Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks Department File #3 - Miscellaneous Resolutions Regardi REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL OAMION Submitted by VINCENT G. MOORHOUSE Department COMMUNITY SERVICES Date Prepared December 17 , 1980 Backup Material Attached xl Yes R No Subject ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1843 , RESOLUTION FORMULATING POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION PROPERTY , AND ORDINANCE AMENDING HBMC SECTION 2 . 30 .020 City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommended s Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE /1 Ordinance No . 1843 is being repealed in order to set forth the policy for management of recreation and park property in, resolution form. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No . 2468 which repeals Ordinance No . 1843 , adopt Resolution No . 4950 which establishes the policy for management of recreation and park property, and adopt Ordinance No . 2469 which amends the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding a subsection to Chapter 2 . 30 pertaining to objectives of the Com- munity Services Department , and authorize Mayor to execute same . ANALYSIS A Council-appointed committee determined that Ordinance No . 1843 had been superseded with the codification of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, specifically , -Chapter 2 . 30 , which authorizes the Common-.-t or to set policy and rules and regulations for the operation of city recreational and park properties . Ordinance No . 1843 was reworked to remove outdated material , to put policy not contained in the Municipal Code into resolution form, and to include an item in the Municipal Code . FUNDING SOURCE None . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not adopt Ordinance Nos . 2468 and 2469 , and Resolution No .. 4950 . PIQ 3178 V REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TION z7 Submif� ed by intent G . Moorhouse Department Community Services Date Prepared August 1 , 1980 Backup Material Attached © Yes No Subject ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADDING SECTIONS . TO THE HBMC WHICH REGULATE ACTIVITIES 'OF THE CITY' S BEACH AND PARKS City Administrator's Comments Approve as Recommend d Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE Chapter 13 .48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal. Code has been - amended to more correctly identify allowable activities in city parks . . Sections in Chapter 13 . 24 have been amended to cover commercial photography in parks as well as on the beach. RECOMMENDATION Approve -and adopt..the attached ordinance amending HBMC sections concerning park activity . ANALYSIS The Parks Chapter of the .HBMC has been reworked to make the chapter more enforceable and to note the change in the department -name since the merger o.f Harbors and Beaches with Recreation, Parks and Human Services . In May, the Community Services Commission reviewed and made comments on a draft pro- . vided by staff. The Commission' s input was included in the draft and the attached Ordinance represents the final product approved by Commission and staff. The HBMC sections on commercial photography have been amended to include this activity in city parks. FUNDING SOURCE None required. ' ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Do not approve Ordinance ; retain existing sections . i I �. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director Department Community Services Date Prepared November 6 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached n Yes a No Subject LANGENBECK AND MC CALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS/ SCHEMATIC DESIGN APPROVAL City Administrator's Comments BY CITY COUNCI ?,PPROVED Approve as Recommended ca CITY CLF, K Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:/ Statement of Issue: e s ematic esign plans for 5.5 acre McCallen and 18 acre Langenbeck neighborhood parks has been completed by Landscape Architect, Alan Ribera, critiqued by the residents of each respective neighborhood and approved by the Community Services Commission. Recommendation: Approve the schematic design plans for McCallen and Langenbeck neighborhood parks and authorize the landscape architectural firm Cardoza-DiLallo of Costa Mesa to complete the working drawings and specifications according to terms of their contract with the City conditioned upon the establishment of an acceptable source of maintenance funding. Anal semis: cM Callen Park, formerly referred to as "Old Town" park site, has been in the process of acquisition the past four years with the last two parcels purchased under eminent domain proceedings. Partial ! funding for both acquisition and development came from the City's allocation of the State Park Bond Issue of 1976. This neighborhood has been in need of a park for many years, but the need has I recently become more acute due to rapid residential growth. Langenbeck Park, formerly called "Yorktown" park site consists of 14 acres under Edison Company high voltage lines and 4 acres of park land adjacent. The City owns 10 acres and the Edison Company owns 8 acres which are leased to Sakioka Farms, Inc. Edison Company has indicated their willingness to license their 8 acres to the City for park use when the City is ready to develop the site. The first property parcel was acquired in 1973. Subsequent parcels were dedicated in mid-1970's when the farm land around the easement was developed as residential. Staff and the Community Services Commission recommended that the City Council approve the schematic design plans utilizing the full 18 acres conditioned upon the establishment of an acceptable source of maintenance funding. With the recent Council action of November 6, 1980, declining to utilize assessment districts as a potential funding source for park maintenance, and without additional maintenance funds being made available, the total 18 acre development would create substantial hardship on the Public Works Department if the park was developed next year. Staff still maintains that the City should proceed and design the entire 18 acre parcel with a design permitting development in phases. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Langenbeck and McCallen Neighborhood Parks/ Schematic Design Approval Page 2 Funding Source: ParT<—Acquisition and Development Fund (Balance as of September 30, 1980 - $1,954,105) and 1976 Park Bond Funds ($52,461). Alternative Actions: 1. Delay furt er the design of these parks until an acceptable source of maintenance funding has been determined. 2. Amend the General Plan and declare the sites as surplus, offer them for sale and transfer the bond funds for use in another park. 3. Design less than the full 18 acres of Langenbeck Park. 4. Design the full 18 acres allowing for development in phases. VGM:dp aA. BACKUP MATERIAL SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY MASTER. PLAN/McCALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD PARK The estimated development cost for McCallen Park is $275,000 plus a six to eight month inflation factor of 5%, equaling a total design and development budget of $288,750. Park Development Proposed: The site contains an existing lake which shall be retained (slightly re-shaped) as a major feature of the park. At least half of the shoreline will be in its natural habitat of tules and shoreline water grasses and plants. The few existing trees shall be retained. The exi.sting house shall he demolished and basic site work of grading and drainage (including a lake overflow line to the storm sewer in Delaware Street) and the removal of considerable shoreline debris.. The wells and oil storage tanks will be fenced and screened with shrubs and trees, planting of trees and tree irrigation (with temporary fencing) plus street and curb -improvements is suggested as a first phase of development. A second phase of development is suggested as follows: Construction of a half basketball court, a play apparatus area, property line vine covered fences for portions of the site, a windmill to pull fresh water into the lake in order to sustain a reasonably high water quality for the lake. This will include a simple and creek. channel for water to cascade from the windmill to the lake n flowing into a natural drainage channel to .the lake. Additional second phase improvements shall be development of paths, installation of picnic tables, trash cans, park sign, bulk heads at walk edge at those points where walks are adjacent to the water and a low profile bridge with "bench railings" . The walks proposed consist of one 10' wide pedestrian/maintenance vehicle path, 8' wide nature walks and 5 ' street side walks. Maintenance vehicle access will be provided from the street to the two existing oil wells . The third phase of development shall include turf and irrigation, softball backstop, volleyball posts and security lighting along the main 10' wide maintenance/pedestrian walk which traverses the park from Huntington Street to Delaware Street. This park site, because of the existing lake, has the best potential for a neighborhood park of exceptional interest within the City of Huntington Beach. Development.,Cost Estimate: Phase I: Site Demolition - allow $. 5,000 Grading and Drainage - allow 20,000 Fencing (permanent and temporary) - allow 89000 Tree Planting and Irrigation - allow 25, 000 Street and Curb Development - 860.'. @ $45/1 ft. .38,700 Sub-Total - Phase I $ 96,700 Plus 10% Contingency 99670 Total . Phase I $1069370 BACKUP. MATERIAL SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY MASTER/McCALLEN NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Page 2 Phase II: Paving: Basketball Court _ allow $ 5,000 Paving: Paths 10' Concrete 720' @ $20/1 ft. 12,600 5' Concrete 1,120' @ �10/1 ft. 11,200 8' D.G. 570' - allow 4,560 Concrete pads for picnic tables - allow 800 Bridge with bench railings allow 2,000 Bulkheads at lake shore - 300 1 ft. @ $10/1 ft. 3,000 Railroad tie retaining wall . - 200 1 ft. @ $10/1 ft. 2,000 Sand for play apparatus (hauling & placing) 3,000 Windmill & shallow well & recirculating pipeline - allow 10,000 Creek & ponds including boulders - allow 15,000 Play equipment - allow 20,000 Picnic tables - 4 @ $1,250 ea allow 5,000 Benches - 3 @ $500 ea. - allow 1,500 Park sign - allow 1,500 Litter can holders - 5 @ $100 ea. - allow 500 Bike racks - .2 @ $250 ea. - allow 500 Bollards - 4 @ $50: ea. - allow 200 Sub-Total Phase II $ 98,360 Plus 10% Contingency 9,840 I Total Phase II $108,200 Phase III: Turf and Irrigation, including soil preparation (80,000 sq.ft. @ 65� per `sq.ft. ) $ 52,000 Volleyball posts - 1 set - allow 300 Softball backstop - allow 3,000 60 Day Maintenance (turf) - allow 4,000 Security lighting - 5 @ $1,2.00 ea 6,000 i Sub-Total Phase III $ 65,300 . Plus 10% Contingency 6,530 Total Phase III $ 71,830 Summary: Phase 1 $106,370 .Phase IT 1089200 Phase III 71,830 Sub-Total $286,400 f City Inspection 2,350 Total 288,750 P � RFSIOFNi1Rl .TREES TREES APPARATUS AREA ��) R i OZ f71 1 m LAKE Mun-RSE f7l A TIA6 PTE,_o • ' I I !! IVOWYMILI 1 ra$r- r TREES —��—__�� 1 ,• .s.. . U., m \y— ___ �� resin _�� \ --''� ,. .,w OLTNb rNID 1. VACWTIAW. SCALE RESIOENTULLLr IMM . LEGEND 'FAISTMG SWRELINE ° PROMED SRGREUNE —.--.— TDE OG MW.03 - -' iP~ FAIR MY PERIMETRRS �:-'�♦ /; PROPDSEp dWwWE —•___�___ . R.R TIE RETAINING WlLL �. MASTERPLAN A E RIBERA SEPT'80 MR,1 ,7p��t jai• � � rH,r� 'ir'! yl.� a Yi j .;s[ 'tP:✓.n '. h`irF •' I Y .t? ,. i��,'S., s?rc::., • :1 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT LANGENBECK PARK BACKGROUND DATA PRESENTED BY NORM WORTHY June 20, 1980 PHILOSOPHY ON EDISON EASEMENT DEVELOPMENT In May, 1%6, the City Council adopted the Parks, Open Spaces, Schools and Recreation element to the City's Master Plan of Land Use. The foreword states: "Planning for parks and recreation facilities should proceed from agreement on policies that reflect the best thinking of a community regarding the purposes, scope and general character of the public recreation system. These policies will assure the citizens of Huntington Beach that decisions concerning particular facilities will be consistent and these decisions will ultimately lead to a well-balanced public recreational program:" The document states the City is negotiating with the Southern.California Edison Company to utilize a portion of their Huntington Beach transmission line property for open space purposes. It also states it is anticipated that similar negotiations can be worked out to obtain the remaining right-of-ways to fulfill the necessary open space needs for the particular neighborhoods that the right-of-ways transgress. In keeping with this concept, a landscape architect was employed to complete park development plan of all the Edison right-of-ways within the City. Several neighborhood segments of the Edison easement were developed as parks over the years. Arevalos (2 acres), LeBard (2 acres), Gisler (10 acres), Edison Community (13 acres) and Talbert (5 acres) for a total of 32 acres. There remains about 92 acres of non-park easement in southeast Huntington Beach and I I acres in north Huntington Beach. Edison originally leased their.land to the City for $50 per acre/year; however, the rate was raised to $100 per acre/year in 1978. - PARK ACQUISITION The residential tracts bounded by Garfield, Yorktown, Newland and-Magnolia were designed to allow vehicular and people access to the "L" shaped 14-acre parcel of Edison right-of-way which penetrates to the center of the quartersection from the north and east. The H"untington Beach Union High School District had purchased the southeast 48 acres and the City was contemplating acquiring an eight-acre community park adjacent to the school and easement. In the mid-[ 9701s, the school district declared their school site surplus and sold it to Shopell Construction Company for S&S residential housing. The City required that four acres be set aside for neighborhood park purposes and placed the unencumbered site south and adjacent to the easement in the center of the quartersecti on. In 1973, the City acquired title to six acres of the easement from Magnolia west to the park site through purchase from Andy Holtz. PARK DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Langenbeck park site (formerly Yorktown, #978) was first plugged into a proposed ten-year development schedule in June, 1975. At that time, the Recreation and Parks Commission felt that 1980-81 would be the target year for development as a park. Eighteen.acres were tentatively budgeted at $378,000. -PARK NAMED In 1979, the Community Services Commission and City Council approved the recommendation of their Park Naming Committee to name the 18-acre Yorktown site after former Mayor, Vernon E. Langenbeck, who served the City as a Councilman for two terms and as Mayor from 1950-52. PARK SITE DESIGN In June, 1978, Proposition 13 .was approved by the voters of California which severely restricted the property tax rate paid to local governments. This severely affected the City budget, particularly maintenance and clerical positions. Park maintenance was cut back in the face of continued park growth so park design and development was . temporarily slowed until a method for producing the necessary park maintenance could be guaranteed by the City Council before new development contracts were approved. Petitions, letters and appearances at Commission meetings by many residents of the Laigenbeck neighborhood all stressing the need for immediate development of the park site has convinced the Commission and staff that development is overdue Staff Architect, Alan Ribera, has commenced work on a schematic plan and will have it before the residents for critique and suggestions by the end.of July. It will be ready for Commission review on August 13. NL W:sh LANGENBECK PARK: (18 Acres) Grading Allow $36,000 Drainage 22,500 Paving: 2-Z Basketball Courts 10,000 Walks 74,000 Decomposed Granite 4,000 Planting and Irrigation Turf (11 acres @ $22,000) 242,000 Trees (750 w/irrigation) 75,000 Play Apparatus Allow 25,000 Sand Allow 3,000 Softball Backstop Allow 3,000 Bicycle Rack Allow 500 Park Furniture : Benches (4 @ 350) 1,400 Picnic Tables (5 @ 500) 2,500 Volleyball Posts (2 sets) 600 SUB-TOTAL: T4099,500 Plus 10% Contingency 49,950 TOTAL: T5 9, 5 GARFIELD AVE. DD � I o I II m I TURF m a� I I I I I BROOKSIDE DR. LA�IGEI�BECK PARK TREES SAILSWHITE - � a MASTERPLAN PRELIMINARY CR. FRANCISCAN CR." A E RIBERA iuLY'80 KEEL DR. L� CLUS 5_DR. . VOLLEY ERLL- _ T5 TREES . O 0 O - 1 - TREES i TREES 0 I TREES hQ K cW00 TAYESO - VOILEYBRLI I mR,TRo� r -: Hoop ce..lTaol - TosTS F I I e.vM D m�u.I.cE.,EIN � TUIIE I Z (TURf) MULTI-USE TURF TURF a '::. i I Q m I. 0= Q z L---------------JQ TREES TREES O TREES L r _— —`\\ ruT - ��� APPARATUS - AREA 4 / MULTI-U5E TURF C��� 1.1IS - g - - NAPLES DR. 'RE`L 1 \� �Tw CRESENT DR. Tir • — ���,/ O TREES eu+� SUNCORAL DR. C 6 &/ REQUE., i' FOR CITY COUNCIAACTION �t Submitted by Paul E. Cook U Department Public Works Date Prepared October 24 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached xa Yes R No Subject Funding of Park Maintenance City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. eGU,✓J3 Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: In light.of restricted City revenues, it is necessary to investigate alternative methods of funding park and landscaping maintenance in order to correct current funding defi- ciencies and provide maintenance capabilities for new parks being developed and land- scaping being added to the street system. Recommendation: Adopt a policy supporting the formation of maintenance assessment districts for all existing .and future neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways, and medians, as the most equitable approach to City landscape maintenance financing and direct staff to implement the area of benefit concept as follows: 1. Provide all landscape maintenance be funded on an area of benefit basis by: A. Funding through the City's General Fund for landscape maintenance that has a City-wide benefit. B. Funding through maintenance districts for landscape maintenance that has a local public benefit. 2. Form Maintenance districts for all future neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians. 3. Form maintenance districts for all existing neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways, and medians to bring all City maintenance into conformance with the area of benefit concept. - 4. Utilize the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 as the legal means of establishing maintenance districts. Analysis: At the direction of the City Council, staff has investigated various methods of financing current and future park and landscaping maintenance. This study is necessary for the following reasons: PIO 3/78 1 Request for Council Actio._ Funding of Park Maintenance October 24, 1980 Page 2 1. Propositions 13 & 4 have severely limited the City's ability to fund City services at a level satisfactory to the citizens. 2. Park, tree and landscape maintenance is currently underfunded by $700,000 and levels of service are far below the expectations of the public. 3. The demand for development of additional parks and installation of landscaping and trees continues throughout -the City, requiring more maintenance funds each year. At-the-joint--meeting of the Cammmity_Service_CoYmission_and_City_Council_on_ !Uanuary2l.,_198.0_the CityCouncil directed-s-taff_to_design__and_develop_an_addi tional_-17=parks:,- to_talling_approximately_10.0_acres_which would_be_addecLto_the=_-i _existing 430 -acres.-------- ---- ----- ---- -- - - - --- - - CURRENT MAINTENANCE FINANCING - Maintenance of public facilities are financed through the City's General Fund. The General Fund is exactly what the name implis, a e fund made up of different revenue sources going to finance the general operations of the City. Maintenance of public facilities, whether or not they provide-City-wide benefit, is financed through the General Fund with expenditures varying from year to year as provided by the City Council during the annual budget process. The following is a brief summary of the City's 1980-81 budget showing:Generral_Fund _prop - erty tax revenues-and-how they are spent relative to park, tree_& landscape maintenance. $1,467,465 or 3.5% of the City's budget goes toward park, tree & landscape maintenance. It is interesting to note, however, that only $9,924,600 or 26.4% of total City revenues cane from property taxes, of which a typical Huntington Beach homeowner (of a $100,000 hone) contributes $158 of his $1,000 property tax bill to the City's General Fund. Pro- rating the $158 .among all City operations, the $100,000 hcmeowner. contributes $5.53 annually'toward park, tree & landscape maintenance._services. Maintenance of private improvements providing local benefit is financed through the local_ community associations. Neighborhood parks, gr 1ts,_association swinuun p ls and clubhouses, co mn areas and private streets owned and maintained by local community associations are financed through the local community association dues. In all cases in Huntington Beach where there are community association maintenance costs, it is a mandatory requirement that the homeowner join the local community association. Community associa- tions must annually approve local association maintenance service levels and expenditures. INEQUITY OF CURRENT POLICIES The City's current maintenance practices are not consistent with the philosophy that the area of benefit pay the associated maintenance costs, with several exceptions described in the following paragraph. The landscape areas or parkways at several of the City's commercial sites had to include right of way into their private landscape area to meet City requirements for percentage of onsite landscape. We therefore have parkway maintenance agreements with these businesses and they maintain these public areas. Also, where the City has required meandering walks or other special features to accommodate bikeways, etc. in the industrial park area, we have parkway maintenance agreements with the industrial user maintaining these public areas. There are tracts which were required to accept parkway maintenance agreements or provide in private land adjacent to right of way accommodation and maintenance of land- scape areas on arterial highways. 1 Request for Council Action Funding of Park Maintenance October 24, 1980 Page 3 Most of the highway landscape which exists in the City. is funded by General Fund budget except those listed. The change to parkway maintenance agreements or requiring landscape in private land to meet City requirements is directly related to budget fund constraints and, in a few cases, relative to the developer wanting to increase the area of required landscape on the highway which would relate as a benefit to his development. PARK AREA ACREAGE Conrad Park Huntington Harbour 3.5 This park was allowed to meet the open space requirements of the City as a neighborhood park and maintained by the homeowners association. PAREMY/ROADSIDE IANDSCAPE AREAS Atlanta, Beach, Delaware Tract 10248 Atlanta, Beach, Delaware Tract 9580 Warner Avenue Tract 9671 Edinger Avenue Tract 7850 Yorktown/Coldwater Tract 7742 Various Locations Industrial/Con ercial For years the City has required that residential developers set aside land for use as neighborhood parks based on 5 acres per 1000 population. The developer has the option of (1) developing the neighborhood park and dedicating it to the City; or (2) contribut- ing in-lieu fees to the City for construction of the neighborhood park at a latex date. In most cases historically the developer opted to dedicate the park to the City and the parks listed below are currently maintained through the General Fund. PARK SYSTEM DATA I.D. PARK NAME ADDRESS ACRES 850 AREVALOS 10441 Shalom 3. 900 BEAR Wellington & Mariana 1. 875 BURKE 9700 Levee Drive 2.5 825 BUSHARD 9691 Warburton 2.5 790 CHRIS CARR 16532 Springdale 11. 800 CIRCLE VIEW 6261 Hooker Drive 2. 805 CLEC—STACEY 6311 Larchwood 3. 820 COLLEGE VIEW 6582 Lennox 3. 905 DAVENPORT Baruna & Davenport Streets 1. 760 EADER 9291 Banning 2.5 835 EDISON 21377 Magnolia 40. 735 FARQHAR Main & 12th Streets 3. 755 GISLER 21271 Bushard 11. 930 GLEN VIEW 7721 Glen Drive 3. 860 GOLDEN VIEW 7742 Wrenfield 2.5 705 GREER McFadden & Goldenwest Streets 11. 705A GREER If if if of 810 HARBOUR VIEW 4343 Pickwick Circle 3.5 915 HAVEN VIEW 16021 Waikiki Lane 3. 885 HAWES 9632 Yellowstone 2.5 740 HOPE VIEW 6381 Armada Drive 3. *Underlined are High Public Use Areas Request for Council Actic Funding of Park Maintenanc.,-- October 24, 1980 Page,/4 I.D. PARK NAME ADDRESS ACRES 765 HUNTINGTON CENTRAL GOLDENWEST & TALBERT 190. 710 IRBY Patricial & Ruth Streets 3. 730 LAKE Main & llth Streets 5. 815 LAKE VIEW 17451 Zeider Lane 3. 935 LAMBERT Ellis & Newland 3.5 840 LARK VIEW 6332 Summerdale 3. 745 LEBARD 20451 Craimer 5. 795 MARINA 5562 Cross 11. 910 MARINE VIEW 17442 Frans Lane 3. 715 MURDY 7000 Norma 15. 940 NEWLAND 19702 Topeka 2.5 770 OAKVIEW 17241 Oak Lane 2.5 750 PERRY 8172 Deauville 2. 865 PLEASANT VIEW 16642 Landau 3. 925 ROBINWOOD 5212 McFadden 2.5 700 SCHROEDER 15151 Columbia Lane 2.5 830 SEABRIDGE 9702 Surfcrest 3.5 880 SOWERS 9272 Indianapolis 2.5 855 SPRINGDALE 14422 Hamm Place 2. 965 SUN VIEW 7721 Juliette Lowe Lane 2.5 945 TALBERT 19222 Magnolia 5.5 895 TERRY 7761 Taylor 5. 720 WARDLOW 9191 Pioneer 2.5 TRINIDAD ISLAND PARKS Prince Viewpoint 3302 Ventura Drive French Channel Vista 3482 Ventura Drive Trinidad Beach 3601 Sycamore I.D. LANDSCAPE NAME ADDRESS ACRES 100 BEACH FRONT Pacific Coast Hwy 6.4 608 CENTRAL LIBRARY Goldenwest & Talbert 780 CITY GYM & POOL 17th & Palm Street .5 607 CIVIC CENTER OLD Main & Palm Street 2.8 604 CIVIC CENTER NEW Main & Yorktown 12. 603 GOLDENWEST STRIP Goldenwest & Yorktown 1. 605 HELIPORT Gothard & Talbert 1. 606 LIBRARY ANNEX Main & 5th Streets 1. 602 MAIN STREET STRIP Main 2.1 973 MOTOWN Adams & Alabama .5 504 PECK RESERVOIR Springdale.& Machine 1. 505 PUMP STATION #5 Warner & Newland 1. 725 RECREATION CENTER 17th &Orange Streets 2. 503 WATER WAREHOUSE Garfield & Huntington .2 ALGONQUIN Warner & Algonquin .5 SIMMS GROVE Graham & Heil 2.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKS = 46 TOTAL NUMBER LANDSCAPE AREAS = 16 HIGH PUBLIC USE ACRES = 285.5 NEIGHBORHOOD ACRES = 144. GRAND TOTAL ACRES = 429.5 *Underlined are High Public Use Areas Request for Council Action Funding of Park Maintenance October 24, 1980 Page 5 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO FINANCE MAINTENANCE The following appear to be the most reasonable alternatives available to finance maintenance in the City: Alternative I - Continue.maintaining existing neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians through the General Fund and form maintenance districts for future neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians. 1. All future landscape maintenance would be funded on an area of benefit basis through (1) the City's General Fund for maintenance that has City-wide benefit; (2) maintenance district for maintenance that has local public benefit; or (3) ccmmmity associations for maintenance that has a local private benefit. 2. Existing neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians would continue to be funded through the City's General Fund. Advantages - The major percentage of all future landscape maintenance would be on an area of benefit basis. - Local service levels :iand funding requirements would be developed accord- ing to local preference and need. - No time or expense would be required to change past policies. Disadvantages - Existing neighborhood parks, parkways and medians would not be main- tained on an area of benefit basis. - Many homeowners would be paying for their own local landscape maintenance through`assessment districts or connunity .association dues and contributing to the General Fund for maintenance of {public neighborhood land_scapinq_in other areas of the City. - Past policies would remain inconsistent with present policies for main- tenance of local parks. Alternative II - Form maintenance districts for all existing and future neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians. 1. All landscape maintenance would be funded on an area of benefit basis through (1) the City's General Fund for maintenance that has City-wide benefit; (2) maintenance. districts for maintenance that has local public benefit; or (3) ccmuunity associations for maintenance that has a local private benefit. 2. Maintenance districts would be formed for neighborhood parks and 1/2 mile sections of the City to bring all existing and future City landscape maintenance into conformance with the area of benefit concept. Advantages - All City landscape maintenance would be on an area of benefit basis. - Local service levels and funding requirements would be developed according to local preference and need. - All City landscape maintenance policies would be consistent. Disadvantages - Homeowners in areas where neighborhootl parks are currently maintained through the General Fund would begin paying a maintenance assessment. - Time and expense involved in determining area of benefit and forming new maintenance districts. Request for Council Action .Funding of Park Maintenance October 24, 1980 Page 6 Alternative III - Develop new maintenance policies. 1. Maintain all existing and future neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians through the General Fund. A. Assume all local benefits are equal enough to produce one Citywide benefit. B. Abandon ideas of forming individual maintenance districts. Advantages - Would not have to levy new maintenance district assessments on home- owners who live in areas where local neighborhood parks are currently maintained through the City's General Fund. - Least direct cost to homeowner. - Less time and expense involved in maintenance budgeting and accounting. Disadvantages - Many homeowners would be paying for their own local landscape main- tenance through community association dues and contributing to the General Fund for maintenance of neighborhood landscaping in other areas of the City. - The City would have to come up with additional general funds beginning in 1981/82 to maintain the new parks and landscape to be developed in the future. With current revenue limitations, the City would most likely have to cut back existing programs to finance additional general fund revenue sources. CONCLUSION: Alternative II, taking action to bring all policies and landscape maintenance responsi- bilities into conformance with the area of benefit concept, is recommended. This alternative would provide for the irnplementation of maintenance districts and would require the City to form additional maintenance districts in designated areas to es- tablish equitable City-wide maintenance.of neighborhood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians. It would provide guaranteed funding for all existing and future neighbor- hood parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians at a level consistent with the needs and wishes of the local residents who benefit from the parks, greenbelts, parkways and medians; it would provide for the continuation of existing and future ccmmunity asso- ciation private facilities;. and it would free ljap.'funds that are currently going toward maintenance of local neighborhood parks for use in programs that have Citywide benefit. Alternative I, continuation of existing.policies would also provide all future maintenance financing on an area of benefit basis; however, it would not correct the inequities that currently exist. Under Alternative I, it could be assumed all home- owners in the City should be aware of the inequities that exist and that these inequities will become a decreasing percentage of total City operations as the City grows. Alternative IIlthe maintenance of all public landscaping through the City's General Fund, would produce the least direct cost to individual homeowners. It would, however, result in reduced funds available to finance other General Fund operations and would not correct the problems that currently exist. IANDSCAPING AMID LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 The appropriate vehicle for establishing landscaping maintenance districts in the City is the Landscaping and Lighting Act_ of 1972, a part of the California Streets and Highways Code. This act is being used by several cities in Southern California for park and landscaping maintenance financing. Request for Council Action Funding of Park Maintenance October 24, 1980 Page 7 Attached is a summary of the provisions of this Act and the procedural steps to follow. Funding Source This recnded policy does not involve the direct outlay of funds. Alternatives: There are many alternatives to the recommended action, such as: 1. Continue to maintain existing neighborhood parks, parkways and medians through the General Fund and form maintenance districts for future neighborhood parks, green- belts, parkways and medians. 