitch tent stakes for .the Golden :West Homeowners Association �in the eucalyptus grove at .Talbert and. Goldenwest Streets. . Enclosures cc': Norman Worthy Tom Severns Recreation & Parks Commission Planning Commission Design Review Board file 5 PARK BOND PROPOSED EXPENDITURE Acquisition of Land $ 1,994,000 5 New Community Parks 858,000 H. B. High School - Purchase 10 acres adjacent Marina High School - if 5 acres it Bolsa Chica High School - it 10 acres it Edison High School - if 28 acres it Lease 10 acres of Yorktown High School - if 10 acres " 53 acres purchase) 73 acres total 20 acres lease ) Central City Park Purchase 64 acres) 79 acres to acquire on bond 1,136,000 Lease 15 acres) Currently own 39 acres Library Bond 18 acres Total 136 acres Development of Land $, 3,291.000 Neighborhood Parks 9 Current parks completed (45 acres) Eader, Hope View, Lake-E Lake, Farquhar-Circle, Wardlow, Greer, Schroeder, Irby, Gisler *3 Current parks developed (8 aches) 530,000 Arevalos, Navy, Taylor"Street *20 Future parks developed (50 acres) Circle View, Haven View, Meadow View, Rancho View, Lake View, :Village View, Springview, Crest View, S-E Bushard d lhdianapolis, Robinwood, S-W Warner S 750,000 Goidenwestj Harbour View, S-E Edwards d McFadden, College View, Sun View, Newland, Peterson, Bushard, Oak, S-E Hamilton & Bushard Community Parks 2 Current Parks completed (20 acres) 430,000 Murdy, Marina 4 Future Parks (35 acres) 525,000 Edison, Marina, H. B. High, Yorktown Central City Park 1,0569000 Current sites (39 acres) Talbert Park, Water Co. Huntington Lake Future sites (79 acres) N-E Sector, S-E Sector, West Sector Library (18 acres) Buildings 400,000 TOTAL $ 5,685,000 Contingency Fund (5.5%) 3159000 GRAND TOTAL $ 6,000,000 * Future parks to be developed subject to possible change. 1 , CITY OF HUNT GTON BEACH INTER COMMUNICATION 'S HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mayor Norma Gibbs , City Council, From Recreation $ Parks Commission and City Administrator David D. Rowlands Subject PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT Date January 23, 1976 PRIORITIES: 6 YEAR PLAN AND CASH FLOW PROJECTION ACQUISITION e 6 year plan is divided into two major sectors Community/ Neighborhood Parks and Huntington Central Park. COMMUNITY PARKS The 6 year plan indicates the acquisition of but one community park (H.B. Community Park) at 17th and Main on the south side of Huntington Beach High School . Through joint effort with the Huntington Beach Union High School District, the H.B. Company and the City this 12 acre parcel is planned to be acquired by July 1 , 1976. The City will allow the H.B. Company to land bank 8 acres against their current and future park commitments for Beach Walk and Seacliff develop- ments while the H.B. Company and H.B.U.H.S.D. work out a land exchange on the remaining 4 acres . NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Eleven neig or ood parks are anticipated to be acquired through land dedication, four through cash purchase and two through a combination of land dedication and purchase this next 6 years. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK e 6 year acquisition plan for. H.C.P. includes the ulti- mate acreage conceived by Commission and staff. It would add approximately 200 acres to 'the existing 270 acre spread. We realize that acquisition of this amount of land is ulreal- istic without another park bond, override or possible rede- velopment plan of the area south of the park. 'It is conceiv- able, however , that if building activity remains constant for 3 more years, that we could acquire the remaining par- cels of land south to Ellis between Golden West and the westerly bluff by raising $500, 000 though some new revenue source. j DEVELOPMENT ' The CommIssion and staff agreen that development of neighborhood parks which have been in need for many years should receive the highest priority and when funds were short they shifted the com- munity park development back to 1976-77 . Working drawings for 7 park projects in the 1975-76 and 1976-77 budgets have been com- pleted and await only the assurance that ample funds are available prior to letting bids . - 2 - January .23, 1976 Park Acquisition and Development Priories : 6 year plan and. Cash Flow Projection The remaining development of parks is projected .for 10 years and reflects nearly .all sites currently shown on the Master Plan of Parks , 'Open Space, Schools, and Recreation. CASH FLOW This chart compiles acquisition and development costs of parks as projected on the previous charts and includes current and anticipated income from appropriate sources . The fund is projected for 6 years and shows a deficit beginning in 1977-78 only because acquisition of 200 new acres in. Huntington Central Park is shown without any new fund raising effort such. as a bond issue or tax override. The Planning Department is currently studying the potential of forming a redevelopment agency for the land south of H.C.P. which might prove to be a feasible method of expanding the park without a large capital outlay. This information will be forthcoming shortly. U' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CiTy OF HUNTINGTON BEACH iL.Y,..... To Honorable Mayor and City Council From Recreation & Parks Commission Attn : DavidD. Rowlands, City Administrator Subject Park Acquisition and Development Date January 15 , 1976 Priorities ; 6 Year Plan and Cash Flow Projection The Recreation and Parks Commission studied and reviewed the Park Priority Committee recommendation in regard to the updating of the Park Acquisition and Development Pri- orities , the 6 Year Plan and Cash Flow Chart. MOTION: Mr. Tom Cooper moved the Recreation and- Parks ommission approve the updated 6 Year Plan for Park Acquisition and Cash Flow and to reapprove the Park Development Plan of 6/9/75 as recommended by the Park Priority Committee. Mrs. Betty Kennedy seconded the motion. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, /NoirmMor hy, Se retary Recreation $ P rks Commission cc: Recreation $ Parks Commission Dick Harlow, Director, Planning Department Attachment ilk 21749 PARK ACQUISITION COSTS (6 _-- FISCAL YEAR 197S-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 - 1980-81. - Dad or ar or ors or or Ac. Site Ac. Site Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site 01Y - ig. - ig. - - 8 H.B.Cam. Ded. 16 Sunset 210,000 3 i9WHBC Ded. 3 f9SS-HBC Ded. 3 #968-Sig Ded. 3 9969-Sig Ded. i Hgts. i . 3 #870-HBC Ded. 10 B1saChca Ded. 3 8979-Sig Ded. 2 Lambert Ded. - [1.5 L mbrt 63,000 ` �2 Falutn 10,000• -------------------------------------------- -------------=--------- --------------------- ---------------55,000 _75-Tay1nr.68r7b .75 Taylor 68,750 2.75 Taylor 68,750 " 4 - 1_5 Seabge 75;000 !,A01A 28.75 356,750 11.75 278,750 10.75 268,7S0 j16 0 6 0 9 55,000 "WrI R,UN 120 Sully 680,000 .2.5 Hmlton 87,500 5 Brks 17S,000 5 Encycl-300,000 5 Sanfd 175,000 �2 S<!ry-th 70,000 CENTRAL 1 !Miller PARK t 5 Encycl 154,000 S Edsn 175,000 120 Encycl 600,000 IS Ga1ev 175,000. 2 Stndgr 115,000 27.5 Signl Ded. 5 Marn 175,000 5 Lands 175,000 12.5 DeNbia 87,500 I5 S1ip F 175,000 5 H.B. 175,000 5 Erlcsan 175,400 3 Slip G 105,000 JS Dnscam 175,000 10 P. F 350,000 S Thetas 175,600 20 O.V. Mshxm 1,000,000 140 Parcel j E 1,800,000 20 680,000 3S 237,500 :15 52S,000 25 900,000 13S 1,225,000 87.5 3,762,500 i 1 � � i :ram PARK DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY fiscal Year Site Acres Cost Park Cost Year 75=76 Robinwood 2 $ 50,000 S Terry 5 150,000 Newland 3 70,000. Pleasant View 2 i50,000 Hawes 2.5 .55,000 H.C.P. (Phase II) 50527,15UU ZZ(,.-)UU 76-77 Marina Community 11 243,000 G.W. College Fields 4.5 130,000 H.B. Community (6) 180,000 Moffett 2.S 55,000 Misc. (12 projects) s oos,sau $ 633,3TU 77-78 0976 Summerfield 2.6 55,000 0973 S=E Yrktwn/Hunt. (8) 170,000 #975 S-E Slater/Graham 3 70,000 ; Bartlett 28 420 000 $ 715:000 78-79 Faith Lutheran 2 50,000 Lambert (Phase II) 2 50,000 #967 HE Co. G.W./Palm (3) 70,000 Snst Hgts S-E Heil/Algn. (6) 135 000 $ 30S,000 79-80 #710 Irby (Phase II) 8 160,000 Esmnt S-E Brookhurst (5) 110,000 #775 S-E Edngr/Saybrk 2.5 5S,000 Peterson (3) 70 000 $r395,006 80-81 Old Civic Center (977) 3.5 73,500 Seabridge,Ps II (830) (1.S) 30,500 Yorktown (978) 8+(10) 378 000000 $ 482,000 $-0if L: 81-82 Downtown east (974) (3) 63,000 H.B. Co. (870) (3) 63,000 H.B. Co. (966) (3) ._ 63 00�0 $ 189,000 82-83 Signal (960) (3) 63,000 H.Harbor Beach-Park (5) 105,000 H.S. Co. (950) (3) 63 000000 $ 231:000 T,a66 83-84 Signal (969) (3) 63,000 Signal (972) (3) 63,000 H.B. Co. (9SS) (3) 6.3�000 $ 189,000 3-TY97 d 84-85 H.C.P. Phase II 6 III 100 2,000,000 Westmont (2).5) 52,500 Signal (968) �3) 63 000,Signal 97000 T�T78,500 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (10 years)...... :..............s5,875,340 ( ) Land not acquired as of 6/9/75 r 1J 1/76 CASH FILM (6 YEAR) - - - CASH IN 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78• 1978-79. 1979-80 1 1980-81 Cash an Hand CAM) 383,061 683,820 179,730 - 266,770 - 778,270i - 1,759,770 Canty Rev. Shar. (Edison) 2,009 -- County Rev. Shar. (H.C.P.) 225,000 State Bond-1974 497,000 7 1.U.D. (Sully, etc.) 59S,000 H.U.D. (Bike Trails) 69,000 ' City Rev. Shar. (Frozen) 182,000 Trash Contract 2S,000 43,S00 43,500 43,SO0 43,500 Taylor School site 437,S00 (Sell 12.5 acres) T Subdivision Fees (6 months) 325,000 6S0,000 650,000 650,000 650,006 650,000 TWAL IN..........................$ 2,278,070 S 1,358,820 $ 1,310,730 $ 693,500 $ 693,500 $ 693,500 cam OUT Taylor School Site 68,750 68,750. 68,750 (ll acre acq-) Faith Lutheran Pffi'k 10,000-------------------------=---------------------------------------------55,000 Develop S Parks S27,5000 Lambert Park 93,000 Old Tam Park Acq- 140,000 Seabridae Acq. H� 75,000 Other N. 8 C. PM Acq. 210,000 " 268,7501 Other N: € C. Park Dev. 663;340 715,000 305,000 395,000 482,000 4.C.P. Acquisition 680,006 237,000 _ 525,000 900,000 1,225,000- 3,762,500 XUL CM.........................$ 1,S94,2S0 $ 1,179,090 S 1,S77,S00 = . 1,20S,000 $ 1,675,000 $ 4,244,S00 &1IA ...........................5 693,820 $ 179,730 S - 266„770 $ - 778,270 S - 1,7S9,770 $ - 5,310,770 1/23/76 MISCELLANEOUS PARK PROJECTS (Developments scheduled 1976-77) 1 . Construct Murdy bleacher section $ 8 , 000 2 . Construct Edison bleacher section 8 , 000 . 3. Construct Arevalos shade shelter 5, 000 4. Install Chris Carr "Imagine City" 8 , 500 S. Improve Edison handball courts 1 , 000 6. Improve Edison shuffleboard courts 4, 000 . 7. Install Davenport Park play equipment 5, 000 8. Install Arevalos Park lighting 480 9. Install Lark View Park lighting 3, 580 10. Install College View Park lighting 3, 580 11 . Install Gisler Park lighting 4 , 200 12 . Install Wardlow Park lighting 4, 000 TOTAL- . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 55,340 New and Deferred Projects For Future Consideration 1 . Construct walkways in Glen View Park $ 850 2. Construct walkways at Greer Lake 1 , 150 3. Install Burke Park lighting 4, 000 4. Install tennis and handball court lighting (T) 47 , 000 @ G.W. College (50/50 funding-College operation) (HB) 11 , 000 S. Construct rustic amphitheatre , restrooms 35 , 000 Sims ' Grove 6. Construct rustic amphitheatre, H.C.P . 10 ,000 7 . Construct group picnic shelter in H.C.P . 40, 000 8. Newland house and grounds improvements, 68 , 000 construction of outdoor restrooms TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 217 ,000 w; R-3 CITY OF H!,/NTINGTON BEAC INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ��� '� `'' �976 MUNnNctoN aencr+ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To Mr. David D. Rowlands From Mr. Norm Worthy, Director City Administrator Recreation, Parks & Human Services Subject INFORMATION CONCERNING COSTS Date March 26, 1976 ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS In response to the motion by Councilwoman Wieder and approval of City Council on January 26, 1976, concerning the service, maintenance and operation costs tied. into the acquisition and development of parks, the following.i.nformation is presented. The acquisition.costs for future park .sites have been estimated at approxi- mately $33,000 per acre in our most recent projection which was distributed . to the Council on January 26, 1976.. However, this cost is expected to rise to $40 000 per acre upon the receipt of the new assessed value schedule which this�epartment has requested for FY 77. The costs of development Have also been projected for the next six year. period in information distributed to Council on January 26, 1976. . The forecast shows Bevel ent.costs of neigh- borhood parks @ $26,000 per acre and comm parks @Tunity0,000 per acre compounded at an 8 % annual inflation rate. tR . The Parks Division has the responsibility to maintain 350 acres of park land Q and 40 acres of Public Works land consisting of both the new and old Civic Centers, Libraries, median strips and.pump stations. Prior to this year's budget cuts and the capital freeze, the total maintenance operation was budgeted at $1,653 per acre. This maintenance cost can also be presented as a cost of $4.69 per capita. Using .survey data provided by the. California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) , it is evident that Huntington Beach is far below .the average for cities with a population above 100,000 ($10.58 per capita). and for cities with a population below 100,000 .($12.38 per capita) . The complete survey data is presented as an enclosure to.this memorandum. orm Wort y, irect Recreation, Parks $ Human Services NW:ac cc: Recreation $ Parks Commission Enclosure 2 . SURVEY DATA (CPRS) MAINTENANCE COSTS PER CAPITA Population above 00,000 CITY PARKS OPERATION$ CAPITAL POPULATION PER CAPITA Anaheim $ 1,439,505 186,000 $ 7.73 Concord 1,286,764 100,000 12.86 Fremont 719,000 120,000 5.99 Garden Grove 824,800 120,000 6.87 Glendale 1,099,052 137,000 8.02 Huntin,gton Beach 620,438 153,000 4.05 Oakland 3,017,959 361,561 8.34 Pasadena 3,015,520 115,000 26.22 Riverside 1,600,000 160,000 10.00 Sacramento 6,280,202 273,200 22.98 San Bernardino 1,081,457 107,000 10.10 San Diego 6,696,508 770,734 8.69 San Jose 3,767,000 500,000 7.53 Stockton 1,427,596 120,000 11.90 Torrance 1,038,495 140,000 7.42 TOTALS . . . . . .15 Programs $ 158.70 AVERAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.58 Huntington Beach 717,590 153,000 4.69� y 3 . SURVEY DATA (CPRS) MAINTENANCE COSTS PER CAPITA opu lation below 0, CITY PARKS OPERATION CAPITAL POPULATION PER CAPITA Alameda $ 897,000 75;000 $ 11.96 Alhambra 247,300 67,000 3.69 Buena Park 647,600 63,200 '10.24 Burbank 1,958,296 88,000 22.25 Carson 873,113 84,000 10.39 Chula Vista 684,140 73,500 9.30 Compton 318,470 72,000 4.42 Costa Mesa 74S,505 79,000 9.43 E1 Cajon 307,828 62,000 4.96 El. Monte 262,283 70,000 3.74 Fountain Valley 418,750 54,000 7.75 Fullerton 2,101,843 93,000 22.60 Hawthorne 565,183 55,000 .10.27 Lakewood 1,124,158 84,000 13.38 Modesto 1,309,502 88,000 14.88 Mountain View 875,000 60,000 14.58 Newport Beach 898,585 62,000 14.50 Oceanside 816,055 55,000 14.83 Ontario 608,363 65,000 9.36 Orange 722,903 89,000 8.12 Oxnard 693,103 85,000 8.15 Pomona 1,174,042 86,000 13.65 Redwood City 797,100 59,000 13.51 Richmond 804,658 80,000 10.05 Salinas 1,483,005 70,000 21.18 San Leandro 1,468,705 70,300 20.89 San Mateo 1,030,506 89,000 ll.S7 Santa Barbara 1,548,964 74,000 20.93 Santa Clara 1,657,663 91,000 18.21 Santa Monica 1,284,024 92,400 13.89 Santa Rosa 1,103,115 65,000. 16.97 South Gate 281,935 . 59,000 4. 77 Walnut Creek 926,645 50,000 . 18.53 West Covina 616,022 76,000 8.10 TOTALS. . . . .. .34 Programs $ 421.05 AVERAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 12.38 Liz CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 01 ` r 3 IN IFER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION till 1%4.11WNMIMH t RICH NATTIIEWS From SKIP FINESTONE Administrative Analyst Senior Administrative Aide I Subject BUDGET FY77 FOR OLD TOWN, Date December 19 , 197S OAK VIEW, AND BUSHARD Enclosed you will find the tentative operating budget for specified human service programs for FY77 , which you requested. The assumptions made in association with this tentative budget are as follows : 1 . The City is planning to move the current trailer at the Oak View site to theBushard site prior to July 1 , 1976 and continue paying rent at the rate of $371/month. 2 . There will be no CETA funds available . 3 . Current agreed level of service will be maintained with Bushard having a coordinator and assistant , and Oak View having a coordinator, 3 assistants and one maintenance man who will also provide services to Bushard. 