2. Maintain all existing and future neighborhoo& parks, greenbelts, aprkways and medians through the General Fund. 3. Maintain parks with Park Acquisition and Development funds. 4. Consider the establishment of a City-wide maintenance district for all City parks parks through provisions of the California Public Resources Code. Since this is considered a tax, it must be approved by 2/3 of the voters. 5. Establish fees for recreation programs, beach parking and Central Park concessions sufficient to-finance park maintenance. PEC:DS:jy SUMMARY OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 This act provides for the establishment of benefit oriented assessment districts. The fees for these districts may be collected in addition to the 1% property tax levy allowed by Proposition 13. The fees gener- ally will vary between parcels based on the benefit accrued to each. As outlined below, the act requires notice to all property owners with- in the district before it is established. The council must conduct a protest hearing; however, it is not bound by the results of the hear- ing nor is an election among the affected parties required. After the district is established, it continues into perpetuity . The council may set the annual assessment rate without consulting with the district population. The district may be used to finance the installation or maintenance (or both) of any of the following : a. landscaping; b. public lighting, including street lighting; C . curbs , gutters , walls , sidewalks , paving, or water irrigation, drainage or electrical facilities . The district may also be assessed for incidental expenses , including the cost of establishing the assessment district , and appropriate overhead costs for the actual installation cost and maintenance. The district assessments are filed with the county auditor and are collected at the same time and in the same manner as county taxes are collected. All laws pertaining to the collection and enforcement of county taxes also apply to the collection and enforcement of the assess- ments . The act provides for additional improvements to be performed in sub- sequent years ; these improvements must be proposed at a public hearing; but need not have public approval . Further, the act provides for subsequent annexations or de-annexations to the district . If the district is used to finance improvements , the costs may be spread over five (5) year . f Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972 Summary Page 2 Establishing the District The following steps are required to establish a benefit assessment district under this act : 1. City council must pass a resolution which shall propose the formation of the district , describe the improvements , and order the engineer to prepare a benefit assessment study and file a report . 2 . Upon completion , the engineer files his report with the city council; the council may adopt or modify the report . 3 . After approving the engineer' s report , the council adopts a resolution which declares the intention of the council to initiate the formation of the assessment district and it sets the time and place for a public hearing. 4 . At a minimum of 10 days before a public hearing, notice must be : a . published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city; b . posted at intervals of not .more than 300 feet along all streets within the proposed district ; C . mailed to all property owners who will receive assess- ments greater than $100 . per year or who reside out- side of the district . 5 . A minimum of 10 days after the notices are posted the council may conduct the public hearing . At the conclusion of the hearing, the council must determine whether a "majority protest" exists . A majority protest - is defined as a written protest filed with the council by property owners representing more than 50% of the assessable area within the proposed district . If a majority protest exists , the council may overrule by four-fifths vote . Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972 Summary Page 3 6 . If a majority protest has not been filed, or has been overruled, the council may adopt a resolution ordering the formation of the district , and the levying of the first year ' s assessment . Annual levying of the assessment Each year, prior to July 1 , the council must fix the assessment for the coming year . This assessment may include charges for any addi- tional improvements to be performed in the district . Further, the council may order that the assessment ratios be varied between parcels . The procedure is similar to the establishment of a district with the exception that there is no requirement for noticing property owners (unless there is a change in the benefit ratios) or for the finding of a majority protest . Basically , the council adopts a resolution ordering a report by the engineer. Upon filing of the report , council adopts the resolution of intention and sets a time for the public hearing. This hearing must be the first regular council meeting in June . Notices of the hearing must be mailed to the property owners of any parcel on which there is to be a change in the assessment ratio or method. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the council may adopt a resolution levying the assessment for the coming fiscal year. ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Resume of the Streets and Highways Code Division 15 Part 2 "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" I . Proceedings for the formation of an Assessment District shall be initiated by Resolution. The Resolution shall : A. Propose the formation of an Assessment District . B. Describe the improvements , maintenance or service . C. Describe the proposed Assessment District and specify a dis- tinctive designation for the district . D. Order the engineer to prepare and file a report . Report shall refer to the Assessment District by its distinctive designation. Specify the fiscal year to which the report applies and with respect to that year, shall contain : 1 . Plans (and specifications ) for the improvements , maintenance or service . 2 . An estimate of the cost of the improvements , maintenance or service . 3 . A diagram of the Assessment District . 4 . An assessment of the total estimated cost . The descriptions (B and C) need not be detailed, but shall be sufficient if they enable the engineer to generally identify the nature, location, and extent of the improvements , maintenance or service, and the location and extent of the Assessment District . The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land shown on the diagram (D-3) shall conform to those shown on the County Asses- sor ' s maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies . The diagram may refer to the County Assessor ' s maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any lot or parcels . The Assessment (D-4 ) shall refer to the fiscal year to which it applies and shall : (a) State the net amount to be assessed upon assessable lands within the Assessment District (b) Describe each assessable lot or parcel of land within the district . The assessment may refer to the County Assess- ment Roll for a description of the lots or parcels . The net amount to be assessed upon lands may be apportioned by any method or formula which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the_ estimated benefits to be received. The Diagram and Assessment may classify various areas within an assessment district into different zones whereby the variations or nature of improvements , maintenance or service will receive differing degrees of benefit . A zone shall consist of all terri- tory which will receive substantially the same degree of benefit . II . Upon completion, the engineer shall file the report with the City Clerk for submission to the City Council . The City Council may approve the report as filed or it may modify the report in any particular and approve it as modified . III . After approval of the report , either as filed or modified , the City Council shall adopt a Resolution of Intention . The Resolution shall : A. Declare the intention of the City Council to order the forma- tion of an Assessment District , and to levy and collect assess- ments pursuant to this part . B. Generally describe the improvements , maintenance or services . C. Refer to the proposed Assessment District by its distinctive designation and indicate the general location of the district . D. Refer to the report of the engineer, on file with" the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements , mainte- nance or service, the boundaries of the Assessment District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon the assess- able lots and parcels of land within the district . E. Give notice of, and fix a time and place for a hearing by the City Council on the question of the formation of the Assessment District and the levy of the proposed assessment . IV. The City Clerk shall give Notice of Hearing by causing the Resolution of Intention to be published, posted, and mailed . A. Publication shall be completed at least ten ( 10 ) days prior to the date of hearing specified therein. B . Posted Notices of the Hearing and Resolution of Intention shall be completed at least ten ( 10) days prior to the hearing speci- fied therein. The Notices , not less than three in all, shall be posted at intervals of not more than 300 feet along all streets within the proposed Assessment District or area to be annexed to an existing district . Posted notices shall be headed "Notice of Improvement" in letters at least one inch in height . C . Mailed notices shall be sent by first-class mail to property owners whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll as the case may be . Mailed notices of the Hearings shall be given at least ten days prior to the date of hearing specified therein . V. The City Council shall hold the hearing at the time and place fixed in the Resolution of Intent and in any order continuing the hear- ing. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard . The City Council shall consider all oral state- ments and all written protests of communication or filed by any interested persons . -2- VI . During the course or upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may order changes in any of the matters provided in the report . The City Council may , without further notice , order the exclusions of territory from the proposed district , but shall not order the inclusion of additional territory within the district except upon written request by a property owner for the inclusion of his property, or upon the giving of mailed Notice of Hearing to property owner upon the question of the inclusion of their property in the district . VII . Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council shall determine whether a majority protest .exists . Proceedings for the formation of the Assessment District shall be abandoned if there is a majority protest , unless , by a four-fifths vote of all members of the City Council, the protest shall be overruled. VIII . After this procedure has been followed, the City Council may adopt a resolution ordering the improvements , maintenance or service, and the formation of the Assessment District and confirming the diagram and assessments , either as originally proposed by the City Council or as changed by it . The adoption of the resolution shall constitute the levy of an assessment for the fiscal year referred to in the assessment . The City Council has the authority to make the following changes in organization . a. The annexation of territory to an existing Assessment District . b . The detachment of territory from the existing Assessment District . C . The dissolution of an existing Assessment District . d. The consolidation into a single Assessment District of any combination of two or more of the following : 1 . An existing Assessment District . 2 . An existing lighting, street lighting, maintenance, or tree planting district . IX . Hearings upon the formation of an Assessment District shall be concluded and any Resolution confirming a diagram and an assessment shall be alopted not later- than; a. July 1, of the fiscal year during which the assessments are to be collected on the County Assessment Rolls ; or b . Such later date, not beyond the third Monday in August , as the County Auditor may authorize . C . Immediately after the filing of the diagram and assessment , the County Auditor shall enter on the County Assessment Rolls , opposite each lot or parcel of land, the amount assessed there- upon as shown in the assessment . The assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected. After collection by the County, the net amount of the assessments , after deduction of any compensation due the County for collection, shall be paid to the Treasurer.- City Treasurer deposits funds collected in a special account for the maintenance district . -3- Surplus or Deficit . If there is a surplus or deficit of funds , this shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year and be applied to the assessment levied. X. Public property owned by any public agency and in use in the perfor- mance of a public function shall not be subject to assessment under this part unless the Resolution of Intention expressly provides that it shall be assessed. If the resolution provides that public pro- perty shall be assessed, the local agency conducting the proceedings shall be liable for payment of all amounts so assessed. Any such amounts shall be payable from the general fund of the local agency unless the Resolution of Intention designates some other fund. To the extent that any such amounts are paid by the public agency owning the public property, the local agency conducting the proceedings shall not be liable therefor . XI. The City Council, by contract or otherwise, shall provide for the performance of all work ordered by it , including the construction of improvements and/or furnishing maintenance or service for any improvements . XII . All or any part of the improvements may be constructed, installed, maintained or serviced by one or any combination of the following : A. The City conducting proceedings . B. Any other public agency . C. Any public utility . XIII . The City may contract with another public agency or with a public utility for the construction, installation, or ownership of any improvements or for furnishing of maintenance or service for any improvements . Any contract with another public agency shall be made in compliance with all laws applicable to the other public agency and to the City . Any contract with a public utility shall be made in compliance with and subject to all tariffs , rules and rate schedules of the public utility on file with and approved by the Public Utilities Commission. XIV. Except for work provided for by contract made pursuant to Section 22677 (See XIII above) , the City Council shall provide for all improvements , maintenance or services in accordance with and sub- ject to all laws applicable to the City, including any laws re- quiring the letting of contracts after competitive bidding . NOTE: With the exception of the formation of an Assessment District , basically the same procedures are followed each year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within the existing Assessment District . -4- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTI -ibmitted by Vincent G . Moorhouse Department Community Services Date Prepared September 25 01980 Backup Material Attached x] Yes No Subject AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO CONSTRUCT naxvTFw MOFFETT, DREW AND #975 PARK SITES City Administrator Approve as recommended . - -�--- 1 G, C: CIT�CLR Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: J STATEMENT OF ISSUE J Oakview, Moffett , Drew and #975 park sites have been designed and construction drawings, specifications and bid documents for their development have been completed . RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to advertise for bids to construct subject park sites for an estimated construction cost of $404 ,655, plus $19,940 for a sixty-day maintenance period (estimated by Cardoza-DiLallo with selected elements recommended by Alan. Ribera, Landscape Architect , to be omitted or modified so that initial park budgets plus an inflation factor will not be exceeded . ) ANALYSIS Following City Council direction , the necessary documents for taking construction bids have been prepared by Cardoza-DiLallo & Associates . Plan checks have been made by city staff and corrections have been completed on said documents . Cost estimates have also been prepared and submitted by the consulting firm as follows : Construction +60 Day Acreage Estimate . Maintenance Oakvipw 2. t 80,700 $ 11550 #975 3 119 ,015 8 , 1.Lo Moffett 2 . 5 97 .625 4 ,47;. Drew 2 . 6 107 ,315 5 810 TOTAL,: 10 . 1 $404 !655 $19 ,940 1 The projects are now ready for bidding; . The Public [forks Department ` 1 Request for City Council Action Page Two has prepared an RCA addressing the maintenance costs and funding of same for these four new park sites . The Community Services Department supports the recommendation of Public Works and the policy that when new parks are developed, funds should be allocated to maintain them. FUNDING SOURCE Park Acquisition and Development Account , balance as of 8/30/80 is $1 ,635 ,486 . 41 . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS . 1 . Seek less costly park development design plans . 2 . Delay development until policy has been established for funding of park maintenance . ' VGM:cs s� / VX REQU FOR CITY COUNCILTACT1O - . Gam►-� Submitted by Paul E. Cook � Department Public Works Date Prepared September 26 , 1980 Backup Material Attached yes No Subject Allocation of Funds for Maintenance of Oakview Park, Moffett Park, Drew Park and Park Site 975 City Administrator's Co CAN Approve as Recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: runds -for the maintenance of Oakview, Moffett, Drew and No. 975 park sites which are soon to be developed are not now available in the 1980-81 budget. Recommendation: Allocate funds to the Public Works. Dept. in the amount of $15,200 which represents estimated costs for maintenance of subject parks from the date of expiration of the sixty-day main- tenance .period until the end of the fiscal year. Also allocate $44,400 for new equipment for the new maintenance route required by adding subject parks to the entire park system. Analysis: The City Council recently approved a policy to provide maintenance funds to the Public Works ! Dept. when each park development contract is advertised for bids. The actual transfer of funds would- be accomplished when the construction contract is 'awarded. The Public Works cost estimate to maintain these four new parks from the end of the sixty-day maintenance period to the 'end of the fiscal year, a time of two months, is $15,200. These costs include the addition of five persons to the maintenance staff. This represents the es- tablishment of a new maintenance crew for these parks. This crew will also assist existing crews in maintaining portions of Central Park. The establishment of a new crew requires the purchase of equipment in the amount of $44,400.00. Amortized over .the life of the equipment, this represents an equipment cost of $500 per month for this crew. Each of our park maintenance crews is responsible for 50 acres of parkland. This represents ' an average of 10 acres per man, which is twice the national average. In order to undertake the maintenance of these four parks which total:. l3 acres, it will be necessary. to add another full five man crew to .the staff as well as several pieces of equipment such as a truck, trailer, mowers and edgers. However, as additional parks. are added to the system, such as Manning, Helene and Langenbeck, it will :not be necessary .to add personnel since this ;crew will be able to maintain a total- of 50 acres of-parkland. It 'should be understood that the park maintenance division needs. an additional fourteen persons to accomplish tasks which should be accomplished but are not .being done. These tasks include play equipment repair and replacement, turf aerification, fertilization, cultivation,' insecticide- application, thatch removal, preventative maintenance, planting- and pruning.. It is our intention to try to build up the staff to accomplish these tasks through the annual budget process. We are accomplishing the basic tasks of mowing, irri= gation, chemical application and litter control in all but Central Park on a regular Pio 3ne ��I Request for Council Action - -Allocation of Funds for Maintenance of Oakview Park, Moffett Park, Drew Park and Park Site 975 September 26, 1980 Page 2 schedule. Because of our shortage of. personnel and .because of its basically natural setting, Central Park is used as a buffer where regularly scheduled maintenance is not accomplished. The addition of another maintenance-crew as reccnuended will allow us to upgrade maintenance Ln Central Park until more new parks are added to the system as previously mentioned. . Funding Source: Maintenance funds are to be transferred frcan the Contingency Fund to Park Maintenance accounts. Purchase of equipment is to be financed from the Capital Outlay Fund. Alternative: Do not allocate funds for the maintenance of the four subject parks. PEC:jy 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Paul E. Cook From Dan T. Villella Director of Public Works Acting Director of Finance Subject Park Maintenance Date September 29, 1980 FIR # 81-13 In response to your request, I am hereby submitting a Financial Impact Report relative to the maintenance of Park Site 975, Oakview, Moffett and Drew Parks. If the City Council desires to approve this project, there are funds available' in the contingency account and the Capital Outlay Fund from which these expenditurescan be mde. The uncommitted balance in the contingency account and Capital Outlay Fund after these expenditures would be approximately $921 ,800 and $535,600 respectively. -sL- Dan T. Villella Acting Director of Finance DTV/cg 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINANCIAL IMPACT .REPORT Project Name Park Maintenance Description Maintenance of Oakview Park, Moffett Park, Drew Park and Park Site 975. 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS 1 . 1 One-Time Costs Land urn. , aci i- Acquisition Construction. ties, Equipment. Other Total Cost $ 44,400 $ 15,200 $ 59,600 1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs Additional. Materials E utside E Personnel Su lies Services Revenues Total CostE $ 91 ,200 1 .3 Replacement/Renewal Costs Replacement of equipment at the end of 7 1/2 years - $44,400 (not adjusted for inflation) . 2. INDIRECT COSTS Supervision of new crew. t Financial Impact Repo Page 2 _ 3. NON-DOLLAR COSTS N/A__--_ 4. BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT Maintained developed parks. 5. PROJECT USAGE City parks. 6. EXPENDITURE TIMING Last sixty days of the fiscal year. 7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT None. 'r P_4 RESOLUTION N0 . 4924 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1 WHICH PLACES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS WHEREAS , - parks and recreation programs. vastly enhance our urban environment ; and Leisure and open spaces in. both urban and rural areas are a necessity to life , since they have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, economic productivity and social problems ; and Recreation .programs can particularly aid in the amelioration of problems such as juvenile delinquency and senior citizens in transition; and } Proposition 1 would place before the voters of California a measure to provide funding for acquisition and development of parks , recreation programs , conservation of natural resources , and access to popular recreation areas ; and The proposed parklands program will make . available additional recreation areas in and near population centers, which is particu- larly important as transportation and fuel become more expensive ; and Enhancement of parks and other natural resources will have a direct economic benefit to our community and the state as a whole ; and moreover , will benefit the health and well-being of Californians , NOW, Tf-1171REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it is in support of Proposition 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a -regular meeting thereof held on the 6th _ day of October 1980 . "? ed ATTEST: _ Mayor zA /cs 10/2/8O City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : Acting City Adm istrator ommu i ervices Director R No. 4924 � S'rATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY .OF ORANGE ) as: 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 6th day of OCTOBER 1980 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson , Finley, Bailey, MacAllister, Mandic .Kelly NOES: Councilmen:. None ABSENT: Councilmen: Thomas (out of room) City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California THE C I T Y OIF Joe am C A L I F O R N I A / CITY HALL (' 401 South Brea Boulevard �- Brea, California 92621 i Telephone (714) 529-4951 CITY COUNCIL September 18, 1980 DONALD L.FOX MAYOR DR.MELVIN J.LE BARON MAYOR PRO TEM Ruth Bailey, Mayor SAL F.GAMBINA City of Huntington Beach - COUNCILMAN P. 0. BOX 190 NORMAD.HICKS Huntington Beach, California 92648 COUNCILWOMAN RON ISLES During the last election the Orange County League of Cities went COUNCILMAN on record as endorsing the State Park Bond Act in order to make additional funds available to assist the citizens of Orange WAYNED.WEDIN County. Even with our support that issue, unfortunately, was not CITY MANAGER approved by the voters. A proposition supporting acquisition and development of parks has now been written and placed on the next ballot as Proposition 1. At the Brea City Council meeting of Tuesday, September 16th, the attached resolution supporting this proposition was approved and I was asked to serve as an elected official liaison with other cities in Orange County to seek similar actions on their part supporting this bond issue. Attached to this letter is not only a copy of the resolution which we approved, but background information on the proposition as well. It is apparent to us here in Brea that there is significant benefit to all the citizens in Orange County that will result from the passage of this important proposition. I am, therefore, asking for your support in the following two areas: 1. That your City Council approve a similar resolution to that which is attached showing your support for Proposition 1. 2. That you consider selecting an elected official from your Council with whom I could work to disseminate information on this important effort. Your support is very much appreciated. �✓� Norma D. Hicks Councilwoman C/P/OF 79(90 rmx:aj o C11 '0 1� 70N QFq Encl. /( OFF/�C Cy n RESOLUTION NO. 80-113 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1 WHICH PLACES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs vastly enhance our urban environment; and WHEREAS, leisure and open spaces in both urban and rural areas are a necessity to life, since they have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, economic productivity and social problems; and WHEREAS, recreation programs can particularly aid in the amelioration of problems such as juvenile delinquency and senior citizens in transition; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 would place before the voters of California a measure to provide funding for acquisition and development of parks, recreation programs, conservation of natural resources, and access to popular recreation areas; and y WHEREAS, the proposed parklands program will make available additional recreation areas in and near population centers, which is particularly important as transportation and fuel become more expensive; and WHEREAS, enhancement of parks and other natural resources will have a direct economic benefit to our community and the state as a whole; and . .i moreover, will benefit the health and well-being of Californians. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Brea City Council goes on record in Support of Proposition 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea held the 16th day of September 1980, Mayor I, DOROTHY D. STORM, City Clerk of the City of Brea, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea, held on the 16th day of September 1980, i i i ,a and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brea held on the 16th day of September , 1980 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Isles, Hicks, Gambina, LeBaron and Fox NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ATTEST: City ClegW,of the City of Brea -2- ProDoditaon 1 THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 ON THE NOVEMBER 4th STATEWIDE BALLOT Facts About ]darks and Recreation The following information has been compiled by the California Department of.Parks and Recreation to answer frequently asked questions about Proposition 1. What is Proposition 1? Proposition 1 is the CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980. As a measure on the California ballot in November, Proposition 1 provides for the sale of general obligation bonds in the amount of $285 million to finance new parks and development and rehabilitation of existing parks. Proposition 1 will provide funding for neighborhood parks, city parks, county parks, regional parks,and state parks. It also includes funds for new public access to the coastline and for preser- vation of historical resources. How will the $285 million for parks be spent? California's cities, counties, and special park districts will receive $85 million directly for local and regional parks, swimming pools, and other neighborhood and community recreation facilities. ` These grants will be distributed on the basis of population, but no county will receive less than $100,000. Park development grants will cover 100 percent of total project costs, while grants made for land acquisition will cover 75 percent of project costs. Estimated grant allocations to counties,cities,and districts: COUNTY AMOUNT COUNTY AMOUNT COUNTY AMOUNT Alameda $ 3,8%,8SO Marlposa $ 100,000 Santa Clara $ 4,488,206 Alpine 100,000 Mendocino 236,613 Santa Crux 632,506 Amador 100,000 Merced 456,554 Shasta 409,373 Butte 500,897 Modoc 100,000 Sierra 100,000 Calaveras 100,000 Mono 100,000 Siskiyou 143,139 Colusa 100,000 Monterey 997,892 Solano 799,94S Contra Costa 2,298,155 Napa 331,330 Sonoma 1,008,883 Del Norte 100,000 Nevada 174,898 Stanislaus 904,950 El Dorado 309,690 Orange 6,726,633 Sutter 178,790 Fresno 1,741,079 Placer 411,856 Tehama 135511 . Glenn 100,000 Plumas 100,000 Trinity 100:000 Humboldt 381,348 Riverside 2,307,957 Tulare 832,936 Imperial 335,232 Sacramento 2,732,229 Tuolumne 125,224 Inyo 100,000 San Benito 100,000 Ventura 1,810,253 Kern 1,359,729 San Bernardino 2,937,490 Yolo 391,636 Kings 254,351 San Diego 6,414,450 Yuba 175,420 Lake 124,869 San Francisco 2,280,641 6 82,000,000 Lassen 100,000 San Joaquin 1,153,269 Los Angeles 25,410,593 San Luis Obispo 530,695 Contingencies &Admin.(3.5%)..-..3,000,000 Madera 211,072 San Mateo 2,090,145 Marin 798,881 Santa Barbara 1,046,846 $85,000,000 An additional $30 million will be provided as 75 percent matching grants in urban areas of the state, and'$30 million will be available to local agencies along the coast for implementation of local coastal plans for coastal access and open space. The State Park System will receive $60 million for statewide park acquisition or development of recreation facilities (with a minimum of$30 million for development of facilities), $60 million for acquisition or development along the coast, and $10 million for acquisition or development of historical resources. The State Coastal Conservancy will receive$10 million. What is our need for more parks? The demand for parks and recreation facilities in California is greater than the supply. Last year, the State -Park System alone turned away more than 1,000,000 visitors from parks and camp- grounds.This figure does not include private,local,and national parks in California. State studies show that the use of the State Park System is growing faster than California's population: Since 1946, the 'population has more than doubled, while visitor attendance has increased twentyfold,to nearly 60,000,000 visitor days last year. Funds from previous park bond acts approved by the voters are almost entirely gone, but the great demand for more parks remains and is increasing annually. - The "recreation year" is now 123 days long, one-third of the calendar year — including seven three-clay weekends and an average of 16 days vacation per worker. The age distribution of the population is changing. An Increase in the number of young adults(22-33 years) is predicted.This is the prime purchasing age group for recreation goods and services. Similarly, there will be far more older citizens retiring earlier, in better health, and many with better retirement pensions. These Californians will. want recreation places; however, millions will be turned away if more land and facilities are not provided. 4 Why the emphasis on local parks and coastal areas? As gasoline becomes more scarce and expensive, people will be driving less to find recreation. Ninety-five out of every 100 Californians are urban residents;nearly 80 percent of all Californians live in 15 coastal counties; and 60 percent of all attendance in the State Park System occurred at state beaches last year. If people are to have attractive parks available for frequent use, it will be necessary to expand and improve our parks close to home in our communities,and along our coastline.This urban emphasis is a major policy of the California Department of Parks.and Recreation. Are there enough publicly owned lands to meet recreational needs? The State Park System manages only about one percent of California's land, and local recreation agencies occupy only about one-half of one percent of the entire state.The vast federal ownerships in California are generally remote from our population centers,in the deserts and high mountains. Proposition 1 will allow state and local government to purchase and develop additional open lands close to home,within the reach of an.energy-short population. 1 What is the-status of development on park land? Most State.Pack System units are developed for their intended purposes.Some units are intensively developed to provide for popular recreation activities, while other units, whose purpose is to preserve examples of California's natural.heritage,'contain less intensive development.However,a number of recently acquired lands which have no public facilities need recreadon,development.In addition,many established State Park System units need new recreation facilities and rehabilitation and reconstruction of old,run-down areas. Recent trends in the use of park grants to local government show that nearly 90.percent of the money is being spent on development of recreation facilities and only about 10 percent is being spent on new land. About 75 percent of these development funds are used to redevelop and rehabilitate existing parks where operation and maintenance staffing is already available. Our studies indicate that.this trend will definitely continue. Is recreation important to the economy? In 1977, $160 billion-was spent for recreation in the United States.This expenditure is more than the country spent on home construction or national defense.The total includes expenditures for recreation equipment, sporting goods, admissions and dues, vacations and travel,cottages,second homes, vacation lots,and land.It represents$1.00 of every $7.00 spent for personal consumption. The U.S. Travel Data Center estimates that approximately 6 million people were employed in the leisure industry in 1976,representing 7 percent of the employment in the United States. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers,every dollar in public construction generates about three to four times as much in economic activity and 35 to 40 cents in taxes. Attendance in the State Park System was nearly 6a million last year, which means money is pumped into the economies of towns and businesses near the parks. For example, an average overnight camper spends more than $10.00 a day in the local community. This translates into jobs for the people who supply goods and services; their spending, in tum, creates still more local employment. Proposition 1 will finance extensive park design and construction statewide.This work will create many new jobs in the construction industry for consulting services, contracting, materials, and maintenance. Will private citizens have a voice in selecting new projects? Absolutely. Proposition 1 leaves decisions about the $85 million in grants to cities and special districts to those who will be most immediately affected. Selection of projects must occur at the local level. Each county will submit a list of priorities by January 1, 1982, and that list must be approved by at least half of the cities and districts in the county, representing half or more of its population,and by the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the State Park and Recreation Commission have held three public hearings to establish a list of State Park System acquisition and development projects for submission to the Legislature.This list will be re-evaluated each year. What are general obligation bonds and how are they repaid? After a general obligation bond issue is passed by.a majority of the voters, the State Treasurer is authorized to print and sell these bonds to investors to raise money-to finance the bond program. Like a mortgage on a home, these bonds are held for either 20 or 30 years.- General obligation bonds are repaid from the State General Fund, which is the repository for all state taxes collected. The General Fund provides the revenues to cover annual state budgets 4woved by the Legislature and the Governor. Each year after bonds are sold, money from the Cerneral Fund is included in the state budget to pay a portion of the principal and interest on anesunding bonds.Bonds are redeemed once a year,and interest is paid twice a year. How much will the bonds cost? . The Department of Finance has estimated that the total cost of the bond authorization in Propo- sWon 1 will be $50%437,500, using a T/2 percent interest factor with a 20-year maturity. This figure includes the $285,000,000 total redemption value of the bonds plus a total interest figure of$224,437,500. `PROPOSITION ONE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Davalo�ment, acquisition, rehabilitation or restoration of real property for park, beach recreational and 'historical resource preservation purposes $85 million Block grants to urban areas and need basis grants to both urban and rural areas under the Roberti-Zlberg Urban Open-Space Program, for acquisition, development and redevelopment only $30 million Contact: Mr. Norm Hongola, Supervisor *State Grants Section Recreation and Local Services Office Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 322-9589 For implementation of 7,ocal Coastal .programs, San Francisco Bay and Santa Monica Mountains Zone projects $30 million For restoration and enhancement of coastal resources and provision of public access through grants, and by the Coastal Conservancy itself $10 million Contact: Mr. Dennis Machida, Senior Project Analyst _ State Coastal Conservancy 1212 Broadway Oakland, CA 94012 (415) 464-1015 TOTAL TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: $125 million STATE PARK SYSTEM Development, acquisition, rehabilitation and restoration of new and existing units of the State Park System •6130 million Contact: Mr. Ross Henry, Chief Planning Division Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 '(916) 322-7384 Information Local Grants for Parks and Recreation Purposes California Parklands Act of 1980 (Proposition 1, Novcmber 4, 1980 Election) The fo3aowing includes information on the two local grant programs Adminixstered by the State Department of Parke and Recreation. These are then. questions most often asked about the administration of the grant pwograme. 1. HOW IS THE $115 MILLION TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG LOCAL AGENCIES? There are two answers to this questions. . Under the $85 million grant portion, funds will be distributed to each county in proportion to the State population. However, no county will receive less than $100,000. Funds are then internally distributed within each cou.-ity in accordance with eligible cities and districts in the county. Eligible agencies are cities and counties and any special district authorized to provide a park and recreation service, except a school district. Distribution of the funds under the $30 million local grant portion is quite different. These funds are to be expended in accordance with the existing Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Grant guidelines. with the exception that operation and maintenance ant innovacive program grants are not eligible. Eighty-three percent of these funds are directed to those cities, counties and districts with the greatest population concen- tration, and tnese funds are distributed on a per-capita basis to the local jurisdictions who are classified as "urbanized". i Seventeen percent of the funds are placed into a Need Basis Account and nonurbanized and urban jurisdictions compete separately on the basis of need. (Grant applications under both of these Bond Act provisions must be consistent with local general plan). I Lists of allocations are attached. Final allocation for the $85 million will.be published soon after passage of the Bond Act in November based on 1 the latest Department of Finance official projections. 2. HOW DO YOU APPLY FOR THE $30 MILLION URBAN OPEN-SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM GRAF"LS? Use existing guidelines and application forms. This program is essentially the same as in the past except that no grant funds can be used for maintenance, operation or innovative programs. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REFER TO THE $85,000,000 PROGRAM ONLY 3. WHAT IS A "PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE"? The "Priority Plan for Expenditure" of each county is a list of eligible jurisdictions within the county to whom portions of the county allocation will be made and the amount allocated to each jurisdiction. This pro- vision is the same as the 1976 Park Bond Act. 4. WHAT IS THE DEADLI►,4E FOR THE "PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE"? The deadline for submission of each county's "Priority Plan. for Expenditure" to the State is January 1, 1982. .Failures to ,submit a priority plan by January 2, 1982, shall result in a W percent annual reduction of the total county allocation until the prornity, plan is submitted. By January 1, 1984, if the priority plan has wt ben submitted to the Director of Parks and Recreation, the county Ord .ter supervisors shall .petition the (State) Director of Parks and F,a=ea,tion to distribute to high-priority projects the remaining 80 pmrcemLt of the total county allocation. 5. UAff IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE STATE WILI ACCEPT A COUN'ITY'S "PRIORITY PEM FDT, EXPENDITURE"? i Tine State will accept a county.'s "Priority Plan for F::penditare", pro- vided that the County Board of Supervisors has certified by resolution that all. eligible applicants have been consulted and that the priority plan reflects (1) regional park or open-space needs as.well as community neighborhood park and recreation needs, and (2) consideration of deficiencies within the County in the preservation of historical resources and natural landscapes as well as in the provision of recreational areas and facilities. I 6. UNDER TIRE PROVISION THAT THE COUNTY IS PRIORITY PLAN "SdALL BE APPROVED BY Ai LEr'1S ' S�! 0 CITIES AND DISTP,ICTS, REPRESENTING 5%o OF THE POPULATION OF THE :CITIES AND D. STRICTS WITHIN THE COUNTY", WHAT POPULATION FIGURES j SEOUID flE USED IN DET::RMINING THE CITY AND DISTRICT'S POPULATION? • i Population figures ;:used to determine city and district populations are left to the discretion of the local jurisdictions affected. The State suggests that the most current estimates by the State Department of Finance be used for incorporated eity populations and that a special district interested in obtaining a portion o- the grant monies should calculate the population within its boundaries and receive concurrence from the county or counties in which the district lies. 7. IS THERE A MUILvUM AMOUNT THAT AN ELIGIBLE JURISDICTION MUST RECEIVE ON THE PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE? Yes, $20,000. Section 5096.157(b) of the Act states that "the minimum amount that may be applied for any individual grant project is twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)" and once the county adopts a priority plan for expenditure, in accordance with Section 5096.156 it CANNOT be changed. Therefore, the .appropriate allocation must be made to each eligible jurisdiction with con- sideration of the $20,000 minimum project amount. 8. ARE ALL GP,ANTS ON A 10(Y% BASIS? No, only development grants and, in some instances, acquisition grants. i Local assistance grants made pursuant to this article for the acquisition of real property shall be on the basis of 75 percent state grant moneys and 25 percent local matching money for the project. Grants shall be matched only by money or property donated to be part of the acquisition project. l ' l j The grant recipient shall certify to the Department of Parks and Recreation that there is available, or will become available prior to commencement of any work on the project for which application for a grant has been made, matching ror_ey from a nonstate so,--ce. The certification of the source and amount of the funds shall be set forth in the application for a grant sub- mitted to the department. Local matching money shall not be required with respect to a grant recipient that has urgent unmet needs for recreational lands and lacks the financial resources.to acquire recreational lands, as determined pursuant to a formula set forth in regulations adopted by the Director of Parks and Recreation after a public hearing. 9. CAN A PROTECT BE STARTED BEFORE A FORMAL AGR fia iT (G NTRACT j IS SIGNED i BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE STATE? Yes. Project expenditures become eligible for reimbursement on the date grant funds are appropriated by the Legislature. However, no state grant funds will be disbursed until the State has determined that the project is eligible, the applicant has met all state requirements, and an agreement (contract) has been executed between the State and -the applicant. i 10. IS A SCHOOL DISiRUCT ELIGIBLE TO RECED', FUNDS? i Not directly. Hv4a-,er, Section 5096.155(b) states: "Funds ,ranted pura,;ant to subdivision (a) of Section 5096.151 may be expended for devel-i-om:nt, rehabilitation or restoration only- on lands owned by or sub"$ct to a lease or other interest held by, the applicant city, county or district. If such lands are not owned by the applicant, the applicant shall first demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation that the development, rehabilitation or restoration will provide benefits commensurate with the type and duration of interest in land held by the applicant". Grant funds can therefore be used to develop school properties if there is a suitable lease, joint powers agreement etc., between the school district and the applicant. 11. ARE 0`1 ,R SPECIAL DISTRICTS SUCH AS .WATER DISTRICTS, FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS, IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ETC., ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE FMDS? Yes, but only if they are authorized by law to provide park and recreation services without undue restrictions placed on public use. It should be noted, however, that the planning agency of the applicant must certify that the projects are consistent with the park and recreation plan for the applicant's jurisdiction, and the area or facility must be open to the&eneral public commensurate with the type of project and the proportion of state grant funds and local funds allocated t to he capital costs of the project. 12. ARE INDOOR FACILITIES AS WELL AS OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES ELIGIBLE? Yes. Structures which are primarily for recreational activity, to be con- ducted wholly within the structures, are e14.gible. Eligible facilities would include recreation centers, gymnasiums: and covered swimming pools. Historic building and their acquisition and construction are also eligible. 13. ARE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ELIGIBLE:? No. 14. ARE ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECT COSTS ELIGIBLE? Yes, but only costs which are directly attributable to the approved projects. 15. ARE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS, SUCH AS TH LANDSCAPING OF ROAD MEDIANS AND PLANTING OF STREET TREES, ELIGIBLE UNDER THE ACT? No. Projects must provide for recreational opportunity. 16. ARE MINI—PARKS, NETcINBORH00D PLAYGROUNDS, PE3MANENT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, GOLF COURSES SVID-1VING. POOLS AND WILD LIFE SANCTUARIES ELIGIBLE? Yes, if the general pzolic is permitted to w;ilize the areas and facilities. 17. MUST EACI PROJECT BE SUBMIITED TO THE STATE CIEARINGHOUSE? The Act states that "Every application for a state grant shall comply with the provisions of the California Enviro=entz%l Quality Act of` 1979 (commencing with Section 21000)". Evidence of compliance must be submitted with the application. If the applicant agency determines that the project requires a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report, it must submit the project to the State Clearinghouse for review. A "Notice of Determination" is submitted for projects requiring an EIR or Negative Declaration. Exempt projects can be submitted directly to the Ste.te Department of Parks and , Recreation along with a "Notice of Exemption''. 18. IS THERE A MAXIMUM FOR PROJECTS? No. 19. IIUST THE.PROJECT BE SHOWNI ON AN ADOPTED PLANT No.. But "the application shall be accompanied by a certification from the planning agency of the applicant that the project is consistent with the park and recreation plan for the applicant's jurisdiction and would satisfy a demonstrated need". 20. VMI EN WILL GUIDELINES TO THE PROGRA1.1 BE PUBLIS-1ED? !' Probably in December 1980 or January 1981. Until then, the applicant should use the 1976 Bond Act Procedural Guide. SAMPLE RESOLUTION to be used by a COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS when approving the PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE under thelpresignons of the CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF 1980 WHEREAS, the California Parklands Act of 1980 requires that each county shall consult with all cities and districts within the County which are eligible to receive grant funds under provisions of Section 5096.156 of the Act and develop and submit to the State for approval a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation; and WHERAS, said priority plan shall reflect consideration of deficiencies within the county in the preservation of historical resources and natural land- scapes as well as in the provision of recreational areas and facilities; and WHE &AS, said r__riority plan shall also reflect regional park or open-space needs as well as co:-xunity and neighborhood park and .recreation needs in azy county in which a regional :ark or open-space district is wholly or-partially located; and WMEIM S, the County of has consulted with said cities and districts and has prepared a priority plan for expenditure of the county's allocation which reflects the deficiencies and needs required by the Program and includes expenditures by eligible cities and districts, said priority plan being attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, said priority plan has been approved by at least fifty percent (50%) of the cities and districts representing fifty percent (50%) of the population of, the cities and districts within the county, said approval being shown on Exhibit 'llpff attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of Supervisors does hereby approved the priority plan for the expenditure of the county's allocation of funds under the California Parklands Act- of 1980; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby .: authorized and directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution along with Exhibit "A'+ and "B" to the State Department of Parks and Recreation. •sagvurtgsa uoTgeTndod 086T 'T ATnr uo Paseq aq Oq suOT4t'3OTT'e TPuT3 Y re 08671 'T •�Imuer ';60uvt?3 ;o qua ledau a4u4S saaanc; uzxtq-eTndoj QOQ`UGQ'S8S 0000,0001E (%S'£) UOT:gPz4stu 1pi pup saiauaGurguOJ 000'00U'Z8S OZ�'SLT uqnt 888'VLT PpeAaij 9E9'TGE OLUA UE£'TEE Vder ESZ'OT8'T Z68'LG G i axaquq" vZZ'SZT aumlcn.L 000'UUT oEMi" 9E6'ZE8 asem 000'001 =V41 000'001 AgTUTal 6S5'9Sv Pama; TTS'SET aetaL ET9'9£Z Ou-c--K4Xr y. 06L'8LT Ia4gn5 000'OOT OS6'DU6 srivjsTuegS T88186L UT-Tq-t 888,80011 mmuoS ZLO'TTZ Lswe't-. SU6'664 oueTos E8S'QTv`SZ Salabuv Sal GET'£�T nT=isTS OUO'OOTs' t 000'001 698'VZT a I ELE'60t, s TS£'fi�SZ S :I 90S'ZE9 MID ILIW2S GZL'GS£'T �a?I 90Z'88V'V P-XeT0 r4ups 000,001 c�ritrx 9v8'9fi3O'T exw4nld 74ueS ZEZ'SEE Tti' Z S6T'060'Z oage'r;; ues 8VE018£ qP cxpnR S6910ES odsTc-p sTnq usS .0001001 =]DTJ 63Z'EST'T urnbeor twS 8LO'TVL'T cm5aa3 TV9'08Z'Z oasiauE OP I obaiu treS 000'001 aq--rQf Tau 06VLS60Z OUTP--P izag tres SST'68Z'Z egsaJ moo 000'001 v4Tuag Mj 000'00T MLOJ 6ZZ'Z£L'Z oqua;r►=LXl3 000,001 SRMQMFM LS6'Lu['Z ap7Fszan76 LW OOS anrlu GUO`G01 SamTd 0001OUT 9S8'TTV xaaeTd 000'001 TK EE919ZL'9 05819681E klmwLV 1!v['.Q1FI hL(:f100 S�IflCld�1 SOD UOU'000'S-8$ (e)TST'906S .uOTq-S J1�r�0J 01: SI:(UIw%fDU.LTIK L"ArCIL) 0861 4020V S ,,VD;Vd ETrr,I0.U' � California Parklands Act of 1980 Roberti-2'berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program (Proposition 1 , November 4, 1980) $300000,000 Cities and recreation and park districts $ 1290069000 221 cities 31 RPD's Population: 15,931 ,355 Urbanized counties and regional park districts 89004,000 Population of 200,000 or more 19 counties 3 P,egicrial Park District Population: 19,888,100 Large cities 21,4360000 Population of 300,000 or more i 6 cities Population: 5,557,900 Large counties and regional park districts 1,624,000 Population of 1 ,1000,000 or more 4 counties 1 Regional Park Oistrict Population: 13,702,800 SUB-TOTAL $ 2490709000 Non-urbanized Needs $ . 49338,400 Urbanized Needs 5910600 ` Contingencies and administration (3.3%) 1 ,000.,000 $ 30,0001,000 7-80 - C 'fornia Parklands Act of 1980 OFFICIAL- ALLOCATION Tr) COUNTIES CITIES AND PARK DISTRICTS PROP. 1 AGENCY NOV. 1980 ALAMEDA COUNTY Alameda $ 549787 Albany 11,606 Berkeley 839198 Emeryville 3,384 Fremont 929769 Newark 23,136 * Oakland 3920971 Piedmont 7,875 San Leandro 50,793 Union City 26,339 Y * East Bay Regional Park District 901,587 _ Hayward Area RPD 147,783 SUB-TOTAL $19796,228 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ** Antioch $ 30,069 Clayton 2,796 Concord 761,868 E1 Cerrito 17,107 Hercules - 2,826 . Lafayette 159148 * Heavily Urbanized ** New Jurisdiction -1- PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (continued) Martinez $ 16,655 Moraga 11,530 Pinole 11 ,530 ** Pittsburg 219892 Richmond 52,526 San Pablo 141,206 Walnut Creek 38,886 Ambrose RPD 100550 Pleasant bill RPD 19,745 Rollingwood-Wilart RPD 1 ,897 SIB-TOTAL $ 344,231 FRESNO COUNTY County Allocation $ 1949102 Clovis 229834 Fresno- 150,420 Calwa RPD 5,125 SUB-TOTAL $ 372,481 -2- PROP. 1 NOV. •1980 KERN COUNTY County Allocation S 150,235 Bakersfield 69,lf;O North Bakersfield RPD 25,924 SUB-TOTAL S 245,3:•9 LOS ANGELES COUNTY * County Allocation S3,700,954 Alhambra 46,272 Arcadia 35,344 Artesia 11 ,229 Azusa 19,630 Baldwin Park 35,533 Bell 17,107 Bellflovier 39,263 Bell Gardens 23,889 Beverly Hills 24,907 ` Bradbury 648 Burbank, 63,755 Carson 59,309 Cerritos 37,830 Claremont 21 ,365 Commerce 70536 Compton 56,596 Covina 25,020 Cudahy 12,736 -3- PROP. 1 NOV, 1980 LOS ANGELES COUNTY (continued) Culver City 28,788 Downey 64,735 Duarte 11 ,530 El Monte 51 ,019 El Segundo .11,304 Gardena 33,573 Glendale 101 ,436 Glendora 27,770 Hawaiian Gardens 79235 Hawthorne 41 ,373 Hermosa Beach 14,394 Hidden Hills 11,296 Huntington Park 29,654 Industry 475 Inglewood 68,503 Irwindale 580 ** La Canada-Flintridge 14,582 ** La Habra Heights 6,749 ** La Mirada 33,272 La Puente 22,759 La.Verne 161,542 Lakewood 609590 Lawndale 179,747 Lomita 14,920 Long Beach 411 ,683 -4- z PROP: i NOV. 1980 LOS ANGELES COUNTY (continued) * Los Angeles . $3,339,594 Lynwood 309295 Manhattan Beach 23,776 Maywood 13r,716 Monrovia 22,458 Montebello 37,492 Monterey Park 380509 ** Norwalk 639303 Palos Verdes Est. 11 ,116 Paramount 239513 Pasadena 80,485 Pico Rivera 38,208 Pomona 65,112 Rancho Palos Verdes 289486 Redondo Beach 471,929 Rolling Hills 1 ,568 Rolling Hills Est. 5,822 Rosemead 30,370 San Dimas 16,052 San Fernando 111,342 San Gabriel 220043 San Marino 10,098 a Santa Fe Springs 119568 Santa Monica 589050 Sierra Madre 9,080 -5- PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 LOS ANGELES COUNTY (continued) Signal Hill $ 4,710 South E1 Monte 111,982 South Gate 450895 South Pasadena 17,484 Temple City 22,458 Torrance 96,085 Vernon 173 Walnut 9,00E West Covina 571,199 Whittier 521,602 SUB-TOTAL $9,699,011 MARIN COUNTY County Allocation $ 90,310 Belvedere 1 ,907 Corte Madera 6,010 Fairfax 5,765 Larkspur 9,571 Mill Valley 10,211 Novato 29,692 { Ross 1 ,937 San Anselmo 9,533 San Rafael 33,875 Sausalito 4,936 -6- PROP. 1 , NOV. 1980 PSARIPd COUNTY (continued) Tiburon 5,369 Strawberry RPD 39391 SUB-TOTAL 212,507 MONTEREY COUNTY County Allocation $ 61 ,253 Carmel 3,610 Del Rey Oaks 1 ,163 Monterey 20,762 Pacific Grove 12,397 Salinas 580932 Sand City 143 Seaside 260037 Monterey Peninsula Regional 519031 Park District SUB-TOTAL $ 235,333 ORANGE COUNTY * County Allocation $ 9669290 Anaheim 157,579 Brea 20,385 d Buena Park 47,929 Costa Mesa 60,364 -7- r PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 ORAINGE COUNTY (continued) Fountain Valley 41 ,012 Fullerton 751,964 Garden Grove 899453 Huntington Beach 126,003 ** Irvine 40,017 La Habra 33,272 La Palma. 11 ,342 Los Alamitos 8,327 Newport Beach 49,135 Oranoe 65,639 Placentia 25,585 Santa Ana 140,925 Seal Beach 199933 Stanton 17,672 Tustin 25,397 Villa Park 5,520 Wes trrinster 52,753 Yorba Linda 20,197 Cypress RPD 34,220 SUB-TOTAL S2,134,973 -a- • Y , Prep. 1 Ne''i, 190 PLACER COUNTY Rocklin $ 4,898 Roseville 17,823 SUB-TOTAL 5 22,721 RIVERSIDE COUNTY County Allocation S 249,641 Corona 27,959 .Norco 14,432 P.i versi de 122,763 SUE-TOTAL $ 414,795 SACRA.IIEMITO COUNITY County Allocation S 301 ,477 , FoI sore 71,875 Sacramento 2009234 Arcade Creek RPD 12,459 Arden Manor RPD 5,005 Arden Park RPD 3,805 Camicnael RPD 28,672 -9- 'PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 SACRAMENTO COUNTY (continued) Cordova RPD 55,567 Fair Oaks RPD . 18,090 Fulton-El Camino. RPD 16,900 Mission Oaks RPD 381,892 North Highlands RPD 219618 Southgate RPD 201,864 Sunrise RPD 830313 Windemere RPD 1 ,174 SUB-TOTAL $ 8159945 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY County Allocation $ 320,190 Chino .281,298 Colton 141,808 Fontana 199669 ** Grand Terrace 6,085 Loma Linda 71,253 Montclair 169316 Ontario 55,993 Rancho Cucamonga 360249 -10- PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ( continued ) Redlands $ 28,675 Rialto 25,020 San Bernardino 88 7ll Upland 321,820 i Bloomington RPD 11 ,358 . North Fontana RPD 2,672 Yucaipa Valley RPD 189179 SUB-TOTAL $ 7040296 i SAN DIEGO COUNTY * County Allocation $ 9219592 Carlsbad 259321 Chula Vista 610344 i Coronado 161,052. Del Mar 30938 El Cajon 539582 ** Escondido 459216 Imperial Beach 15,713 La Mesa 379756 ** Lemon Grove 15,034 i National City 361,249 i I i -11- PROP: 1 NOV. 1980 i SAN DIEGO COUNTY (continued) I Oceanside '$ 54,561 San Diego 984,035 Vista 25,208 Spring Valley RPD 13,565 I i SUB-TOTAL $2,309,166 i ; I ' i SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY ' San Francisco $ 771 ,638 1 SUB-TOTAL $ 771 ,638 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY i County Allocation $ 127,577 Stockton 99,024 i i SUB-TOTAL $ 226,601 I SAN MATEO COUNTY i County Allocation $ 167,903 Atherton 5,916 I Belmont 19,782 Brisbane 2,276 f f -12- PROP: l ' NOV. 1980 SAN MATEO COUNTY (continued) Burlingame $ 20,988 Colma 332 Daly City 55,692 Foster City 17,521 Hillsborough 7,K Menlo Park 19,707 Millbrae 15,223 Pacifica 28,1F5 Portola Valley 3,93 Redwood City 41 ,9( 1 San .Bruno 28,485 San Carlos 20,536 San Mateo 60,364 South San Francisco 37,341 Woodside 4,088 Ravenswood RPD 13,339 SUB-TOTAL $ 571 ,356 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY County Allocation $ 117,717 Santa Barbara 55,390 -13- PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY (continued) Isla Vista RPD 5 8,183 SUB-TOTAL $ 181 ,290 SANTA CLARA COUNTY * County Allocation $ 448,136 Campbell 18,840 Cupertino 17,710 Los Altos 19,858 Los Altos Hills 5,633 Los Gatos 19,255 Milpitas 25,585 Monte Sereno 2,517 Morgan Hill 12,171 Mountain View 43,408 Palo Alto 40,695 * San Jose 724,558 Santa Clara 63,077 Saratoga 22,458 Sunnyvale 80,711 -14- PROP., 1 NOV. 1980 SANTA CLARA COUNTY (continued) lidpeninsula Regional Park District $ 269,901 Rancho Rinconada RPD 3,241 SUB-TOTAL $1 ,817,754 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Capitola $ 6,651 Santa Cruz 30,069 Scotts Valley 4,9_6 SUB-TOTAL $ 41 ,6.56 SOLANO COUNTY ** County Allocation $ 85,954 Benicia 9,616 ** Fairfield 41 ,750 Greater Vallejo RPD 59,460 SUB-TOTAL $ 196,8.'0 SONOMA COUNTY County Allocation $ 111 ,761 Rohnert Park 15,261 Santa Rosa 57,3`-0 SUB-TOTAL $ 184,372 PROP. 1 NOV. 1980 STANiSLAUS COUNTY County Allocation $ 100,573 Ceres 8,327 Modesto 74,984 SUB-TOTAL $ 183,884 TULARE COUNTY ** County Allocation $ 92,041 SUB-TOTAL $ 92,041 VENTURA COUNTY County Allocation $ 197,765 Oxnard 74,080 Port Hueneme 13,942 Ventura 52,828 Conejo RPD 64,091 Pleasant Valley RPD 30,924 Simi Valley RPD 61 ,932 SUB-TOTAL $ 495,562 TOTAL $24,070,000 -16- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION G�- Submitted*bVincent G. Moorhouse Department Community Services Date Prepared August 21 01980 Backup Material Attached © Yes No Subject Greer Park Restroom Demolition City Administrator's Comments APPROVED By CITY CA Approve as Recommended Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions:" Q Y STATEMENT OF ISSUE Greer Park restroom facility is experiencing continuous vandalism which has resulted in its closure . RECOMMENDATION Authorize demolition and complete removal of Greer Park restroom by city forces . ANALYSIS For the past eight to nine months , Greer Park restroom facilities have been closed due to vandalism. Fixtures have been demolished, rocks have been thrown into the roof vents stopping up the plumbing, doors have been defaced and set fire, to . Even though the facilities have been closed, the vandalism continues . The cost to maintain this 456 square foot facility is $1,150 per year, the majority of which is to pay for vandalism. The estimated cost to , have tihe facility demolished by_ an'.odtside:_-company_ is .tl 500. _ _Staff recom- imendslcity forces do the work . _ This miter was presented to the Community Services Commission at its meeting of Aug st 6 , 1980 , and Commission moved to recommend to Council that the Greer Park r stroom be demolished. FUNDINC� SOURCE None necessary , if City forces do the work . Contingency Fund , if we contract outside. ALTERNAT VE ACTIONS Do not demolish the Greer Park restroom. � �,,1\� C �11/:C CC ii Ci � i ■i iC iC Ci.ii C� i-•• COII■HIN ■■■H■■■� ■1■■■d -■■■■IIIH■ HI■1■■\� �!