4 . The Old Town area will be served as a playground program only, without a structure being erected . S . There will be certain capital costs associated with furnishing both the new Oak View Center and the Bushard site . Erich Matthews r Page 2 . December 19 , 1975 Oak View Bushard Old Town Personnel Salaries , Permanent $ 46,986 $ 19, 086 $ - 0 - Salaries, Temp. - 0 - - 0 - 6 ,000 Benefits @ 15% 7 ,048 2 , 863 - 0 - TOTAL PERSONNEL $ 812983 Operating Electricity $ 900 $ 900 - 0 - Water 120 120 - 0 - Telephone 300 300 - 0 - Supplies , Office 400 400 - 0 - Supplies , Special S00 S00 S00 Supplies , Maint . 1 , 500 1 , S00 - 0 - Maint . , Bldg . & Grounds S00 S00 1 , 000 Rentals* - 0 - 4 ,4S2 1 ,440 TOTAL OPERATING $ 15 , 832 Capital Furn. & Equipment $ 2 ,000 $ 3,000 $ - 0 - TOTAL CAPITAL $ 52000 TOTAL BUDGET $102,815 *Bushard trailer @ $371/month Portapotties @ $60/month (2 each) S . inestone SDF: kg ` HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. - �� CITY OF HUNTINGTOIN BEACH APR 6 197G INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION .aamx.ttwaa 0. Box 190 Huntington on Beach,CA 926;:'. To Mr. Dick Harlow, Director From Recreation and Parks Commission Planning Department Sulijecl PARKS, REACHES, GREENBELTS, WALKWAYS Date April. S, 1976 AND BIKEWAYS/HUNfING1ON HARBOUR CORP. TENTATIVE TRACTS 15483, #8636 6 #8718 At a meeting last week of the Recreation and Parks Commission Park Priority and Phase III, H.C.P. Committees, they reviewed tentative tracts 95483, #8636 and 98718 as presented by Mr. Bill Duncan, President of Huntington Harbour Corporation. Following study and debate over the proposed detail plans which would provide more park, open space, beach, greenbelt and public Walks and trails than were required for the Harbour area in the Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation and considering the Comnittees had been given the authority to act in behalf of the entire Recreation and .Parks Commission upon this matter, the following motion was rude: NUMON: Mr. Scott Flanagan moved the Recreation and Parks Commission approve the proposed parks, beaches, greenbelt, bay vistas, public walkways and bikeway depicted in tentative tracts #5483, 98636, and #8718 as presented by Mr. Bill Duncan, President of Huntington [Urbour Corporation. The approximate 8.5 acres to-become City property,through the park dedication requirement of City Ordinance 0998 with the remaining fee balance of approximately $65,000 (the equivalent of 1.5 acres of land e $42,700 per acre) waived in lieu of Huntington Harbour Corporation assuming the development responsibility and cost of the 8.5 acres of City property according to plans approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission and the City Council. Furthermore, that the Iluntinrton Harbour Corporation will provide fishing docks at the main channel vista parks and will agree to maintain the public walkway around the north-west end of Trinidad Island and the 3 acre island greenbelt in perpetuity. Motion seconded by Mrs. Betty Kennedy. Notion carried. Respectfully-suhmitted, i l6lkc;ll/`� -r�l� rm vort y, .ccret y Recreation f, Parks Commission NW:ac cc: Recreation 6 Parks Commission - City Administrator park -B®® I �. . 70 � /G / 6S I 6-9 O ---- - 1 9 J I� 1 a as � �o • a� pe _.: lava 9 _ k 42 . ,.?f/c-f. i �..•....-1 .',`t" .�q-I !-•f- '°�: ..a.. .a-;� �-� •=`-s�- " � '� >y-_ - - - t�'_� tip- - ..c^S� f�-..� }r'� .�< r �.- _:-yr -r 2,� -'-+R,- t`T; ." �. ate= - -z >M� •si. h _ i' Park' Beach F t Parksite, Livingston, 1294 Pi to 39 - AB Co :et Millie Jane Tract 281 Park, n t 1041 Parksite #3 - Peck Park 742 Ocean er _, ; Peck_Es,tates=Fly----![/Edinger — - ~ Parking AuR #2 � 1237 Parksite #4 - Uttler 677 E yt: , rna , Do , S/Heil W/GW Hunsaker F F - Pa Cgtets 11 _ Parksite #S - Hdy' 233 y n ia��lest co-So Pacific �,; B1ockA`A. &--D not park) =� r . Parks - Slater/Edwards 771Parksite #5 - Murdy - See Murdy � . r Dutch Haven Homea-210parcels Parr Deeds under,Murdy F. Parksite #1 - Cornell .-, Parksite #6 - Gothard 464 G. E/Springdale- Loland Homes �, Gothard/Talbert - Orange Co :. Parksite #�2 - Brunswick C��+�,, Parksite #7 Maldonado 687 c, Goldenwest & McFadden - 192, ,.�- Bach to RR - Warden/Baughman . ' 193. 194 ,19.5.196.222.273.274, - Parksite - Central City , 1410 Parksite #8 - Lamb-Glen Mar 463 Park' Krauchi Carl� _y c annery/Pioneer - Tartan P it - gar West F'pp 1356 •n Parksite #t - Lamb-G1enMar 690 nanc�al .Corp _ r15 4nnery S/Yorktownt _ Lots 1.2. 5 44 '. ,... r: - : Parksite -- Lieb Paul 1306 s Parksite #9 - Recreation Dept 21 Tract 281 - A16 Huntington Beach Co. CHAINDEX CAT.NO. 1-0213 -RINT`O IN U.S.A. :_HI!!RDQ CAI.4o. Dn114*?0 Ih U. 11.A. - _ _ - ..»�.X3"-"K =-'sr+?...n.+n+'-sc.. -.-; y.d.-aa,,'Y,n-:->..:+w:_a vrt '= -__ -..N:r:-rvF•�e,•,-,•q.7, - -.. .m.,,_ .-.±z <r�-..�«s-Y'.^gl+sf'ti�i+y..:.'sK ustv...etc-,.q..ycw,e:-•.�y.«t}r?.r.^b*Y:::.r h•::.,p,,..,._ - _ -4- !M Y r _� .'•� 1 'F-r_LM _.,. "t !fir-•c.•''� J 'EiS. - a-E * y.'R- t •'R'sr: s£�. s � .-. � --.�, z. --�•:si _...�_.�..�-erg '�'``�r�•r p-.. _c- _ _ - •Y �- _-.;•r,-�*�'. .:.rx -v..*.�_.�_�-.• - -- ze - 1 .! -•a,._�.. � - -a •.. �. ..:-_ , ��- .... - - ...t _ ._ J. .. �.•+� _�-_ Yl -o'd° 1 .tom � _-�.- L € -� _ .V. �� -.lam - a. -'�Fn i`�._ _ .,a�;�Y'IP. - _'C•fF� -. ._t'a ._-. - - F _ 'Y i.�. ,?'•,. ''?_ - V{. - - - - t. �:,ru7'•�-- ..I -1- 5:�. 1E: .Yd t`_..'3 Wit. ..a s 1� apt .'?_: - - _ _ - _:.^viz• Parka_ite 414 Circle Pam = '13 P8 ite lath/Bd`aasds �3 957 ; 11th-11th - fl A-59. Peterson ` Parksite #11 -- Lake Park 14u ' -ParksiteEdward a/Slate*_ 95.7 Ilth-l2th • Bs Co :: .281 A '59 Peterson. Parksite #12 - Farquhar- 90 Parkgite - VTraot 281 ��`+ a931 x - ` Plaza - llth-12th - Hn Co'. A-65 �s].ett 3 Pajirksite #13 -V '° EA' a `` 725 'Parksite 964 A 8leter W/gg�arde -, eLemater 281 A-69 Si ala -r ~Parksite #13 - As 726-_ Parksite Tract 281 93b r - Slater ill/Edwards "- Cple 41d� CO Lvr A.x . - -Cart ter `Parksite Orchard, �3 ' 1003 Parksite tract 281 n�- ,3 932 - 01, Tr 281,,- A 9-140 27-329 45-50 A-81 Gay : _ _1"7 _ In.7A_ 37. &0 . Parksite 963 Parksite Belshe 5 959 i "Z, ce% Tract 281 - A-71,88 B-2,14,15, 281 A-2,20 Jones 4 Parksite Tract 392 1160 Y Par to -_Tract 281 929 A-84 %i�intner, et• al € Cy= A�8 Britsch `3 L r=° s Tract a ctih/sg 19,31`�32 E63 64,80 81 97 98 99,1 711 49B Irish 1 (Estate of) 14, 8,121,133,13413�,13 6 , Parksite spti•.° * 281 -3,21,39 Swessinger-Cone v ... ; .. ' CHAIMDEQ u7. -0. t-o:I t 0. S.A, - :✓+vr,.:.�ai.� .:,��s+c�rY-w��ut,y,s:•.+�-+__.,: - s,,•.•.wa. �s- �-a. :�.%+:�'-��-�.,ia-- ,r.�,. <. .....•�.--....n_.�.-__-.- - ��a---" -. ;>+��w•.:--&i,;Pax:....,Psar.•_�: .n.!-.c.- +-4.ran ,-, .:, -' "?'-sd'":`s,�•<F`'n.:. :x?+ -"i.ci-, -' � �. - - - ..- -_ -- -. ,,. a. _ .� ,-.-� - .o _ -. - ,��_. �� - �'--..s:. � _ _ _'']�. •a ,� ,-1•�'�" _X..x•',*-:'*s����-,w4 a, ��:-J-.'_:. _._..,�Ta..•s'=fa*��;,- ...{�.a.•�'� ... _. _ -, _...,_.ar.»,GY.._�....>_a .. ,..._ _..._ ._ ...... �-il.�'_A -:.�� �'Y�- _..1..'1_;,,_ '.fd�' -- _ -�-M1- .C�s._ _ _ .Tt_ -':N1,a- _ �-•--F'--.-G-:= -'J�-� �{-±- -.:�'i4 _ _ �,.--�} _ _�-.. ... .. _,: -.,� ,-. '.: �'.-.".-:,�.: .,,<,-� „.. _`�t"- _-mot`- _.. �_,-.E _ `+�+;-: L 4 �.-r'�� - •�' - ....�,. -,+.+.. -. .., .• ... -.,-�- :- ._ �. -. ..---•. � -... , � t�'2-• _ wy�ul-_ -`�_:.a -1a. �^ - - � --i�r^z'�'h,��-.ar� t p-^"+-,T-... e .I<,✓.-._ - < -..._ _ .,-' .._. .,- ..�.�-..: _. -.. .. - - _ -.,+'r'S'c ��.,`�-„¢T.'. � -g �,.,� 'ark-�:3.', �.;.�F M.t�� - -•• -_-.� �. - - J �- - � _ -_ wit-^ _ - -n, 't-.__ , ��i�'f _ Parksite et`.281 Parksite Tract 281 A-27 113 n -58 _Arnoli -,& Suess e r , California, State (Daher) Parksite - Tract 281 988 Parksite - Tract 291 976 s RE Monroe - B-61. A18,36,54 Re B-76,77 Simmons -- Parksite - Trac 281 /3 945 Parksite 281 B-81 . 1� 971 8-163$ flolt Blanc) Wilcox Krause Parksite - Tract 281 1112 ^Park Site - Tract 281 , 926 , Block B - Lot 71 - Marx G B-17,34 Jolly Parksite i3 961 Parksite - Tract 281 - B-53 .987 281 E-104, �6 Arnold-Suess °Y=a Totten z Parksite %�14 960 Parksite Thomas 988 p { 281 E-8--' Belshe 13 tr Tract 281 B-46,47 Parksite - Tract 281 = E8 1276 Parksite - 281 B-27 28' '44 45 1047 �H DeDion, Evelyn et al - « RE Stewart 1 3ti ' F Parks to - RE - 281_ B-55 2 1024 =_u CHSSA,IMD[X CAT.no. f-o: 13 rDiNT[D IN D.S.A. eterson � —} t > i qz � . Parksite - Tract 281 1112 � FRki F, x� # Block B Lot 71 Jones k , s,1.,'-���, � � ��'L�'�"� �s�c_,,c��r-^�•`- w ..�-� �. `* c :r i � - GNAIMDQ CAT Re : a[ja [ s s , ->!..i'�=t � A 9 3.4•�i.j ,r 7 -.i-v'F �t "'� yrF h N f•S•� 51 ! - jig? a.� fi-r . -Wig, _ -gam.. •- r.-- �,". ':F.K r F„1. -3Y�','IY , ti. U=°.•cf-��r eS' �'" _ S - Y �*}�- i z'4r<* _ a �r,: :it�- �--s� 4 � z, -_.r�'�' -�€'t•+�•..•per _ T . o"r ![.��y'r 7 .. .�� F.._i:�t,`.v� _�.ki. 2k r•"r'F g-+.;, `r ri: -r. 4-� r,� - 1}:r��� ,�� - 4 .• _y.�7- a 's a. \ -x y :S�c�''G.a3�.`- -a.a��L-sr�a..-^�L -�3�`r.st .t�r's�Y ►'�3�4�"°da'•s�`,r"�r�a^�t5�r4ii�,�i 1 rFaG",ut• ``�Ot`.�•-,sc-'��"-..rr .13-��•,...'iGl"iv•ttr*:r;�ir r+tYd-•-.s u.�'*c.Y--ra}. - _ . {"'�z.. •` 'S '# i -'`=£'.: lw is ,s`h„ _ �r-�.• _ _ '_ • • _ - , 5• - t :V - Parksite -- SlaterlEdtards 958 Parksite - Tract 281 1213 ,r r Blair Eve G. Block A 81 2 _z-127 DerigpLot t3 k Parksite `Shre e - i3 ^� a Parksite * Tract 281 1126 " 4' 970 281 E-54,55 7.1 7 131 d S-21 Z2 23 '141 158 - Richas�ds r ,: .. . , Rictrda, ass, Bart, Anderson Parksite 281 E-69 1004 Dadioa ; AE 2 Grace Gillette _ Parksite - Bert and 990 Y ' Parksite Gran hest ,3 989 Tract Z81 E-10, 15713 Tract 281 E- 0 it ' _-_ . _t :. . ._..�.. �..- - Parksite 281 - E-112 �3 986 Parksite - Gisler Ernest 1226 CW Colin. t H. - Gisler Par�C - �Q&huretLw:_- Atlanta[S Parksite -_ gg1 E-70 '3 1010 �4Yks ite - sw_dor 1387 Evelyn Dedion - RE EL/Slater gri gdale - Ketttler, Gi (i ssfe ` 11 Parksite - Tract 281 1004 Parksite - Tract 281- Jones 1225 E-69 - Gillette (3 = r ' =y' N. _= , Lillian B. et al - A 5,6,15, E 23,24.33,41,42,.513,86 Parksite Tract 281 '" 1081 Parksite - Jones, Lillian 1255 E-120,�37 138,154 155 Monroe ` t,, ' r Tract 281 - Lots A17 be 77 - x R-46-47- - Rea Estate 61 '�i1 arse "- Tract 281 1218 Y r � 81 l 1% - Pkit Parksite - Jones, Lillian B 1339 i Claus er Block E (.r 7 r Slater/Edwards Parksite - Tract 281 1128 Parksite Tract 281 - E-111 985 C. Blk E Lts 105,121,122 DeDion '° L" cv Latshaw fa IIAINDEX czr. �o. 1.01 1 z PRINTED IFl U. !.A• f N4jti1 - ._ '.02:1 "INTFO HN J. . --••"-.f+eew :r.-mx�r�•=�s_.xv�+--�...-_. s-i _..�: --- -- _...-s �-.«�-.�•�.-: .�_ , r.•. _ z ..-.. .N �,w.+�- ...._ .. _z. ,._b:. .�.. 4-- op _ - - ..f - f• ,f - - - 434j� +' ••=af. - -+r'•t-..=,?'�"�j.-, +•'.. *- - x� :z. ,.d;.-t• '�-r� - .,..r.r��' _.�'7'� _�.. ..+P�.ic„i- .n''�414•, •M ,•�•_�� �.. -:.� ..t.:•'}.. :r :_- - - -�... ..+-' r-.-. -.x..=- -.. _ 4 'S �`� _ Y l- �='x.y� - _ :x`.`."-.. _ -�..-. .-i.F•. .. �.-. _�. • ... r. �._.�.. - ._ -.�i _ ._ �. .,L-.x. _ •'_i.- yam _ .::I�• - - aS�'-S'_ - `.!L. _ Awl a - .a l 1.' Parksite - Tract 28. it9i 1323 Parksite #14 - Meredith 147 Lot 132---$Yv E - E/Wrookhuret I/Inds apolis Lv' Parksite - Lot 20 - Tract 1235 Parksite #18 - Tract '6193 RE 951 g 281 - Burn, Louise W. - - _ - :. �=_ Star Dust Lands,, Inc. . Prat..P•.Aliwt ._• _B1oeic,.S_�,_ Maudeville Cir - Perry Perk Parkiite Murd p ' Lots 1358 ' 'A 66 - T 3 ! Vintner Gertrude, _eta_ _ _ _ Parksite '- Walker, . Jeanne �1262 z ; �r s. Parksite Oak Ln - Oakview 1398 _ (Tortamassi) Murdyy Park : Y o Park - n Slater - w/Beach . �, B-128 - Tract 392 J Palmer, o$er, Odessa Parksite - Tract 392 1191 Parksite -` - Oq vies -13 r 94 Lots 131,132 - Vintner,et al i s` par - n a er - w geac3 ` Engle, Maxine - Clark, Nora M. /3a3 r Pasin - a g eL w n1390 CHAINDEX CAT NO 1-02I1 FRINTED+h U i ` Tuc ropertySpecialstsIva 5 +ramp; . Parksite - Tract 281 1050 h $� Siler, Henry, Blatchford B1 & U. -<��"� ' �'' '� �•�� Parksite - Tract 281 1287 B-10-11 l- Stewart, Walt E • `_ - �#t�'10 T7 Tf p C• s - '4i "iY - z �1,G�.�.`a - •C iYX} -- - Parksite - Tract 281 - 1292 y - 1' Block B - Lot 81 Winship, Agnes E. Parksite - Chambers, 1229 C Patricia - Lot 66 Block A Tract 392, Murdy 'ark RE �� � •'',£�S:��' c'�`•v.ryr+ �.y x`�'-thy,, ry''c. .�t ._ �s+r i ram' CXAIMDQ CAT.NO- 1.02 is PR[NT90 IN N.S.A 5�ss`ak`�,�s.ium:�x"•'�a���"� �ec�rs�"`� �ri::t`> _ - • --- `pF '-�-� 1� -.. _. ". � - - - 7-t- a-1.,3f" .- a-x_. k- •a-- �'r1,�1��y,�,` - � _ � ' rr., t --. �.-z-.:_• _y - - --� _ =:2's:.. t2 �-.lam - �ou A - � - c. ty- -a.. _ _ Y- s _ ? _ " -` - _ -JET` .: •t__ ="". 1. } Park C ntral City So 1426 Patch, et al St R/W 215 Counties Gas - (Wallace Prop) Ronald Rd Btn Talbert/Slater Park Marina Ltd - St R/W 495 atterson, Gearld DaleA 149 .� to Bolsa Chica/Warner SW Cor• Str R/W Patterson wy. N/Ellis F� .r _.. . .. >___•_ r_ _. - ••-- - _:.. .._ . ter_ - ... . _ . Parker, Willie & Gladys 151 path rson, Glenn & Janet 143 - ` Str R/W Patterson Wy N/E13is 0 Str R/W Patterson Wy n/ llis - �: Parking - s/s PC$ & 1st St 1314 Pavalon Building - 1234 , �y (PA) to Beach - Sn $rd-mil Hunti ton Beach ta - Food C cession ration - (Parking Authority) - s/s 1314 Patterson,' ouis G ^ Water 1179 CP PCH & 1st St to Beach - �, Pipeline- tHw N/ Newland Standsrd_.:Oi1, Co So. Cal_ Wat cq ` ' Parking Authority - PCH 1315 Patterson, Loin G - Water 1180 }` Pipeline-Bea E - Ellis/N- Cr at 1st Street - Parking So Cal Wate Ac AN V4 1 1 0 T AnA L watar _ Parking - Paeific Cst Hwyo, 1315 Patterson y - St eet R/W � s/s at 1st street (PA) N/El arlis - E/Beach 7 .. H1 11 0 T and h, Wa * r Deeds: 0-141-142-14 -144-145 -M Parkway - Main St R/W 9 46-141-148-14.9- 50-151 ` `T _ S/Mansion - HB Co. Patt et al - Real Esta 109 Parkside Lane/south end 1431 B ck 217 - Oil Int ` Ocean View Sch District " x,���-`" -.�.R�.<,r ,�C�qc '�,.-... �,r-"'+�.afi. `�`-'fir-� - -. ' �` - .,, t'• w r =F,� - _ `�r�.��a��%���y%cy+�`.3`+�"��.�`-u. c' 'tG u s ».. :_. ?¢ t v•' +t n c . ,;� ..5 ,�+. - ,. t .` F ^ram, 'F^a� ,..F -'M+,�,y'.{ ,.+i tF"r y:7 � �d"��.�ss'�C � -�. ,1 r_ .,,.5 _ '' TF; f r-K-'ks .' 9 � 'S• .--:4+� •n '_ - vim;L� � � v4_�#.`n 3iF v t .-.y1,- �i- •y, --, --u'� '- .i'R -i _ -- `� - -} --� - p-. . _ K7 �" 'ri�:LY���a-b":�-o`�a's�.:�-d�r.SuEai_r ..��^�- j, t ✓.r ,aat:saf��;u.:ii.:..,�..,�..+:ca.._f - _...._«�:t�.+,r.�-a.w:y ..--. �S } 4*ry 8/ PARK SITES ACQUIRED O..1-PARKSITE IDENTITY TOTAL ACRES LOCATION NO. 1. CORNELL-DR__ 2.5 South of Bolsa Ave. , North of Cornell Dr. , West of Edwards St. , CFRF -so-696e1t qRk East of Springdale St. Adjacent to Schroder School. 2. (BRUNSWICK PARK) 6.5 South side of Brunswick Drive, West of Golden West St. Col. Sack GREa P*kx 5.2 , North side of Edinger Ave. , East side of Graham St. Adjacent to Marina High School. 4: OP. 3.1 W/GW, E/EDW, S/Heil , N/Flood Control am ?'- Toy Pau. fug r s y I/- 1;9 5. 17.0 East side of Golden West St. Y mile North of Warner Ave. 766 A. lbw%�y PoK Adjacent to Flood Control Channel. 6. fi9T2D 14.9 West side of Gothard St. South of Talbert Ave. (Old Orange 76MOA $. Ta-1 berT?&I-K County Dump Site). MALDONADO PROP. 2.5 North side of Taylor Ave. , West of Beach Blvd. 8. L--AMB---(GLEN-NEAR) 2.1 �3 East side of Cannery St. North of Adams Ave. , Adjacent to RO�erT B, WARALvvJ TARK � Q War d1ow. oc) . 4 " 9. RECREATION CENTER. 2.0 Northwesterly corner of 17th St. and Orange Ave. PARK SITES ACQUIRED r , PARKSITE IDENTITY TOTAL ACRES LOCATION NO. 10. CIRCLE PARK .8 121h St, and Crest Ave. 11. LAKE PARK 4.0 Bounded by 12th St. on the North, llth St. on the South, Lake St. on the East and Main St. on the West. 12. FARQUHAR PLAZA 1.8 Bounded by 12th St. on the North, Main St. on the East , lth St. on the South and Crest Ave. on the West. 1 0--l' gape" -)7/ r2IC L.^,) 13, caL�-` ?1G . S/Slater W/Edwards DC�,EH�aiev=72� 5 , E'�4GT �GOGKs )q Y 03 1 14. . (.=: E/Brookhurst , N/Indianapolis — S .e+`vim,, 15. NAVY PROP. 2.5 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) 0-4 EDISON R/W N/W of Hamilton/Brookhurst �r DECON CORP. 4 Asa- q �- V S IQ pex PA�� �, / ��2rV y S 0-A O O I --� �r O f' CITY OF HUNT-INGTON BEACH RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT SUGGESTED PARK NAMING POLICY 1. -That parks adjacent to schools be named the same as the school. 2. That if an entire park or sizeable portion of a park which is not adjacent to a school is donated by an individual or family that it be named after the doner. 3. That if the park is neither adjacent to a school nor was donated all or in part that it be named after former Huntington Beach mayors or trustee presidents. The honor given to those oldest, who are still living, first; then, in order, by length of service on the council. 4. That after all the mayors names have been affixed to designated parks and additional parks are purchased by the city, that former city councilmen or . trusteemen who did not attain mayorship or president have a park named in their honor beginning with the oldest, still living, then in order by length of service on the council. 5. That exceptions to the above listed priorities may be made to honor persons who have served their community in an exceptional and distinguished manner. other then as a councilman by a majority vote of the recreation and parks commission and city. council. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE«CH RLCRL-i TION & P.-.RKS vcP,-,RTMENT SUGGESTED F',RK G--UELOFMENT POLICY Approved by Recreation & ~arks Commission February 9, 1966 FROCEEDURE 1 . That the Director of Recreatuon & Parks, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning, and the Recreation & Parks commission investigate and interview land- scape architectural firms that are interested in designing parks or beautification. projects in Huntington Beach- and forward their recommendations to the city admin- istrator. 2. That the Administrator review the recommendations with pertinent staff members and forward the proposals to the city council. 3. That a firm be hired by the city council and a contract drawn under the super- vision of the city administrator. 4. That the firm work closely and cooperatively with the Directors of Recreation " Parks and Public Works in preliminary design plans. 5.. That the first design drafts of a particular project be submitted to the Recrea- & Parks Commission for their approval as to the aesthetic and functional concept . Theme designs should be considered. That additional suggestions from the com- mission and from the public attendance at the commission meeting be weighed for feasibility. 6. That the preliminary plans be shown in the neighborhood of the park or beauti- fication project at P.T.F+. , homeowners, school board and/or similar group meet- ings to allow additional interested people to voice approval or give additional suggestions. 7. That the preliminary plans be shown to the city council at their informal morning meeting for open suggestions. 8. That the plan then be revised by the architectural firm to take advantage of the valid suggestions by all concerned groups and that preliminary specifications be completed. 9. That the revised plans and specifications then be analyzed by the Public Works staff for final approval. 10. That the revised plans and specifications be presented to the Recreation and Parks commission for their final approval. 11. That the final approved plans and specifications be presented to the city council and advertised for bid. 12. That the bids be opened on the specified date, studied and corrected, if necess&: by the Public Works Director, and the low bidder awarded the contract by the cl-- council. 13 ' That the director of Recreation & Parks develop a program to encourage communi- groups to contribute to the park development of the city. That' money for speci , projects be preferred, but acceptance of volunteer labor and donated materials would depend on the feasibility of working it into the contract by the Landscapc Architect, Director of Public Works, and the contracting firm which submitted th? low development bid. If volunteer assistance is accepted the method of recogni- tion for their contribution will be recommended by the Recreation and Parks Com- mission to the city administrator for each project. 14t That community groups wishing to contribute to design plans of parks or other beautification projects begin with step #4 as outlined above bringing their pro- posed design projects to the Directors of Recreation & Parks, Public Works, and the Landscape i-"rchitectural firm. 15. That ground-breaking and dedication ceremonies for new parks and recreation facil- ities be planned by the Director of Recreation & Parks and interested groups and individuals invited to attend . That the chief of police he notified when con- struction bPni-ns to alert his turcc LL_-, -^sGihl.e vandalism. ,y w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT Suggested Donation Policy 1. That individual citizens, organizations, business firms or groups, (public or private) , be encouraged by Recreation & Park Commissioners and other city officials to donate gifts, devises, legacies and bequests (personal property) to the City of Huntington Beach when appropriate. All gifts subject to the approval of the City Council. 2. That in recognition of a gift, or bequest of land to be used perpetually as a city-park (either all or a substantial portion) , the park be so named after the doner or dopers. Recognition to be given through the press at ground breaking and dedication ceremonies. 3. That in recognition of a gift of �D500 or equivalent value, a bronze plaque (4" x 1211) properly inscribed with the name of the individual or- group, the date, and the gift or what it purchased, be installed in the park, on or near the pertinent donated property or equipment. a. For ground mountings the plaque will be mounted flush, set in not more than a 16" x 24" rectangle of concrete with placement at the discretion of the Director of Recroation and Parke. b. Building or equipment mountings will be at the discretion of the Director of Recreation and Parks. c. Press recognition will be sought. d. Two years maximum allowed for accumulation of• gift value to warrant a bronze plaque. 4. That in recognition of a gift of � 250 or equivalent value, a walnut- wall plaque be awarded the individual or organization with press cover- age if possible. 5. That in recognition of lesser amounts the donors be properly thanked in official city correspondence and press coverage solicited if appropri- ate to the occasion. 6. That individuals and groups may earn as many plaques as their area projects amount to. r� R(Cffflflon and P. 0. BOX 190 . . . HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PHONE LExington 6.2573 RECREATION CENTER . . . 17th and ORANGE NORM WORTHY DIRECTOR TOM BUSHARD PARKS SUPERVISOR VIVIAN BORNS REC. SUPERVISOR GARY DAVIS May REC. SUPERVISOR 14 th 19 68 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Mr. Doyle Miller, Administrator —...--.......................-...--............ CITY CLtRX City Hall Huntington Beach, California Subject: Donation Policy Dear Mr. Miller, On motion by Mr. Mastroianni and second by Mr. Treece, the Recreation and Parks Commission unanimously approved the attached proposed donation policy at their regular meeting of May 8, for submission to the City Council for their consideration. ASircerely th, orm y, Secreta y Recreation Parks ommission NW:an cc: Recreation d Parks Commissioners RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR 30 March 1971 TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Resolution Relating to the Purchase of Certain Land At the request of the office of the City Administrator, I submit for your consideration a proposed resolution relating to the purchase of certain land from the William Lyon Development Company for park site purposes . Respectfully submitted, DON P . BONFA City Attorne DPB :WM: lm Attachment 1 20 October 1970 TO : City Council FROM: City Attorney Y SUBJECT: Chris Carr Park At direction of City Council, we transmit resolution honoring Huntington Beach' s Medal of Honor winner, Chris Carr, by naming the city park at the corner of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue after said Chris Carr . Respectfully submitted, DON P . BONFA City Attorney /ahb STAIL�N'T OF THE ACTION OF CITY�J__ U�I�L Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday- SpFtember 21, _ 9�.. _ Mayor Shipley called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 4:30 o'clock P.M. ` Councilmen Present: r_ihhg Rar -1 tt , McCracken'. Green, Matney, Coen,Shiple Councilmen Absent: NnnP Chris Carr Park Councilman Green stated that Mr. Chris Carr, World War II Medal of Honor Winner and Huntington Beach resident, had passed away on September 16 , 1970, and he felt that the park to be developed on the southeast corner of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue should be named the "Chris Carr Park." Councilman Coen stated that he felt the present policy of park naming procedure should be preserved, though he believed Mr. Carr was most deserving of such a memorial. On motion by Green, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution designating a city park to, be developed at the southeast corner of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue as "Chris Carr Park. " The motion was passed by the following roll call vote : AYES : Councilmen: Bartlett, McCracken, Green, Matney, Shipley NOES : Councilmen: Gibbs , Coen ABSENT: Councilmen: None On motion by rreen the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned. at 12:30 A .M. X1?lZX �• to Wednesday, September 23, 1970 in the Sheraton Beach Inn Conference Room. Motion carried. Paul C, Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: - Donald D. Shipley pail C _ .Tones Mayor ' 1 City Clerk- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss : a' City of Huntington Beach ) I, PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action q of the City Council of said City at their regular z meeting held on the 21stday ofSeQtember 19 70 `, WITNESS my hand and 'seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this' the ZA&ay of Sep_ ember 19 70 ;r u1 C .,` w6nes AI City Clei r .apex-officio Clerk of the Katy Council of the City . of Huntington Beach, California BY• -Deputy. . :a <"3 STA1. .ENT OF THE ACTION OF CITY JUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall F, Huntington Beach, California Monday,_S,pptember 21, 1970 , Mayor Shipley called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 4:30 o 'clock P.M. Councilmen Present: r_ihhc , Rar 1 tt _McCracken-. Green, Matney, Coen,Shipley Councilmen Absent : Nnne Chris Carr Park Councilman Green stated that Mr . Chris Carr, world War II Medal of Honor Winner and Huntington Beach resident, had passed away on September 16 , 1970, and he felt that the park to be developed on the southeast corner of Springdale Street and Heil Avenue should be named the "Chris Carr Park. " Councilman Coen stated that he felt the present policy of park naming procedure should be preserved, though he believed Mr. Carr was most deserving of such a memorial. On motion by Green, Council directed the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution designating a city park to be developed at the southeast corner of Springdale Street and- Heil Avenue as "Chris Carr Park. " The motion was passed by the following roll call vote : AYES : Councilmen: Bartlett, McCracken, Green, Matney, Shipley NOES : Councilmen: Gibbs , Coen ABSENT: ' Councilmen: None On motion by Green the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned, at 12:30 A .M. X to Wednesday, September 23 , 1970 in the Sheraton Beach Inn Conference Room. Motion carried. Paul C. Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City* of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: Donald D. Shipley Pail C _ Amines Mayor City Clerk- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss • City of Huntington Beach ) I , PAUL C. .JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true: and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 2lstday ofSeptember 19 70 WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 28thday of September 19 70 . ' Paul C . Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California f BY: Deputy F.I�N STATT OF THE ACTION OF CITY ;NC IL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California MnnclaU,_JjJ v 209 1970 Councilman green called the regular meeting of the City Council of .the City of Huntington Beach to order at 4:30 o'clock P.M. Councilmen Present: Bartlett. McCracken Coen Gibbs ne (arrived at 5:00 P.M. Councilmen Absent: �h•7:R1•�Y _HOPE VIEW SCHOOL PARK - SURPLUS PARK PROPERTY - APPROVES SALE A motion was made by Councilman Bartlett that the easterly 4.48 acres of the 8 . 1 acre Hope View neighborhood park site be declared as excessive for neighborhood park needs and authorized the sale or exchange of the surplus portion, and that the proceed from the sale or exchange be used to acquire additional acreage of equal recre- ational utility within the Huntington Central Park project . When put to a vote the motion was unanimously carried. On motion by Green the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned. at 11: 10 P.M. Motion carried. Paul C . Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk .of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST Jerry A , Matney Paul r_ _ _tonPg Mayor Pro Tempore City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } County of Orange ) ss : City of Huntington Beach ) I , PAUL C. JONES , the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 24th day of July , 1970 WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington.Beach this the 21stlay of July 19 70. Paul C, JUae§ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the .City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California l BY Deputy F� APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIi- ------~---------7 — or..1 .•. M E M O R A N D U M CITY CLF'ttlC TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Doyle Miller, City Administrator SUBJECT : Approval of Seven Neighborhood Park Schematics (Springdale-Heil, College View; Lark View, Hope View, Gisler, Bushard & Arevalos) DATE : July 14 , 1970 The subject parks have completed the schematic design phase (master plan philosophy) as per the City 's contract with Courtland Paul/ Arthur Beggs , Associates , Lifescapes , Inc. (formerly Donald Brinkerhoff) Associates) and Eriksson, Peters $ Thoms . Each park was the subject of community meetings with staff and architects wherein neighborhood input was thoroughly discussed and included in the design submitted this date . The parks were also reviewed and approved in a joint meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission and the Design Review Board on July 8 , 1970 . The landscape architects are aware of the minor revisions suggested by the DRB and Recreation and Parks Commission. Exception is taken to the DRB conditions relating to landscaping and aesthetic improve- ment of pedestrian ways located in the general vicinity of each park. These are outside the financial scope of the present park development and financial program, and should perhaps be the subject of 2nd or 3rd phase funding in the parks or street tree budgets . All parks will be subject to a second review at the design development stage . It is anticipated that only minor details will be changed and the philosophy will remain the same . The parks and architects involved ate as follows : Park Architect Springdale-Heil ) College View ) Courtland Paul/Arthur Beggs , Associates Lark View ) Hope View Lifescapes , Inc. P 43 r Park Architect Gisler ) Bushard ) Eriksson, Peters & Thoms Arevalos ) RECOMMENDATION: - Approve the schematic master plan of the parks subject to Design Review Board and Recreation and Parks Commission. minor revisions . ZZ y i l ler City dministrator DM:TS : gbs w. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: Doyle Miller, City Administrator ,. FROM: Recreation and Parks Commission i H DATE: April 27, 1970 +� r SUBJECT: PLAYGROUND APPARATUS SELECTION FOR CITY PARKS w O On Thursday, April 23, the Recreation and Parks Commission deliberated on the subject of design and placement of play- ground equipment for city parks as requested by the City Council on April 6. On motion by Mr. Jay Mastroianni and seconded by Mr. Kent McClish the Commission voted unanimously to continue the present city policy which allows the Recreation and Parks staff to select and place playground apparatus on newly designed city parks . This administrative policy was put into effect in 1965 with the simultaneous construction of Irby, Wardlow, Schroeder and Greer Parks and has proven to save the City from $500 to $800 per park in architect's fees. This policy would not preclude that special, innovative, playground apparatus could be designed for parks in certain instances should staff, Commission and Council so desire. THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONCURS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION. I LL R Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFOR April 6, 1970 "'Tl a 0- TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Design Review Board L 7 a ATTN: City Administrator City Clerk RE: Play equipment for Parks The Design Review Board in a unanimous decision requested that the City Council consider involving each landscape architec "integrally" in the design and selection of play equip t or the Ci y' s parks. Res ectf y ed, P o asquey RJV:dr 3 6� i 5 K 4 ; 3 1 April 1970 ` �,, OVER sY c:"r�' ccurrc;iTL . ti TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney V._ SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Expen- diture of Money for Park Site At the request of the City Administrator, the attached resolution is submitted for approval -. authorizing the expenditure of $116,996 . 