� 11111111! CC � ■NIH■■, 'I■■■q C■■■■1■111■ HI■■�■1■111111■1■■■ i11�11i ip111154 �iuiii CC C� CC iii�ii: aC CC � IIIN!! ■�N■■■� IH■■■■ n .. .. . NI.. . ■ ■■� sIN111 �1111 IIIIIIN�1 ■11111■n '1m■■■1 -- -- --. ■IIC�■LI■. .11111, `■N! !1!1l11!!l111�■. CC CC Ninon iC �11!! ■IIu11u11I ■H■■■n, ��■■■■■ .�.CC CC CIIIII, �1!!! ■1!1!1!!1!� �i o- CC ■111 111� !I■■■■! C CC.CC C -IIIIIr . C CC CC ■111�11�, ■IUH■ �. .r .. -. CNIII■' `!!1! lII�IINIl1\1� •• •• ■■■■■� ■■■■■■■ C■1■11■11�■ C; y ■■■ ■■■ �■1■■■■ ��■■■u .■11■■1■1■■ ■11111111■. �NI!:!1! HII!lV=C . ... .■N IIIH■• • • •• Q- •_ • � , ��1! ■1111!!1! . --C :�:C?.:CC C � CC C� CC_� :�. C 11'011l1!l11�.:CC CC.C .. C •• • -•:CC. CC C r111111■ ■111111\�C C� � ia'� _i C�i�i? i�•.ii C �111111 .ter ter,�r�r�. .�� q■111■111■111■111■111■1■1■■ _ �► 1/1�■- ■111 ■NII ■■_■i■ C: i■111■i � oI�IP �/�/,��■11 IIi C � : � II■■C -���11111��■■ .r -• �■111/� . IV, III !11 •`\!• C 1■■- Ci IIIHII■IIIi 1C.CC ■■1■ ■� C. I� ■ ■ 11 CC CC: ■�■■■C u■ ■HIII■■11111■1■ �C l��1��� . �1� ■�1��■� =�..0 C � �i1■!- . ■ 111 11■1�\�=.■■u■■1 �■■■ ■N= CII:: �� CC = N■■C �C - ,�1111■/t �111� CC oC ■■■■■MI 1■�O ��i 1- .. CS Hi1■�� �� ■■ -- -- M. ■i111 �■■�■C ■■11■■■ /■�■■ CC . CC .0 ■■NN NI �11■1- •C ■1■ ■1■- .. 111■■ 11■■■ CC �1■ C. C. ■Mimi 1■■� ■■1■■�i CC ■d��1■C � �■■� !■!■■-CC -��' ■IHII��Ir-r ii�1■■■■■C CC 'rC. C�1 ■i ■■ ■■ .- C. . MIL ■11■H■. N C. .. 1 ■� /1�■■ ��■ CC ■■ CIS. C. _. C C .. CC CC .�. ►�IHI■■ CC •• • . • W® REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director !l�' Submitte Community Services Commission Department Community Services Date Prepared May 9 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject "SIMS GROVE" - SUGGESTED NAME, "NORMA BRANDEL GIBBS PARK" City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY /COUNCIL Approve as recommended . c,.,.�, -T ,,T. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: d Sims Eucalyptus Grove 5 acres) fronting on Graham Street south of Heil Avenue was obtained from Grover Sims along with city purchase of Meadowlark Golf Course in 1975. It has not been officially named, but it has been used by various organizations in the city for group camping. The Community Services Commission feels it should be named to honor the city's.first woman mayor, Norma Gibbs, who served on the City Council from 1970-78. Mrs. Gibbs previously had a trail designated in her honor within Huntington Central Park prior to acceding to the mayorship. The Commission felt that it would be precedent setting to have more than one park and/or park feature named in a mayor's honor,so has recommended that the trail designation in Huntington Central Park be transferred to the "Sims Grove" site. RECOMMENDATION: That the "Norma Brandel Gibbs" trail designation in Huntington Central Park be transferred to "Sims Grove Park Site" to be named the "Norma Brandel Gibbs Park". ANALYSIS: Other facilities and areas of Huntington Central.Park will need to be named at a later date after plans for Phase III development have been solidified. It will be appropriate to rename the "Gibbs Trail" at that time. Current and past mayors will be eligible for park honors after they are no longer serving on the City Council. FUNDING SOURCE: Park Acquisition and Development funds (balance as of April 30, 1980 - $1,678,81 1.03) will be used for sign materials (approximately $200). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Refer back to Community Services Commission. VGM/NLW:ps PIa 3/78 Art REQU ST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Paul E. Cook - Department Public Works Date Prepared March 11 , 19 80 Backup Materiel Attached © Yes No Subject Roberti Z'Berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program for Maintenance and Operation of Robinwood and Pleasant View Neighborhood Parks City Administrator's Comments � -1/8601 YED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended �.�.............--------- - CITY C &g Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions: J Statement of Issue: d Under the Ro erti Z'Berg Recreation Program, monies are allocated yearly to be used for the acquisition, de .-mment and maintenance of park land. The 1979/80 F.Y Grant to the City of Huntington F-.ach is $33,881, of which we are allowed 23% for maintenance and operations. This department is proposing to use these funds ($7,792) for the maintenance of two parks, located south of San Diego Freeway, west of Magnolia (Site #49) and east of Bolsa Chica, south of McFadden (Site #50) . See attached map. Recommended Action: That the City Council approve the attached resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute the document. Analysis: e City maintains these two park sites and has an approved grant of $11,858 for F.Y 1978/79. The 1979/80 -F.Y. Grant for Park Maintenance will also be used in these two parks to offset costs to the City. The required matching funds of $2,597 will come from our 1979/80 -F.Y. City budget. Alternative: Not to approve the resolution and forfeit the City's allocated funding amount through this grant procedure. Funding Source: Roberti Z'Berg Grant and Park Acquisition and Development funds. PEC:DDS:jy c� O� ,n �C o ►- —1 Q W m Uw w WESTMINSTER Q J �� 0 cr Q (� J z t6 �BOLSA U z 't 2 t L?'T -1 < z a - --- - cFADDENm - < Q Z 50 37 5 I a 2EDiNG L ro •------•-c�� Fi z- z J 23 G1) c� Q O 39 7 57 6:3 s�: g Q G2 ... ... __ - - - �1.6 O' --HEIL,' -- O = cc 221 � ,I, � `n = ,� SG 29 42 ( �39 co �c --- O WARNER 3a �� 19 SLATER 25 40 211 -H > arc -TALBERT 0 (0,859 a ��O, X. ELLIS A. �=GARFIELD Q7 33 III27 -@. YORKTOWN'_ 4s 0bl• C� 5.3 I(5 31 ADAMS r D •� 26 1 36 ; INDIANAPOLIS (D., --f,ATLANTA +.HAMILTON vP C<- ------ " 'BANNING Ju b r" rte p LTY AO'j4 j(4Aoc 1-0 1�T 49 /a(V 'S� We TrN9 Lt N bs I-S1Cwtj66Of 9EE L. 40 7v -I-H EF N t TAT ' O Z 14 E F. lV TO.ArtJ C6 --ro O u& L T 1LA t,T� O 0 T A`3 c 9-T S r4 %s O.e.Ac. aNb MUST 'aE C. EAZc.TED ayk E _ 1 4m t Ca m-a r � S � � n " � A �r c=z •'� ei 09(/6 -r7 �(Oqo9 .� 5ZFZ rc i. 57 74(w - - 'polyd - 30 a 911P 8q6 a67J D a(o -8zsz �3 5-7(0l 14 57s.)- fL- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Vincent G. Moorhouse Director Submitted by � Department Community Services Date Prepared October 19, , 19 79 Backup Material Attached xx Yes No Subject MASTER DESIGN PLANS/MOFFETT PARK OAK VIEW CENTER, SITE #975 AND SITE #976 City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve as recommended --------- _,_��� ? / 19_.� CITY CLERK., Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: The above listed park sites were the highest priority for design and development as determined by the Community Services Commission. They were designed by our in-house Landscape Architect, Mr. Alan Ribero. Staff presented schematic plans of each of the four park sites at 1� the neighborhood meetings and adjustments were made to meet the expressed needs of the community within our budgetary limitations. The Community Services Commission has approved the design conceptual plans of the four parks as presented. Recommendation: Approve the master design conceptual plans for Moffett Park, Oak View Center, Site #975 and #976 and authorize the working drawings and specifications to be completed. Analysis: Oak View Center Park is a 1.5 acre parcel of Ocean View School District property which lies between Oak View Center and the proposed day care center all of which are located on the southeast corner of Oak View School. This property was acquired through a joint-powers agreement with Ocean View School District in 1974 when Oak View Center was constructed. $75,000 has been allocated from HCD funds to construct this park. Park Site #975 is a joint design-development venture with the Ocean View School District on their school site southeast of Graham and Slater. The district owns ten acres and the City owns three acres. It may be several years before a school is needed, but the district is willing to plant and maintain turf until such time as a school would replace a part of it. Our park is designed to supplement recreational uses that would not require much turf hence reducing City maintenance costs. Request for City Council Action MASTER DESIGN PLANS/MOFFETT PARK, October 19, 1979 OAK VIEW CENTER, SITE #975 AND SITE #976 Page Two Park Site #976 is southwest of Adams and Newland and is 2.6 acres in size. The original adjacent school site was subdivided for residential use so the park has to stand on its own design for a variety of recreational uses. Moffett Park is southwest of Adams and Magnolia and is 2.5 acres in size. It is adjacent to eight acre Moffett School which has five acres of turf and a fine blacktop play area. The park is designed similarly to #975 to compliment what the school provides for citizen recreational use. Funding Source: Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Alternatives: I. Reject designs and refer back to staff for modifications. 2. Approve design plans, but defer working drawings and specifications. VGM:sh COST ESTIMATE FOR MOFFETT PARK SITE #971 OCTOBER, 1979 Revised 10/18/79 RANGE Grading $ 5,000 - $ 7,500 Drainage:- 2,500 - 3,000 Paving - Paths 3,500 - 4,000 Masonry Wall 15"x24" at $10-$15/l.ft. 1,200 - 1,800 Play Equipment (tots area) Allow 7,000 - 8,000 Hauling Sand for tots area and volleyball 2,000 - 2,500 Irrigated Turf Allow 2,000 - 2,500 Trees: 130-150 at $50-each * 6,500 - 7,500 Tree Irrigation (weep system) 9,000 - 10,500 Wildflower Meadow (cultivate & seed) with temporary aboveground irrigation plus native shrubs in Frisbee Area 3,200 - 3,700 Lighting (2-4 poles) 3,500 - 6,000 Picnic Area: Tables (6) 2,400 - 2,700 Bar-B-Ques (3) 450 - 750 Frisbee Course: D.G. gr. cov: + RDWD. Header 5,000 - 6,800 Park Furniture: Volley Ball Posts (2) 250 - 350 Benches (3) 750 - 900 Drinking Fountain (1) 1,000 - 1,250 Trash Receptacles 300 - 500 Park Sign 500 - 1,000 Curb Cut - (1) 250 - 350 Boulders Allow 5,000 - 6,000 61,300 - 77,600 Plus 10% Contingency 6,130 - 7,760 $67,430 - $85,360 AVERAGE: $76,395 (_ $30,560/ac) + 5% 3,820 For short term inflation factor Total $80,215 (_ $32,085/ac) RANGE: With 5% short term inflation factor From $67,430 + 3,370 = $70,800 (_ $28,320/ac) Low To $85,360 + 4,270 = $89,630 (_ $35,850/ac) High * Assumption: City will provide and deliver (at no cost to the contractor) wood chips for mulching tree areas. COST ESTIMATE - OAK VIEW CENTER Revised October, 1979 Grading Allow $2,500 Drainage Allow 1,250 Paving: Walks and Court Game Areas Allow 5,000 Turf Block (or alternate product) Allow 3,000 Curbing (railroad ties) Allow 4,000 Play Area (sand) Allow 2,000 Spray Mound Allow 6,000 Play Apparatus Allow 16,000 Irrigated Turf Allow 10,000 Planting Trees and Shrubs Allow 3,500 Picnic Area (6 tables & 3 barbecues) Allow 2,700 Lighting Allow 15,000 70,950 Plus 5% for short term inflation factor: 3,550 Total $74,500 October 18, 1979 PARK SITE #975 DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE GRADING AND DRAINAGE: Allow 10,000 PAVING: (Exclusive of Multi-use Court) Allow 3,500 PLANTING: Trees 130 at $50.00 each 6,500 Mulching 1.5 acre (spreading wood chips)* 500 Wild Flower Meadow Allow 1,000 IRRIGATION: Trees Allow 9,000 Meadow - Temporary aboveground Allow 2,500 PARK FURNITURE AND SIGN: Allow 4,000 PICNIC AREA: (including drinking fountain) Allow 4,500 RECREATION FEATURES: Sand volleyball including curb Allow 4,500 Multi-use court (with basketball backboard) 6,500 Softball backstop (from school) N.C. Frisbee course (targets) - 1,500 Decomposed granit - 4,000 5,500 Parcourse and jogging trail Allow 2,000 Tots area Allow 8,500 TEMPORARY FENCING: Allow 2,500 TWO MONTH (60 DAY) MAINTENANCE: Allow 2,000 73,000 10 percent Contingency 7,300 $80,200 BOULDERS: Allow $5,000 plus 10 percent 5,500 TOTAL INCLUDING BOULDERS $85,700 (This estimate does not include an inflation factor.) For 5 percent short term inflation, add $4,300. *Assumption: City will provide and deliver (at no cost to the contractor) wood chips for mulching tree areas. COST ESTIMATE FOR SUMMERFIELD PARK SITE #976 OCTOBER, 1979 RANGE Grading , Allow $ 5,000 - $ 6,000 Drainage Allow 1,500 - 2,000 Paving: Paths 5,250 Basketball 1/2 Court 4,500 9,750 - 10,500 Irrigated Turf (1.1 ac) at 17,000/ac 18,700 - 20,000 Trees: 100-120 at $50 ea * 5,000 - 6,000 Irrigation (weep system) 7,000 - 8,000 Play Apparatus 7,000 - 10,000 Backstop (soft) 2,750 - 3,000 Volley Ball net poles (4) 400 - 500 Basketball Backboard 300 - 500 Hauling Sand: 2,000 - 2,500 Lighting (2 to 4 poles) 3,500 - 6,000 Park Furniture: Benches (2) $ 500 - $ 600 Park Sign 500 - 1,000 Drinking Fountain 1,000 - 1,250 Trash Receptacles 300 - 500 2,300 - 3,350 Boulders Allow 3,500 - 5,000 Curb cuts (2) 500 - 750 $69,200 - $84,100 + 10% Contingency 6,900 - 8,400 $76,100 - $92,500 AVERAGE: $84,300 (_ $33,720/ac) + 5% 4,230 For short term inflation factor Total $88,530 (_ $34,050/ac) RANGE: With 5% short term inflation factor From $76,100 + 3,805 = $79,900 (_ $30,735/ac) Low To $92,500 + 4,625 = $97,125 (_ $37,355/ac) High *Assumption: City will provide and deliver (at no cost to the contractor) wood chips for mulching tree areas. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON REACH To Honorable Mayor and From Alan Ribera, Park Architect Members of the City Council Community Services Subject NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Date October 18, 1979 NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA: Design of neighborhood parks should reflect the desires of the particular neighborhood residents for the basic elements and facilities to be incorporated in the park development. However, because of the rising costs of park construction and ongoing maintenance of the park (once it is developed), park design must be guided by capital improvement funding capacity and by new approaches in functional design to hold maintenance requirements as low as is reasonably feasible. It is undesirable and financially disastrous to construct parks to levels and in ways which are not possible to maintain properly; a park which deteriorates due to lack of adequate maintenance is a severe loss to the community both financially and aesthetically. Parks should be designed to be visual and useful attributes to the community, not end up being eye sores and undesirable places to spend time. Using the above as a general guide for the design of neighborhood parks, it is obvious (in light of the effects of Proposition 13) that compromises must be made. Elements or facilities which are extremely expensive (as gauged by recreation hours generated per dollar spent) to construct and/or to maintain should not be included in neighborhood park development. It remains, however, that residents of a community should be able to assist in establishing a priority list of elements to be considered for inclusion within the park development and within projected financial limitations. DESCRIPTION: In the current four park sites master planned for development, there is a range of varying, and in some cases similar, situations. Park Site #975 and Moffett Park site are similar due to large, adjacent (school district) turfed sports and/or multi-use activity areas; these sites differ in that Moffett school with play apparatus for elementary school age children and paved sports courts exist and need not be repeated on the park site, but rather supplemented by other kinds of facilities. Whereas Park Site #975 has only a turfed play field adjacent to it and needs, for instance, some paved sports court space to satisfy a high priority need of the neighborhood residents. Summerfield Park site, because it is not adjacent to or near a school, should include the type of development proposed for Park Site #975 plus the development of some turfed, multi-use area. In the case of Moffett, Summerfield and Park Site #975, there will be little supervision except by neighborhood residents, but Oak View Center on the other hand has Community Services Department personnel supervision. Certain kinds of park development should occur only where adequate supervision is available; consequently, the proposed Oak View Center park design incorporates yet different elements than can appropriately be included at the other three sites because of the added dimension allowed by supervision. Also Oak View Center Park Site is HUD funded and because of the available funding (if spent) the development will run in excess of $55,000 per acre. OBJECTIVES: (In Neighborhood Park Design) I. Omit elements which would better be placed in community size parks. 2. Design to include as many of the neighborhood residents' preferred highest priority items as is economically feasible. 3. Design to achieve a low level of and/or minimal cost of maintenance but yet be interesting and aesthetically pleasing (cost criteria should be "recreation hours generated per dollar spent"). Examples of this approach proposed at Moffett, Summerfield and Park Site #975 are the following: a. Tree grove areas with a deep wood chip mulching layer to minimize the germination and growth of weeds and to conserve moisture. b. Introduction of "Dry Landscape" elements such as the Frisbee Course and wildflower areas. C. Create topographic variations (mounding) to achieve a strong, fixed, aesthetic quality in the park development. d. Plant a minimum number of trees in turfed areas so that lawn mowing maintenance time is kept as short as possible. DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT COST OF ALTERNATIVE "MINIMAL" PARK DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES: In contrast to the $30,000 to $34,000 per acre costs projected for Park Site #975, Moffett and Summerfield park sites, it would be possible to eleminate the various special features (paved sports court, sand volleyball, tot area, picnic table and barbecues, benches, topographic mounding, play apparatus, etc.) grade the sites basically flat, plant and irrigate turf and trees at a cost of about $10,000 less per acre. However, if the "cost criteria based on recreation hours created per dollar spent" is applied, the alternative solution is, in both the short and long run, the more costly approach. OTHER FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK DEVELOPMENT (Beyond the current four parks being submitted for approval) It is suggested that for the duration of the economic stress period in which public agencies currently find themselves, future neighborhood parks in Huntington Beach should be constructed in development phases. The first phase ought to consist of grading the site for its ultimate, long range development plan; plant, mulch and irrigate the trees called for in the long-range plan; temporarily fence the tree grove areas for an interim period (two to five years) and plant the balance of the site to a soil building crop of vetches and oats and possibly wildflowers, each year allowing the plants to reseed themselves and then plowing the crop back into the soil. Depending on the variety of trees planted (draught tolerant vs. exotic, ornamental varieties), by using the interim fencing plan, all or part of, the tree groves could have only a temporary, interim (one to two years), aboveground irrigation system installed. at an initial and long range construction and maintenance cost savings. Once the draught tolerant variety of tree groves becomes established, they will survive on normal rainfall in this area; and, of course, the temporary irrigation system may then be removed and used on another park site scheduled for development in a similar manner. Respectfully submitted, Vincent.G. Moorhouse Director, Community Services By: , (4�� Alan Ribero Park Architect VGM:AR:sh REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION .. �( Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director/ S�7bmitted by p Community Services Commission Department Community Services Department Date Prepared June 24 , 19 80 Backup Material Attached Yes No Subject PRELIMINARY MASTER PLANS FOR MANNING, HELME AND WARNER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS City Administrator's Comments '4pp 'VZD BY CITY pC.-OUNCIL CITY CLER Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Preliminary master plans for Manning, Helme and Warner neighborhood parks have been completed by in-house architect, Alan Ribero. Each plan was taken to its respective neighborhood for input from the residents. Their wishes, if practical, were incorporated into the plan prior to review and approval by the Community Services Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the_&cbem ticQa, desiar cans for Manning, Helme and Warner neighborhood parks as presented by Landscape Architect, Alan Ribero and authorize working drawings and specifications be completed by Cardoza-DiLallo, Landscape Architects, Costa Mesa, according to terms of the current contract. ANALYSIS: The neighborhood around Manning Park is both old and new. The bluff to the northwest is part of original Huntington Beach housing which began in the early 1900's. In recent years, a mobile home park was developed to the east and still under construction is the Ayres development to the south. The three acre park site was acquired in 1978 through park dedication requirements from Ayres Company. Helme Park is likewise surrounded by housing both old and new. Apartments constructed in the late 60's and early 70's abound to the west. Faith Lutheran Church is on the north and Saint Wilfrld's Episcopal Church on the south. The Huntington Viewpoint condominium, constructed in 1976 is on the bluff to the east. The park site is being purchased from Faith Lutheran Church since 1976 and will become City property in January 1981. Warner Park is in a more densely populated, multi-residential neighborhood which is also a mixture of both old and new housing units. New units were recently completed to the east and a new condominium is under construction on the north. Units built in the 1950's, 60's and early 70's occupy the land to the south and west. The City began purchasing the park site in 1976 and recently filed eminent domain on the last remaining small lots on the site. All three parks have been high priority sites for development since 1976 because of their proximity to long term residents and the lack of other parks or recreation facilities nearby. PIO 3/78 PRELIMINARY MASTER PLANS FOR Page 2 MANNING, HELME AND WARNER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS FUNDING: Design cost is estimated at $22,335. Park Acquisition and Development Fund (Fund balance 5/31/80 - $1,584,028). ALTERNATIVES: I -Delay further design of the park sites. 2) Recommend to Planning that the parks be deleted from the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan and the park sites declared surplus. VGM:NLW:de S l_ C T 10 1\I A L I,% I `� I I`'. I \.. I 1\4 A.I, LI^[f.nZ-r 1-K Nn- AMF NUF.D RY ZONE C'�SF: - - [ o. 10),17n,175 ', G4,2rn.:]%.;rq,7ni,�0:.)n].l n•t.C. ,5 4561 ). n C r - r.-J n...a +r,.i. vv, 1u n:.••,.. ]�.5p -,] _. •. n ;n-a,7. .5, .,71-Jn r1: .. n1,!!1c Jn 7,7'•.., {1G],7L-i- - , •„ ,,. ol I � / j I - -I ' 1 --11 J L _I I .-. .-.I t ----I LI— - __-1 -- --1 I t- �•// +,. RI-ngitl\1 r If 7-I I I�_1 (Ihl,fiJ, I ^Cn. -- --.� —,-�Il Ii I-I IRI it HI R R I I I CQ�n n t.Isvuirtc m-t, I �� r'�.I I• J ) J ��� t,.j-- —;�-- X I ^ zl• J R111II RI RI IH1�I' HI�H1 -I o1 `_ -V JI ' -- ir•rl �' m I_-J^�I� �.i.-O r2-1' 1 r ) I t II CF-E 1� C - ,� - --;., II \11i1 �,,,,\ Itl—tr°il i- �. IIII-O► U�j 01. 0;�=01 1 1 I'I _Q _- ---_1.._.I I I I ' :..I,Z.VD-10 1R1\\Ill -� RI j ., li._--'I- / •.\/ \\ \. I I LD-I[O� O`�/i J,'-lU l IC 1I � :,,,�-//�,l• (RI )1 PI\ �..1,'/ I-0 {tr LAND I !I n7--�o�10 1- SI C F-R� L N Ji TRIi r T1'vU) / 1 CF-R.� �✓ i / / :,./ •:�/;RI;. � - -ICJ I I ,., R 2 R 2 H I 1 ' R N 73' NJ 113 R2 `H2 11R,.�:; 1- 1 - 'c. Is4-Rir rii0IVL:) , 1131IR3 ���13 C�1 3\`\it3 i >> // >./� \--J�. l-�,�. I_., --JL.--I -J---I I--II._ I II--- WILL - \ 7 r— -- II —- [ �I CL I : / / I. -U ED MAMN11 c, PARK I // ' / '•. / r, � ( �� 2n"_ -- °�c PARK f, SITE _979•) i 1 �./'• /' ,! �,� �i.. // �.�IL�_I W__J -- 1-- ,�r..---I I I I— 1 _ - _] I__I _ I- I_.J� ' !-MH I lI /�-\\�� �?-��•,; ij ��//%/ /\�rr ( j 1..• ------------ r Ep1�1A�1111LNG PA LQNGRANGE__ MASTERPLAN NOVEMBER_._7`]_ A. RQERA DETROIT AVE. f\ n I D •. 1 I WLLF+uDO�L I O I � �\ O �I o ' ro 11J i M�mv.ao— O-, PUTTING \,i f^ GREEN TOTS"" VOR JRSC 6. �I II .y.� AREA d i a'ww TanL . �f,ti� / err .fo./Y. ,�/ �� �•� I o 4 "a ; MULTI-U5E TURF AREA �P M° 9, 18 oc• CV ^ ID ,e / Revised 12-7-79 PHASE DEVELO!"iENT COST EST EMATE FOR THE ED MANNING PARK (SITE #974) (Assumption: Ayres Development Company will be doing rough grading.) PHASE I DEVELOPMENT PAVING: .10' wide walk section @ $1.50/sq. ft. 7,500 Plus overlook area @ $3.00/sq. ft. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION: 150 Trees including staking (1 & 5 gal. ) 3,000 Tree irrigation system 9,000 Could be less than half this if all native or drought tolerant tree varieties are used and a two year temporary above-ground system is used. Wood chip ground cover 1,500 Ground Cover erosion control area on banks Planting and irrigation 5,000 Quick coupler line around future turf area 1,500 TEMPORARY FENCING OF PARK SITE (REUSABLE) 5,000. SUBTOTAL 32,500 + 10% Contingency 3,250 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 1,625 TOTAL FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: $37,375 Plus cost of the following: Curbs, ;utters and half of street width on Delaware, Detroit and California (700 1. ft.) PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PAVING: 6' wide walks 6, 200 RECREATION ELEMENTS: Half basketball. court 4,500 Sand volleyball (free sand source) .3,000 Parcourse and jogging trail 2,000 1 softball backstop 3,000 Tots area 7,500 Play apparatus area 10,000 30,000 Drinking Fountain and Potable Water Line 700 Park Furniture 6 to 8 picnic/game tables (6) 2,400 4 barbecues (4) 600 4 to 8 benches (5) 1,500 6 trash receptacles 600 5, .100 SUBTOTAL 42,000 + 10% Contingency 4,200 + 5% .Escalation (5 to 6 months) 2, 100 TOTAL FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT: $48,300 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT Irrigated Turf 18,000 Lighting (For paths & play areas, 4-6 light poles (5) 10,000 60 day maintenance 2,000 SUBTOTAL $30,000 + 10% Contingency 3,000 + 5% Escalation (5 .to 6 months) 1,500 TOTAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT: $34,500 S UPMARY Phase I $ 37,375 Phase II 48 ,300 Phase III 34,500 Total Park Development $120,175 Plus cost of the following: Curb, butters & street construction on Delaware, Detroit & California (700' +) - 2 - MINUTES, Community Dervi ces.Commission November 14, 1979 ED MANNING PARK 09740 SCHEMATIC PLANS Mr. Alan Ribero gave an overview of the proposed schematic plans for the Ed Manning Park. The approximate cost of Phase l development of the park would be $36,000. Since there is no school close to this park, the schematic plan calls for a multi-use field. This schematic was presented to the residents in the area of Manning Park and good feedback was received. The senior citizens in the area of the park wanted a putting green, which they offered to maintain. Mr. Ribero included this item on the plan. The layout of the trees is designed.to prevent intrusion of residents' privacy. The plan also included such items as tot area, half court basketball, informal softball field, volleyball, frisbee target, etc. The plan calls for one gallon trees since their cost is about 25 percent of a five gallon tree. The tot area is located away from any busy streets, in a secluded area open for parent's easy view of the area. The basketball court is located away from the closest residents. DR. HOWARD ROOP ARRIVED AT 7:44 P.M. Dr. Marilyn Jensen was concerned with the vandalism of the one gallon trees. Mr. Ribero stated that is why he proposes the use of temporary fencing around the small trees in order to help prevent the vandalism of the trees. He estimates the completion of Phase I should be accomplished by the end of the summer, 1980. Mr. Osness asked when Phases II and III were estimated to be completed. Mr. Vincent Moorhouse stated this will depend . on the City's funding. Phase I will provide the residents.with open space and will allow the trees to start growing in that park. It could be some years before the completion of Phases II and III depending on rnaintenance costs. Mr. Moorhouse stated our main thrust at this time is to get Huntington Central Park developed and a cash flow started. MOTION: Dr. Marilyn Jensen moved the Community Services Commission approve the schematic plans for Phase I of the Ed Manning Park as presented and submit to the City Council for their approval to forward to Cordozo-DiLollo for preparation of the working drawings and specifications. Motion seconded by Mrs. Martha Valentine. MOTION CARRIED. '•llh rir ' r a rm - r rl .1 I f' , •` � � . I'.,lr � -�,' it P [ 1 1, .1 i- �� ��' �� nr - � .� - ♦ A_. n_ .L_ I- - VS1ur (► I( ,1 . (: I': (;(} U f J.' 1' � ; ;1I,.II''(.) I�_1N11 .1 Sln.ln'� 5 C'I i' in fil I:.I - rl 171 "•I I;.•I RI-Pp I I _ li ------------ f RI .l fll I I i I ' IJ PU I NEW E. HELME PARK I I ' _• I Illy I�aaJf R3 J; 1— - u. F ITN LUTHCRAf�JI PARK 5_LTE� — ,, ------ '-- ---- —'-��----- M IC�'� I. I 1:3 j ( l I RZ I I I m RI-hu ; 1 IRI 1.IRI , I y r� L� I FA R 1 I+ � IIf27 I,ili I I � � I r'r ' I I• I '�i. I11 � I I � 41_ n, I'. I li7 I ' 1I fZl •, ' I I I I + � ro GARFIEI li - . EXISTMM 2!-C MASOtvRY B"CV-WALL WITH A C CPAIN LINK F_NCe oN TOP ALLEY MASONRf WALL �naK�V�ryYI.Co v D Fw�.ME O HELME PARK p -----_ i � ! �2 COURT ` X —_—__� BASKETBALL EA o IONGRANCE MASTERPLM . X 3"wi�E i j SAND nF-Em S- '19 A.E.RI ERA VOLLEYBALL ZIKE I _J i; e PATH � -----=----- 26 9 V\4 e c` O i a7.8, ` ®B.5r, % \, 4 FAITH LUTHERAN . AREA / CHURCH PARKING L.oT 0 PL'AY JNORTH ARATUS 2? ceise-s MULTI•USE I o 20 60 TURF AREA q SCALE 22 ! li `..