34 to Wm. Lyon Development Co. , Inc . for a park site in the general location of Surfcrest and Sea- side Lane in Tract 7102 . Respectfully submitted, f DON P. BONFA City Attorney DPB:bc Attachment J " 1 is; ST' 'ANT. OF THE ACTION OF CI` ``COUNCIL Counci�-Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 5, 1970 Mayor Pro-tem McCracken called the regular meeting of the City Council of. the City of Huntington Beach to order at 4:30 o'clock P.M. Councilmen Present: a n atne Green arr a oen p y 7 :30P.r Councilmen Absent: None RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARK BONDS - APPROVED k The City Administrator made. the .following recommendations to .C.ouncil in regards to park bonds , and requested that they be approved. 1. Instruct the Bond Counsel to prepare Notice Inviting ' Sealed .Bids to be prepented for adoption at the January 19, 1970, meeting. 2. Prepare a resolution authorizing. issuance of bonds . 3 . Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign Letter of Agree- ment with O'Melveny & Myers as Bond Counsel. On motion by Kaufman, Council approved the recommendations of the City Administrator, authorized preparation of Notice Inviting. Sealed Bids in sale of park bonds; directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the issuance of said bonds ; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the firm of O'Melveny and Myers . to serve the City as bond counsel during negotiation of said bonds . Motion carried. 3 '' �k�k�k�k�k�iir�k�k�*�k*�kytnt�k�t�k�k�r�k�k�rt�r�ir�k�k�k�k�k�k�k�k*�Ir*�Ink�lr�k*�tr*�k Ar�r*�k On motion by McCracken the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned. at ,12:00 Midnight, to Monday, . January 12, 1970, at 7 :30 P.M. in the Council Chamber. Motion carried. Paul C . Jones City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk u of the City Council of the City ra of Huntington Beach, California ' ATTEST: N. John V. V. Green { Paul C . Jones Mayor City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) °. County of Orange ) as : y City of Huntington Beach ) I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Glerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that } the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 5th day of January 19 70 . WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this ' the 12thday of January 19 70 . City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BY Deputy r: n�.m1 .....s.e,.aaem. -. ... �.._ ., -.._ _ .-.a_-...'r�'C..._".•_^"'_.=Lr_ ^rs^�-?'Y,'" __ _. _. i lf'7:f • 8T ST` `V1IENT. OF THE ACTION OF C I` � COUNCIL Counci.L Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 5, 1970 ` .Mayor Pro-tem McCracken called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at -4: 30 o'clock P.M. Councilmen Present: atne Councilmen Absent: Nonearr a oen ip ey 7 :30P.t RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARK BONDS - APPROVED The City Administrator made the following recommendations to Council in regards to park bonds , and requested that they be approved. 1. Instruct the Bond Counsel to prepare Notice Inviting Sealed Bids to be prepented for adoption at the January 19, 1970, meeting. r 2. Prepare a resolution authorizing issuance of bonds . 3 . Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to sign Letter of Agree- ment with O'Melveny & Myers as Bond Counsel . On motion by Kaufman, Council approved the recommendations of the City ,( Administrator, authorized preparation of Notice Inviting Sealed Bids in sale of park bonds ; directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the issuance of said bonds ; and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the firm of O'Melveny and Myers . to serve the City as bond counsel during negotiation of said bonds . ` Motion carried. `: On motion by. McCracken the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adjourned- at 12:00 Midnight, to Monday, January 12, 1970, at 7 :30 P.M. k in the Council Chamber . Motion carried. Paul C . Jones- City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 1 ATTEST: - N. John V. V. Green Y Paul C . Jones Mayor `^ City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss : City of Huntington Beach ) "' I , PAUL C. JONES, the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk ;4 of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify .that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 5th day of . January 19 70 . WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 12thday of January 19 70 . City Clerk and .ex-officio Clerk t = of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California BY: Deputy r 1 December 1969 C J I TO: City Council FROM: City Attorney SUBJECT: Ordinance Pertaining to Games and Activities in City Parks At the request of the Director of Recreation and Parks , we submit the attached ordinance amending Section 7721 .10 to limit the activities games and recreation, which would endanger the health, safety or welfare of participants or any person in any park in the city . Respectfully submitted, i DON P. BONF City Attorney DPB:AHB:bc Attachment PARK DEVELOPMENT, EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NEEDS FOR 1969-70 1. SCHROEDER PARK 2.3 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, and playground equipment. Play equipment includes the following: Satellite, large swing, Speed Bar, Rocket, Space Tower, low bar, Merry-Go-Round, Hill b Dale, U.F.O., Radar Screen, 5-spring Saddle Mates and Small Rocket Swings. Equipment awaiting installation is 6 picnic tables, 3 waist- high stoves and a drinking fountain. Improvements for next year should include-approximately 9000 square feet of walkways. 2. GREER PARK 6.1 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, play equipment, restrooms and storage room, lighted ballfield, scoring booth, bleacher slabs and parking lot. Play equipment includes the following: Arch Swing, Imagine City, Geodesic Climber, Form Turtle, Form Castle, Slide and Tot Swing. A drinking fountain, bike racks, 6 picnic tables, and 3 waist-high stoves are also available. Improvements for the coming year should include landscaping of planter area by permanent benches, block wall around parking lot and installation of volleyball courts. 3. MARINA PARK 10 acres presently developed by Robinwood Little League, used and main- tained by them. A branch library is also located on the park. Remain- ing acreage is undeveloped. 4. IRBY PARK 3.1 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs and playground equipment. Play equipment includes the following: Tri Arch Swing, Hill & Dale, 5-spring Saddle Mates, Merry-Go-Round, Muscle Man, Form Turtle, Form Castle, Playwall, Slide and Arch Swing. Equipment awaiting installation is 6 picnic tables, 3 waist-high stoves, 2 benches and 1 drinking fountain. Improvements for next year should include approximately 7400 square feet of walkways. 5. MURDY PARK-SCHOOL 14.6 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, walks, play equipment and parking. Play equipment includes the following: con- crete Play Mountains, Arch Swing, Palm Tree Climber, Cactus Climber, Fort, Slide, Porpoise, Form Turtle, Cinderella Carriage, 6 concrete Horses, Tot Swing, Bee Hives, and Space Slide. 10 picnic tables, 5 waist-high stoves, 4 benches and 2 water fountains are also available. Improvements for next year should include restroom facilities, 10,000 square foot Community Center, group picnic shelter and storage, 2 lighted ball diamonds, 2 lighted multi-purpose courts, plus an addi- tional 5,000 square feet of concrete walks and permanent bleachers. PARK DEVELOPMENT, EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NEEDS FOR 1969-70 (Cont.) -2- 6. HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK 147 acres first phase acquisition and development. 57 acres currently in ownership (TALBERT PARK SECTOR: 15.1 acres of which is undeveloped with 3.5 acres being developed into a police-public pistol, rifle, and archery range. HUNTINGTON LAKE SECTOR: 19 acres, 14 of which comprise water, non developed. LIBRARY SECTOR: 23 acres, 10 of which comprise water, non developed.) Remaining 90 acres under eminent domain. The 147 acres to be developed as a regional park including a central libra- ry, Community Center, boat, bicycle, equestrian, and food concessions beginning in the 1970-71 fiscal year. 7. (TAYLOR DRIVE) SCHOOL PARK 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. This site is low priority at present. 8. WARDLOW SCHOOL PARK 2.3 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, and play ground equipment. Play equipment includes the following: Porpoise, Slide, Playwebs, Tot Swing, five spring Saddle Mates, Arch Swing, Light House Castle Chute and Air Craft Carrier. Equipment awaiting installation in 4 waist-high stoves, drinking fountain, 4 picnic tables and 3 benches. Improvements for next year should include approximately 7,500 square feet of walkways. 9. RECREATION CENTER 2.0 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, walkways, picnic area, lighted ballfield, stationary bleachers, recreation hall, and playground equipment. Play equipment includes the following: 2 large swings, Earn-A-Slide, Merry-Go-Round, Tilter, Basketball court, and Pipe Climber. Indoor d outdoor shuffleboard courts for senior citizen use is also available. Improvements for the coming year should include furniture replacements. 10. FARQUHAR-CIRCLE PARK 3 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, and picnic facili- ties. Improvements for the coming year should include new and additional walkways and park lighting. 11. LAKE PARK - LAKE PARK ANNEX 5.8 acres presently developed with turf, backstop, trees, shrubs, indi- vidual and group picnic facilities, clubhouse, scout cabin, walkways, benches and playground equipment. Play equipment includes the follow- ing: Imagine City, Arch Swing, Form Playwall, Form Saddle Slide, Buck-A-Boat, Merry-Go-Round and Atomic Climber. Improvements for the coming year should include rehabilitation of Scout Cabin, additional picnic facilities and walkways to coincide with Lake Park Master Plan. PARK DEVELOPMENT, EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NEEDS FOR 1969 70 (Cont.) -3- 12. HOPE VIEW SCHOOL PARK 8.1 acres presently undeveloped. 13. LE BARD SCHOOL PARK 5.0 acres with Recreation Building-Current under development. 14. NAVY PARK 2.7 acres presently undeveloped. 15. GISLER SCHOOL PARK 12 acres. Approximately 6 acres developed with turf, trees, shrubs, walkways and parking. 16. PERRY SCHOOL PARK 2.2 acres presently developed with turf, trees, shrubs, walkways and playground equipment. Play equipment includes the following: Arch Swing, Prairie Schooner, 5 spring Saddle Mates, 3 Tee Pees, Cactus Climbers, Swing-by-Swing, Apache Fort with Slide Corral and Merry- Go-Around. 3 waist-high stoves and 6 picnic tables are also available. 17. EADER SCHOOL PARK 2.7 acres presently under asphalt paving with Branch Library and Recreation room. Plans are being prepared for park development at present. 18. CITY GYM d POOL .5 acres completely developed for Recreation purposes. 19. #6 HUNTINGTON HARBOUR 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 20. #8 COLLEGE VIEW 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 21. #9 SUN VIEW 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 22. #10 HARBOUR VIEW 3.5 acres presently undeveloped. 23. #11 SPRINGDALE-HEIL 11 acres presently undeveloped. 24. #15 LARK VIEW 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 25. #16 S-W WARNER-GOLDENWEST 2.5 acres presently undeveloped 26. #17 OAK VIEW 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. PARK DEVELOPMENT, EQUIPMENT INVENTORY AND NEEDS FOR 1969-70 (Cont.) -4- 27. #32 BUSHARD 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 28. #36 S-E ADAMS & BUSHARD 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 29. #42 S-E INDIANAPOLIS & MAGNOLIA 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 30. S=E INDIANAPOLIS S BUSHARD 2.5 acres presently undeveloped. 31. #28 H.B. COMPANY 2.5 acres partially developed with grass and trees (old golf course). 32. H.B. COMMUNITY PARK 12 acres partially developed with grass and trees (old golf course). 6 $` MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Landscape Architectural Interview Committee: Chairman - Thomas Cooper, Donald Shipley, Lee Mossteller, Ron Bauer, and Norm Worthy (others who served but could not make all meetings, Jerry Matney, Doyle Miller, Bill Hartge and Bud Belsito) DATE: June 16, 1969 SUBJECT: Firms recommended for future landscape design work in Huntington Beach The Landscape Architectural Review Committee contacted many southland design firms and reviewed their brochures which related their qualifications and experience in park design. From these, seven firms were selected for interview. The interviews were held and the following recommendations were made: 1. That the City Council select more than one landscape architectural firm to design and supervise the development of future neighborhood and community parks in Huntington Beach. Following the completion of development of several more neighborhood parks the Recreation and P:_.rks Commission would be in a more enlightened position to recommend to the Council a firm or firms to design Huntington Central Park. In the meantime the remaining property in Huntington Central Park should be acquired when bond money becomes 2vailable. The following firms were recommended to be interviewed by the City Coun- cil: Cornell, Bridgers, and Troller; Eckbo, Dean, Austin, and Williams; Linesch and Reynolds; Richard Bigler Associates; and Voorhies, Trindle, and Nelson. 2. That the City Council allow the Department of Recreation d Parks to add a Landscape Designer to the staff to answer directly to the Department Head and to work in close liaison with outside landscape architectural firms and the Park Maintenance Superintendent. This staff member would be utilized to draw plans and specifications for both in-house and contract work which has been planned but not implemented on existing parks or facilities. He could also be utilized for many small city beautification projects and assist in playground equipment layout plans when not requested from the con- tracting landscape firm. 3. That the City Council consider appointing an interview committee to select the best prospective candidates to design the Murdy Park Community Centers restrooms, and group picnic shelter. zoo March 25, 1969 1 John W. Aldrich, Scoutmaster (Acting Troop Committee Chairman) 1 Troop 553 Boy Scouts of America 7552 Amazon Drive Huntington Beach, California 842-7540 y-y-� The Honorable Alvin Coen Mayor of Huntington Beach City Hall Huntington Beach, California RE: PROPOSED 533 (Scout) PARK Honorable Sir: On March 12, 1969, approximately sixty-five residents of the Sunview School area attended the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The purpose of this visitation Was to seek restriction of further building of apartments on the land adjoining the Sunview School in lieu of a park site. Mr. Douglas of the Betker Corporation submitted his plans for construction at that .time, which would utilize possibly the entire 12.2 acres of this area. At the close of Mr. Douglas' presentation, the Chairman permitted me to present my plea for a scout park for this site, not as a motion but as a recommendation (Reference attachments). Please note that I personally know Mr. Douglas, have lived in his apartments, and know that his construction methods far exceed those of other builders in this area. Also, that I sat with him at this meeting and discussed the purpose of my presence. Also, that I was in agreement with the several hundreds of home owners and renters of this area in that we need a park far more than another apartment city. Frankly, I do believe that the commission acted in good faith, as .evidenced in: (1 ) The motion to not condemn the several homes of aged people on Glencoe Street and build a park on this site; (2) The recommendation that 2:5 acres fronting on Sher Lane and adjoining the school property be acquired for use as a park, and evidently agreed to by Mr. Douglas. In the minds of many, many people this is a good start, but not good enough! ! ! I personally feel that supporting the forthcoming park bond issue would not be apropos .considering the many years of efforts by those residents, evidently, too little or no avail . Adequate park facilities have been needed for this area for a long time, considering the number of children to be considered. Again, in my opinion, adequacy means a park site similar to McGurdy Park on Golden West (17 acres. Yes, I believe that land was donated) - - - This 12.2 acre tract would be perfect, and not a little 2.5 acre plot without play equipment and a "clubhouse". -2- The idea of a Scout Park is rather new, as I introduced same to the Vice President of the C.O.C. Woman's division last October. However, interest in this plan is quickly catching on. After the March 12th meeting, I personally planned to circulate a petititon to be presented to you, but was advised by the President of our sponsoring organization, i .e. The Sunview School P.F.O. , that a similar petition had been circulated last October and presented, but with no results. Therefore, I feel that a new like endeavor would not be appropriate. Your personal consideration of the pleas of these residents, together with the needs of our ever expanding youth groups will be most appreciated. J. W. Aldrich JWA:jr 12 March 1969 PRESENTER: John W. Aldrich, Scoutmaster & Acting Troop 553 Committee Chairman 7552 Amazon Drive, Huntington Beach, 842-7540 Speaking on behalf of the scouting units of the Sunview School area, not as an authorized spokesman of the. Boy Scouts of America. MOTION: I move - - - - 1 .0 That the City of Huntington Beach, California, acquire a minimum of twelve (12) acres of now vacant land bordering the Sunview School and Sher Lane, Huntington Beach. This land to be designated as a permanent City-owned park. 1 .1 That this park land be for use of all citizenry but developed and equipped . for the furtherance of the entire Boy and Girl Scout movements, together with the needs or our very small children in this vicinity. 