\ I 2b� � 21, ; G Ti .v0 Beu[STOP - c G.C- O-- TC. 11 ? T. .2G=' CHAPEL LAME Revised: - June 25, 1980 DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE FOR THE HELME PARK FAITH LUTHERAN SITE) PHASE I DEVELOPMENT GRADING $ 4,000 PAVING 350' of 6' path + 425' of 10' path 9,500 TREE PLANTING (1 and 5 gallon) 2,000 and Irrigation 6,000 Wood chip ground cover 1,300 QUICK COUPLER LINE 1,500 BICYCLE PATH (D. G. ) 1,200 PERMANENT WALL AND FENCING 4,800 TEMPORARY FENCING (REUSABLE) 3,200 $33,500 SUBTOTAL 33,500 + 10% Contingency 3,350 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,675 TOTAL FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: $38,525 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PAVING: Half basketball court $ 4,500 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT (Free sand source) 3,000 ONE (1) SOFTBALL BACKSTOP 3,000 TOTS AREA 6,500 PLAY/APPARATUS AREA 12 000 29,000 $29,000 PARK FURNITURE Drinking Fountain and Potable Water Line $ 700 Bicycle Parking--Paving and Racks (Frame Lock) 800 Five (5) Picnic/Game Tables 2,000 Three (3) Barbecues 300 One (1) Frisbee Target 200 Two (2) Benches 600 Four (4) Trash Receptacles 400 5,000 $ 5,000 SUBTOTAL 34,000 + 10% Contingency 3,400 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,700 TOTAL FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT: $39,100 Helme Park (cont.) Page 2 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT IRRIGATED TURF $16,000 LIGHTING (Paths & play areas) Five (5) li^ht poles 8,000 MAINTENANCE (60 days) 2 000 26,000 SUBTOTAL $26,000 + 10% Contingency 2,600 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,300 TOTAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT: $29,900 SUMMARY Phase I 38,525 -Phase II 39,100 Phase III 29,900 TOTAL PARK DEVELOPMENT COST $107,525 Average cost per acre excluding Phase III (Lighting, Turf and Irrigation) : $36,525 Average cost per acre for total park development: $51,475 MATTHEW E. HELME PARK (FAITH LUTHERAN) The two acre Hel.me Park Site, located immediately south of the Faith Lutheran Church parking lot on Chapel. Lane, is basically a flat site. The park site backs onto an alleyway. The alleyway serves as an entrance drive to the garages of the multiple—residential complex on the west side of the alley. In keeping with,our recent approach to keeping maintenance on new .parks at a reasonably low level, less than half of the site will be developed in multi—use turf area, layed out so that it will accommodate informal softball. Also proposed for eventual construction in a probably phased site development. are the following: A tot play area, half basketball court, sand volleyball area, play apparatus for older children, bicycle parking, picnic/game tables, barbecues, a drinking fountain, a frisbee target, benches and trash containers. Path and game area lighting will he of medium intensity and a fence will be built along the alley on the west property tine of the site. Circulation will be provided by a ten foot wide pedestrian/maintenan.ce vehicle path bisecting the park in a diagonal alignment, plus a decomposed granite bicycle path across the southern side of this site (which follows an obviously used trail across the site at the present time). It -is proposed that the first phase of development shall be 1) grading of mounded areas -and achieve good site drainage; 2) planting trees with wood chip mulching and installation of irrigation for the trees; and 3) installation of temporary fencing around the tree areas, to be left in place three or four years to allow trees to mature with a minimal amount of vandalism. During this interim period of time, until the time comes when greater funds are available for maintenance and the irrigated turf. is installed in a later phase of development, the turfed area will be planted with vetch and oats plowed into the soil annually for its enrichment. This area may be used by the children of the neighborhood as a. '"sand" type lot for informal play. Some thought might be given to allowing its interim use as a semi—screened—off adventure play area which, in all probability, would lessen vandalism in the neighborhood. AR:se I'i-\IWi U-AI I I-A I_Ui ILI-tAN) Mr. Ribera introduce, is assistant, Mr. Timothy Angell, L 1sCape Draftsman. Mr. Angell has been assisting Mr. Ribera with plan production to speed up projects with the hope of staying ahead of inflation. Mr. Ribera presented the schematic plans for the Matthew E. Helme Pork (Faith Lutheran site). The park is two (2) acres. The schematic consisted of a backstop for softball, a bicycle trail, play apparatus, picnic tables, and a tot play area. Mr. Ribera recommended a masonry wall be placed along the alley with entrance points at the north and south corners. The park will be developed in three phases. Mr. Mossteller asked if the residents in the area are willing to go along with the development of the park in phases? Mr. Ribera explained to the residents at the recent neighborhood meeting the Deprtment's new policy of planting trees and temporary fencing in order to prevent vandalism. Mr. Ribera staled that Cardoza DiLallo has been asked to prepare construction drawings for phases I and 2. Mr. Ribera stated the residents did not complain n great deal. The residents were told about the lack of funding for park maintenance and the need for phased development. Mr. Mossteller felt the residents in that area would want to play ball. Mr. Ribera stared that they can use the field area planted in vetch and oats. Dr. Roop asked when phase 3 (lighting) would be completed? Mr. Ribera stated phase 3 might never be constructed It would depend on many factors. Dr. Roop stated that manpower will be reduced even further next year if Jarvis 2 is approved. Mr. Moorhouse stated that the City Council is now mandating that the HCP be given high priority in order to gain some revenue for the City. Mr. Ribera stared that the use of "Adventure Playground" type areas in other city parks would be very wise. Dr. Cooper asked what amount was budgeted for the development of Helme l Park. Mr. Worthy stated $30,000 per acre was originally budgeted. The total would be approximately $60,000 plus $ 10,000 for play equipment. Dr. Cooper stated that it would seem appropriate to develop the park soon since the cost of development will continue to go up. Mr. Moorhouse stated that he agrees that inflation will continue, but we have a mandate from the City Council to prepare a list of 17 parks which we must develop. The City Council wants to take a firm look at future development. We must look at where we can get the quickest return on our investment dollars and due to the restrictions of the Quimby Bill, we must develop those parks acquired under the Bill. By developing phase I of the parks, we are .fulfilling the requirements of the Quirnby Bill. MOTION: Dr. Howard Roop moved the Community Services Commission approve the schematic plans for Helme Park and recommend to the City Council that phases I and 2 be developed and authorize working drawings and specifications be col -1pleted by Cardoza Dil_allo, Landscape Architects of Costa Mesa, California. Dr. Tom Cooper seconded the motion. Mr. Osness staled that he would have to vote "no" on this motion based on the fact that he feels it is a mistake relative to priorities. He cannot undersland the development of a neighborhood purl: without a lot area and children's play area included. in phase I . He feels the residents would want these facilities first. He feels phase 2 should be phase I . Mr. Osness asked to be put on record that he feels we are making a mistake. Mr. Moorhouse stated the tot apparatus is a very high maintenance item and that is why it was put into phase 2. The population is changing due to birth control practices to an older populatioon and their needs should also be considered. Staff believes the primary concern in development of neighborhood parks should be the .planting of tree; in order to give them time to grow. Mr. Osness stated that in the particular area of the Faith Lutheran Church there are many children and the churches bring in even more. Mr. Osness felt That since the Faille Lutheran Church formerly owned the land they will expect to see a tot play area at that location. Mrs. Borns asked why the site was proposed to be lighted? Mr. Ribera stated that at the resident's meeting that was one of their biggest concerns. Mr. Mossteller felt there would be a possibility that the churches in that area would become involved in the development of phase 3 of the park. Dr. Cooper felt this site has a special need for more "high maintenance" development since it is not close to a school site. Mr. Moorhouse stated that each site has a "special" need but he felt that if Commission wants to recommend special treatment of this site, they can so recommend. MOTION CARRIED (Osness - No). Mr. Ribera stated that with approval of Helene and Manning Park schematic plans, Cardoza DiLallo will be working on o total of 6 • .Nl'l r� SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP • 20 -5 -- 1I CITY O LEGEND I-1 UNT NGTON B-IiAC_[-I_ ORA Ni GEl COL) N'l' )`, CA.1,1FORNJA USE OF PROPERTY MAP i I � EDINf,FR AVE f-7- U PRELUDE OR -- ---3\- -=:1_.J -i C F-E I I, CF-E I _= 'III - — _ - \-- ` \ ___I-� - 1.. o..nX.i -KO4` t _ , ' rr�IR _�I� �..E I SU TE DR o_j-,: TENOR 09 T I FT --- M-NUET �� pq 1 _Inl-�--� _,__ �H^1I-L O�E RF-RKAUI -- I RIAPS06Y O �.. y IlrrII I- - �LA - - I. LAU� l CF_R -' _a OPEn ETTA pp - - OAHU DR l�l TT _ r I r ° LL SCEnrin_iO_IJ_I�1._ I�-_ _ `—_.— --- 3 -'--t--i--- \ 1 '� 1 I l_.f_�.I.1.1_rl L it 1-11711- I I I I�-� \ - i o+` CF-RUll I l—(--R I cF-R l CF-EC1FAPIC5 { l T'° ;� R �� ! r\+,\ + fn II P ckwl„K Cn. I. CF + \ I-L� Tl _�� ji li - u1 PE:.nCLcr CF s a \ C I II CF R� / 11- ' I + - II --- — -I n =J u� �- -- '2 J I`- 7AVENU r c t"_ rn l!� � m i= '{-- - WARNER z i W - r WARNER PARK PRELIMINARY MASTERPLAN Lu ° 4 i w A.E.RI BERA MARCH 1980 • • ° ° o ° .--° ° d. -d 4 d d C G G d • - T ° 11' B�CY LE APP ATU ° J e �g ':. ��.. CDU E o I Y 1 � ° BASKETBALL I 84R I9-O EE5 MEADOW I MULTI USE TURF i l COURT L - TOT --- -- AREA t SAND --VCLL i EYBALL-i /-- L 1 N S 1 . WARNER PARK (5.5 Acres) June 19, 1980 DEVELOPMENT -COST ESTIMATE & SUGGESTED DEVELu-#MENT PHASING PHASE I DEVELOPMENT GRADING $13,750 TREE PLANTING & TREE IRRIGATION 28,500 Mulching (Wood Chips) 5,000 BICYCLE OBSTACLE COURSE 1,500 BASKETBALL (Z court) 6,250 BACKSTOP 3,000 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT 6,000 PICNIC TABLES (5) 2,500 PARK SIGN 1,500 Sub Total Phase I 68,000 + 10% Contingency 6,800 + 10% Short Term Inflation 6,800 Total -- Phase I $ 81,600 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT TOTS AREA (Sand) $12,000 PLAY APPARATUS (Sand) 20,000 BASKETBALL (z Court) 6,250 FENCING 500 BICYCLE RACKS 1,250 PAVING: WALKS 12,000 MOTHER'S SITTING AREA 2,000 Sub Total Phase II 54,000 + 10% Contingency 5,400 + 20% (18 month inflation) 10,800 Total -- Phase II $ 70,200 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT TURF & IRRIGATION (2 Acres) $40,000 LIGHTING (4 poles) 8,000 Sub Total Phase III 48,000 +10% Contingency 4,800 +30% (36 month inflation) 14,400 Total -- Phase III $ 67,200 ESTIMATED GRAND TOTAL OF PHASED DEVELOPMENT: $ 219,000 i COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES June 11 , 1980 WARNER PARK PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN Alan Ribera, Landscape Architect, presented the schematic plans for the Warner Neighborhood Park to the Commission. The 592 acre park site is located on the northeast corner of Lynn and Pearce Streets approximately 1,000 feet west of Bolsa Chico Street and 1,500 feet north of Warner Avenue. The park will contain a turf multi-purpose field for informal softball, soccer, touch football, etc., a basketball court, sand volleyball court, tots and children's play apparatus areas, picnic facilities, bicycle obstacle course and bike racks. One of the residents suggested we provide automobile parking for a few cars in the park, but staff felt this would only provide parking for apartment dwellers. The residents also asked for a dog run and practice backboards for tennis or handball which were not included in the plan. Since the department has experienced problems with graffitti on backboards and overuse of parks by dogs these items were not included. Mr. Ribero stated it will cost approximately $198,000 for the entire development ($36,000 per acre). The park is comprised of many small lots which have been assembled by the City over the past five (5) years. The last few lots have been filed on through the City's right of eminent domain and the court has given the City the authority of immediate possession. This park is a high priority for design and development having been pushed back several times due to acquisition problems. MOTION: Dr. Roop moved the Community Services Commission approve the preliminary master plan for Warner Neighborhood Park as presented by landscape architect and recommend that the City Council approve the plan for working drawings and specifications to be completed by Cardoza - Dilallo, landscape architects, Costa Mesa, according to the terms of the current City Contract. Motion seconded by Mr. Osness. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED. Mr. Moorhouse stated that this plan as well as others were designed for ultimate development. After the plans are completed, the City Council will decide how many phases will be developed. Mr. Ribero has planned for phases which would allow for basic construction and tree planting in the first phase followed by irrigated turf at a later date. MOTION CARRIED. Vince Moorhouse , Director To of Community- Services DATE 12/18/79 MASTER DESIGN PLANS FOR MANNING �1 AND HELME PARKS F ?he City Council at its 12/17/79 meeting , con- tinued Agenda Item C-8 , Master Design Plans for Manning and Helme Parks until a meeting is held wa i1between the City Council and the Community 'Services Commission for the purpose of peoviding ' direction in establishing_policy for City park lands . a bukicAfE SIGNED Rich Barnard , Administrative Assistant �t 5.� R t 3 { Xp DATE SIGNED F Redif rme 4S 465 SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. r< PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY... ; r PIXY PAX(50 SETS)AP463 .. .•`,. - . 17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON NEAC J INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 3 6 oasF w H UNfWGTON 86101 To City Administrator From Vincent G . Moorhouse Director, Community Services Subject Manning Park Date December 14 , 1979 At the agenda staff meeting yesterday, Jim Palin raised a question concerning the fact that all of the negotia- tions and dedications had not been completed on the Ed Manning Park. After investigating this matter, I found that Mr. Palin was correct . There have been numerous meetings with the developer and it is estimated that Ayres Company will have to dedicate approximately two acres and the City will have to purchase one . I called Ayres and will arrange to finalize these matters in the very near future . Based on the fact that the City Council, in previous study sessions, has authorized staff to proceed with completion of pre-designated parks in the General Plan, and the fact that we have met with neighborhood residents to help design subject park, I recommend we proceed with the original recommendation to approve the master design plans for Manning Park, unless the Council feels it wants to delete this property from the General Plan. That would be a completely different situation. I am moving forward with completion of these projects in the most expedient manner possible with what , I feel is Council direc ion to get the job completed . Vincent G. Moorhouse Director Community Services VGM : cs G / w REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse Department Community Services Date Prepared December 13 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached n Yes No Subject MASTER DESIGN PLANS/MANNING AND HELME PARKS City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: The designs were recently completed by in-house Landscape Architect, Alan Ribera, and approved by the Community Services Commission for these high priority neighborhood parks: Ed Manning Park (#974) and Matthew E. Helme Park (Faith Lutheran). Staff presented schematic plans at neighborhood meetings for each of the three park sites and adjustments were made to meet the expressed needs of the community within our budgetary limitations. Recommendation: pprove the master design plans for Manning Park and Helme Park, and authorize the working drawings and specifications to be completed by Cardoza-DiLallo, Landscape Architects of Costa Mesa, California. Analysis Ed Manning Park is a 3 acre parcel that lies between Delaware, California and Detroit Streets. This property was acquired from Ayres Development Company as a dedication requirement for approva l of Tract #10248. Matthew E. Helme Park is a 2 acre parce l on Chapel Lane 300' south of Ellis between St. Wilf reds Episcopal and Faith Lutheran churches. This property was purchased from Faith Lutheran Church. Both parks are bluff edge parks with a commanding view of Talbert gap. Also, both parks are not adjacent to schools so are designed to stand on their own, facility wise. Each will have enough turf for open field games but the majority of the park will be trees with a mulch base, which requires little maintenance. A high maintenance putting green has been designed into Manning Park, but will be maintained through agreement by the Shorec li f f Mobile Home Association. Funding Source: Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Alternatives: Reject designs and refer back to staff for modifications. 2. Approve design plans, but defer working drawings and specifications. VGM/NLW:dp I, PLANNING ZONING - DM 40 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP -36-5-1I _... NOTE' _ 1 CITY OF ADOPTED JUNE 20, 1960ill..`-T-11 • �� -,, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 771 LEGEND AMENDED ORDNO. AMENDED , ORD-NO ® SNGLE r4MILv RE51DENCE DISTRICT -z1- IS-67 321 wroe•LE+owe DISTRICT aler 10-2-1961 870 2-667 77 NI LOwERC1A L DISTRICT 5-7-1962 900 y 5-21-962 903 I-20-67 1361C -ICE ITI-510NPL 015ra1G• IMITED LrmE rrL RISlDrx*mL D6 rRlnH NTINGT®N BEACH 6-IB-1962 906 5I- 67 3181 Lwo EmErO1-21-1963 948 11-2.70 1611 r4 ISTR,CT � pTlpTaICT 1964 1031 5-1-72 1745 MANNED OEVrLDRYENMg 5_1 94 03 II-6-72 17 t MIANGrCOUNTY5 CALIFORNIAA 8-1965 1132 I-7-74 895 ED BY ZONE CASE 3 +192 2 3 75 96 ■a0xr YRD E C4 LINE 4-2 +997656 975 5-19-75 1982 205,237.239,250,297,I.E.431,y05,546,66-58 519-75 1981 amn.RRFpSE RAN Di STREET ALIDNMCNT 7-6-1976 2076 .r 67-10,368,PP 67-1,69-36,71-28,72-27,PP 72.7,74-21,T3-26,74-4,74-13,76-6,76-10.77-25, 6-21-1976 2072 PRIVATE STREET II-21-1977 2240 _ - J5� 7S o TALBERT 1 - AVENUE I 1- Soo RI RI •] _LSo - R 1 TR oewlxo a - - C 4 C F—E OLADIS AVE r RI 4R I RI w y w Y w - RI �s4xr4NAw - H O I 00 wn « m RI (4 STERLING AVENUE RI. �, A AT Rl RI RI RI-PD yR°°I 6. I u MINER AVFNU MINER AVE z nL..l•, - f - RI RI :1 'T I '" T4Y L;-R DR LE CONE C. ezRI RI RI SRI PD 8 xrr cR-' R2" - RI '� I MATTNEW E. NELME PARK ��Iw� - R3 R3 RI s (.FAITI'I LUTHERARI PARK SITE) :f- IF.P_ so IR3 on_LL u^°�e%�• . ;C4 l_ R3 c: 1 Ea. I z A rR3 R3 _ 0 RI RI-M' w �IRI RI RI _ R2. aR2 ^� R2 _aEvno.:rz'." RI Dz RI I ALI, -nH,L1A,xFDa I R3 = R3- - --- € C4 R2 R3 R3 I LL — � R2 RZ n RR3 MH R'� K DpsZ1 DR a Q R2 wOO R3.:�\CLw R3 ----- , R3 R3 R3 RI „ =BRING 'CONSTAN7INE R I, DR L5 RI R3 R21.IIR2 n AcR. swLT C4 l R3 RI 0 F340`-- =I R 1 �ra �I ° w i IR2 R2 I�a lo�R-I RI �I 1 L" a 333 RI x®a i JI e R-I A -�L GARFIELD - 1 AVENUE ES Ifi _' fi I EXISTING 2-4"MAsonIRH&-OCKKWWALL W"4 AG CNA1N LANK FENCE Ong TOP ALLEY MASONRY WALL-,? AUC�V11yYL C V D V teE COURT ° ¢ i _ ° HELME PARK TO �i __� ' BASKETBALL~ bX EA o I nnAranmrF MASTERPLeN ------SAJD-- f IX - 3 A i I �° 11F•tcnnaFa "79 A.E.R►apm VOLLE1 BALL 1 PATH ------� 2C7 —°)0 FAITH LUTHERAIU AREA CHURCH PARKING LAT PLAY o I A ATUS 27 Flt15B r� \ ARE Tatter I � '�3` � O� c,\ p q MULTI ZO USE I SCALE TURF AREA co 24 ° - i / 0 0 T C. 11" T. .20'2 CHAPEL LADE MATTHEW E. HEINE PARK (FAITH LUTHERAN) The two acre Helme Park Site, located immediately south of the Faith Lutheran Church parking lot on Chapel Lane, is basically a flat site. The park site backs onto an alleyway. The alleyway serves as an entrance drive to the garages of the multiple-residential complex on the west side of the alley. In keeping with our recent approach to keeping maintenance on new parks at a reasonably low level, less than half of the site will be developed in multi-use turf area, layed out so that it will accommodate informal softball. Also proposed for eventual construction in a probably phased site development are the following: A tot play area, half basketball court, sand volleyball area, play apparatus for older children, bicycle parking, picnic/game tables, barbecues, a drinking fountain, a frisbee target, benches and trash containers. Path and game area lighting will be of medium intensity and a fence will be built along the alley on the west property line of the site. Circulation will be provided by a ten foot wide pedestrian/maintenance vehicle path bisecting the park in a diagonal alignment, plus a decomposed granite bicycle path across the southern side of this site (which follows an obviously used trail across the site at the present time). It is proposed that the first phase of development shall be 1) grading of mounded areas and achieve good site drainage; 2) planting trees with wood chip mulching and installation of irrigation for the trees; and 3) installation of temporary fencing around the tree areas, to be left in place three or four years to allow trees to mature with a minimal amount of vandalism. During this interim period of time, until the time comes when greater funds are available for maintenance and the irrigated turf is installed in a later phase of development, the turfed area will be planted with vetch and oats plowed into the soil annually for its enrichment. This area may be used by the children of the neighborhood as a "sand" type lot for informal play. Some thought might be given to allowing its interim use as a semi-screened-off adventure play area which, in all probability, would lessen vandalism in the neighborhood. AR:se ) PLANNING :)NING Did IZ SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP II-6-II d _ LEGEND: - CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 LC 01Al1r En un55•H:AI";w eLDrOwN$P[CEK H-en(. —Oto SPEC' P,A% y CITT COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.754 tyry; MOb1,El.oe1 V_C OT VELOPMCNi��.. .. v!NOEO ORC NO ANFHCCO ON,NO nr+[::pEO ORC NO 'R 1] 51xLLE Ft r RES;CI:N'LES C'5TRILT TT r �,T�{� {��TyEyJ� 10 2-16 6n1 7 5-19 2346 }] iwOFAUNr RESIDENCE 015IXILI `/ �I��I1 \ V �-�®� BEACH Y fi.1q-E: 90 ]1-3.]- T tEl GE—A uBIS.LE ITS RES IDEVCE D�Stral[i .L -6-61 B]6 fi] 554 1eLE FAMILT Rr S'�En,',C DSi R1Ci 5-]-42 900 16n, 0-I-62 929 12-4-72 [C J] LExERA.,pUSIHF.55 OISi9.Ct 12-s-62 y38 2-20.73 1P 1J 'k V LILRT i STRIAL DIST—T 9-14.63 8 -63 02 8-5-74 192J 4r.11� COMV:,.VIIv Fr TIES IRECREATIGNAU DISTRICT 5 ". , 11, 6-8-5]-75 1988 � 0E-CE PDPS51044 CNIC) ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 6 1180 S-IS 2J0 OFrCE PROfE55O44L DISTINCT 2 2.-II 1 b6 9 1575 2L1\ 1 .�.:, '1221 LCr I NEr.N90RN000 C...ERi:e_L15i PACT 1 AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: e. F oq z-6-6 zoz. _ 7-6-7s zoen It2: rAuu-xliv BUSINESS DIS*°1cr - -_r.L7 3T-76 2N1 `L 11 -r6-.w4v (CUVE.BCIAL DIS-R1CT 101,174,175,201,237,2f>6,281,282.342,347,494,536,545,66-23.66-41,56-68,67-5, 3•her 13 ie- 2i52 C'] DE51Lxer[5 PRECISE riAN D.STREET CL16N,ILNr- 67-16.67-22,60-39,69-14,69-13 69 ':5.P"70-2,70-10.PP70-4,71-3,71-10.71-29,72-33.72-43.73-26,74-7.75-3C.75-],763.76-19 _a r1 ss 114p .! 2.6-7P 22a•9 L 1�LOXB�raEO WrtN OIl PRODIIL•1ON 11 P 21n^ L'bI1 76-23,77-211,7723.77.24,77-32,77-19,%P-.P,79-21, 9 n1 G9 15i5 '2.1i fI z --- LErRACS LINE 4-GO'0 1572 -2-21-iR F1)66 J :'So'. 6 _ 6y? COva m6D Wrir, . `1 CDULTION E I606 12-IB-TB 2]!] IN AREA BJUNCED BT PALN a .,I. ANC.OR NE,SEVEXTEF NTN 5T: lADAMS AVE. ON.1E oc[AN ON SE. sW,; V-U t_I L-1 I h I tJ l a .. N E. 9 , R-I RI-0 RI - (D)OLDTOW F C2 /o r •`;;�`„90!7 - RI ❑NDD�DD ;s--- I> - -0 wl ¢(SPECIFIC PLAN. i ]- AVE 1( • LCMA AVE I I4 19v:'FH.;.1±Dial-1 3�':• +7, RI _0I N I aoRTLAHD I (DISTRICT 2) yl "'• EH EBEH _ L-=J_0. _0 ` ,�,-- 6] I�D � -x 1 YY TNIRTEE NT g7,+ 05W EG0 AVE. AVE. I R2-PD-10 4 C F E R I R I o RI 6Hv 0 Mff 0 .�R2 Pp 1., °I RI RI Yd +•� Is i.LE AVE. -Ii_Iq ;y" I HE ST y aT RI RI v . tr R2 L SPECIFIC I ,', R27P0-10 ! rWEI-F CF-R --0 PLAN(DI RICT TWO) RI R I zs R2-PD-10 I I 1/5 R 300 28 h= q CF-R- .— EI EVENT" a - R r-:xr:'.:: ?;(� R 2 R L_6r i D 00 DL_J�DDI 1 14 i c=T2, RI I-E •.L.au AVE.I R3 C4 grgr ``RI RI TEvr. RI J r q ; R I R 2 r P- R2 RI AVE. RI 1 D O D SI {I TOW'NLOT—CIFIc- R2 1 �I r � IIN" �� R31:R3„' AVE. PL(SECTION'B'1 / l r —,I" - �°I I a 6127 ll (�IS,TRIII T j10N I I i DaD�Jy R3 R3 ; ,w9,P'A R 3 NPR3 Q, H-1 u E D n AVE IT'a I� � 00 �� 00�� To � GE'.EvA f� f _ _ o� D D� C3 ��/ a S' { 4j.'�• / G aq M I'" � FRAtirc i'GR. ED MANNING PARK - U ELMIRn L AVE. I SPARK SITE q74� SD I �J 5 U 4 OD`IL�ID H A- /) P i � 'h I LMi -i z OE rat.o:T AVE.. G 00 p� A, G V 0 ¢ ,ICn GC�,��AVE - W DO 0. UA LTIMCRE C� �.. R2 R2-PD r ATLANTA ' AVE h ——— -- NoTE' - nLt :51•NTENUED OTO EAI,.1 TO THE CENTER - ,F 11 CU—IT OF W,.v PARK S IT E # / /z E_� D MA in��nir oaQu LQNGRANGE _IIVASTERPLAN iOVEMBER'79_ A RIBERA _ 13' ` \ DETROIT AVE. 14"7REE caovE e to \...0. 11 s of a --- ---� �•I \ o .:vnrw p I \•.. --- +ICI p 0-� e(1SKETBALL o' d;` a 21 a / Jt ✓� o hl O z C-1 5, b 0., p AREA wiGRDUAID COVER / ---- \ ,..TROL� o �� _ 1 PUTTING GREEN vnR R!E AREA 4uuy TRaL 1 ARE o / o ,I MULTI-USE TURF AREA \ ' ° 1 � oo5[ENC ,p _ p Dec cTw. ° \ •" .e�' °� , _BBEC • p e ° ° / __ Revised 12-7-79 PHASE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE FOR THE ED MANNING PARK SITE #974) (Assumption: Ayres Development Company will be doing rough grading.) PHASE I DEVELOPMENT PAVING: 10' wide walk section @ $1.50/sq. ft. 7,500 Plus overlook area @ $3.00/sq. ft. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION: 150 Trees including staking (1 & 5 gal.) 3,000 Tree irrigation system 9,000 Could be less than half this if all native or drought tolerant tree varieties are used and a two year temporary above-ground system is used. Wood chip ground cover 1,500 Ground Cover erosion control area on banks Planting and irrigation 5,000 Quick coupler line around future turf area 1,500 TEMPORARY FENCING OF PARK SITE (REUSABLE) 5,000 SUBTOTAL 32,500 + 10% Contingency 3,250 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 1,625 TOTAL FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: $37,375 Plus cost of the following: Curbs, gutters and half of street width on Delaware, Detroit and California (700 1. ft.) PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PAVING: 6' wide walks 6,200 RECREATION ELEMENTS: Half basketball court 4,500 Sand volleyball (free sand source) 3,000 Parcourse and jogging trail 2,000 1 softball backstop 3,000 Tots area 7,500 Play apparatus area 10,000 30,000 Drinking Fountain and Potable Water Line 700 Park Furniture 6 to 8 picnic/game tables (6) 2,400 4 barbecues (4) 600 4 to 8 benches (5) 19500 6 trash receptacles 600 5,100 SUBTOTAL 42,000 + 10% Contingency 4,200 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 21100 TOTAL FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT: $48,300 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT Irrigated Turf 18,000 Lighting (For paths & play areas, 4-6 light poles (5) 10,000 60 day maintenance 2,000 SUBTOTAL $30,000 + 10% Contingency 3,000 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 1,500 TOTAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT: $34,500 SUMMARY Phase I $ 37,375 Phase II 48,300 Phase III 34,500 Total Park Development $120,175 Plus cost of the following: Curb, gutters & street construction on Delaware, Detroit & California (700' +) ED MANNING PARR (SITE #974) The Ed Manning Park will be developed on the three acre site at the southwest corner of Detroit Avenue and Delaware Street. The southwest corner of the site fronts on California Street, and because this is at a higher elevation than the rest of the park, it is proposed to have a scenic overlook terrace at this entrance to the park. The topographic elevations of the site are at least 20 feet higher along the west side of the park than at the southeast corner of the park. There is more than a ten foot drop in elevation from the north end to the south end of the park. Much of the topsoil of the original site has been removed by the Ayres Development Company in its operation to develop the tract of land to the south and southeast of the park site. This has left a very steep bank along much of the west side of the park. Considerable earth of unknown quality has been returned to the site by the development company, placed and compacted in accordance with a preliminary grading plan prepared by the park architect for the park development scheme. The development company has been requested to have agricultural soils tests made at various depths of the returned earth fill to determine that there are no toxic soils which may have existed in the lower lying tract development area. If such undesirable soils do exist, the developer has been requested to remedy the situation. Inasmuch as the developer has operated in this manner without permission from the City, it is staff's opinion that they should, at no cost to the City, provide a topographic survey of the currently existing condition of the site (which they created) and complete all the grading required by the final grading plan for the ultimate park development master plan. A request of this nature has recently been submitted to the developer. Proposed Park Development: Circulation is proposed by way of a 10 foot wide pedestrian/maintenance path along the upper (west) side of the park and a 6 foot wide pedestrian path along the north and east sides of the park, tying in with street sidewalks of adjacent blocks on Detroit Avenue and Delaware Street. Street curbs and gutters plus a portion of the fronting streets eventually will have to be constructed by the City. In keeping with our current attempt to achieve reasonably low maintenance in newly developed parks, only about 40% of the site is proposed for eventual (2nd or 3rd phase) development in multi-use turf area. The balance of the site will be heavily planted with trees (combination of deciduous and both broadleafed and coniferous evergreen tree varieties) with wood chip mulching to conserve moisture and minimize weed growth. All of the trees except one are placed outside of the proposed turf area, which will allow turf mowing time to be kept to a minimum. The other recreation elements proposed are: a play apparatus area, a tot area, a sand volleyball court, a half basketball court, a softball backstop, picnic areas with picnic/game tables, barbecues, trash receptacles and path benches. Pathway and game area medium intensity lighting is proposed as part of a final phase of park development. A golf putting green is proposed at the request of adjacent mobile home park residents, who indicated they would maintain this area if the City would install it. At the periphery of the multi-use turf area a looped jogging trail is proposed as is a frisbee target at the south edge of the turf area. Should there be sufficient interest shown among the residents of the area for the game of bocci ball, a couple of these simple, inexpensive courts could eventually be placed in the picnic area west of the sand volleyball court. Proposed Development Phasing: It is proposed that the first phase of development shall be: 1) grading of entire site, including mounded areas, to achieve good site drainage; 2) planting trees with wood chip mulching and installation of irrigation for the trees; and 3) erecting a temporary fence around the tree areas, to be left in place three or four years to allow trees to mature with minimal vandalism. During this early tree-maturing period, the area to be eventually developed as the multi-use turf area could be either: 1) planted with vetch and oats to be plowed into the soil for its enrichment and allowed to be used as a "sand" type lot for informal play; or 2) allow interim use of the space as a semi-screened off adventure play area which may well be instrumental in reducing vandalism in the neighborhood. AR:se Revised 11-27-79 PHASE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE FOR THE ED MANNING PARK SITE #974) (Assumption: Ayres Development Company will be doing rough grading.) PHASE I DEVELOPMENT PAVING: 10' wide walk section @ $1.50/sq. ft. 7,500 Plus overlook area @ $3.00/sq. ft. PLANTING AND IRRIGATION: 150 Trees including staking (1 & 5 gal.) 3,000 Tree irrigation system 9,000 Could be less than half this if all native or drought tolerant tree varieties are used and a two year temporary above-ground system is used. Wood chip ground cover 1,500 Ground Cover erosion control area on banks Planting and irrigation 5,000 Quick coupler line around future turf area 1,500 TEMPORARY FENCING OF PARK SITE (REUSABLE) 5,000 SUBTOTAL 32,500 + 10% Contingency 3,250 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 1,625 TOTAL FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: $37,375 Plus cost of the following: Curbs, gutters and half of street width on Delaware, Detroit and California (700 1. ft.) PHASE II DEVELOPMENT (Ed Manning Park Site #974) PAVING: 6' wide walks 6,200 RECREATION ELEMENTS - Half basketball court 4,500 Sand volleyball (free sand source) 3,000 Parcourse and jogging trail 2,000 1 softball backstop 3,000 Tots area 7,500 Play apparatus area 10,000 30,000 prp, Drinking Fountain and Potable Water Line 700 Park Furniture 6 to 8 picnic/game tables (6) 2,400 4 barbecues (4) 600 4 to 8 benches (5) 1,500 6 trash receptacles 600 5,100 SUBTOTAL 42,000 + 10% Contingency 4,200 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 2,100 TOTAL FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT: $489300 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT (Ed Manning Park Site #974) Irrigated Turf 18,000 Lighting (For paths & play areas, 4-6 light poles (5) 10,000 60 day maintenance 2,000 SUBTOTAL $30,000 + 10% Contingency 3,000 + 5% Escalation (5 to 6 months) 1,500 TOTAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT: $34,000 SUMMARY Phase I $ 37,375 Phase II 48,300 Phase III 34,500 Total Park Development Cost: $120,175 - - Average cost of $40,000 - per acre. Plus cost of the following: Curb, gutters & street construction on Delaware, Detroit & California (700' +) c` December 7, 1979 DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE FOR THE HELME PARK (FAITH LUTHERAN SITE) PHASE I DEVELOPMENT GRADING $ 4,000 PAVING 350' of 6' path + 425' of 10' path 9,500 TREE PLANTING (1 and 5 gallon) 2,000 and Irrigation 6,000 Wood chip ground cover 1,300 QUICK COUPLER LINE 1,500 BICYCLE PATH (D. G.) 11'200 TEMPORARY FENCING (REUSABLE) 4,000 SUBTOTAL $29,500 + 10% Contingency 2,950 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,500 TOTAL FOR PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: $33,950 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PAVING: Half basketball court $ 4,500 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT (Free sand source) 3,000 ONE (1) SOFTBALL BACKSTOP 3,000 TOTS AREA 6,500 PLAY/APPARATUS AREA 12,000 $29,000 $29,000 PARK FURNITURE Drinking Fountain and Potable Water Line $ 700 Bicycle Parking--Paving and Racks (Frame Lock) 800 Five (5) Picnic/Game Tables 2,000 Three (3) Barbecues 300 One (1) Frisbee Target 200 Two (2) Benches 600 Four (4) Trash Receptacles 400 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 SUBTOTAL 34,000 + 10% Contingency 3,400 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,700 TOTAL FOR PHASE II DEVELOPMENT: $39,100 PHASE III DEVELOPMENT IRRIGATED TURF $16,000 LIGHTING (Paths & play areas) Five (5) light poles 8,000 MAINTENANCE (60 days) 2,000 $26,000 SUBTOTAL $26,000 + 10% Contingency 2,600 + 5 to 6 months Escalation Factor 1,300 TOTAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT: $29,900 SUMMARY Phase I $ 33,950 Phase II 39,100 Phase III 29,900 TOTAL PARK DEVELOPMENT COST $102,950 Average cost per acre excluding Phase III (Lighting, Turf and Irrigation): $36,525 Average cost per acre for total park development: $51,475 To Vince Moorhou se., Director . ---- l 6e�III In i t — ery i^ens DATE 1 1120/79 �-Fie-•— Fd i s ne RIc� 7403 1 e City Counc 11 Agenda of I I /19/79_ _by. the City '. contact the people around Greer Park w,h.o Initially e i-sed a concern abou I emid noises com'i ng from i the park,. and indicate to them _i,n ..a +otter that *#4r e-I-k F I current ►u .1_+hv;_nrocass of 4 puchasing on-d h w1l a v to enforce the an 1- A ordinance of the' 4 . • SIGNED Rich . arnar nit rat. ve___As s i_s to n t A r4 ji 1'1 . fi � f i � DATE SIGNED Redi rme 4S 465 _ SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBONS INTACT. PART 3-WILL_BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. POLY PAK(50 SEIS)4P465 Of REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Vincent G . Moorhouse Department Community Serv; C'PG Date Prepared octeher P2 , 197g Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject Amendment to Municipal Code Regarding Park Asti v; f.J PR City Administrator's Comments � � 43Pt� Approve as recommended 1 , \ Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 13 . 48 . 120 does not expressly prohibit the operation of model boats on park lakes . If this activity is to be pro- hibited, the section must be amended. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance amending Section 13 . 48 . 120 to adequately notice park visitors of the-type of conduct proscribed. ANALYSIS : Problems have recently arisen regarding the interpretation of HBMC Section 13 . 48 .120 : (Games and Activities ) . Citizens have expressed. their desire to launch their private boats , model power boats , and flotation devices in city- owned lakes within Huntington Central Park, Greer and Carr Parks . The City Attorney ' s Office has determined that if operation of model boats in city . lakes is to be prohibited , Section 13 . 48 . 120 must specifically state that prohibition. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS : Do not approve the amendment and allow model boats in city park lakes . . ORDINANCE N0 . d AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 13 .48 .120 REGULATING GAMES AND ACTIVITIES PERMITTED IN CITY PARKS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 13 .48 .120 to read as follows: 13 .48 .120 Games and activities . It is unlawful for any person to take part in or abet the playing of any activity which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the participant or any person whomsoever in any park except on fields and courts or areas specifically provided for such games or activities . Such games and activities shall include, but shall not be lim- ited to, the following: baseball , archery, tackle football, field hockey, rugby, cricket, golf, use of firearms or fireworks , model airplane flying, operation of model boats, or any activity involving thrown or otherwise propelled objects such as balls , stones , arrows , hammers , or javelins . Further, it is unlawful for any person to wade, swim, launch any type of equipment or apparatus such as a boat, a raft of any description, air mattress or surfboard in any park which contains any body of water in this city. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1979 . ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk /ahb 11/l/79 1 . REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: C ty Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROV D: y ry c s Director 2. ORDINANCE NO . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 13 .48 .120 REGULATING GAMES AND ACTIVITIES PERMITTED IN CITY PARKS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Section 13. 48 .120 to read as follows: 13.48 .120 Games and activities . It is unlawful for any person to take part in or abet the playing of any activity which endangers the health, safety or welfare of the participant or any person whomsoever in any park except on fields and courts or areas specifically provided for such games or activities . Such games and activities shall include, but shall not be lim- ited to, the following: baseball , archery, tackle football, field hockey, rugby, cricket , golf, use of firearms or fireworks , model airplane flying, operation of model boats, or any activity involving thrown or otherwise propelled objects such as balls , stones , arrows , hammers , or javelins . Further, it is unlawful for any person to wade , swim, launch any type of equipment or ap- paratus such as a boat, a raft of any description, air mattress or surfboard in any park which contains any body of water in this city. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, a news- paper of general circulation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1979 . ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk /ahb 11/1/79 1 . r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci y Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED• m n y ry es Sinector 2. WHITE-CITY ATTORNEY BLUE-CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH No. GREEN-CITY•.,ADMINISTRATOR CANARY-DEPARTMENTAL ; REQUEST for ORDINANCE or RESOLUTION Date Request made by Department 10/15/79 Vincent G. Moorhouse Community Services 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: REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCE Chapter 13.48 PARKS Section 13.48.120 GAMES AND ACTIVITIES Problems have recently arisen regarding the interpretation of Section 13.48.120 (Games and Activities) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Citizens have expressed their desire to launch their private boats, model power boats, and flotation devices in city owned tapes within Huntington Central Park, Greer cnd Carr Parks. Although the ordinance does";not specifically rule out these activities, it does state that we are not �3 ,n limitcd:to the list that is written: In order to tighten up the ordinance I would hereby request that section 13.48,120 be amended as followss t� l�tra`1zl - . ut) s 3f not be li l ted ,t the follow ose a , arc cry, tackle t`Co a I, le c hoc ey, rug y, crlc fit, goI ri, use o earms, fireworks, model rockets, mode) airplanes, model boats, or any activity involving thro�zn or ofli4wise propelled objects such as balls, stones, arrows, hammers or javelins. Also, in parks that contaiff takes or ponds, wading, swimming or the launching of any flootable apparatus such as bats, rafts, inflatable rafts, air mattresses or surfboards shall not be allowed. r c Desired effective date Signed:' a.'+ Approved as to availability of funds Director of Finance City Attorney—Please prepare and submit printed copies to this office by: 4/1 City Administrator REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RCA 79-84 Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director Department Community Services Date Prepared October 15 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject SUGGESTED NAMES FOR TEN PARKS City Administrator's Comments APPR0 D B- CCU NCBL Approve as recommended CITY Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: F STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Several parks and park sites have been acquired over the years that have not been given "official" names. The Community Services Commission has studied the list of parks as they pertain to the City Council adopted park naming policy and recommended the listed parks or park sites be named as follows upon motion by Mrs. Betty Kennedy and second by Dr. Howard Roop. The motion carried unanimously. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council approve the following names for the City-owned parks or park sites listed below: Years Mayor Park Site Location Proposed Name Served on Council / #775 Saybrook/Monterey Harriett M. Wieder Park 4 years Z "Faith Lutheran" Chapel Lane/Ellis Matthew E. Helme Park 8 years, 3 months 3 #976 Cape Cottage/Cape Newbury Richard Drew Park 8 years At #978 Magnolia/Garfield Vernon E. Langenbeck Park 7 years, 3 months 5 #974 Detroit/Delaware Ed Manning Park 6 years, I I months & "Old Seabridge" Vacati on/Sur fc rest W.D. Seely Park 4 years 7 "Wellington" Wellington/Melville W.E. Tarbox Park 4 years 8 "Davenport" Baruna/Davenport C.G.Pooster Park 4 years "Sunset Heights" Lynn/Pearce WiIIis�Warner Park 4 years !0 "Old Town" Huntington/Wichita Marcus M. McCallen Park 4 years « "Springdale Park" Sands/Tropicana James Franklin Park ./2 Oak View School Oak Lane/Mandrell Oak View Center Request for City Council Action #79-84 October 15, 1979 Suggested Names for Ten Parks Page 2 ANALYSIS: The commission, in reviewing the selection of certain sites to honor certain past mayors, brought forth the following information: Former Mayor Warner was also a long time member of the County Board of Supervisors serving as Chairman for several years. Wintersburg Avenue was renamed Warner Avenue in his honor traversing through several cities. "The "Sunset Heights" park site is close to Warner Avenue at its western terminus. Former Mayor McCallen's home was at Lake and Crest and his oil refinery at 17th and Garfield. "Old Town Park" is midway between these sites and still has oil production on it today. The City's first mayor, Ed Manning, lived near site #974 which provides a commanding view of Talbert Valley to the southeast and is the closest site to the old downtown where he operated his plumbing business. Former Mayor Helme was a staunch church man so it was appropriate to name the park between two churches in his honor. Former Mayor Wieder, currently serving on the County Board of Supervisors lives very close to Site 775 in Huntington Harbour near Edinger on Saybrook. The other four mayors were matched with parks near the downtown bluff where they lived and operated their businesses. Springdale School was recently renamed "Franklin School" after James Franklin, one of their retired long-service principals. Our policy has been to name our adjacent parks the same as the school. Since there is already an Oak View Park on the northwest corner of Oak View School the commission felt the new 1.5 acre site on the southeast corner of the school be named the same as the adjacent Oak View Center. FUNDING: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE: Refer back to commission. NW:se AMENDMENTS �� C, CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ADOPTED 13Y CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO 4366-DEC,12;19T6, LEGEND FREEWAY STREET`CAPACITY �.� MAJOR. _45DOO. PRIMARY_ SECONDARY .—201.000 NOTE; SOLID-LINES.INDICATE EXISTIW RIGHT OF.WAY, - - - NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGNT.VF WAY DASHED LINES WDICATE AREAS WHERE'NO. r{ RIGHT OF WAY LX STS © 1. S s 'cl, .o' .rr r � Q I r 3 x O CITY OF � HUNTINGTON BEACH 'ter• ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 4622 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING ITS POLICY FOR THE NAMING OF CITY PARKS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 3312 WHEREAS, the city has established a vigorous program to provide suitable park and recreation areas for its residents ; and It is desirable that appropriate names be' selected for the city 's parks , and that a policy be adopted by the City Council to accomplish this purpose, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the following policy shall be in- stituted for the naming of the city's parks: 1. That parks adjacent to schools be named the same as the school but that the parks so named be dedicated in honor of persons who have served their community in an exceptional and distinguished manner. 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 donor. 3. That if the park is neither adjacent to a school nor was donated all or in part that it be named after Huntington Beach trustee presidents and/or mayors , no longer members of the City Council, the honor to be given first to those oldest who are still living; 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 trusteemen and/or city councilmen who did riot attain the office of president or mayor have a park named in their honor beginning with the oldest still living, then in order by length of service on the Council. WSA :ahb 5/19/78 1 . 5. That if, which seems unlikely, enough parks adjacent t.o schools do not exist to exhaust the list of names of past Huntington Beach mayors , then features of Huntington Central and other community parks such as lakes, structures (other than restrooms ) , groves of trees , walkways, playing fields, group camp and picnic sites, gardens , play equipment areas , meadows, amphi- theaters , vistas , bridges and wildlife refuges shall be named after such mayors to honor them for their service to the city. 6. That exceptions may be included in the abeve list of priorities for naming parks in order to honor persons who have served their community in an exceptional and distinguished man- ner or to emphasize environmental features of the community . with the concurrence of the Recreation and Parks Commission and the City Council. Resolution No. 3312 and all other resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of June , 1978. Mayor ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk �,5 City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Administrator Di ector, Recreatiqfi, Parks and Human Services r. 2. Res J. 4622 STATE 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 Sth day of Jima 19_2E , by the following vote: � i AYES: Councilmen: T maB. MacAllister, Railem, Mandin� Siebert., NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE HARBORS, BEACHES, RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 1979 MOTION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Council that in keeping with the current policy for naming of parks, that "Springdale Park", which is adjacent to James Franklin School (formerly Springdale School), be renamed "James Franklin Park" to honor the retired Westminster School District Principal. Mr. Joe Costa seconded the motion. Discussion followed. Mr. Mossteller asked if this was standard procedure for us to be naming parks after people out of the Huntington Beach area. Mr. Costa replied that we have done others; i.e. Clegg-Stacy, Schroeder, etc. Mr. Worthy stated it is our policy to have parks adjacent to schools named the same. The Westminster School District renamed the Springdale School after the retired principal James Franklin, so in keeping with our policy it is recommended that we rename our park. The school is within the boundaries of the area served by our recreation division. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Council that the new 1.5 acre park area adjacent to the Oak View Center, be named "Oak View Center" to avoid confusion with the existing Oak View park. Motion seconded by Dr. Howard Roop. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Council that "Oak Trees" be given special consideration for planting in the Oak View Center Park by the Landscape Architect in the final design of the park. Motion seconded by Dr. Tom Cooper. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission submit to the City Council the following recommended names for Huntington Beach parks after former Huntington mayors: Years Mayor Park Site Park Name Served on Council Sims Grove Norma B. Gibbs Grove 8 years #775 Harriett M. Wieder Park 4 years Faith Lutheran Matthew E. Helme Park 8 years 3 months #976 Richard Drew Park 8 years #978 Vernon E. Langenbeck Park 7 years 3 months #974 Ed Manning Park 6 years I I months "Old Seabridge" W.D. Seely Park 4 years Wellington W.E. Tarbox Park 4 years Davenport C.G. Booster Park 4 years Sunset Heights Willis Warner Park 4 years Old Town Marcus M. McCallen Park 4 years Motion seconded by Dr. Howard Roop. Discussion followed. Ms. Hickey asked if it has been city policy to name parks after persons who are still living. Mr. Worthy replied the policy has been to name them the same as adjoining schools or after former mayors who are not currently serving on the City Council. Dr. Cooper asked for a brief rationale for the naming of each of the parks mentioned above. Mr. Worthy gave a brief overview of each. Dr. Cooper was concerned that we have a trail in Huntington Central Park named in honor of Norma Gibbs and now the Committee has recommended a park be named for her. Dr. Cooper felt that there should only be one area or park named for each mayor. Mr. Worthy replied that the trail in Huntington Central Park had been named,for Ms. Gibbs before she served as mayor; therefore, the committee felt she should either have a significant area of Huntington Central Park or a park named in her honor. Dr. Cooper stated that he was not comfortable with the proposal. He felt the naming of Sims Grove should be referred back to the Park Naming Committee. Mr. Moorhouse agreed that perhaps only one area should be identified with a former mayor or distinguished citizen. If you set a precedent with one you may run into trouble in the future. Mr. Moorhouse mentioned that Mayor MacAllister had recently submitted a letter to the Department recommending that Tom Bushard be considered for some type of special recognition. Mrs. Vander Molen stated that the Committee had discussed honoring Mr. Bushard in some way, but the Committee had some problems with this since we already have one Bushard park named after Tom's grandfather. This would be very confusing to have two parks with the same name. This will be discussed again by the Committee. MOTION/AMENDMENT: Dr. Tom Cooper moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission delete Sims Grove from the list of parks to be named and refer it back to the Park Naming Committee for further study and recommendation. Mr. Lee Mossteller seconded the amendment to the motion. AMENDMENT CARRIED. Years Mayor Park Site Location Proposed Name Served on Council #775 Saybrook/Monterey Harriett M. Wieder Park 4 years "Faith Lutheran" Chapel Lane/Ellis Matthew E. Helme Park 8 years, 3 months #976 Cape Cottage/Cape Newbury Richard Drew Park 8 years #978 Magnolia/Garfield Vernon E. Langenbeck Park 7 years, 3 months #974 Detroit/Delaware Ed Manning Park 6 years, I I months "Old Seabridge" Vacation/Surfcrest W.D. Seely Park 4 years "Wellington" Wellington/Melville W.E. Tarbox Park 4 years "Davenport" Baruna/Davenport C.G. Booster Park 4 years "Sunset Heights" Lynn/Pearce Willis Warner Park 4 years "Old Town" Huntington/Wichita Marcus M. McCallen Park 4 years The question was called on the original motion with the amendment. MOTION CARRIED. Mrs. Kennedy stated that park site 975 was not recommended to be named at this time in that it is adjacent to an un-named school site and our policy is to name the parks adjacent to schools the some name as the school. Mr. Worthy was asked to contact Dr. Coogan, Superintendent of Ocean View School District, and discuss the future name potentials with him. The Committee was contacted by Mrs. Kathy Flores regarding a potential memorial in the form of a piece of playground equipment which could be placed in site 975 in honor of a 4 year old boy, Brendon Knapp, a resident in the 975 area who was recently killed in an auto accident. The neighborhood feels they will generate $500 to $1,000 for the equipment. MOTION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Commission approve the memorial offer from the residents in the neighborhood of park site #975 and an appropriate bronze plaque be mounted in cement adjacent to the accepted piece of playground apparatus. Motion seconded by Mr. Lee Mossteller. MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Vander Molen referred this item to the Park Playground Equipment and Maintenance Committee to work with Mrs. Flores. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director Department Harbors, Beaches, Recreation and Parks Date Prepared September 10 11979 Backup Material Attached ® Yes F1 No Subject PAYMENT TO J.B. CROSBY COMPANY FOR DAMAGES - MARINA PARK City Administrator's Comments APPIiCyED BY CITY COUNC T =L 1911. Approve as recommended -_____--_� P �Q�Q• CITY CLERK ' Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: '6 The ball fields at Marina Park were released to the City and Robinwood Little League prior to their completion, with the understanding that Robinwood Little League and the City would be responsible for any damage that occurred. RECOMMENDATION: pprove payment to J.B. Crosby Company in the sum of $3,006.35. ANALYSIS: In the spring of 1978, Robinwood Little League anticipated that Marina Park was going to be ready for little league baseball. Unfortunately, the Contractor was unable to complete the park site. The department scheduled Robinwood Little League at other locations throughout the City for the 1978 season. When the 1979 season was to commence, Marina Park was not finished, but the baseball fields had been completed. Rather than schedule Robinwood Little League's 1979 season at various locations throughout the City for the second year, the City and Robinwood Little League agreed to be responsible for any damage that occurred on the park site. J. B. Crosby Company released the ballfields to the City and Robinwood Little League from April through July 1979. During this time the park received considerable damage by little league players and the general public. Some of the damage included: broken sprinkler heads, trampled planted turf requiring grass to be reseeded, other planted areas destroyed by automobiles, broken water mains, etc. The total cost of repairing the damages is $3,006.35. Robinwood Little League has agreed to reimburse the City $1,500.00 of the total repair cost and the City would pay the balance. FUNDING: Park Acquisition and Development Fund #790797. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny payment. VGM:MMB:dp / J.B. CROSBY CO., :NCOR]POBATED General Engineering Contractor CALIF. STATE LIC. NO. 252650 P.O. Box 6589 Orange, Ca. 92667 714-998-7880 September 5, 1979 .City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Re: Six Parks Attn: Mr. Melvin M. Bowman Gentlemen: Following are extra costs incurred as a result of the Public' s use and the Little Leagues' use of the Marina. Park facilities: Subcontractor Labor 154 man hours @ 14.50 = $2,233.00 20% overhead & profit = 446.60 $2,679.60 Subcontractor Materials $ 134.99 15% overhead & profit 20.25 155.24 Sub-total . . . $2,834.84 Prime Contractor 5% markup 141.74 $2,976.58 1% Bond 29.77 Total . . .. . $3,006.35 Very truly yours, J. B. CROSBY C INCORPORATED k;IB Jrosb ` President J.B. CROSBY CO., INCORPORATED General Engineering Contractor CALIF. STATE LIC. NO. 252650 P.0. 'Box 6589 Orange, Ca. 92667 714-998-7880 July 16, 1979 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646 Attn: Mr. Tom Bushard Re: Six Parks Gentlemen: As you recall , the Buildings and Fields were released to the Little League members effective Saturday, April 7, 1979 with the agreement that any damage caused by the Little League would be paid for by them. Attached is an itemized billing to us from our Subcontractor, Phoenix Landscape, Inc. for repairs made. Please review the billing as soon as possible and contact me to set up a meeting to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, J. B. CROSBY C . , INC RPORATED J n B. Crosby President City of Hunti�.gicn beach J U L 191979 Parks Maintenance f INVOICE Phoenix landscape, Inc. Its 747 W. Katefla suite 202, Orange, Calif. 92667 WDSWI e0/YTR4CTORS L" ^° 2'' 5`6 i"" t.", J. R . Crosby Inc . <. P .O . Box 6589 Orange, California 92667 GATE. June 26, 1979 i•�'L PROJECT NAME Six Parks PROJECT LOCATION Huntington Beach, Calif. =;� ,r • .- Repair Work at Terry Marina Park. Marina 1842HRS. Terry 47 " Total Labor 231A HRS ® 14.50/HR. m S 39356.75 Tractor '® 35.00 HR. _ 11SO.00 Seed 200# ® $1 . 10/# 220,00 Sales Tax 13 .20 233.20 Sprinkler Material 244 .22 Sub Total $ -42114.17 10% overhead 411 .42 Sub Total —f 4, 525.59 10% Profit 452. 56 Total S 4, 978.15 City of Huntingtun Beach JUL 19 1979 r parks Maintenance NOTICETOPAVOR: "Under the Mechanics' Lien Law (California Code of Civil Procedure,Section 1181 et seq ).Any contract.-,wbc^nt•a;!o•• .anor supplier or other person who helps to improve your property but is not paid for his work or supplies, has a r,a^t to enforce a clad"a.a rts roe• property. This means that, after a court hearing, your property could be sold by a court officer and the proceeds cf the sate usd 1c.srts`y ry rndeotedness. This can happen even ,f you have paid your own contractor ,n full, ,f the subcontractor. IaDo,w. or U4wA er rerna,fn w-w-d TERMS: Net 10 days or by.pnor written agreement. 1% per month service charge on all delinquent accounts. f13'4 c.e• anr.umf psus cc'.,«ct.-r fen h,.':.i INVOICE Phoenix Landscape Inc. " *xt .,. , 747 W. Wella Suite 202 orange. Calif. 92667 14#RSC4Pf COM4CM!S �. r;o.2f5: ,s5 �39bETt J. R . Crosby Inc. 11/ 'C:Et►`i� . 207_tR P .0. Box 6589 Orange, California 92667 DATE: June 26, 1979 t,r 1 PROJECT NAME Six Parks °'et"orr•-'�'- w:PROJECT LOCATION Huntington Beach, Calif. =' Repair Bork at Terry Marina Park'. Marina 1841HRS . , 1 Terry 47 Total Labor 2312 HRS ® 14,50/HR. S 3,356.75 Tractor 0 35,00 HR. 260.00 Seed 200# 0 $1 . 10/# a. 220,00 Sales Tax 13 .20 233.20 Sprinkler Material 244.22 Sub Total 4, 114.17 10% overhead 411 .42 Sub Total 40525,59 � r 10% Profit 452.56 Total S 4, 978,15 ,A `t=•fin' � r a f.fY xf /JOTICETOPAVOR: "Under the Mechanics' Lien Law(California Code of Civil Procedure.Section 1181 el seq.l,any contractw.subcont�acttx- •aooir ,1j,"l supplier.or other person who helps to improve your property but is not paid for his work or supplies, has a r.gnt to enforce a cta+m aye:�t roar property. .. This means that. after a court hearing, your property could be sold by a court officer and the proceeds of the sale vivo to satu:! tv.e ++eewebtedness. This can happen even if you have paid your own contractor in full, if the subcontractor, laborer, or wpWier remains w+Da.d.` ERM&? Not 10 days or by prior written agreement. 1% per month service charge on all delinquent accounts..113%per ennumt ylus a7tbc'trci' toe.+ a e_fi )` - .'yT: .. .,. / �1 w•• _ /fie )� y,( j _il 7r�J� "• , V�1�'Ii YI',4 I�V'J1�.1: , �'•.. .�:'1•.�p'IF•SrF `�' lfi1F A.d BRANCH OFFICES NVOICE NO 7M ALABAMA AVE. CueTOMBIi P•O.,. ` �t;�. .•., i,,;ro 'i- 4� • CANOGA PARK,.CALIF.91304 - .`. •':'',:_..•.;�;:.��.;:".1•.• 'rl yy 121211114.1100 DA [ �—q—+ ATP a„ 176000.MAIN ST. � lrn1 Grim &lex Inc. GARDENA,C7ILIF.90249 T ��}pU��Y r D 12131 679.4270 TAK[N BY FILLED BY.•., - .OEytFfleQ044rf_;'.`.'!f.i�t $27 N.MAIN ST. r ' �-3 .El PAL OFFirE • ONANGE,CALIF.92669 4, BACK ORDER TO BACK ORDER FROM P4l=tWNT 47KI► /.. ZZ 1 't St.'7 1714)623`9214 ; ` '• • 6=�"aT ' 2/600 REOIANOS BLVD. X �' t • LOMA LINDA.CALIF.92354 TAXABLE N[a4LH �y �-� 171 4)624-7000 - 4j k-; t P ADEX I I LANDSW E '747 SST 1CArELL.A 0202 ,;.0RAJft__F,CA 92667 P -„ T :. ff' ° - JOB NAME ?�4 • e ''•IS 10 to 8400 EA J PVC RD 519 Ell serf 4Q2 = - 050X)2 15 1 .2500 EA 189.,75 � 1120 EASY Al {air" . t_ r, � r iN! rl � t� ,��� •y .1• ttl • T4.. r , y ,1Y'q'1.1• - A . }/l,r��:•��'�. .�4: i� n.,`r�_ 11 r I �• rt - { _ ;r G TXAM A MUDITIONS 012I NVC.32/T04 RECEIVED BY — s SUBTOTAL J 8« .;:mB:alDeeej =Ann ad t'-e Vxws anC'tx =v sgni-q a cagy hereof,parer F- :9s0+r -*toavae-m m asEotcwtir- d nct po-d poor to the test ay of SALES TAX .,,• a."rmira ii:09mm" ^r[ ofte mwce ire. ammo-,on psi] prior to the 10th, ,A bPS6somomm M. Z mvojvaaff 1rvo.cxs beer interest on the unpaid CHA/iGE CASH C,O.D•;. FREIGHT N%s CMIMMof Ift as WKWA %_1 CW+rn+based coon dt7lective or dameq• '=&=a aft'a me wage raw*dWs afte►deiive.y.4.MCarctwW ism may -v Par Nas ae®laaa mme awvwn and any nxrd»ndim returned is TOTAL -raw as a shyvivemmocairg emorp 6i it an aa.on isDDmmenced to enforce PLEASE REMIT TO P.O. BOX 5427, ORAf4GE;CALIF.92667• ` - -c ..++fa++e!•wre e.rRc+cllec! ro r.m.er attorneys fees and Dom k fir. cp1!nNIr 17141 771-0rM '�' IQ ORIGINAL INVOICE r ,• s, <,-.: BRANCH OFFICES INVOICE NO.`. r 71159 ALABAMA AVG. + S CANOGA PARK,CALIF.91304 1 3Z 12131 884 1180 r' DATE ORDERED DATE 8M1PF O •Q IF 17500 S.MAIN ST. %rl�Jllf�l Sine. I�tc. :GARDENA,CALIF.90248 43079 41979 (2131530 4270 TAKEN BY FILLED ay uv ipalhr; -- - R ' 877 N.MAIN ST. z cgt.T C fe-4_aA.i,� ICE AR" � RpY� 1 T f ^ F • ORANGE,CALIF.B2688 en�ic Shiro eA Asir sastaerr •j :.S- -;s,=p 44 � =j: 1 - _ - 17141 633.3214 - ia;t&. ay : :-M7 1160JREOlANOSBLVD. 'r} _ ;f 7}r' :'_J3 • LOMA LINDA.CALIF.92364 TA%ABL! Ae{ALE 17141 924.7000 dDEN I X LAND SOAP E h ' H 747 d ST KAiELL-A 0202 P 0 .CA ' 92667 T 4 ' 7r 0 JOB NAME ,. ;;j. �3 -�• - �,, .-act s. ±��•• ��., ' --;-- ------- s�--- -.._.._ a- -----6.-800E} -E-A ,'. I111._.I�►p�--- ti Fl�4 ���{.��.,• ,- _ �Y '';'t. ._.t,.,:5.. - j.I�xfMt•,'L —40 ----3.95 00 EA_ 15 's i • 5 4l12 _..Q5CX12—_ 15 err . -- •;,, 4200 EA 1.3..6Q�, 1... ,.1, ... ,. 