1 .2 That a large quonset, or similar type of temporary structure, be errected on this land for the use of all scouting units of this area, all of which at present have little or no adequate facilities for meetings, ceremonies, dinners, etc. Also, very necessary to our expanding youth programs. 1 .3 That Troop 553 be given the opportunity of fulfilling its community service project requirements by administering, maintaining and beautifying this park and structures to the best of its abilities under the professional guidance and assistance of the Parks & Recreation Commission. 1 .4. That this city-owned park be named the "553 Park" , dedicated to the greatest asset we have - - - -the youth of our community. I so move. J. V.I. Aldrich PRESE14TER: John W. Aldr,,n - To support the motion creating the "553 Park", the following is offered to - further set forth the immediate need for this undertaking. 1 .0 FACTUAL 1 .1 At this time, a minimum of seven (7) scouting organizations are struggling along with facilities never designed for these activities , namely: Blue Birds - 57 (members) , Girl Scouts - 58, Cub Pack - 62, Camp Fire Girls - 23, Boy Scouts - 49, Webelos - 9, and Brownies - 65. 1 .1 .1 These 323 young citizens represent only about 20% of the youth of our area. This isn't considering Troop 267 - 50 Scouts just down the street. 1 .1 .2 Mothers wit!-, small toddler,--) , especially in the apartment areas have no place to congregate, relax, have play devices and well kept green grass , without fear of being run over. 1.1 .3 There are no long-haired, bearded, cheaply made up, dirty barefooted, vacant appearing hippie wonders/ dropouts in any of these groups. .1 .2 Troop 553 meets weekly with only kindergarten chairs to sit upon. 1 .3 Cub Pack 553 moved the Annual Blue & Gold Dinner three times due to lack of facilities. 1 .3.1 They also had to move the meeting night from Thursday to Monday in direct conflict with Troop 553 which supplies them with all Den Chiefs (middle management) . 1 .3.2 Troop 553 therefore changes its meeting night from Monday to Wednesday rather than recall Den Chiefs and wreck the Cub Scouts program. 1.4 Troop 553 had to avail itself with Peek Funeral Home facilities for its first monthly Court of Honor (pot-luck) Dinner. Thank the Lord for Peeks Funeral Home. 1.5 The Sunview School is designed for public schooling, has low ceilings , no cooking facilities , and already forced into temporary type classrooms. 1 .6 The Troop needs two nights per week. The other units need one night/afternoon a week. Therefore, the Quonset (unti'l a more permanent structure available) will be used every afternoon and evening. 1 .7 A "Council Fire Pit" sorely needed. Give these boys some worn out telephone poles , and to - - seating problem solved. 2.0 PROGRAM ENLARGEMENT 2.1 No Clergyman would be adverse to open air Sunday services, Hymn sings of the old W.W. IIField Chapel Services type. 2.2 A small theatre-in-the-round type band stand where our youth bands could beat their brains out with their crazy music, and their youthful audiences go wild (in a clean way) . . 2.3 Each unit would have an inside space allotment to hang up their charts , banners and winner's ribbons for all to r admire. k I i J. W. Aldrich i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � I RECREATION & PARKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT for May, 1968 FACILITIES AND AREAS OPEN ATTENDANCE Activities Conducted Days Hours City Gym & Pool Mon-Fri 2:30pm-4:30pm 6:OOpm-9:30pm Saturday 9:00pm-5:00pm Drop-in... ............................ ....................... ................. ...2778 Activities....... ............so.** ....*so** .*....9o*o.....o*.906o1906 Gymnastics 224 Womens Volleyball 180 Recreational Swimming 410 Family Swimming 350 Red Cross W.S.I. 155 Mens Conditioning 60 Scout Meetings 82 Swim Team 285 Swim for Handicapped 160 Recreation Center.......................... .... ............... . ....... ........ .6452 Drop-in 820 Guns d Garters 470 Nursery Co-op 420 Senior Citizens 500 Tap & Ballet 100 Nuts to Nibbles 60 Mormon Church 2000 Mens Softball 1000 Round Dancers 42 Boys Baseball 150 Landscape Painting 120 Ping Pong 180 Powder Puff 240 Young Miss 220 Womens Softball 130 Lake Park. ..................... .. ........ .................................. ....4560 Greer Park.................. ................ .... .. . .. ........ 0. . ......... . .. .. .4570 Playground 2200 Boys Baseball 250 Mens Softball 1800 Young Miss 320 Marina............. o.**.o........... ........... ... . .....so.*....3710 Recreational Swimming 1500 Tennis 600 Basketball 900 Swim Team 100 Volleyball 260 Boys Baseball 350 Golden West College Recreational Swim........................ ........ ... . . .....1100 H.B. High School........................................... ................ .....530 Volleyball 120 Boys Baseball 300 Basketball 110 Circle View Ponytail Softball............ . ... ........... ...0...... . ...... .......i140 Eader After School Playground...,,,,,,,,,, ,.,.,,......o* ..*.. . ... .. ...*.3862 LeBard After School Playground....................... ... ..... ..... .. ........ ...2065 Meadow View............ .............. ...... ........... .................... .......560 Boys Baseball 200 Ponytail Softball 360 Perry After School Playground............ . . . ..... . .......................... ...1628 Peterson... ...*..... ... .......... ...............0.01680 After School Playground . 1290 Ponytail Softball 390 Rancho View Boys Baseball............................ ............ ............ ...250 Schroeder Ponytail Softball.....................................................220 Village View..................................... ...........................0...180 Square Dancing Adult 45 Square Dancing Children 135 r v MONTHLY REPORT Page II Wardlow Boys Baseball...........................................................200 Westmont..........................�.................•...........................371 Ponytail Softball 240 Adult Square Dancing 131 MAJOR FIRST AIDS -0- ATTENDANCE TOTALS May, 1968 - 36,762 MINOR FIRST AIDS -3- ATTENDANCE TOTALS May, 1967 - 23,164 REVENUE DEPOSIT $9,525.14 ATTENDANCE TOTALS April, 1968 - .57,299 Account #79026.2 Expenditures, Year to Date, April 30,-1968 $15,907.15 Revenuer-Year to Date, April 30, 1968 11,475.58 Balance ($4,431.57) 1 Memo to: City Council From: Norm Worthy, Director, Recreation & Parks Department Date: May 24, 1968 Subject: Amended Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation I hereby request that the amended Master Plan of Parks, Open Space, Schools and Recreation which was referred to your body on March 18, 1968 by the Planning Commission be referred back to them for further study and amendments. At that meeting you deferred action on the amended plan in order for the Recreation and Parks Commission to review and evaluate the recommended changes. On May 21, 1968, I appeared before the Planning Commission and presented to them our ideas and specific goals which we would like incor- porated into the plan. They, in turn, granted permission for the Planning and Recreation and Parks staff to prepare a further amended plan for their evaluation and consideration. fluit.•:a ----------------- •-v Affidavit of Ablication _ Ito State of California County of Orange ss 01 City of Huntington Beach J. S. Farquhar, being duly sworn on oath, says: That he is a .citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years. 1\` That he is the printer and publisher of the Huntington Beach News, a weekly newspaper of general circulation printed, published and circulated in the said County of Orange and elsewhere and published for the dissemination of local and other news of a general character, and has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and said paper has been established, printed and published in the State of California, and County of Orange, for at least one year next before the publication of the first insertion of this notice; and the said newspaper is not devoted to the interest of, or published for the entertainment of any particular class, profession, trade, calling, race or denomination, or any number thereof. (Published Huntington. Beach News The Huntington Beach News was adjudicated a legal newspaper Mar. a, 196N.. of general circulation by Judge G. K. Scovel in the Superior Court Nonc Puslac HEARING of Orange County, California August 27th, 1937 by order No. A-5931. MAiTkp,,4n 0F,PARKS 3 AMENDMENT'88 l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN` chat a That the public,heanng,wiIlX.be held by the City Council of the'.Cnty,•of Huntington Beach, MA STEP. PLAN OF PARKS AMENDMENT E8-1 in -the Council 'Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour.of of which the annexed is a printed copy, was published in said news- -as possible,. on Monday, the 18th day of paper at least One Issue March,1968,'for the purpose of consider- ing amendments to,;the .Parks, ,Open; �t,}1 March Spaces. Schools and Recreation Element commencing from the day of of the Master Plan of Land-Use. - , .All -iriterested persons are invited, to i 68 ?th 14,grch attend said `Bearing; and express their 19 _, and ending on the day of opinions for or against said amendments. Further information. may be obtained i 19 68 , both days inclusive, and as often during said period and I from the office of the City Clerk. times of publication as said paler was regularly issued, and in the DATED: March 6; 1968. regular and entire issue of said newspaper proper, and not in a I CITY OF*HUNTINGTON BEACH supplement, and said notice was published therein on the following I By: PA7; G.ilONES dates, to-wit: _ _ City.Clark Nlerch 7, 1968 cidi "Z Publisher n Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of (7 Notary Public — Orange County_Cadiforniaf f'v F J�r:�a E�r+,_•� THOMAS D. WYLLIE ®EFE REM BY COUNCIL NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA BY Cam:Ua CiL PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN �,(Aa ORANGE COUNTY ; ' � TO: . :: = M My Commission Expires .Sept. 12, 1970 -� T Ry of Huntington lleacb County of Orange State of California �ffibavit of IfuhlirattiVit of J. S. FARQUHAR Publisher Huntington Beach News Filed Clerk By Deputy Clerk W RESOLUTION NO. 68-1 RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING - ADOPTION OF' MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 68-1. WHEREAS , the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, California, has held one public hearing in compliance with the State Government Code in order to consider and review Master Plan Amendment No. 68-1, an amend- ment to the Master Plan of Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation. Element to tl e Master Plan of Land Use, and WHEREAS , the City Planning Corrarsi.ssion is adopting said plans for the Ifollowing reasons : (a) Promote the health, safety, welfare and convenience of the general public. (b) Serve as a general_ guide for the develop- ment of public and private lands . (c) Provide an authentic source of information for residents and investors of the city. (d) To obviate the menace to public safety and property values resulting from inadequate coordination and planning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach hereby adopts said Huntington to the Master Plan of Land Use of the City of ��.ntington Beach, California. EE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said amendment to the Master flan of Land Use is recommended for adoption by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as amendment to the Official Master Plan c,f land Use of said city. Publish 3/7/68 Vvdt R �R�- �MKS: Postcards t4- t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASTER PLAN OF PARKS AMB'`"' -6r]. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the -City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7;30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as possible, on Monday the 18th day of March 1968 , for the purpose of considering amendments to the Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and . Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against said amendments Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk. 1 DATED: 316169 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By: Paul C . Jones City Clerk _r • • _,'UBLIC HEARING SET City Clerk 1, ' FOR City of Huntington Beach.:,,,,,, PA2 K AM 6S The Huntington Beach P anning Commission, at t ad 'ourneav'--_ meeting held S recommended of 0426 If approval has been r commended, the City Council will be required to hold a public hearing in this matter, and it will be transmitted to you prior to the next regular meeting of the Council. A copy of the Planning Department legal notice, - The o - Address !:Yelephone) Kenneth R.. Reynolds, Planning Director By .Number of Excerpts None Publish Once LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT NO 68-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing .will be held by the City Planning Commission of the .City of Huntington Beach in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California, at the hour of 7 :00 P.M. , on Tuesday, March 5, 19689 for the purpose of considering XXjW9VX9XUKX2X= amendments to the Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Paster Plan of Land Use. All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions for or against the proposed amendments xkgXXX Further information may be obtained from the office of the Secretary-tf -the Planning Commission. DATED this 22nd day of February, 1968 CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOiv K.A. Reynolds Secretary w 1. INGTpy MRArca fo 8�9� Huntington Beach Planning Commission 9'j(r► `�tr�isos.� ��Q P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 �cpUNTY C March 18, 1968 L E T T E R O F T R A N S M I T T A L TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Master Plan Amendment No. 68-1 ATTENTION: Doyle Miller, City Administrator Paul Jones, City Clerk Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 68-1, a resolution of the City Planning Commission recommend- ing approval of an amendment to the Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation Element of the Master Plan of Land Use. The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter March S, 1968. By unanimous vote of the City Planning Commission, Master Plan Amendment No. 68-1 was approved and recommended to your Honorable Body for adoption. The State Planning Act requires that a public hearing be held on the matter after which the plan may be adopted by Resolution of the City Council. Respectfully mitted, K. A. Reynolds Secretary, Planning Commission KAR/bd Encl. 8 C� �unr'o¢ �oman's ��u�r #untinyton Bzacfi, ofall fosWa May 3, 1968 Huntington Beach City Council Civic Center Sixth and Orange ^-- Huntington Beach, California F+i.-r .. `® MAY..2.4 196.8. � ------ Dear Sir: - I am writing on behalf of the Huntington Beach Junior Woman' s Club, to request of you to preserve ,the fresh water lake on Goldenwest and Talbert Avenue. We feel this lake. can benefit not 'only the citizens of our community, but, can be' used to beautify our city. Many persons are .concerned 'with the possible destruction. We feel our community needs -to provide outdoor facilities and to save what' we have, . rather than to destroy them. We certainly .hope this letter will help you to under- stand the feelings of some of Huntington .Beachs citizens. Sincerely Your//s__,// Mrs. Don Winterhalter Corresponding Secretary C!t Winterhalter, Mos . 