10' t� SD2-- - -- -...�Q50Xb __ ___• 1. 1 0 ,..5900 EA �. LT442._ Q.50XLH_ 10 1 .2500 EA 1 - 2/X 8 SCN 80 NIPPLE 2, ( z �IT�VG+: C.T7N. _ -rb �>.o►iJ.X't`=tip=`� ���'.-------....___—.�-•---- :.ce•. spar r, .I ,.v.,.�.i(r. •.'0f."- N.• .t ,, � ? ti_ Txv=a C�'I'mm 0121 NVC32/T04 RECEIVED BY SUBTOTAL mumcummom", of am voot++1 aT&,or by signkV •copw hereof, pier rogieDcs uIRK. 1: r&a •jai to drinauem ff pat paid prior to the last day of SALES TAX . hatorco!• fmQwawq On dv& isavo:cas paid prior to the 10th, ,�Ses a 2W 2. Do4mgL ra wivoirss boar interest on the unpaid CHANQE CAS1H,, C.O.D. . FREIGHT s t wime of 71t e1Er ammougm-3 Clamm band upon defective or dam, ZRAK on. &a ants attar delivery.4.Merchandise may , .eR mhe •'BB1JFrw rya Poo c*nwvv mW am► nwich ndisa returned is ' TOTAV sues to o=9 A" Cwrp_&Ill action is conw eneead to enforce . --`-- cxmwmw E smormw oBttar•Oea/tw oaAswmlad to reco,% ► anorney's has and Dons PLEASE REMIT TO P.O. BOX 5427.ORANG>:".CALIF,92E'- TELEPHONE (714) 7"-06 •I ' r'1W":I0AI INVOICE BRANCH OFFICES INVOICE NO � 2 t rr .rti 7659ALABnVAAVE. cuaioiAeRv.ii:' • CANOGA PARK,CALIF.91304 (213)834)180 MAIN ST. TWO OAT* 11500S. / p/Y 77dl9 is �,•jr�E*wq �£sQf Inc. • GARDENA,CALIF.90248 .Y � 1213)5384270 TAKEN BY PILLED By OpL1Y�ppY -' 827 N.MAIN ST. t ti rs: !I;'d t f f:1:1E i • ORANGE CALIF.9206E z, BACK ORDER f.0 BACK ORDtlR FROM IttlWSMT UIL ;, YC� "Cl B:w. 5417 03•7214 .i. 74603 REDLANDS BLVD. `�i, :' .a .,'a. :�Jf t • LOMALINDA,CALIF.92354 i I ❑_ r Ve °Yr -` - -_—' I7t11824.1000 •nxneu assAu" rfk P.-C EN t X L.d1`NUSC.APf a47 NEST'_ RAYELI A 0202 p _ x :-O E.CA 92667 rtu O JOB NAME P 3 : v b 140�6-._ 0 75XL2 ..--. _ .____ 2 ! 8.71 EA 37.42 6. I4:. 1" _V41) 2 Esc.N Z 1 3.4700 EA 4rrT 54 1 — 3/4 BRASS LEE -- 1 1.10 3 _4195_4—_______ 1 .8100 EA •8Ai 6 1 (}1.503 H-401.--- 1 4.8000 EA 4e80 44411 `< i• , 6 ... . wneew'.i ra L � 5 ••fi�rr.. �x�..�s-a" T�£titl�[' i COMfTlOM M21 NVC32/T 18 RECEIVED BY 9�. SUBTOTAL" Tb tL-^z-e*p ae�-av--S 30 V* ?cxads s+o. ^v %VAV+p a Copy hereof,2,e► :Wwm r 11, Zia s ow;* --„eat it .•air pe i pnor to the last day of SALES TAX *a•II•cwm- On s wcovens -*w itr•vorces paid prior to the 10th, i w-l-ei bear interest on the unpaid CHARGE CASH C.O.D. FREIGHT crw= a r+.cm 30 V%.ow asv-_1 upon defective or damag- _a--`•`' ,2*•par+ Wars to eszsdu mgrw fv%o can after delivery. 4.AAerchandise may •^ma;2 , -w-A-w d .d0whe Wmw =wsent an6 any merchandise returned is X TOTAL --� 'q:1 14 w wmver g"ornney's fees aaian is commenced land costs PLEASE REMIT TO P.O. BOX 5427, ORANGE, CALIF. 92M'; : '+r1 lnllnnlr_ r71�1 'r71-I�Cr1r1 - - , BRANCH OFFICES ; '.. ✓ -�.• M F ; L- - CUSIDER P.O. - Q a _{�+ '• 4 + 827 NORTH MAIN STREET OV 5Y3 :�. • ORANGE.CALIFORNIA 92668 DATE ORDERED DA•f S wa -- TELEPHONE(7141633-3214 � — p �/ >1p/ �•. 17500 S.MAIN STREET � - ,aRe e� r• :: o• __�� • CARSON.CALIFORNIA 90746 - },f;T :'_ :E!,Fr1aI, 7-F::_F t TELEPHONE 121J)6394�70 9a K' R r0 h.G4 wvE cw_a .1,. cs;t 1 7459 ALA6AMA AVE. >sE. :.A.. ^R h:A. 4266E •.CANOGA PARK.CALIFORNIA 91304 "_"s_ p►•��•rc i4� llt Q6+gam - TELEPHONE(21316841180 rAXAGLE - ES..LA S. PII0011 LANDSCAPE. INC. H T47 i. XATZLLA #202 P — _ • GOA 42. CA. 92667 y T . O ¢ �. r. 3950�.s6 2Q9 `pt JOB NAMEQ2 Ike, .,;. ._....— �.,.... e� - ', _� O 7-7 IiII { �• • ..� �- i1•,R'1 t-.��+T �• \.. E ' ,A �a J'j• ''w•.N��� 4. .- ._... 'ems' �1�'��''�'S I l}.:' G hi} ♦ F•� .:t- ;ro'!1"6'tIW 1r�'1 � ,� �'Z•,w, i„ 4•("- �l.I•`�;�'�A�,�.: 7.•k•..tfR't;�-f1,• •:y ���:•7' '.r•f c• (frl•{' ��••' j�1i^P'r. ''.��' y- S J _ �I-�,�?. �- i}:y _X! .fv(:..�'a� s•j±�.^i. ,�2Y�, •`C�pT ZZ/, t-'•j."_ t. ti y 'k ►"'ia'l�- .$�� -r-'- ;, sK+ _•n' 4 =;: t t. Y. a.. ,t��':i°•arn!�,r�(•. �,��vW y•a.� ��.y�;ut•: �:jt�:'.t �•v'r v �' __ ._... .. _ ..... p,T}{, f'a4 Yj MI'\Ip':"�.,.;a�.:r 4n. y, ps,Fj•>„n] M.nj+1'i ?7t � ,Y'q,-'..-�'. '•� r. y c '+,,yr k,v.;...I:,,.p••?qD►^r• s", Totrtb RECEIVED BY SUBTOTAL y fir,)ar ae► &W(cr br xg+,Inp a avy►woof, bvyw Z:T—mtm -ice indidwhouaw kitiv:44 Wier to'J*Wm day of the , . — SALES TAX %-ssa**20 9 eta.Anwom me D xv to tt 10t7,,may be /s "��A� Deer u*au'ma on the unpedd sum at the `8 !.:pA• :�:1`;`'tilEf • ` - s4mmm i Cb*=band►1pwi estoc"m or 0wrQQW goods W&i Sm dads a��..& hfarwnd+ae may not be 3, -Ol1 m*pur�aria mr rawdmdise roumw La wt>Ixct to a TOTAL ._M S.41 masses►Is ao ft atarx+ad to &%#am payment r• >+a iftou r+ lmfteum4w 7 Weay'afateatwo� nwairredn PLEASE REMIT TO 827 N. MAIN T., OfdA>,IGE, CALIF, ° .. - :. TELEP110NE (7141 771-K00 ' '-._..- -. .. _.- .... --.._. .....�_ _.r• .. —�'--..h..gstRw:�.rRhtP'r•-'ae�'C;tC. II':x IAN BRANCH OFFICES ;•_�;. o a27 NORTH MAIN STREET ,?`r'; • OAANOE,CALIFORNIA 92e88 w ro ... I+t •;.. me TELEPHONE 171416 121A f' :t;a• 178009 MAINSTREET K .:, I- r• -�.. t • CARSON,CALIFORNIA 90740 - 'A57- '?74,trf 'Q iC�i�='.•., •"):}YCL 1 TELEPHONE (2131 11198•4770 7657 Al4t)AMA 'AVE.. CANOGA PARK.CALIFORNIA 91304 _- -- _ . _ ''.•r !7*;ir: TELEPHONE 12131884•1180 TAXABLE IM 4f1A:( ❑ , S •• w' P' ES11 LAND3CAPE. IYC. P 747 W. KAULLA /zoo T :. o "A31.$9. CA. s2n�-) 7 � JOB NAME qC-994 U., ty Alp ., �- I ,yCJ- `fir` '.,',ni' � YI. :l' ,:. a �,,..• �,� r ,... 7 tcT 7,-xT- . - :. __..__. .._- _- .. ___.... .r -..• _ •,,gyp. '_ Y l i 'I�( Y'- F � .Ts.W. J .�TIy A f•` 1T '�+7 y .J�?•{,}n e " ��.�-: �{�{'.r ', w• !4 �; ... gut .+' r t-� ;t,.... .. ( *•• :'•• w�K E ,. ...__ _ - _.__— _ , -) 't!}'r r'+�::, _.,.,7 �n.T.. •`,, .�. -tad •.{s•5�.r�, ,,t,�„¢ �{. a v- �•� _...__.._. _ .. _. _...__.._...__. ��7t'� ,{ „p�1��{r {ac+r "1 si`' ,<-r :;� t';t �,r',{-: / .'k� ` n r� c is .h.��i- ;[ ,•.v¢ V . —--__ -- -- --- 7A �+.r ryrryc ,y,> -:'fit e .exit• I,, 1 y., 'i�`--'' - .1 A�'� ,�'l'� �» '++,�: fi• 1: `t;Y t-;1.. {d.. .. _ -. _ _..._...__ 'wow►+,•�,t�' a1,fi�'���.;�.:i,:'{.1, �� .•c•. -.,I'+; ', R Th![CT,:�•'�•{• i {; 1t •tTT>iOaaS RECEIVED BY SUBTOTAL t1 d*%-w vpett ON gmm area:a t-f s+yuN a cosy Wool, buyer r�erae L 711"r.vmm a mtnlramer It.^Ct paid or,Cr to the tan day of the SALES TAX -^S1c>dam"me teaaant Sate. t: prlw to the tah, may be :E:. ' - •r% .& 00100am ersc=a best on the unDAW sum at theC G .:CA pC �'Itttl zGf X' dnr aesaetL i bawd active or da/T*CW Goods snw»mart.t/1m taw attar ama*tvy. .tvterchandba may Rot be TOTAL +o- r�i�>Mma w1w=aa"ar+d arq ►oturried Is subject to a - a L It an anvil is uvrlrr nwrJ to udoros psYment PLEASE REMIT TO E1Z7 N. WAIN ST., ORaNuE- CALIF. A"Sla �'£ . t la mower attu►1ay a low and coats 1►ltuned d TELEPHONE: .71.:1 771-QC*3 a. .�;•"', -... Ica. Z. _ ,. .... • .r-t IPeatrl.N7 rr�At 7>•'s:'�d :,�+Sf�.t�iia�.':B.•si. BRANCH OFFICES - r �• CUSTOMER i O - y�I V.. S9 ALABAMA AVE. - :R 1 •fin'' _ NOG AfANK CAllf.11704 'J J • 1 `y I -o• JIB MG I .r. ne • ([����JJ-�JJ QI// /� 17OOD t.MAIN eT.tlon r 161 hic. 4A•O[NA,CAIIi,a>,. 4 Br .LL 0• ORANGE CAL If.ln" ywip9sn �; !r�.,� _ j .• • LOMA L1NDLI/veJlb[ TAXABLE 1 } L'E110 LAB bscAPE• INC. S a T Hx�- 5... . 92667 CA P c T .�95fl5 .6 109 JOB NAME '1 qq -T -�J 16 Fr •'!EICW�},`�+ .�,:7r��+�1.1��-Y i,�. -ir,.�- T .j�'�. e. --SIP R.1 Yf f' i''rra'7�tf Iry ?3 x aye_ M • OIL 5 , FCPnc,. is , s."",•*, 3.' IP►' „fit` .. .... .. .•.... n. -27 LA 5 } , '? pg`o+y _h '/il• .M .,••/SI1•�. M`O..l sC - f� �.. ;-•, t�,�- . 3 -ram .. C �17 >x' ,r • -: '4. • ;:. � � RECEIVED BY /�\j SUBTOTAL 4 td A..poft iWJW t1w a 9*V •COPY hereOl, Wry. '_2fto Ease a flalbt7p[s[t o not paid p►m to the tmt day of the ���.{/ SALES TAX zV tuts sera pdC•pr'a to ttls ton+.may es «Q "-%LoIFlxpm+t i i alms tw itift eR on the Wmadd sum at the C14AA13E CASiI C.O.O. FREIGHT71 ,S ;r :xrelauarEn. 1 Gimlarr bmW upon dstecOw a dartngad goods ,v 1DAtsW%o t"s altar dWM". 4. Mwdw% tee may nOt be x zr: aelo air�er�anclse returned to wbjed to a TOTAL i4 dwqp IL part uvkw to mmrirxw to wwo►m peynwnt ,,AW31awiad so# o w attnon Wo Aria and coats We wred as N 1.E:A E f R E 0.1 i T T i: '.C ' ' r:• `.1 C. :. , ;i-. 4 , URIGINAi 1, ;vylC IA' ICE NO. Q'; B 5 "t� RANCH OFFICES ,.: �'.•,. «. �,. , . CUSTOMER P.d. .. _ -,'_. • CANOGA PARK.CALIF.01204 i`.,.}. G..;�,ftv(' J/ - 0/21 swine ! MI 7t ^' �_ r s 1rw.l \.I.�a1 C.?j Inc. 17500E YAIw/T. G ~' ! + ,h'•e'r�:•. �^,'E •.GAROEMA.CALIP.•02'N iA EN BY' RI LED B7 - 4 •►. - • 01PAMGf.CAL IF.026" A K ER TO BACK O D! F 171A1 M3314 V• ?KQ1 At OlAMOi BLVD. y: ;y •1 _... ...._.... _- 17M1.2A-7LAIWA �CAl1P.*t]SA TAMABLE � RESALE � P-.L3iS LABD�.APE. LIIC. . ``` �£ A' H . pp�� r1. 747 W• - CATELLA 1202 P `Y' T k -2- OAASQZ T aE° w '' I G,► JOB NAME v`r iMA �;R .�V.1t VL .7f f5 •. :}• ` _>y ,1 �!Y .i�1�� •1��0. 1.+t' tr, ��1 yn�ti r ITEM �;- � - ��t r"'•7/ia�[rj(ja• � r`..MyCr.r 4.�y.h (' J.-_h � ...���lY �VI'.f .,�v;.• � G yr'�f�7 i.l :d' - '1 '1�' 1'Ij,- '( -•;!f2°�rfl,•�.1�.��` � r _ 1 IL Ir r was0 ooxorrmw ECEIVED BY .�f. • _ SUBTOTAL ,�� rip �ars-v 1 e� •mDp t►ssd. txryer �...F Aff s MM s er me PW Prof to Ito yaw day of the t lw"ms wasonwo dws etvaaeas C'atd prior 10 41s loth,map to SALES TAXO• 44]"U&003smonotJsfe/slsMwovew a on00wVnldwnatft CFIAR4B CASH CAD. ' FREIGHT y '. s= zAw sz mwa i ckam beam cow awsw%e or dartfaow owo ='imam armor,am dws~mom7.a. bkrcbwxfto nw not be ,:s•_.r searm,r mow aura so MV M1wceMM*M rstwntd is to a TOTAL. ,� q�f =r'• 9 s at2a a��W tL msse�m0 b odoras paylttar+t vX' '^-`•ra•IP"+••.•"Ta-000-m arIve1ns.'s teas and mw fturrod as 1 is•\ . 1i I 1 i c: . .%). ;! I,r ',4 ';, is FI A fi G E,GA U F.92667 (('��fin( ,j(��/��(7 ..: IN��ICE NO. BRANCH OFFICES _ -A� CUSTOMER P.O. '.i4:;.:: :q�. 7 r. *. 877 NORTH MAIN STREET 083 V • ORANGE,CALIFORNIA R266a U ORU 60 A O to ,:.'S-• TELEPHONE 1714)633 3214 17500 S )MAIN STREET T B FIL LE U40WtOf t.ry i0�• _ _ _ • CARSON.CALIFORNIA 90746 - - - '� - •;�,'J: TELEPHONE 17131638.42;0 _ BA 70 BACK ORDER FROW Y. i1Nw NOGA PARK.CALI FO 16l9 ♦LAEIAMA AVE. �'" �' - �` -`•'' • CA RNIA 81301 ,, A F,•���•� t f :r�1J TELEPHONE 1213)884-li180 TAXABLE V' RESALE •``r_ t -�+[� a 1 ti P tX u LA'4 D�C A P C s kiY. f `~ S. I Y Cal ` P T i7 log w'•.r •ctyc • JOB NAME S I�n . N.'�7���,777, if' 4' �'*.p .•�i' '�-c� :y •'! '4• 8 r .E� ��•'.c�O L 7a I wl R 1 en at 7 We TZ yj } �• #!, n J �.. JNy =sf- r I fi Y X , . ; 1� •i f ��l ' - r•r Y d• 1 - _ fir.�,:. ''�• •;Yi - '�� :, I- �•;c'- $�•.�rill'. '� .•�.: �,.li.'��� _.. .... ........ .... ._.._ - i jj,� by ,t I I 'c t_ .ti"N.'4W . . t ..J • r v,. + .. .. - ----. ... ...__-....... _..... _. _. .. _. .... - ._;< - fir:' ;:�• :r i (,M.'It 'fir i:nr a.•I'l;F;e.. 'V`y;'y�4_jti'y', q JA . ..14 1 1.- ._ _ _ .. .. .. •t1)`�;.;:, ,t1v. {,49(.l.,q.,:- `� , i� �. .. _ _ .__._-. -... ._ rB err.- .1:�'1'lIl':� �1Nr7j•�iI - f � ,:' T�t�& RECEIVED BY SUBTOTAL .z.V4 ar.7ntw-v 7: •es ;mma re d q ug%nt a molr nvd. txryw ,Qv a Ty Aft==,..aal=m w u 7a von O'ta 10 It*&W day o►the �� SALES TAX t . ftX1 l% to agwm m sea PF.a7ar vac prior to the lath, may be _C2%:.1 OmbaWave wrcmm b w~vW On VW unpaid mum Id the Pl"Gt .`CA$H ,C,Q.O_ FREIGHT now Am mm. IL Oma Omm d wm owaly"IN dEasopad 9oodm raemr ow"fs eemp atly deam1 l morma"o"o" not bw u Dots go wd mq�o2 m►obur.ea Isto a TOTAL - Z PI rASr r1FRAIr TI1 R')7 N. MAIN ST.• ORANGE, CALIF. 9.6G$.:*, ...,. .,, ;. AAA eve irQe. . � Z7-= o f 7�K cs --�Jo �- -! -- -- - - •�µ., _�i�/�-.___:u�i_S_....__ .T._.. 4�'OC/1�O� 4�'�e.-s CO nor � STo��o�: --- ---- or? lG_.iQ�'eo s_- —wi711 ?_/je /�Jo sT_ d,�/�_ ; 06 At— �� v rcQs �o o r•ir -- rT 700 ir! T/fc 7+'/3 u- u/ A! Zm-r-c^--Ir h2-3 �J _ . . _ ....�--_. _. . � �oir Qsc�..�_✓..-8...�.-_C+''�'-sue' -77i'l .,.. GiI.P!!1�' q�4 psp�r 7`'0 --��'�'�i1 K/<< 3�3T•ar� a T ? /3 Tlo7r /�Ive•✓ T� T If'C c�r�t I•yJ.��'� i S �/ti� ?jf� _ )oe���ic-- !/SL/�?,-:_._ �r_- ;we lir/cs C J) J Z his• =r__ .__._.._. �•S _ I�O.�'r/7 ltJ 41' �:�.__._ _ ._._ .. ��/..�:.__�4wr-.-:_4rccr_s__-�u%�, T�>�cr�7rv/ems :s�•1 4ioc�i,dfs to 4e / 4 12 > o f ro.�c� _ds 6 -7� u,6/,'c so ,o%t To tv T ac•E o 7i 7'`4.if- r-- 4 •.::. . .. .. .poi - . - y /17 6s . -------- .•:.: 9 T/o G f�y Ik�s r del ,Of I.-lL/! rt. Yn �j� /f,pS �' C/'Gcv ecce%Te _/�ems' __�clP�✓e ��'T !/i.Si •S�i3- 7y o -� P- 79 4 . �'e-�/ m� • low �1rs `r Ave • r. .. �C/4 eta S 7`he • 2/vres �e��a ced a ,r!m i 0.2 sar z Ailey. o f o/ c �a ra .�s ..ram--«.__.. .... _....._----- _--_._......_...... ....._.- ... _ -. .. _._ .--. ....._ _ .... ._ _ Ufdr 14fa40,f �a9° REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse Department Harbors, Beaches, Recreation & Parks Date Prepared June 25 1 , 19_._Z9 Backup Material Attached [j Yes No Subject OLD TOWN PARK - NEGATIVE DELI Ag ATION1 978-49 City Administrator's Comments APPROVED BY CITY COUDGrtI• Approve as recommended 19LL. A- CITY Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: U Statement of Issue: On August 14, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution #4650 which approved an application filed under the Nejedly Hart Bond Act of 1976 for the acquisition and development of 5.81 acres known as the Old Town Park Site. As part of the Bond Act requirements, an environmental review has been conducted and the determination has been made that a Negative Declaration be submitted to City Council for approval. Recommended Action: That the City Council approve Negative Declaration #78-99. Analysts: The grant amount that1he City is applying for is $368,798 which is to provide for the acquistion of 1.60 acres and the development of the site which totals 5.81 acres. Alternative: Not to approve the Negative Declaration, therefore the City would not receive its allocation. Funding Source: Nejedly Hart Bond Act J. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $75.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Date CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Received: Applicant Authorized Agent Project _ Number: N D 1$ 2000 MAIN STREET Department of Origin Mailing Address �e Ti.536-5479 S Other Application Telephone or Permit Numbers : CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Property Owner 2000 MAIN STREET Mailing Address Telephone NOTE: To assist the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in making, a determination as to whether a significant environ- mental effect may result from the proposed project, the following information must be supplied. Maps referred to below may be viewed at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. 1.0 Project Information (Please attach Plot Plan and submit photo- graphs of subject property) 1. 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. .To develop 5.81 acres into a neighborhood park to be known as Old Town Park. a. If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to whether it is neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of - sales areas (if any) , estimated employment per shift, any potentially hazardous materials which may be used, etc. N/A -1- EM.,.RONMENTAL CLEARANCE REPOR, J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach (Recreation) ADDRESS: 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 , . PROJECT TITLE: ND 78-99 (Old Town Park) PROJECT pESCRIPTION: Proposal to develop 5. 81 acres into a neighborhood park PROJECT LOCATION: Yorktown Avenue at Huntington Street An initial study has been conducted by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources. The initial study consisted of a review of the Environmental Information Form submitted by the project sponsor and is supported. by adequate data to support the findings stated below. Based on the initial study it has been found: EIR REQUIRED The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. The EIR is to be prepared by a designated Consultant or ,the Planning Staff. TENTATIVE n The proposed project will not have a significant effect NEGATIVE on the environment. Therefore, it is recommended that DECLARATION no Environmental Impact Report be required for this project. / 4 Any comments on the Tentative Negative Declaration shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Resources for reply and inclusion in the report to the discre- tionary body. All comments and/or information ' pertaining to the Tentative Negative Declaration should be filed in writing with the Department of Planning and Environmental Resources no later than 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day following the posting of this document. 19 D to of Posting FINAL The Negative Declaration was adopted by the NEGATIVE on 19 DECLARATION -- SIGNED: TITLE: Ass ' stant Planner ' _ �` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TTo Norm Worthy, Director From Environmental Review Committee Recreation, Parks & Human Services Subject ND 78-99 (Oldtown Park Date September 12, 1978 Improvements) Negative Declaration 78-99, pertaining to the establishment of a neighbor- hood park in the "Old Town" area has been distribted for public review and no comments were received. The Environmental Review Committee has conducted an initial study of the project and determined that a Negative _Declaration should be recommended to the City Council for adoption. It is the Committee' s understanding that attached .site plan is conceptual and, therefore, further environ- mental review of the project may be necessary. The ERC recommends that the following mitigation measures be recommended as conditions of approval for the project. 1. The project design shall provide for off-street parking. 2. A drainage relief system shall be provided in accordance with condition,- on the approved tract (TT 9653) directly south of the site. i ames R. Barnes hairman JRB/s cc: Rich Barnard Bill Patapoff ►Vick Morris CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �-, SEP 12 1978 Recreation & Parks De row' partmenf NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 7 8-14 8 TO: Vick Morris, Park Analyst PROJECT,APPLICATION,OR PERMIT NO: Acquisition of four i 4-) parcels of property for development of a park site. PROJECT TITLE/DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: East side of Huntington Street between Yorktown and Utica Avenues. PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Huntington Beach EXEMPTION IDENTIFICATION: Categorical Exemption Ongoing Project Sec. 15116 LJ Sec.15070 Class 16 (� Emeigency Exemption Activity not Defined as Project L_l Sec 15071 (b) dt(c), See.15037 (b) ❑ iNinieterial Project Other(Explain) See.15073 The project(private)is a lesser part of another project for which an EIR has previously been prepared;the original project and EIR were approved, and there were no substantial changes proposed in the project to involve new environmental impacts not eonaidered in the original EIR. (Sec.15067) Original EIR Number: Date Approved: Pursuant to the CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 and provisions of the HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE,which provide that an activity is exempt from environmental evaluation where it can be determined with certainty that the activity will not have a significant effect on the environment the activity referenced herein is therefore granted EXEMPTION STATUS with the following statement of findings: l fnnn�� I� August 4 , 1978 Name and Title of Person CertifyinE Re nneraugaa Date: ;dames R. Barnes, Assidt l. / venerai resat snips or the project to unuiny properties :' (Information able in •Planning Departs on District Maps) LAND USE ELEMENT USE ZONING GENERAL PLAN resent VACANT Proposed PARK R2 - 0 1Surrounding north RESIDENTIAL R2 - 0, RA MED. DENSITY i Surrounding south RESIDENTIAL 0 MED. DENSITY i I Surrounding east RESIDENTIAL R2 MED. DENSITY j Surrounding west RESIDENTIAL CD - 0 MED. DENSITY i I I 1. 8 What will be the maximum occupancy of all structures proposed within the project? i N/A i i 1. 9 List other public agencies having jurisdiction by law in approval, authorization, certification or issuance of a permit for this project: ❑ O.C. Flood Control District ❑ State Division of Highways ❑ O.C. Sanitation District ❑ Corps of Engineers ❑ O.C. Air Pollution Control ® City Council District Planning Commission ❑ California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission ❑ Board of Zoning Adjustments California Regional Water ❑ Design Review Board Quality Control Board ® Other: Recreation and Parks Commission ❑ Local Agency Formation Commission -3- J b . If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of units and associated facilities. N/A' C. If the project is institutional, indicate 'the major function, estimated employment per shift and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A d. List all types of building materials to be used for all structures in the project. (Submit detailed elevations if available) Concrete, wood, wiremesh, P.V.C. pipe, sheet metal , stucco, copper wire, steel , glass. 1. 2 Location of project: (Address, nearest street intersections) Yorktown Avenue at Huntington Street 1. 3 Legal Description (Lot, 'Block, Tract) East Side Villa Tract Block 2304, 22Q4 2.303 R.M.' 91-32 Parcel 4 11 fl If 2203 N. . " " If If " 2303 Parcel. 3 1. 4 Project land area (acres) 5.81 Number of parking spaces 0 1. 5 Square feet of building area 2625 dumber of floors 1 1. 6 What is the- percent and coverage proposed by the project for : a. Building 1% b. Paving 10% C. Existing landscaping 30% d. New landscaping 70% -2- 1-:10' If the proje is commercial, industria%or residential what is the roadway distance in miles from the project to the nearest: a. Shopping Center N/A b. Freeway exit N/A C. Elementary School (refer to Recreation Areas Map) N/A d. Public park (refer to Recreation Areas Map) . N/A e. Scenic Highway (refer to Recreation Paths, Corridors , and Areas Map) N/A 2. 0 Existing Environmental Setting of Proposed Project: 2.1 Seismic: a. What is the distance from the project to the nearest fault line (refer to Fault Map) ? 50 to 100' b. Is the project site within a designated earthquake hazard area . (refer to Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone Map) ? NO 2. 2 Drainage and Flood Control: a. Please describe specifically the volume of drainage and how it will be accommodated: The entire 5.81 acres will be drained by two methods, one is sheet flow, the other is saturation. If need be, a catch basin can be placed within certain low areas of the park and drain into the existing storm drain by means of underground pipes. b. Is the project within a flood hazard area? NO' Or natural flood plain? NO (refer to Flood Plains and Flood Hazard Area Maps) C. What is the distance from the project to the nearest flood channel? (refer to Flood Control Channels Map) 2500' d. What is the distance from the project to the nearest shoreline? 1 .5 mi les 2. 3 Topography: a. Does the project site exhibit excessive slope? (refer to Topography:Slope Map) NO b. What is the distance from the project to the nearest bluff? (refer to Principal Vistas and Features Map) ApprnY_ 0_5 miles C. What is the range and slope of the property as it now exists? Rangec Inward the cnuth� clnpe estimated at less than_ 5% -4- 2. 4 Land Form: a. Is the property presently graded? NO b. Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed 500 ± , the acres of land to be graded 5.81 , the amount of earth to be transported on the site f and the amount of earth to be transported off the site NONE C. What will be the maximum height and grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? 6" to I d. Is the surrounding area graded? YES If so, how will it affect subject property? Street drainage from the existing residential development on White Sands . drains onto the proposed park site and will dissipate into the lawn area. 2 . 5 Soils: a. Type of soil on the project site? Romana Loam b. Are there any Peat and/or Organic Soils on the site? NO (refer to Peat and Organic Soils Map) c. Does the site exhibit moderate to high expansive soils? YES (refer to Expansive Soil Distribution Map) 2. 6 Geologic: a. Is the site within a high risk geologic problem area? YES (refer to Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map) b. Is the site within an area which has experienced a variable and complex pattern of land subsidence? NO (refer to Land Subsidence Map) . 2. 7 Historic/Archaeological: a. Could there possibly be any objects of historic, aesthetic or archaeological significance on the site? If so, please describe. (refer to Archaeological Sites, Historic Landmark -17 Sites and Principal Vistas and Features Maps) NO —5— 2. 8 Wildlife/Vegetation: a. Does any wildlife use the site for a place to feed, nest or rest? .. If so, please list: DUCKS AND BIRDS . b. Will any of this wildlife be displaced by the proposed project? NO If so, how? It will be enhanced with the refilling of the lake. C. Indicate the extent, size and species of plant life per- j sently existing on the site. I - Approx. 50% of the site has a mixture of willows about 4' in height, mist. weeds and ground cover including small areas of wild grass d. Indicate the location and area (in acres or square feet) 'i and type of plant life to be removed as a result of the project. Include number type and size of trees to be .re- moved. Approx. I dozen trees are present on the site which will remain. As much as possible of the remaining vegetation around the existing pond area will be preserved. Approx. 3 acres of vegetation will be removed. 2. 9 Water Quality. a. Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands, or inland water areas? i i NO b. Describe how the project will effect any body of water. The existing lake is to be refilled and a recirculating pump system !� will be installed. i 2.10 Air Quality: a. If the project is industrial, describe and list air pol- lution sources and quantity and types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. i I N/A b. List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. NONE -6- 2. 11 Noise: a. Describe any adjacent off-site noise sources (i.e. , airports, industry, freeways) . I N/A b. What noise will be produced by the project? If available, please give noise levels in decibel measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced. -NON its C T OM ✓CC i(-4\V-.n 4 �n C.y�VI���� C. How will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? 2.12 Traffic: a. Indicate the present traffic volume on arterials and added trips per day from the project. Yorktown E/B 1775 W/B 1785 Huntington N/B 1806 S/B 1806 Delaware N/B 2245 S/B 2245 b. What trip during week approx. 25 per day, weekend approx. 100 a is the a fisting speed limit at the project location? Huntington St.- 45 Yporrktown Ave. - 35 C. Indica e points of egress and ingress to the project. White Sands Drive, Huntington St. Delaware St . 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities: 3.1 Water: a. Will the project -require installation or replacement of new water mains? YES b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and lo- cation of new lines. SEE ATTACHED C. Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. Existing lake is to be refilled, a reci rculatory pumping system will be involved. Volume of water is estimatdd at 1 .5 million gallons. —7— Are there measures in the design of the project (architectural y treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual. effect?! E-S^ If so, please describe. Landscaping is planned on the south .side of the project for screening. i i 4. 5 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to 1 facilitate resources recovery (e.g. solar heating/special j insulation etc. ) ? j YES - Recirculation of the lake water. 5. 0 Alternatives: I Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? No Please explain all project alternatives. 6. 0 Additional Information: (regarding questions above) . If necessary attach additional sheets . i ;I i I hereby certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. !P&/�W?� 6-C 9 79 Signature Datq)FiIed I i i i -10- I l 3. 2 Sewer: a. Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer mains? NO b. Attach a map showing the service area, size and location of new lines N/A C. Discuss the capacity required for the project and how this relates to existing effluent volumes within the system. N/A 3. 3 Utility Lines : a. Indicate length and type of new offsite transmission and distribution facilities required to serve project. N/A b. Do any overhead electrical facilities require relocation? NO If so, please describe facilities. C. Do existing lines have to be increased in number or size for project?� NO If so, . please describe how. 3. 4 Solid Waste: a. Describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. Type: N/A Pounds/Day 3. 5 Education: a. For residential projects , note primary and secondary school districts: Primary: N/A Secondary: N/A -8- LSS ] In1.I A'er . e I f °;4)srluL� i QNSTI II WE ><�I'z __ �I.�rR�5 n- �• � �Q gD 2 �f_D SNnFrI •• f —GARFIELp • . iIa I I b-._. i aL04C<;RE a - J I a our Jl u�li a 94 s 3 'J © UN (ANFN 2�' ! I, 1°'.Y)NGf` YEllr Z , 4 Le _ I w.DfB I�Cr• [A4✓ O� l LOEY ; Y.Ygy(Ve(rAi �E �r1 LITCNIiF LO < �'•aL O Y Se 04R rl RCMlf ll rNe•o-C N r.4�„ 1.. .L%!)$n-�LR ION�< VrV U11 l O-_ °1 V JAI r IT'- g 1 / - Nr0[r4RA Lp o0 4Euaoo ' 4j' ) l J� �' `� �,yilx• o-;S—r•' ^ 'I '� f rnooN Co.CL•Y r _5 /� : fT 1y �v l �rf.Uric _ 4JIf p 1141.(1FAT� MY AE`j� I �n f€y�YJ �N4 Lw N ;li�llr�nrta r � Y.•r..aLJ��. All N• �# _ 14' t I y f. y Ipr r Sn4 r151_ J. F wLL14N'. ran rl; _ r \�'Sr1.V�L • .. ____._ I ]Llrt'N A�-- 2'l •. '� Ci lfn.w(1.0 ,_BR•Br11N T j1YrNJf1 Y`4t/I.1I rI (� 1 ¢ '\'C PLr.■ 'f(1"�a :F..v l�r rl IKRI Ini Sliri �! w 4N.w _ •' o•�p' �I Tr- ' G --�'.'.i�nOur7 i�Jrr i.� r..�_' � rT"" °4N•Nl, ro �RWI 1k, -f '. Ham+ I.-__� I I • / 'r v Rwi •.ar E,Ywi_ 'i(� 1y [rviL 1 nl' •'n�o 1 ,elxnrar5• bw L 1••f,vJ.NCIpV I,I •I aFl. l .R -r ¢FY{tT'.r.(11T.1 l y$$_ "•. NC„ I.FN rrA , . _S_4Nr r • F • 'll� aFl d •� •YI•J an4Nlp ° J•r v t r 1.. I aL , „ W of NaN.uC•[ �.or.rl 4.N i C.'}'� a„ 111I v ; fl4F eKr JS p a Rv , < „<4NNIa P4a1 w•IYK�a TON b. u j' c ,`, ( [ qn• N V•nrl.NE !, Yi. n � :_ //I'1� -I i��i�•�•'I � %<L�vr erg uA°JLtRC�i '; 1 O �nf. � �• �3F �1.} raaoN oL.l Cr � I Ll � �' /�Wu4s IaI1L1 r - ifs rr frN Infra If IGI ln.[ �rrf ', MI,I j•,1'U'fl• t ' v,ONEER ._ y SPR,N rICL4_ �C% Y p n O r� t •• -__ f� rt C_LIPPER G r(- (• /:, I 1_nvNN1 IV`Fl •I'ARNrCYt• �r� 3 GE rT r3PERG X D ll } twyCgs'� J Al `7y !r a r I -_.cR• o'•(_a f �(l s �C II, :f ]A °`r►b 7 a n i N rl nr,.U•: /Or < n ._ _ �I rl f�� I I , .•I,J r __.- I 4 oL I `•1 LOM4 1•QHTL w .N p`.9 ' 4� ___ =� y1�� •r y_XII. r.V.it, _l, f ' n 1� ROCnV MOIMrnr T` SYJ/„ ii IH OSwF(.. lyl I �16.n "'Isllf� OILf. 1 I� fVr•.1 6 O . -- mLrnrERR4N1•N U n JI ran Nq•_/' .E I �, I �f�i t.Y al r_• +f 66r. ro i ud4U 1TI- �r I. 5 m uY (.(CNA A •< V rHr 'J n ` 1 .� / 1 f rN' 'AF Vr •� I �.•r�' 1417 ) If• V I ,r .n G)( t °1 IEL LO B. I c_- __ � � � ��r- •N; ,, wIiLR ;�—�-x- � -�11r J[1� , � :l ��P . � , fJ (-� i.vicr, N 1 , L Sb olr n �-iAN! I�.,! `I l."1 Nr4N-o j y atoo. TI 11 r 10 rN KYOr -llF 1 �n,Nfy]J_'. LZ d r) xwJrN' Fr°! 'I.`. d ..r - NUNST R IN!r lr vl u 7 r LL SiC I ' 1' yi' 6 r•r yA]LOY ' < ��' a(, i• sfLrou l t T r�n� r '. :.IDI epy 1tfY �•I. �•1 '! _ IN'1•�°3)!s_ ._ U y/ ; �{ A r•(rN Il4z•tM)1 _ q w n nrt•. LLY �+ i a' kff InB nlff °i ° un nYl;4eY° T ISOwER" :u Q t[n•Nu f <+ SEII v4 •1 A ' R.••t1 a NE. (LLiw•NrN j SCN .noog�l 1,11 i \ / 4 •t ; .• ® W :a 1•a •A f.r.•.. j fR1 SE - yi r kk r I �I �, .�•+ '� OrIRf u� /IL,Ta F`t _ n N i 1 �� i.g mnr Irv'.<r, j ��� — r` oil;j`G"' 3 .:Yr�W; "'L° 4_ 'r _ CNI(4••_r n S[ .Ian Q a a Rio �- a Ev LYNE \ , i. .n+ pLtln•H .r t,ASIrI NI ..'I. qY . \ ry ^O\ I SNOwp:aO n 11 >t rr41TO10. \\• OO /NCl/[ I I 415Er .II IIIf/ f3331 "r',AIIf.IJIr' (1 L 0 �� iTYj ` 'Nr•NI`• I -'I I rL. ..'/AV+l1 F'. 4 ° • J - - .._ -_I I - VOL•Ni[ Bl ulr COISON '•.'7 AES I v • �. ti� IA�•I' '"I'• E ^I t- N16111CN I I v NMW Q �� \� "nrf. I r k�;•g r Nlii'riY JF1�9[n� .�1 ��•° �� � � � r ru, � sl" .11r � `t Q raN.cU�, }. SII.N K `-l � a 'n CrlvY( 19 , < Is 4r 3 '� mroN I nl ..Irq i s Nou• / I�BUSNivI[a L0Ov0 ; ¢ o r, I (rttrr••rw/Y I O '� r; wr., " i i. •Jwr rMUJ4 O N a� � C[NrCA� 'I arN F O_ 1•n rll'I r'aAlr .