16752 Busby Lane ��pl0/V W �. Huntington Beach, Calif. ~ ►. ;, -W, . +�r V Huntington Beach City Council Civic Center Sixth and Orange Huntington Beach, Calif. May 22, 1968 Mrs. Winterhalter Junior Woman's Club 16752 Busby Lane Huntington Beach, California Dear Mrs. Winterhalter: The City Council of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held Monday, May 20, 1968, considered your request that the City preserve the fresh water lake in the Talbert/Goldenwest area for beautification purposes, as well as outdoor recrePtioral faeAlities. D Council received and filed your letter from the Junior Woman's Club. Sincerely yours, PAUL C. JONES City Clerk By Deputy City Clerk PCJ:ED:aw BOLSA CA-11CA H&C.I.VilEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P Box 46f, - Huntington Beach, California 5opts, bom 3, 1965 W- DU7,14 Miller C"I'Ay Admialmtxstox 0 1 to y H a III Huntiaeon Beseb, C&Iif syn!a Sww -"Ax%ait t"ho LA -444pq 'wQ&%*u it over, my ve t-hat t-k-Af kayllw -'Pwek *,I* R40*9 ' * Wf PA 64h. fl#.V T�hftt it 'W&-b V I t i 024 d "ott-N.'a -IPmz-' lD4 by mn-r pakopl@ inst w"mm'- -the park 131 4 to -t4h- mk.;, glAOD) 110-VI -hmll 'lakuy ST-fazz ;W.- I p wi. 1, nk-le P.�Azi g, e- Wl 41-3 WS ;-k'#54C Wks+ Ung 'ISW IT Y suall 11 PIC-A hag ba',Aa • 1 � 4 x g of (fl110n a n d Pfln —Q��fl� 1iIF :!1 P. 0. BOX 190 . . . HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA PHONE LExington 6.2573 RECREATION CENTER . . . 17th and ORANGE • i NORM WORTHY DIRECTOR November TOM BUSHARD 14 th PARKS SUPERVISOR VIVIAN BORNS 19 67 E�::: BY CITY REC. SUPERVISOR Q COUNCIL GARY DAVIS -Q�1�7 s� REC. SUPERVISOR19 ... Mr. Doyle Miller Administrator 13 Y CITY CLFRIC City Hall Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Miller, The Recreation and Parks Commission reviewed the capital improvement priority list at their regular meeting. In view of their earlier recommendation that the new clubhouse plans be shelved it was moved by_ Willmore, seconded by Mashburn, that the playground apparatus and other related expenditures allocated on the priority list for areas #4 through #13 be accepted with approval of the city council for immediate development. Ayes - 7, noes - 0, absent - 4. Acquisition Priorities 1. Huntington Lake - Acquire 10 acres of water and 2 acres of lake frontage in lieu of approximately $26,000. sub-division fees. 2. Huntington Lake - Purchase 6� acres of surplus Orange County land and 3� acres from Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Derigo. (Total 10 acres, 6 of which are water) 10 acres @ $10,000. per acre = $100,000. 3. Neighborhood parks - Purchase two, 2� acre sites within sub- divisions. 5 acres @ $30,000. per acre = $150,000. Total Acquisition - $250,000. Development Priority 1. Perry Park (1st phase completed) $ 27,068. 2. Office Equipment 1,185. 3. City gym d pool (1st phase improvements) 10,000. 4. Recreation Center (Minor remodeling It furnishing. Imp. patio w/shuffleboard courts) 3,500. 5. Lake Park (Minor remodeling d, furnishing clubhouse. Install play equipment) 12,000. RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR 2 - 6. Wardlow Park - (Play apparatus, etc.) - 8,500. 7. Murdy Park (Improve 580' frontage w/curb, gutter, sidewalk @ $25. per ft. d play apparatus) 24,500. 8. Schroeder Park (Play apparatus, etc.) 8,100. 9. Irby Park (Play apparatus, etc.) 8,400. 10. Recreation equipment. (Additional lights at Center, complete portable bleacher units) 3,200. 11. Greer Park (Complete parking lot) 7,200. 12. Circle Park - Farquhar Plaza (Join park areas) 2,500. 13. Perry Park (Play apparatus, etc.) 8,400. 14. Murdy Park (Build restrooms, lighted softball diamond) 30,900. 15. Marina Park (1st phase improvements) 65,000. 16. LeBard Park (1st phase improvements) 65,000. Total Development $285,453. Total Acquisition 250,000. Grand Total $535,453. gincerely, Norm Worthy, Secretary Huntington Beach Recreation and Parks Commission NW/as J- 3 16911 Bedford Lane Huntington Beach, California December 12, 1967 City Council Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: The point that density of population determines the requirements of park land rather than land value was never emphasized to my satisfaction at last night's meeting. By waiving fees for waterfront homes in the initial stage of building by Huntington Harbour gave them the credit due for recreation in thechannels. Now recreational credit must be given for the off-waterfront homes which can only be met by land used as parks. Huntington Harbour Corporation in asking to use parking area for tennis courts stated that the percentage of homeowners owning boats and needing slips had been disappointing. With this in mind it must be obvious that all of Huntington Harbour is not boat-oriented and that all its needs are not met by waterways. The school population is younger and more abundant than the Corporation envisioned. This means that the children in the area must be served by park areas suitable for play. The developers should be responsible to the City of Huntington Beach to fulfill their advertised recreational areas as they were pro-rated into the cost of the homes. Sincerely, CHARLENE BAUER CB:ajr cc: Mr. Reynolds - Planning Doyle Miller - City Administrator Norm Worthy - Parks & Recreation R(CRUTion and P. 0. BOX 190 . . . HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA �3a PHONE LExington 6-2573 .RECREATION CENTER . . . 17th and ORANGE NORM WORTHY DIRECTOR TOM BUSHARD PARKS SUPERVISOR January VIVIAN BORNS 26 th REC. SUPERVISOR 19 68 GARY DAVIS REC. SUPERVISOR Mr. Doyle Miller, Administrator City Hall Huntington Beach, California Subject: Edison easement parkway expansion Dear Mr. Miller, The Recreation and Parks Commission, Planning Commission, Edison Company officials, Colwell Company officials, Villa Pacific Homeowners Association, Huntington Beach City School officials, and pertinent city department heads have reviewed the proposed one acre extension development plan for the Villa Pacific Edison easement and approved the design concept presented by Landscape Architect, Richard Bigler. The Recreation and Parks Commission and staff recommends the design concept be accepted so that the Colwell Company may proceed with the contract details with Mr. Bigler. The new area to be constructed would be completed in conjunction with the improvement of the five and one-half acre previously developed portion of the easement as agreed upon in December by the Colwell Company. All new development as well as improvement of the old portion of the easement will be performed to the specifications and under the supervision of the Public Works and Recreation and Parks Department. 'ncerely., Norm orthy, Sek Huntington Beacon and Parks Commission Nt,7:an cc: Recreation d Parks Commissioners Mr. Frank Jackson, Colwell Co. Mr. Richard Bigler, Landscape Architect Mr. S.A. Moffett, H.B. City School District Mr. Bob Burbank, Edison Co. Mr. Ardie Camillo, Villa Pacific Homeowners Assn. RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR �s.-3 PETITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL: We request that playground equipment for Schroeder° Park be included in the budget for the-1967-68 fiscal year. cry CUJJtvCJ C� 1A r()".4UN....... IT copy: Commisson of Parks and Recreation c/o Norm Worthy City Hall Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 We have gaited very patiently for this park to be equipped. Our children will be too big to enjoy it if it is not done soon. Couldnft an acre or too less land be purchased for parks so that the older ones bould be equipped so our children can have these facilities now while they need them? PETTION TO HUNTINGTON MACH CITY COUNCIL: W6 request that playground equipment Nor Schroeder Pawk be included in the budget for the 1967-68 fiscal year, of copy: Commisabon of Puts and Recreation C/o Norm Worthy City Hall Huntington Beach, Calif. 92646 We have waited very patiently for this park to be equipped. Our children will be too big to enjoy it if it is not done soon. Couldn't an acre or too less land be purchased for parks so that the older ones bould be equipped so our children can have these facilities now while they need them? June 6, 1967 Mrs . Mack A. Duncan �-- 6222 Cornell Drive - -\ Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr. Duncan: f The City Council of the City- �, H tington Beach, at their regular meeting held Money 1967, considered your request for the budgeti4f(of ds`-for the development with playground equipment of �chroe er Park. Council by minutieragtioil referred your request to the Recreation and P rk.s Cossion for their consideration. Sincerely yours,\ Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw rVot-� � s e-j/ 6191 Cornell Drive Huntington Beach, Calif . April 7 , 1967 7FRIEE E R R E® OUNCIL Cit Council City Hall THuntington Beach, Calif. A19f 7 Gentlemen: Gil Citizens living near Schroeder Park in northern Huntington Beach have been waiting patiently for several years for q development of the Park. to were delighted when lawn, trees and sand areas were developed, but tiny are there no picnic tables, barbecues, and especially playground equipmei t? There are often between fifty and one=hundred children playing at the park, so any equipment provided would certainly be put to good use . Also, some of the destruction of trees and sprinklers, as well as damage to children hit with missiles thrown by others with nothing else to do, ;,could end. Play- ..�ro>>nd eepipment is -really a necessity for Schroeder Park, and the sooner the better. Please rave this matter your attention. �o are most anxious y;to see playground equipment for Schroeder Park included in the budget for the next fiscal year. Very truly yours, Carbon copy sent to : Commission ofRecreation and Parks c/o ''.Orin y'dorthy City Hall Iuntington Beach, Calif.. M �l May 1 la 7 Honorable Mayor. & City Council Huntington Beach, California MAY 1-5_1,%7---- Dear Sirs: I am writing about a matter which has concerned me greatly, not only for myself, but for the rest of the family of Kettlers. When I sold my ranch land, I was very proud to have a portion of it designated as park area. "When I sold it to the eity at a price below valuation, it was with a feeling of knowing.-what it was going to be used for. . .. ..a place for children to play. I have watched- it develop after the city acquired it and after a period of time . visited it again. leach to my dismay, found it named, "Irby Park.' With all due respect to Mr. Irby, I feel that the name Rettler had a much greater precedence. Kettlers nave farmed in that area for more than 40 years. We farmed that partic- ular property since 1925. Two. other Kettlers farmed, in the area before that time, and have always considered ourselves a part of Huntington Beach and respectful citizens joining all community efforts. It is with deep regret that I must write about this, but feel that it should be discussed. I did not think at the time I would have to requisition the name but thought it might stand on its own merits. I respectfully ask that you reconsider the naming of' the park to Kettler Park. Thank you for your always thoughtful consideration. Sincerely; C. P_argaxet C. Kettler 1025 12th Street. . Huntington Beach California w - �V�1tINGTpN ` y CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH y • z ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ��9P',�O Huntington Beach, California CpUNTY G� November 29, 1966 By Honorable Mayor D 19 and City Council 19 City of Huntington Beach Attention: Mr. Doyle Miller �`� City Administrator � f Gentlemen: Upon request from the City Council, a study was made of all parks in the City with regard to traffic control and inherent traffic hazards which may exist or could be foreseen in the immediate future. On-site observations were made by Norm Worthy, City Parks and Recrea- tion Director, and Paul Cook,City Traffic Engineer, of all existing parks. The findings of this study follow: IRBY PARK AND SCHROEDER PARK There appears to be no problem whatsoever around these two parks. They are surrounded by residences and residential streets. The traffic volumes are very light and of a local nature. Speeds are low and generally within the speed limit of 25 mph. Since there are no ball playing areas in these parks, there should be no danger of children frequently running into the streets. GREER PARK This park is located adjacent to McFadden Avenue west of Golden West Street. The portion of the park adjacent to Salisbury Lane and Brunswick Drive will cause no unusual pedestrian problem because of the local nature of these streets. That portion of the park adjacent to McFadden Avenue is being used as a parking area. Therefore, children playing in the park will be screened from this arterial highway by the parking area and no problem should exist because of this design feature. When the property develops on the south side of McFadden Avenue west of Golden West Street, pedestrians going to the park will be expected to cross McFadden Avenue at Golden West because of the protection afforded by the traffic signal. A pedestrian crosswalk should not be provided across from the park because of the proximity of this signalized intersection. / Y Honorable Mayor November 29, 1966 Page 2 MURDY PARK AND WARDLOW PARK These two parks are similar in nature with regard to traffic control since they are both adjacent to potential high speed, high volume arterial highways. At both parks, ball playing will be far removed from the street as it should be at all parks. However, it is conceivable at each of these parks that small children if not watched closely could wander out to the sidewalks of these highways. As these parks become more developed and highly used by the public, this problem may present itself and some type of an esthetic barrier could be placed adjacent to these arterial highways such as a hedge or a wide planted area. At Murdy Park it will be necessary to paint a crosswalk across Golden West Street in front of the park for residents on the west side of the street. At Wardlow Park there is a crosswalk across Cannery Street at Pioneer Drive which will serve visitors to the park on the west side of the street. Special care is taken to keep this type of crosswalk properly marked with advance warnings at all times. RECREATION CENTER, ORANGE AND SEVENTEENTH Since the playground area of this park is enclosed by a fence, there is no danger of children running into the street while playing. There is, however, a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic going to and from the center. At this time no traffic problem exists because of the four way stop at Orange Avenue and Seventeenth Street, and the relatively low volumes and speeds on Orange Avenue. In the future when traffic volumes increase and a traffic signal becomes neces- sary at this intersection, it would be advantageous to provide off-street parking on the north side of Orange Avenue for the Recreation Center to minimize the need for children to cross this street. EDISON R EASEMENT - BROOKHURST STREET This future park is adjacent to a high volume, high speed arterial highway. However, its frontage along this highway is small compared to its total acreage and, with proper design, there should be no hazard to pedestrians at this park. The major activity centers should be oriented away from Brookhurst Street. In addition, it may be necessary to erect signs directing people to enter the park through the Villa Pacific Townhouses rather than parking along Brookhurst Street. LAKE PARK COMPLEX These parks in the downtown area are mostly surrounded by low volume, low speed streets. The only location where a traffic problem may arise is between Lake Park and the playground on the east side of Lake Street. It is suggested that the playground equipment be brought over to Lake Park to eliminate the need for small children to frequently cross Lake Street. This area could then be reserved for ball playing oriented away from Lake Street. In addition the crosswalk connetcing these two parks will be moved southerly to the four-way stop at Lake and Memphis for obvious safety reasons. t Honorable Mayor November 29, 1966 Page 3 After reviewing the City Park system and several proposed sites, it became obvious that there are no serious traffic hazards at any of the exist- ing locations. As traffic volumes increase on areterial highways adjacent to these parks and as these :parks become more fully developed, it is conceiv- able that complaints will arise regarding heavy traffic and high speeds from parents concerned for their children's safety. This, however, is a normal reaction to arterial highways around schools and parks and each complaint should be investigated and weighed on its own merit. We should continue to plan our future parks with all forms of safety in mind as we have done in the past. The location of playground equipment and ball fields should be removed from .arterial highways as far as practicable. Pedestrian crosswalks on arterial highways should be kept to a minimum and should be located in the most logical location so as to be seen clearly by motorists. It is recommended that no special signing be devised for motorists that may be confusing and not generally accepted as a standard sign in this State. Moreover, speed limits should not be altered in front of parks as they would create too short a speed zone and would only be observed by- the most alert drivers. There are no laws in the California Vehicle Code which put restric- tions on drivers in the vicinity of parks as there are for schools. By careful planning and constant observation of traffic conditions by enforcement and engineering officials, it is felt that there will never be any serious traffic problems at our City Parks. mes R. Wheeler Director of Public Works JRW:PEC:ace � x$ni Y CITY1,OUNCII. MAY1� iY C3TY CLzitK May 12 th 19 66 Mr. Doyle Miller, City Administrator City Hall Huntington Beach, Calif. Dear Mr. Miller: At their last regular meeting the Recreation and ~arks Commission voted unanimously on a motion by Neomia willmore, seconded by Dan Dolan to recommend to the city council that they accept the following pieces of play equipment donated by the Goldenwest Homeowners Association for Col. jack Greer Park : 1 - 615-171 Turtle 1 - 615-191 Tree 1 - 615-121 Castle 1 - 615-141 Single Tower Castle C-2 The installation of this equipment will be in- cluded in the purchase: contract between the Goldenwest Homeowners i",ssociation and the Jamison Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles. Acceptance of the completed work will be subject to a.:.proval of the Public Works Department. Sincerely, NORM WLRTHY, Secretary Huntington teach Recreation and Narks Commission NW:db ' J. BYRON VILLACRES 16632 LUCIA LN. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA VIKING 7-4247 April 4, 1966 Res. s3 r3 -� The City Council Q' � City Hall ------------- - '" Huntington Beach, California APR 1- -lq66_ Dear Sirs : This letter is a. request for an ordinance to beautify the city before any sign erection and construction takes place . In order to visualize alterations of homes and other improvements in Huntington Beach, before it happens, the City Council should write an ordinance to promote aesthetics for the city. This will requirO ::rarlt work, drawings, plans, sketches, showing the areas affected. The drawings would be made by local professional 5—,yeas residents of the city; engineering technicians, architects , draftsmen and artists . The new policy measure will promote beautification of the city before the planning stage; also the ordinance will provide work for local talent and prevent aesthetic damage to the city. Sincerely, April 19, 1966 Mr. J. Byron Villacres 16632 Lucia Lane Huntington Beach, California Dear Mr . Villacres: • y. On behalf of the Honorable Mayor and City Council we want to U# thank you for your interest in promoting beautification and U! aesthetic awareness in our City. As you know, the Urban Land Institute report, among other things, dwelled in depth on the need to improve the image of the City of Huntington Beach. At the April 18 Council meeting, Resolution No. 2353 was adopted by unanimous vote of all Council members present approving a beautification capital outlay program for the coming year and authorizing an application for federal assistance inasmuch as funds are now available for this purpose . Thank you again for your suggestions and your interest . Sincerely, Doyle Miller City Administrator DM:bwo HUNTINGTON BEACH ; Junior Chamber of Commerce f LN17ED' CNJUNI 0� P.O. Box 289 • Huntington Beach, CaliforniaAMBE COM MEPG' lrw �J By 7 To: 21 AW, Councilmen, City of Huntington Beach Sirs,, We wish to withdraw our offer to build a, "JAYCEE" park because of the durth of tecniqualities encountered. However being interested in over-all recrational development , we are prepared to proceed full spedd with the launching of a cam- paign to, "Equip our Parks . " We plan to follow the Parks Policy which we wholeheartedly support and endorse. Your, Huntington Beach Jaycees ��Lat�ext vJ�' Director r F� U.S. JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL April 1, 1966 Huntington Beach Junior Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 289 Huntington Beach, California Attention: Robert F. Rivas Director Dear Mr. Rivas: The City Council of the City of Huntingn Beach, at their regular meeting held March 21, 1966, received your letter of withdrawal to build a "Jaycees" park and offer to continue with your campaign to "Equip our Parks . The Council extended their appreciation to your organization for your cooperation in he park projects with the City. A copy of the minute action of the Council is attached for your files. Sincerely, Paul C. Jones City Clerk PCJ:aw Enc. ,x - oiri<trsA6Js + • b"=:*s. _ - Gt7°:'•...E. MILLER � s;b{ii s � ���'�.t✓.�_ !r s� - 0.DMlnifiTRH(IVE OFFICER 6' t/4.� �T/Z.�Ci`.�fJC�� (/ T�'�(/ BRANDER G CASTLE C A 1 1 Q SBI S?"q:,T sDMint$TFidT OR - -� ~�~Y -...a..APpmtyo__....��. --- ........_.....o.,e_--....moo.._.,d�...ad,,.,maf.�o_oA,.m.-=y.._..--+.�...Cr.�,..-mr_.T....._ _IAME.f3 R WHE'ELER ,+...�:d i'Y BD ., P, 0. [3OX i 7� is Ll L. I F Z1 Z� A d A D:a��:r0�`0=RUFI.:C cNOz<ICB 83wV.1e. _ i t a�a � �92 FR,,r;r: 19. .ARG�Cis:..LC FIMAKci OIRi_,TOR JOki PI i�ICLT3ER COUNCILMEN I-ILICM CHIEF DONALD D. SHIPLF.Y DELBERT G. HIGGINS MAYOR FIRE CHIMP ERNE.ST H. GISLE:R April VINC.'.:NT G. MOORMOUSE ROBERT MW, LAMBERT LIFEGUARD CHi[F � JAKE R. STFWART 1.4 tPY THOMAS Fi. Ul-LCH 19 66 OL LIN C. CLEMELAND ._..�—_._.. BUILDING DIRECTOR PAW C. JONES �r.�.,. EOWARD R. STANG C•TY CLERK FAPPP.0;VFiD BY CITY COUNCIL WATER sIumm-r peorRT DAMES U. rLUN`LETT CITY ATTORNIXV BETTY DIED OFF ...8.-'T R 9.AB:1 f7 frR Mr. Davyle Mills.d. Aa mil,W E4tratar CITY CLERIC .� City Hall Huntingto-r1 Beech , Or. The Recreatlen t Plarks C maian recuramended the rallaiming na a certain spec:i is park si tas bihich thn city vaans and hereby sub;mita Uia list to you for city council action. Thom racam gndm-ion folio-wa the recant park naming policy mdopteg by he city C04ncil. Park Situ Location � Raccomendsa, Naas ump eitav Talbe s ✓"humam 0.Y Talbert Par: `B'k"EJaRfi!fJiack V,68LIdan r Gru,,--m i-.k lack 62-re r Park Ws"�..y's".ilew C.C�fy"��i. I`ar�C�et y°� a Homer ����� S.�� �aPdn.�S(+ �'nr�;" LeElard a'Lmoa1 Ira i rig xis & San-z Are fi k*ar ✓ Lais & harTV L Dard PNrk perry School mamdavil strast ✓Zoaeph R. Parry Fal4a Marine School Edinger I Grmham ✓.Marina Park lardy Ealdanwae m Street V JUhn A g Murdjy Perk The IdOi3Y4` in s on alto recomaterded that. rustic redwood rsi gne 08 carotructed fur thoa e parke which will soon be ready for dedication Their ;realing was that the; were nice appmaring, ease, to read,, and reasonable in cuat� y a� U Patrkq commission N1W dt: 3 C 834-2050 OUNTY OF TELEPHONE: &*"MJ2fr I , \ AREA CODE 714 400 WEST EIGHTH STREET RANG E SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA ZIP CODE 92701 - s PLANNING COMMISSION January 25, 1966 ikLE Huntington Beach City Council L.F.B.- P. O. Box 190Huntington Beach, Calif. 1966_� Dear Sirs: Attached is a copy of the proposed Arnendrent No. i to the Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County. This Amendment has been referred by the Board of Supervisors to the Orange County Planning Commission for public hearing as an aniendrnent to the Recreation Element of the Orange County Master Plan of Land U.-e. The Orange County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wedne_d1av, a=ebrucry 9, 1966, at 1.30 o.m. in tl;e Planning Commission Hearing Roam, Engineering Building, Roan 168, 4CU West'-inlith Street, Santa Anr., California, at which time and place all persons either favoring or opposing said plan will be heard. Additional in"Ormatir.,n con be obtained from the Advance Planning Division of this department. Your questions and comments are welcomed. Very truly yours, ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IL 1p Forest Dickson Planning Director Sen. Star, Pittman, V/Ch� " CtAk L. Bradley Samuel R. Geddes " Paul J. Lunardi " Eugene G. Nisbet " Thomas M. Rees " Albert S . Rodda John G. Schmitz " Harold T. Sedgwick " Robert D. Williams June 5, 1965 Senator Joseph A. Rattigan, Chairman Senate Committee on Local Government State Capitol Building Sacramento, California Dear Senator Rattigan; We are transmitting herewith a copy of Resolution No. 2195 urging the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1150 by the California State Senate. This Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach duly assembled in regular session on Friday, June 4, 1965. Your support in the passage of this Bill is solicited. Sincerely yours, Paul C. Jones PCB;aw City Clerk Enc. �1q5 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of _ _____ ___Huntington Beach supporting the enactment of Assembl Bill # 11-50_ establishing the right of municipalities to require xk re'sidential land developers to either donate land for parks or pay a fee for - same. — --- -- - - - - -- - -- - --- - - - -- -Whereas;there-ha-s-been-introduced-a-nd-pa-s-sed-by-the-Cal-ifornia--Sta-te-- Assembly x Billa3#1150 which would enable municipal governments to --- -- -_assess-land-developers-for_fees-to-be-use-for_par-ks-,_and-or_require dedication of land for such purposes, and WHEREAS, this Bill if enacted would alleviat a great financial burde-n- upon those cities whoh are undergoing a pq�W ion explosion, )oxxkand WHEREAS, it appears to/6-quitable to require those that are directly - ----- - - -Ibenefiting from the popu-la-Lion—explos-ion-to-eon-tr-ibute-to-their-sha-r-e- ---- of this burden upon the cities in furnishing adequate parks for recreation. -MOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUINCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON - BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: _ The city is in favor of the enactment of AB 1 l_50 , and urge5the F5=e - - (Senate�of-the State of-Catiforiiia to pass same. -- -------- -BE-IT-FU-RT-H-E-R-RESOL--V-ED—tha-t copies-of-this-Resolution--be-sen-t to- --- 'Senate Committee a'^ and Senator John J. Schmi z. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the_ City of Huntington Beach, CaliforhRi nia. , this 4th day of June, 1l Mayor City Clerk I HUNTING TON BEACH B�� T H O C Junior Chamber of Commerce 1f UNITE . JUNIOR a P.O. Box 289 • Huntington Beach California CAMER O OOMM BERC� January 15 , 1965 To Huntington Beach ��i-1L-E:`® City Councilmen; pc'S BY r ...19�t ... g Gentlemen, ......•1""..�_ I We of the Huntington Beach Junior Chamber of Commerce, Wish to express wholehearted approval of your wise decision con- cerning the creation of a joint Parks and Recreation Department for rapidly expanding fair city. Moreover, speaking for the en- tire Huntington Beach Junior Chamber of Commerce, not only do we endorse your action, but we also request that the present Recre- ation Commision be given leave to accept and coordinate our fur- ther support which would take the forms of time, energy and fin- ancial aid. I For any information, please contact me at the above address . Respectfully, Chairman- Community Recreation U.S. JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL 3 V UNTY Or TELEPHONE: 547-0547 AREA CODE 714 i 400 WEST EIGHTH STREET RAN CA E SANTA AN A, CALIFORNIA ��_ ZIP CODE 92701 5 5�� PLANNING COMMISSION December 14, 1964 -� I 1 Huntington Beach City Council Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: In response to a request of the Orange County Board of Supervisors , we are forwarding a Board of Supervisors ' Resolution dated November 24, 1964, and a copy of the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Parks . Very truly yours Forest S. Dickason Planning Director i100 E lu �.• (,:.d:,.;�3 :."ice—._� ., 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 V'1. E. g 10NN, Noty MOO i 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ay gd�tilty� i 3 November 24, 1964 4 On motion of Supervisor Featherly, duly seconded and carried, 5 the following Resolution was adopted: 6 WHEREAS, a Regional Parks Advisory Committee was formed pursuant 7 to the authorization of Resolution No. 60-1256 dated December 14, 1960, 8 WHEREAS, said Regional Parks Advisory Committee prepared and 9 submitted to the Board of Supervisors on .March 8, 1963, a proposed 10 Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County, 11 WHEREAS, said Master Plan of Regional Parks was referred to the 12 Orange County Planning Commission on June 5, 1963, and after due 13 consideration following public hearings,-was recommended to the Board 14 of Supervisors for adoption as a recreation element of the Orange �Z15 County Master Plan of Land Use, N ' ODD }u 16 WHEREAS, said Master Plan of Regional Parks was adopted by the O00 17 Board of Supervisors, u 18 WHEREAS, the Master Plan of Regional Parks for Orange County 19 indicated the most pressing recreational deficiency to be the extreme- 20 need of provision for picnicking, camping, and related activities , 21 WHEREAS, said Master Plan of Regional Parks designated thirty 22 (30) sites and three priority groupings for the development of said -23 sites, 24 WHEREAS, ' the Regional Parks Advisory Committee is presently 25 studying methods and procedures for the financing and administration 26 of the proposed Regional Park Program for Orange County, and, 27 WHEREAS, the final result of the development of the overall 28 Regional Park Program will be adversely affected if the sites in the 29 Master Plan of Regional Parks are developed for other uses prior to 30 acquisition and development as regional parks as anticipated in the 31 . Master Plan of Regional Parks. 'MB:h82 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 64-1504 i 1 hereby declares that the public interest will best be served if the 2 Regional Park Program is, developed in accordance with the Master Plan 3 of Regional Parks. 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors requests 5 the co-operation and assistance of the various landowners and political . 6 jurisdictions in the County of Orange, including each City and all the 7 numerous Districts within the County, and requests that said landowners 8 and all the political jurisdictions in the County: .take cognizance of 9 the Master Plan of Regional. Parks for Orange County`and do all things 10 reasonably possible to prevent 'development of the proposed sites .in a 11 manner that could inhibit the .eventual development of such sites in 12 accordance with the Master Plan of Regional .Parks 13 14 AYES: SUPERVISORS C.. :'M. FEATHERLY, .ALTON E.. ALLEN,. DAVID L. BAKER J AND.: WM.; HIRSTEIN z 15 o:)= NOES: NONE 6UWs 16 EU ,_Z ABSENT:.. WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS .00 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18 s s.`. COUNTY OF ORANGE 19 I. W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex-officio .Clerk of the Board 20 of Supervisors of Orange ,County, California, hereby certify that the 21 above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularlyadopted by the 22 said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of `November, 23 1964, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present. 24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,. :I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 25 24th dayof November 1964. r. 26 ' 27 County,tlerk:and'eX=bfficio Clerk of the 4q rd of Supexvi'sors of 28 OrAngek .County, Cal,if'oVnia 29 ..� 30 By < - Deputy ,. 31 71;u3:h0 2 Resolution No. 64-1504 2. i � t BOLSA CHICA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 466 - Huntington Beach, Califo is December 3, 1964 Honorable Mayor' Members ��~ of City Council. Huntington Beach, California Gentlemen: On October 19, 1963, the members of Bolsa Chica Homeowners. Association forwarded to this Council a request for a ten acre park adjacent to Marina High School® This park site, now referred to as Marina Park, was asked for as a neighborhood park to accommodate some 8500 men, women and children residing in the 3500 homes in and around this area. Our organization was most pleased to learn that .at your October 28, 1963 meeting you directed the City administrator to proceed with negotiations for the acquisition of Marina Park. Since that time we have continually asked Mr. Miller, Mr. Plunkett, and several of you gentlemen to keep us abreast of the acquisition proceedings. We also offered to help in any way that we could to speed this purchase to its consummation We have very closely followed the Cityfs action in this matter, and were told almost six months ago by members of City Council that the City was in court condemnation proceedings because the landowner and the City could not come to terms. We were, therefore, very surprised to hear at your meeting of October 5, 1964 that no court action had been started* A year has passed since this City Council voted to proceed with the acquisition of Marina Park AND STILL THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE NO PARK. Now we hear that the City has been given permission to use this land even before it has legal title. We also have been told that the City intends to permit the construction of baseball diamonds over the complete acreage*. We find it hard to believe that you, our City Council, would entertain any such intention as to grant. the use of an estimated $150,000.00 worth of park area to a special interest group representing approximately 800 people. As% we have not seen any voted action covering Marina Park or the baseball useage in Council Meeting minutes, we must assume that the proponents of this baseball project are in error. In order that all the people of Huntington Beach, particularly the 8,000 who are so closely interested in this park, can be sure of what will happen, we! respectfully request that you as our City Council take appropriate official action to designate Marina Park as a park, and only a park, for all the people of Huntington Beach, for now and in the future. Thank you. Sincerely, BOLSA CHICA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION rest e" t � — DW;g t ^ � t � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 1.964 SUBJECT : REPORT OF THE COUNCIL COItiL'' 'ITTEF ON FINANCING-1 OF CAPITAL IMPROVF:MENi S RECOMMENDATION: Introduce proposed Ordinance Relating to 7,X,-ise Tax on Property Development to finance fire stations and f-ire-fighting equipment, public city libraries and public city parks . ;'.attached; BACKGROUND : This Cor�lTMi'_t.ee ��as assigned t evaluat:� Fhz c i'.y' s agility to finance needed future public facilities under ir1 _ City' S pres 'nt revenue structure ; and to recommend equitablE! :Methods to .provide additional fi- nancing if necessary. Comimittee study was based cn pro 'ecti-ons of grow"til and needs to 1980 and on p,o3ect ions of revenue and expenditures to 1980 . The City' s major financial deficiency is its failure to provide for financing future parks: libraries and fire Stations beyond initial dedication of neighborhood parks .. Pro-jC'CtLons Co '98 of revenues and expenses indicate that , under the City ' s present ta_r st.ruc-_ure, funds will not be suffcl.etit ;_O },..._l.nC t:hese Speciilcally, the, Comm1'._*ee has soa-u;lt. "CiE."`ans to fi__n.ance the follow- ing: construction and "!=urinishi_ng of l.re st�.tiC,,s; major file--fighting equ Lpment , COI?struCtior, wild f i1rT 1i:flI g G r —i bran li e developinent and equipment of lnei hborl-food and. C`.ornffili1_"iit y p3T"}Cs . '..he present -ost-- shar.ing plan, F he me'lhod should be • has d on :;he pr1.r1 •lpJ t"inat those Who derive ber.ef_its from the: improvements should pay for 't'1eTn': . It should also be recognized that the need .for new and expam.de?d -Facil.it .Les results from ar increase in populat ion or building dens-�L �. sihe�her on undeveloped 1 and cr _ri established neigtiiborhoods of the C;..ty_ Based on projections of both poPi.lation growth a_L:3 geographic ex- pansion to 1980, th.e Master Plan for parks, libraries and fire stations has been update . I -is has provided a a_ui.de to assess fut..l.-e n--eds . The cost :or `1-lese_ new _Lac ilili ieF and for e v-,Da 'islon ct exiSti__;r: aC111- tLeS, needled tom' serf.-e t-11c �':U��JLIICI popula`- -Iarl {... ie c ta i_i1shr°d City, is es' il-Oct?=FQ at aci"ied 1s e Snene rat item-- ` izatior_ of costs) cost is based -Qn the ss: 11-1�t on ti,at under the ` present 'JOliCy ! and wit be avai l_a.1"ii_•' for l;E _i ':':I) ::(it"rC)" parks whlc) G-1_11 dCComOdate ibrar'i-E`S 11'td ? irC *.,.71.t -c1.3' ::.osL to -i-e City. Adopt Lor ilI ,_,i c dev;- r-oc;1n,,,.cn-JI c r. r,_.r r__. .a'_.; ;a - F + Report of the Co, _cil Committee on Financing of Capital Improvements Continued - .Page 2 whether on vacant or developed 'Land, which increases the cit.y' s density. J_ general; it is this development which creates need for the improvement Following are significant. features of the proposed ordinance im- posing an excise on property development: 1 . All revenue collected would be paid into a special capital out- lays fund and would be used solely for the "purpose of acquiring, build- ing, improving, expanding and equipping City fire stations, City li-brari-e; and City parks" . The City would be prohibited under Sec . 1113 of the Charter from using this revenue for any other .purpose . 2 . For each new residential unit an excise tax of $O5 .00 would be imposed. Mobilehome tit.railer) park space, are defined as residential units because they normally would be occupied permanently thereby treat- ing demand for additional facilities . 3 . For new com-*i e.rcial and industrial units, an excise tax of $ .01 per square foot of gross floor area would be imposed . This levy would be to cover only requrred fire protection i-aciliti.es on the principle that this land use does not. create demand for parks and libraries . Hotels and motels would be classed commercial . 4 . Any replacement of existing residential., commercial or indus- trial units would be exempt from the tax imposed on the basis that faci- lities now exist to serve existing development . However, any portion of a rede,�,�elopment representing a unit increase from that of the original development would be taxed. 3 . Should private construction for jn'}li : l chi tax _;as bec_r: paid not occur, t-:le tax: would be refunded. The ta;•: rates are calculated to raise sufficient. funds by 1980 for three fire st- at.lons and equipment, two libraries. six neinhbor.11ocd parks, two C• ITLlluni.tV .arks and two community center buildings . See attache schedule of es,- '_.elated improvement costs and estimated c.XC_ise tax revenue to 1980 . Adopt ion proposed ordinance impos i.r_a an exc i sca tax on pro- perty devel.opme '' is recommended as a necess��r.v and eUuir_ able means to finance public 1i.ties required to serve new development . Such a measure would assist:. the City in maintaininc- -, Stable p rooerty tax by preventing tr 1S increased burden f i-C'm [)elnc '_i c7 O -i on the property tax. FINANIC ILNG CJF :,T:PTT'AL 1^^PROVE'":ENITTS _C`(,u 1T -`i-EE CITY OF NEYti'PURT BEAL}I June, 1964 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COSTS 6 - Neighborhood Parks $ 240, 000 3 - Eire Stations 330, 000 2 - Libraries 200, 000 2 - Co-mmunity Parks 625, 00C 2 - Co muni.t Center Buildings 220, 000 Existing Library, Parks, and Fire Station Expansion 3_00, 000 $ 1, 91.5, 000 Ccntingen:i.es 191, 000 Total Estimated Costs $ 2 106, 000 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED REVEhME FROM PROPOSEL EXCISE TAX TO 1980 Total Revenue from Residential Development (25, 000 d 7ellinq units U $85 .00 per unit) $ 2, 12_5, 000 Total Revenue `roar, Cotiunercial and Industrial Deve_Lopment - 6, 000, 000 sq. ft . at $ .01 per sq. ft . (} stim.ated 40J, 000 sq. ft . per yr.) 60, 000 Total Estimated Revenue $ 2, i85, 000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June, 1904 SCHEDULE OF ESTIMATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COSTS TO 1950 I . 5 ACRE NEIGriBORHOOD PARK a. Site acquisition Dedication and rough grading provided under present Cost-Sharing Plan for Capital Improve- ments ceithout cost to the City b. Development Finish Grading, automatic sprinkler system, l.andscapi.ng, walks, etc. c . Equipment Playground equipment, picnic facilities, bicycle racks, backstop, ar.d minimal restroom and storage Development @ $6, 000 per acre S 30, 000 Equipment_ 1.0, 000 Total Cost per Park $ 40, 000 6 Parks 64 , 40, O00 J_ 240, O00 II .. FIRE STATION a. Site acquisition Location ii-i neighborhood park b. Ccnst.ruci.i.on 80, OOr C. 1, iJ00 gal . fire pumper 30 - 000 $ ]-I C), 000 3 SL:ations $110, 000 S 330, 000 III . BRANCH LIBRARY a. Site acquisition Local it on in neighborhood park b, Const ucticr; c0, 000 w . Fui_n i.5rdnc s _s0, O 0 Tc,'-_al :Cost pe= ;,i.'C.1:Zi1"v $ ^1-00, 0J0 Schedule of Estimated Public Improvement Costs to 1980 - Cont ' d IV. COMMUNITY PARK -- 15 'ACRES a. Site acquisition 15 acres @ $25, 000 $ 375, 000 b. Development Finish grading; automatic sprinkler system, restroom, landscaping, lighted ball. diamond, play area, parking and picnic area 2 rd�, $12.5, 000 250, 000 2 Community, Parks tone site already acquired) 625 000 V. COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING a. Site acquisition Location in Community Park b. Construction - 6, 000 sq. ft . @ $15 .00 Meeting rooms, lounge, kitchen, stage, game room, office Y 90, 000 C. Equipment F;zrni.ture, stage egi.i.ipment, kitchen equipment 20, 000 r 110, 000 2 Community Center Buildings @ $110, 000 220, 000 J WW1.a 1At�!6/29/614. ORDINANCE NO, 1091 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CaTi Cr NE11PORT BEACH ADDING C HAFTER 8 TO ARTICLE VI OF THE N'EWPORT BEACH MIUN]"C 1PAL CODE REL4TINt3 TO EXC I SE TAX ON PROPERTY DE r.i OPMENT' The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does Ordain as follows "; SECTION l , Chapter 8 is added to. .Article VI of the New- port Be�Fch Cc;le to KV-.iSEE T::`f..', F-ROF1_-"Ri'Y DE:TFI-O!'MENT SEC;I:0N 6800, Fi-n3ings of Fact �` 3i :_Ci de %rc! cLtiTl-?'lt land in the City of !';e port Bea.: k°_a _- a._ :1 ._ed fzDr pjbl.ic improvements and fa-c11i.t�S c� . ;�.s_i.~', f' ,- i_. _ ctati.3.7-:s a.nd fir`-fi fr_irg equipment , p _:h . is (_'IE i _')'_rie- _';d -DUh-lic City parks , klii� La.. _ r. s.- I,c i. '-l. G:.. i'.",.�1.`� �E=�%c:r tt nf the .i tv- ThE 1w '' 1 ' riy from ~ ]e :r ` s inrea-sG i; C._r'.-i`v .j.`'. the 1-t:5% `J'1 the '�E?�T�loor:,e'?t of land 1�een ='-nd 7by cc striuc Lion of adult ,_ :3i f_s�.ae;,tl�: !- _ :�tT r�)_a? and indu.st.rial lip) _t-s on. '•3 d ri.4 �4C �rre t `vei `F ' :1 71?e most. practical and o caliect:'_ng the _funds necessary to pro- vi-de. Public 1m-p-r c-ve e -, 4. li-, to impose an excise tax uprn -!--a construe`ion. and cc c.}.pancv c:F -es j.der tia.l , com- ine' cla.' and industrial 11n-f-tr o'. � Li11:114'itt'B in the City, cr ?_he po-pc-se of. thi= Chapter ter , the words he.r-ei:�after .v a-7.1 hay.; _.r'Ie mear-ings assigned to them unless from the con%:.xt. it. appears rhar a differ=,nt meaning is intended, -1911: me.j � Si_lgi.E f31ti iy dwelling, a dwelling :ii. in adizL)iF. i% , apaCt.mEnc house or C)we'll_j_ns C rla.c�,. :'_tiL3.' C; >- ;? � - j which cont=1 Lns a kr- -, c!—_4en , :3n.2 :?ny - :! [: i n 3 park cr inter dam- tOG -i h:1i__n i cb—'1 :.E'home , camper. 0-r Sj_!; .,ghi c l C-Drm-r--r C I � i.in Tpc-;-2r.s '.:� `'race .i_.^. � h.ildi n:-_ or st-ructure de _1�ji-c: i or 4 tE_r, e i" or L'GeC} for *-usirtess or t:Qma,er. i i r.. "3i.4C� , t cludir Sacer_:g rooms in ho#-els arcs :nc't.e1.s viithout ki.'�chens or k.i_tc -,en facilities ;. Lnd:'_ t:"Lal unit means any sc.•nca in cx c.r cr ).T'_':e::ded for r`a , 1T��. rQiec' '�i rcareli iT) , and ifil c1~ 'ob �e't—!M. ' t:a)"�:: fit=^ T1 'T1 � 1� lots of spaces are rent ell i; s' a L •r e r f,� i- __7!J)'jr ',I- s L7'ICII\T 6802 I.m osi_tion of Excise rax , (a;'- 'pax Im�sed, ex:vi.se tax i.s t-erebSj imposed upon _.T_ the constructio_.M a-w-l—cc cup ai:c .of each residential unit , conavercial unit , and i'?d12=t..ri3._ unir ir. the City - (b) Rates , The rates of tr.e ex-cise tax hereby imposed areas fclf7w' : I'm Riisl'.lerti.'zi :d~ ti.ai li:?7_ L . ., erC . al For each ^cr merc-ial Inti't.-ling or co-nalercial unit in a building , the of 5 _ •_;l. per -square foot Ol r32" .'.�. inc !�_: :A fir' ' 3y."� J_t:Aa lJtt11.din de s_gned for the p-3rkiig of zJd h oa{ ;ndu t Y a 4 Ecr each .in.dcst~i-31 building industrial unit in a building , tl e am.cunt c f S .,01. per square foot of g lr.osj- f.lccr 3rca i_rola-di_g ar)-y area in a 'wilding de- signed for the .r a: ._ S C \rehic' iEF c . Date due , 'he sl..c:i :? of r he tax due hereunder shall be determi-ii_ I -it- _he a '_.0 ding 1-=:.rmit is sought f.or the const�?ur t i,_-1 C i ._a t , comL s, -cii_a l cof L?ld_ _ tr. is 1 units or bwi 1_d1:1gS or rki'i: h._ is ., t . . � io-.` _ . cns truc t i.o_'. of a-y m:7 1 i. ' .•:�:'.c� ' K , cl-" 7 �. .'.1 ?T .i.:'_"`,- _ + 'Sla..d .3 Y- c l-all be due �_ anej uaVatb L, co,, -ir= _` tN' Nit-A: 1 a3 r:li'_atiD*1 for suc1-1 permit . If sucL_ i- ; ...1A r yid c::l o.v- ')_""re Lhe date the permit s issued , the ra+: c.r 1, t t t i.e -e n•:-)t- paid s ha; 1 there- uY oil L,c_r_c.>�1t_ 1e 1 i:-a•�..= �' d, De1.i._quen:=` �._r:= l :.y..2 ...int 'res.t T�-Ere shall be added ,c rc;e tax t_r ;-)v :rac Of 7a .:l ta.x as be- comes d2 ir,-.lue -it. a C�'.o `,3 1_, �; s.na cut,or, FJe.CO??le Pa-v= 'j i': -1`.-- rie ilqo`.'lt 'r !'. tA'I t.-a ?"i e tax and penalt = shah h - == a >: tre +e of 58 cL. one rer. - ce_1� r't: mrn` ji u' _J 1 6 `)3 C . Ire -)at_ Ih`, }ak i.-r•pC::e b� t"iis ter haLI app..l_�Y to the con- o::c2_'3:tc�; ,`' all ' commer cial , and u n i t S to'.; 'c't C i� 1._t '."'1�� .Cl':'t permit -- - ,1 Che.: -mcn-_h ;.T. whic-h '.7h'' ti hPCr:,mes e f f e c ti e� . 'There is s'h5 ('.r13Nier the fc1 '_c-.Jini T[ .e constructirm anal cccui-,) ncy of a residern- rial, commercial or indu�r.rial unit. which is a replace- T.;2eTj1 Eor a unit being -emcwed from the samE'. lot(3*' parcel. of land 'T.tie exempt.%on sPal l egn,al but not EXc(le d vr:1_ tax vJhi_C!:: JJC,Ujd be ,,3V'3� i ._ `'E�i.=Li ic.1C r . � ti?e !-c c ,,.l'.�..�..5 1 rtere _ e:{c�.1/C,c' �. Y :_ _ _.r _,+ Y_ Z. flapte•r the C"i 1 O _ Qg (1) The construction and occupancy of any build- ing or unit by any bank including national banking associations , (2) The construction and occupancy of any build- ing by an ' Insurer ' as that term is defined in Article XIII , Section 14-4/5, of the Constitution of California. (3) The construction and occupancy of any build- ing by a nonprofit corporation exclusively for religious , educational , hospital or charitable purposes . (4) The construction and occupancy of any build- ing by the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or political subdivision thereof. SECTION 6806 . Impact of Tax - Enforcement . The tares imposed by this Chapter are due from the person by or on behalf of whom a residential, commercial or indus- trial unit or building or a mobilehome park is constructed whether such person is the owner or a lessee of the land upon which the construction is to occur , The Director of Finance shalL collect the tax and any penalty and interest due herelznder . The full amount. due under this Chapter shall constitutes debt to the City of Newport Beach. An action for the col Lection thereof may be commenced in the name of the City in ary court having jurisdiction of the cause . SECTION 6807 > Violation - Misdemeanor. No person shall begin the construction of any residen- tial , commercial or industrial. unit. or building or any mobile- home park in the City without: first having paid the tax and any penalty and interest due the City under this Chapter. SECTION 6808 . Occu�cl- Prohibition. No occupancy permit. shall be issued for , and no person shall occupy or offer for occupancy, any residential , com- mercial or industrial unit or building or any space in a mobiLehome park in the City unless the tax and any penalty and interest imposed upon the construction and occupancy thereof by this Chapter have been paid, SECTION 6809 . Refunds . Any tax , penalty or interest paid to the City under this Chapter for any building or unit of a building or mobilehome park which is not constructed shall be refunded upon apoi..ication of the taxpayer and a showing to the satis- faction of the Director of Finance that said building or unit has not been constructed or construction commenced and that the building permit issued for said building or unit hE � been cancelled or surrendered or otherwise does not authorize the construction of said building or unit. SECTION 6810, Proceeds . All proceeds from the tax , penalty and interest col- lected under this Chapter shall be paid into a special capital outlays fund of the City entitled 'Capital Out- lays Fund for Acquiring, Constructing and Equipping of Fire Stations , Libraries and Parks ' , ;which fund is hereby 3 . J 1 / 1 created, Said .fund shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping City fire stations , City libraries and Citv parks . `' SECTION 2, This ordinance .shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, And the same shall be effec- tive 30 days after the date of a_r.s adoption : This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport. Beach held on the day or 19642 and was adopted on .the day of `;64 ) by t_he fellowiL..g vote , to wit NOES COUNCILKEN° ABSENT COUNCILMEN ATTEST- Mayor 4 . 1 � _ s ob G E am d d LJT 70 . 1 1. AC- too ' p Q� I • r $pus 4 Tip logo e � I logo GOOD, %e oo is -� V. SEV. __._ e V tk% � I 1.w awl - _.,Y r 1 . � .r � , s e d�- PLA 7 ' LJT 70 f I-M AC. - p, . CY%IT14 4. *)R. ps fit. •' :,. ,,; .. •. .•t ,. min ff 60 $ j ' ,' uw Islo, / S y fii•�!: ,461 PL s - 1.0 vow Q B.g wb� o LOT 70 ,•' f s Y Lm AC. ! Itp um r � � SN.a 4 ! y b MW it . .. �: �• - • - -•^�., VFW. .. _„c; a.Fr=^7• Leh 1