� IT� r 3 4a PAS • tf.P �0 I. v ���•A fp _ �1�3','','J ur _IIr .. .. .V.rV - NU• 'e a- ^('Pr'1 r-1 f J OCEAN rr. „•Irr �",d Al sf.l;. •, _�_r�-II.. � i \ ` NUM/BT - /rySON A.f � 1 •fn �j16.0 �)1 \\\'. , J �V I I �'. '-i..J °`4M I •.,r a NJCKIVN ,• •.'r ,f orivw.f J I V N•O '\ f f _ E F"\ °ate \//VfN'Al/IN:hAMrI S I -•r STa IF i • I Y io I (AD( _�_..I \\ ) •LOIr• Woo r r Jun P � � i N'rj• u;Pu t p`a 1Ysltr /0R0,/EC7_ Z_OCA rioiv IVAP OAAA I C \ GA.wrAr/04 7 �\ \ \ PJ AN I M 3. 6 Population Displacement: 4 a. Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? NO If not, do not answer question (b) : b. What is the total number of residents to be displaced? i N/A ' 3. 7 Demolition: a. Will any improvements be demolished or removed by the project:? YES I j If so, answer questions b through d. I b. Describe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. One(1) house at the north end of the site. I One(1) Building and shed at the north and east portion of the site. Oil storage structures. I C. List approximate volume of exported material. 100-150 yards of misc. debris, i (broken concrete, steel , vegetation, wood, dirt and-misc. debris) . 1 d Indicate the location and the distance to a site where the to he e exported material will be dumped. Contractor awarded contract will have to make this determination. Provide a dump site map if required. 4. 0 Mitigating Measures: 4. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve resources (electricity, gas , water or wildlife) ? Please describe. Yes, with the refilling of the lake, this will provide a natural environment for wildlife. (Fish, birds, ducks, etc.) 4.2 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to re- duce noise pollution to persons occupying,project? N/A If so, please describe. 4. 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution to persons outside of the project which is caused by noise generated by the project? N/A If so, please describe. -9- STATEMENT OF,THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, City Hall Huntington Beach, California Monday, July 2, 1979 Mayor MacAllister called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey,. Yoder, Finley Absent: None CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS APPROVED On motion by Pattinson, second Yoder, the following items were approved, as recommended by the following roll call vote: AYES: Pattinson, Thomas, Mandic, MacAllister, Bailey, Yoder, Finley NOES: None ABSENT: None OLD TOWN PARK - ND #78-99 - Approved Negative Declaration No. 78-99 pertaining to the acquisition and- development of 5.81 acres of property located on the east side of Huntington Street, between Yorktown & Atica Avenues. Mayor MacAllister adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 9:35 P.M. to Monday, July 16, 1979 at 6:30 P.M. in Room B-8, Civic Center Alicia M. Wentworth ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City Alicia M. Wentworth of Huntington Beach, California City Clerk By: Connie A. Brockway By: Connie A. Brockway Deputy Deputy STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Don MacAllister County of Orange ) Mayor City of Huntington Beach) I. ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected and qualified 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 2nd day of July 1979. , WITNESS my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 3rd di July 1979 Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hun ington Beach, California BY a Deputy 12/78 From the desk of: CONNIE BROCKWAY City Clerk's office 536-5226 /4 Awe :August 1, 197k. � 'rot nity Council of Huntington Beach Vrwnt. Citizens.and Parente of Huntington Beach and Surrounding Communities Ne the undersigned believe that -adventure Playground is important to the growing and learning procees for the children .of our communities. Tharefores we fully support •dventure pOlaygmund and request that the City Council provide supplementary fins naial assistance during the school ,year to keep the olayoround open. �pll� Hedl.stered Name Address Sianat a ,¢ Voter le J M "IZ417, / r j ,�� �--, /�Zl• � cv�7 e( j1�.�I,r � �` a f -�� iC �rttc f Mt r� •act i ,.. (,AZ,< Ij C�� , i. r� f J�• fry f ��3 /2� /C (.C' '•.l 'L' 'I Y'f.CL( : "�1� �, �'I - - �h .I>, Al ALIFORNI `8ftTE P O.e'YTE0 t -C ��NIVERSITY , POMONA 3801 Wert Temple Avenue Pomona, California 91768 August 17, 1978 c S �0 Paul Burton C/O Huntington Beach Adventure Playground 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear People: This is to strongly support the ongoing efforts of the Huntington Beach Adventure Playground and its staff, and to request that your city continue both psychic and financial support for this innovative play program. As a professional recreation educator, who has had many years of public adminis- tration experience, I fully realize the impact of proposition 13 on local "people services", and the difficult decisions you must make. As you are aware, the . Adventure Play movement in America is growina and the Huntinaton Beach Playground has always provided a fine model of low cost, high use, growth-filled child centered recreation. It was, in fact, one of the first public efforts of this nature and has continued to provide a quality alternative environment where kids can share the constructive vacant lot experience that many of us now see as a valuable part of our growing up. But, as we know, a good percentage of that world has either been blacktopped over or condominiums stand where those lots used to be. This is what makes the Huntington Beach Adventure Playground so important to your community. In .it, children, with responsible adult supervision, learn to discover many individual and social skills that help them cope with a rapidly changing world, filled with negative influences. They learn to build, to work together, to challenge themselves, to create and to change. All very necessary skills for future productive citizens of your community. I know your decisions are difficult, but I trust that you will give strong consid- eration to the growth needs of the children in your community _ so many of which are met by the Adventure Playground setting. I would like to strongly urge your continued support of this effort: Sincerely, Bill Michaelis Associate Professor Recreation Administration Board Member American Adventure Play Association vc 7'1?e California Stale Unirer.rily and (.'ollege.i �! 090,-�, 6:R, r I'm Gail Logan speaking to the issue of Park Site 975 located near Graham and Slater. Our group was formed almost a year ago and has periodically met with Ocean View Staff and Board, and Park' and Recreation Staff and Commissioners -Co develop a plan for joint development and maintenance of Park Site 975 and School Site 34. At the October 11 meeting of this Commission a joint development project was again on the agenda. We were told that Park' Site 975 would remain_ on the Park Priority List for 1978-79 and we should continue working together to this end. However, last Thursday at a meeting with Vince Moorhouse and Norm Worthy, Vince Moorhouse informed us that he is going to 'propo'se , within the next -sixty (60) days, a change in ,the general plan for the development of parks, which would effectively ,eliminate the development of any new neighborhood parks. He plans to take the developers -fees for neighborhood parks and plow them into facilities at regional parks and Central Park. But, according to the .Quimby Act, "the land, fees, or any combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision". And furthermore, the Craven Bill which is an amendment" to the Quimby Act, states that, "the city .shall specify that any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees or the- issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by _the_ su.bdivision whichever occurs later. If such fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lots bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision". In other words, the funds Vince Moorhouse -seeks to use are unavailable to him for his purposes., We have been told that the underlying problem in developing our neighborhood park is the maintenance cost - present and future. We see it as your responsibility ,to devise creative maintenance plans instead of letting the maintenance issue be the catch-all excuse .for eliminating neighborhood parks. It is our desire to have Park Site 97.5 an early priority for planning by the landscape architect. As you can readily see, from the above stated laws Parks Site 975 should be first priority for planning and development instead of Central Park. This concludes our formal statement. Now other members of our gr.oup would like to address the commission. /�-� • (�r�r'12im-4..��"��.e �'Ufa? ,tom REQUES1 .-OR CfT'Y COUNCIL i. =,TION Submitted by Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director Department Harbors , Beaches, Rec. & Parks. Date Prepared February 7, , 1979 Backup Material Attached ❑X Yes No Subject ROBERTI Z' BERG BLOCK GRANT RESOLUTION FOR PARK MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. City Administrator's Comments e Approve as recommended ,D 7 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,.Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: . STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On April 29, 1977 a Block Grant application for the development of Robinwood and Pleasant View neighborhood parks was approved by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. September 28, 1978 Senate Bill 2058 was approved by the Governor, allowing 25% of this fiscal year's appropriation ($47,434) to be used for operation and maintenance of parks previously acquired or developed with Block Grant Funds . As part of the requirements a resolution approving the application for funds for the maintenance and/or operation of Robinwo_od and Pleasant View Parks is to be included in our submittals . RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council approve the attached Resolution and authorize the signing of this document by the Mayor. ANALYSIS: The Roberti Z'Berg Grant is a 75 - 25 match, the amount for which. we are applying is $11 ,858. The City's portion will be 25% or $3,9,53 of which we can use Park Maintenance personnel cost as our portion of the match . >_ ALTERNATIVE: Not to approve the application. Therefore, the City will lose its third year allocation of funding through this particular grant. FUNDING SOURCE: 75% from State - 25% Personnel cost. VM:lb Pio 308 /� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNLIL AC N I Submitted b Norm Worth Director Recreation, Parks & Human Services yL�) Department Date Prepared October 10, , 19 78 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No Subject HAZARDOUS TREES IN LAMBERT AND SIM'S GROVE PARK SITES City-Administrator's.Comments NI Approve as recom ende ®l�yy®lt3tSci� .. .... _ ....vi,•�� ...__. Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: 4�J Statement of Issue: o The City Treasurer's office has informed the Recreation, Parks and Human Services Department that a claim has been settled for falling tree damages to the private property north of and adjacent to the Sim's Grove park site. The eucalyptus trees at this location and at the Lambert Park site have grown to heights in excess of 40 feet, which is overhanging onto both private and public right-of-ways; therefore, increasing the potential of property damage and personal injury. Recommended Action: That the City Council authorize expenditure of up to $5,000 from the Contingency Fund for contract tree topping and trimming from Lambert and Sim's Grove Park sites and that staff be authorized to seek bids for the work. Analysis: Both park sites are virtually inaccessable to trucks and equipment and requires tree climbers which we do not ,have employed. Cotter's Tree Service was contacted for an estimate to trim approximately 350 trees in Sim's Grove to a maximum height of 40 feet, &trim 30 trees in Lambert Park for a cost of $5,000. Park Maintenance will remove all tree rubble and miscellaneous debris. Alternative: 1) Not to approve expenditures from the Contingency Fund; therefore, increasing the ._-._possibilities of further damage claims against the City. 2) Spend an additional $7,000 in removal of all debris by contractual service. Funding Source: Contingency Fund. NW:sh Plo W78 `' �` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I� � •� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G. Belsito From F. B. Arguello City Administrator. Director of Finance Subject Financial Impact Report - Date October 11 , 1978 Tree Topping and Trimming In reference to your request for a Financial Impact Report on the above subject, there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Account to support the request. The balance in the unadjusted Contingency Account if the above request is approved by City Council will be $74,644.42. A resolution transferring appropriations from Contingency Account (101593) to Park Maintenance - Contractual Services (266390) should be prepared for Council action. F. B. Arguello Director of Finance FBA/cg 1 j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i F I_NANC 1 AL.'f:MPACT��REPORT i ,I Project Name Park Tree Topping and Trimming Description Contract to top and trim trees in Lambert and Sim's Grove Park sites. l 1 . DIRECT PROJECT COSTS i 1 . 1 One-Time Costs I Land urn. , aci i- Acquisition Construction_ ties, E ui ment. Other Total Cost I $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 I 1 .2 Recurring Annual Costs I I Additional. Materials utside Payroll Personnel Supplies Services - Revenues Total Cost ,I 1 .3 Replacement/Renewal Costs i When trees again grow to excessive heights, they must again be topped I j and trimmed. I I i i I I V , ` 2. INDIRECT COSTS I None I i I i I Financial Impact Report - Page 2 3. NON-DOLLAR COSTS None 4. BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT Remove the potential liability due to possible private property damage and/or personal injury. 5. PROJECT USAGE To protect both the City and private property from potential injury or damage. 6. EXPENDITURE TIMING Immediate upon acceptance of bid. a 7. COST OF NOT IMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT Cost would be proportionate to the value placed on any injury or damage suffered by persons or property. ' FECITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Bud Belsito From H. E. Hartge Eucalyptus Tree Trimming-Lambert Subject and Sims Grove Park Sites Date October 25, 1978 Per your request we investigated the possibility of City employees trimming the trees in Lambert and Sims Grove Park. We do not have the employees nor the equipment required to do climbing type tree trimming. This work requires specialized equipment And employees who have been trained for years and even then there are serious accidents whereby men are injured or killed while doing this type. work. Insurance coverage for worker' s compensation., as I under- stand it, is much higher for those who do climbing type tree trimming because of the hazards. We use aerial -trucks for all our day to day tree trimming in parks as well as street trees, and we contract out all climbing type work or jobs requiring specialized equipment we don't have, such as cranes and stump grinders. The contracting of specialized jobs, per our understanding with the City Council, is encouraged and we con- sider it good management practice. The ultimate solution to the problem in the Sims Grove could be to `6 remove enough trees to allow the tree division to utilize our aerial equipment to trim the trees remaining after removal. At the Lambert Park site, which is the Newland Slope Eucalyptus Grove, there is no feasible way to my knowledge to get aerial equipment into the area. Those trees will always have to be trimmed by climbers. Also, it should be noted that the trimming of these trees will probably take place about once every 3 to 5 years, not every year. E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEH:DDS: jy cc: Smith Ivor G h.* CITY OF HUNTINGTOIN BEACII ADMINWRATIUE OFFICE WaAAO, F City , of Huntington Bqkchr P.O. BOX 711 CALIFORNIA 926.."; CITY TREASURER-WARREN G.HALL Ci Ty APP80dED 137f�pT` 1i1 Ott. %• F MEMO TO : : F. G . Belsito , City Administrato ? . .MEMO FROM: Warren G . Hall , City Treasurer _ DATE: November 8 , 1978 SUBJECT: Hazard Elimination in Sims and Lambert Parks I attach my original letter of September 27 , 1978 relating to hazardous trees in Sims Grove and Lambert Park. I consider these hazards real and imminent; the potential losses could range from thousands of dollars for walls , tennis courts , or patios to multimillion dollar claims if the threatened buildings are destroyed and the residents injured or killed . Per our conversation yesterday I wish to and intend to have these hazards eliminated , and I feel justified in spending out of it liability insurance reserves to get it done , now.. . My intention is to have Public Works contract and supervise through our Street Tree Department to get this work done . I will pay the bill out of Insurance Reserve Account 121-484 . In my professional opinion $5 or $6 thousand spent now will save us many thousands later when we have the first wet; windy Winter. (I :.attach a long range forecast for 1978/79 colder and wetter. ) A big part of Risk Management is Risk Control and Hazard elimin- ation. I consider this a part of the self insurance package as originally presented to the City Council in December 1977 , and intend to pursue it. During the two Council votes I refrained from public display and debate with the Council on this subject because of the legal problems of "Public Notice of Hazards" which eliminates some defenses if we have losses before the work is done . I will hold off pending your response but have already contacted Bill Ha tg nd D ryl Smith of Public Works , and we are ready to go . ' Warr G . Hall WGH/vt 1 cc : H. G . Hartge, Publ.i.c Works Director Attachment: Letter. of 9/ 27/78 Weather Forecast �' -ell+r - + �J , City of Huntington Be'ach f ( P.O. BOX 711 CALIFORNIA 92648 ,: rh CITY TREASURER - WARREN G. HALL I4EM0 TO : Norm Worthy , Director of Recreation and Parks and All Members Recreation and Parks Board MEMO FROM : Warren G . Hall , City Treasurer DATE : September 27 , 1978 SUBJECT: Dangerous Trees in Lambert and Sim; Park Sites SIMS GROVE PARK SITE : Last week we finally settled for $950 . 00 (Claim 78-51 ) with Mr . Sullivan of 16601 .Graham Street for falling; tree damage to his property -that occurred March 4 , 1978 . As a normal follow-up I went to the site to see if any remaining hazards 'were taken care of . I found the following : 1 . I am shocked to see that little if anything has been done . The fallen trees that knocked over his wall were just cut of at the lot line and thrown back , and constitute a fire hazard , in my opinion , immediately adjacent 'to his property . 2 . There are remaining trees overhanging; the property un-trimmed . 3 . There are too tall trees overhanging Graham Street dangerous to passing autos and pedestrians . 11 . There are Lao tall trees overhanging the property to the South 1.6621. Graham , also adjacent, to Sims Grove . We have no ello:i.ce but in pet the_:.-e tr. r. e ; trimmed <lnd th(� p:i.lc;; and fa-1 1 en rubl) Lc r(.�niovc d 111(tt co(ilcl a f iL c: end,rnr,c,l:ling ad jacerlt prope.l.,ty .. We <:Irc3 1.:i.able . NO'I'I_: See the I h:i_c. Lu:rc s .l: 've taken to show Llie problenl . LAMBERT PARK SITE, - NEi,,1LAND STREET 1. had occasion to pass. this area a. few weeks cigo and noted the condition of huge trees overhanging new condoin.i.niunl units and the tennis cour-L -or the condorni.niurns . 1 . These trees are generally in poor health with dead tops needing to be topped ol.It - Now . 2 . There. are iiia jor s:i.:e limbs ( 10" or larger) overhanging living uni Ls in thc� COI1dOITlilliums . They are high and the trees do not appear to be overly Ideal t:hy to me . They must be trimmed or removed be .1.`c:)re we replace -r whole house . N0`.I_E : `:ice L11c 8-1; i_c_1:11Iles taken t.c, slow the pt.-oblew . i. Norm Worthy ad He.mbers Recreation & . Parks Board_ -2.- Sej-a ember '27 , 1978 REQUEST: I have contacted Mr : Daryl Smith of Public Works Tree Deparrtment : Iie has no equipment for climbing these trees , not, personnel trained t:.o do . it . It will require an outside contractor to get the work done.. I suggest you authorize funds from the Park Development Fund for this f purpose and have the work bad and work started before the fainter winds y and rain again take their tolls . . i NOTE : Any further damage claims from these noted hazards will be assessable against the Park Department fun(ls unless the recomr.tiended work is performed : I have charged the r950 : 00 set-tlejhent against the Self Ynsurance Account but any further losses will have to be at your funds risk . Please ;notLf ,re of actions -taken . W-LrVd6 G . _iIa L Treasurer/Risk Manager WGFI/vt cc : F . G . Belsito , City Administrator Attachment : 15 Photographs of Hazards . chances of Another Bitter Winter Interview With Hurd C. Willett, Emeritus Professor of along. with major changes in the si - Meteorolo Massachusetts Institute of Technolo spot cycles. 9y „ 9y Therefore, I look at the picture of solar activity, then look at the past and Is the U.S. in for a deep east,with perhaps quite a little snow in find a year or two when %ve had a freeze in the coming months? the Northeast. weather pattern similar to what %ve've A long-range forecaster Q What about the West Coast? been having during the past summer A TWe`•West Coast doesn't fit into and autumn, and at about the sarne says not everywhere, but the_extreme.weather patterns of the phase as the sunspot cycle.Then I take some areas will be hit hard. _rest of the country. But I would expect, that particular year as a sort of guide by'and large, that the West Coast for what to expect this year. Q Professor Willett, what sort of win- would average somewhat colder than Q How do sunspots affect the earth's ter does the U.S.face this year? last winter and moderately wet. weather? i A This will be a winter of rather ex- Q Where else besides the Northeast A It's not exactly clear,but it is clear treme contrasts. We should expect it to do you look for snow? that sunspots do affect it quite strongly. be relatively warm east of the Appala- A Generally, it will be snowy in the We're in a period of rapidly increasing chians and along the Nlid-Atlantic and Northern plains and extending from sunspots at the moment: Of course, Southeast Coasts. the Great Lakes eastward into Now that doesn't mean that evervtime \-oil The coldest weather will be in the England—probably not too much dif- get high sunspots or low sunspots, that west-central }fart of the country—pri- ferent from last winter. But as soon as year is going to be of a certain hype. It marily-west of the Mississippi River you get south of the Ohio Valley and simply means a higher probability of and east of the Rockies. eastward from there to the Atlantic occurrence of one or another extreme I 1 want to emphasize that some of the states, i would expect less snow than type of weather is more likely. data I use for this forecasting aren't in last winter. Q Is the behavior of plants and animals tir i. yet, and it is by no means complete. Q Which months will be the harshest? a reliable guide to the winter weather But I think the data will hold up when A The peak of the cold weather can prospects? they're all in. ' come at any time.The last two winters, A To my mind,no. I think there's not i Q Are there other areas that will be it's been pretty much a midwinter phe- much question but that plants and ani- pa rticularly cold? nomenon with the peak coming in Jan- mals show the effect of recent weat' A In addition to the west-central uary and February. I would expect But they aren't giving us any m e.or I part of the country,.1 would expect that probably that it would be pretty much formation than our climatic data are it might be a little on the cold side in the case this winter with the coldest giving us. Essentially, if an aninial gets the Northeast—we'll say from the up- and stormiest weather coming between an extra-heavy coat no%y in the fall,all it per Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes late December and early February. is showing is that it's cold right now. e:tstward across NewYork, Pennsylva Q Onwhat do you base your forecasts? Q Is It significant that the past six ilia and New England—but certain) A They're based primarily on long- months have been relative)g y y' p y g- y quiet in terms not as cold as last winter. term statistical analysis of the climatic of tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts and This winter, I would expect less of abnormalities in the past, particularly floods? the bright, clear cold weather and in relation to sunspot activity—the ac- A Tornadoes, which are local storms more of the precipitation-type weath tion of the sun.There is a tendency for that develop in connection with sharp er. That would mean rain in the South- our major climatic aberrations to go cold fronts, are something quite differ- ent. Ilurricanes and drought are very In Prospect for Coming Winter Much a function of these solar cycle. What Mr. Willett's early data show They depend primarily upon the strengths and the latitude of westerly On the cold winds. �'„`"'.;✓, 3* �L side—snowy��,\(- We've had a situation that cliscour r l'-'i►; + tj 't, A t �i ` ages hurricanes from developing here NA!.�?,�� i4?r!`.k•. : ���� �, ��� '� }l on the Fast Coast ever since the late SOtn6Wh1t 01c19l,:" 1950s. I predicted this as early as 1955 t • ;:'than last wl.ter=j� + .. from the solar cycles which have 11 y'' r �,+�',y•, . t+ � brought westerly �yinds down to lower latitudes. Mountains - /, 'Tornadoes, on the: other hand, are �~ --": likely to be rather frequent Whcn We � ,, f. r ,• . � t Appalachian have 1mv-1atitude strong westerlies. So Mountalns > tornadoes have a tendency to increase Warmer when hurricanes decrease—at least than last hurricanes on the East Coast. winter— wetter Q What kind of winters can we . I i forward to for the next few years? A Person, I think the next five or 1 six years would probably tend to be rather cold winters. It will remain cool and on the wet side. 0 i, 44 Copyright 0 1 WA, U.S News R Wnrlrt Rnporl„Inc. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE v 1 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Bud Belsito From H. E. Hartge Subject Tree Topping in Lambert and Sims Date November 9, 1978 Grove Parks At the November 6th Council meeting Norm Worthy's request for .$5, 000 from the Contingency Fund to contract tree topping at Lambert and Sims Grove Parks (.Items K1) was not approved due to a 3-3 vote. There was some. comment by Council members that this work should be or could be performed by present City employees. Apparently they are of the impression that we have employees who are able to perform the topping of trees at these heights which exceed 50 feet, and that the City has the climbing equipment for this type of work; however, this is .not the case. There are several employees of the City who per- form tree trimming as an outside job, but not at the heights and under the circumstances which exist at these two park sites. In Sims Grove sufficient removal of certain trees can be accom- plished so that the City equipment can be employed in the future to perform its topping. Access by vehicles to Lambert Park is not possible; therefore, it will be necessary every 3 to 5 years to perform this work by contract. It is pointed out that in the past we have contracted out for the trimming of palm and eucalyptus trees in the downtown area which are above the height of 60 feet. Mr. Alexander Hunt of the Safety Engineering Division with the R. L. Kautz Co. recommended that we do not get involved in "tree climb- ing type tree trimming, " and further recommended that contracting of tree climbing work. is the best method to accomplish the work. R. L. Kautz Co. is the administrator of the City' s self insurance program. We should in the future budget $5, 000 per year for this special type. of trimming. An alternative would be to hire a qualified tree climber at a cost of approximately $17,200 per year plus equipment. Ild E. Hartge Director of Public Works HEHejy PIP— 17 v� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION /r; i '*mitied by Recreation_.&_.Parks Commission Department Recreation, Parks & Human Services _ Date Prepared November 21. : , 19 78 Backup Material Attached Yes a No Subject -_..MILE. SQUARE REGIONAL PARK:.-PHASE IV city Administrator's Comments [APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Approve as recomrrierided: Cl'PY ERK Statement of Issue, Recommendation', Analysis; Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of .Issue: The Recreation & Parks Commission was asked to;study the proposed. alternative plans that ere prepared tiy' Voorhies; Teindle and Nelson (VTN)- ,Johnny Mann, Inc: and the Cify of untain Valley for develoo,hi6ht of Phase IV, of Mile Sgua're Regional Park and submit a ammendatiori to the City Adrriinistrator. The Commission ,held a public hearing on the issue on. Wednesdays November 8; 1978 and foilowing the public input; made the following recommenddfion. Recorhmendafionc That the City Council of Huntington Beach' support,the City of Fountain Valley plan for develo' .enf of Phase IV of Mile Square Regional .Park as recommended by the Fountain Valley Recreation & Pai`ks Commission, Fntain Valley City Council grid the Huntington Beach Recredtion & Parks Commission. Plan available for review in Recreation` & Parks Off ice. Analysis: Regional Recreation Needs:. The service area of Mile Square Regional Park may be depicted at three levels The first level, the primary service area; is determined by a th eree-mil radius from the park. Same 300000 people reside in this area and tend to view the facility as a neighborhood park that is within heddy walking and/or` cycling distance. Attractive activities to those who reside in this area are those ;common to most large recreational facilities--tennis, racquetball, swimming; fishing and playing` fields. The 'next level, the secondary service area'',is .defined as the area within' 30 minutes driving time. A park" of regional significance should be responsive to 6'oth the active arid passive recreational needs of the people residing in the area. In Orange County alone, that service population is nearly 1.5 .million`. The total service population` exceeds M mil Hon when southeastern Los Angeles County is also included. Users from fh'e secondary service area are those attracted by' recreational' opporfunifies that can be found mainly at regional facilities. By 1990 i.t is projected that the service area population in Orange County will be approaching 3 million. t sally, depending on the activity(ies) provided,_ fhe regionaf. park's service population may tie wnsidered to include all of Southern California: This will' be true in` situations where the park offers a relatively unique recreational opportunity; such as landsailing; a natural swim, lake, or an antique aufo, show: Pio one' /: Request for City Council Action MILE SQUARE REGIONAL PARK, PHASE IV Page 2 ' VTN Plan: The VTN General Development Plan explores development alternatives for both the presently held 86 acres along Edinger Avenue and the 142 acre former Marine Corps Helicopter Training Facility, known as the triangle area. The General Development Plan is a viable and programmable plan in the event the County is or is not successful in acquiring the triangle area; thus, the resultant plan is not interdependent upon each land parcel. All too often, recreation is thought of as a highly organized and structured program of competitive sports activities. The term recreate means to refresh one's strength' and spirits after work, to restore or create anew. The goal here is to offer both active and passive recreational opportunities to the park visitor for his off-work time. The General Development Plan identifies and responds to the needs of the citizens of the service area of Mile Square Regional Park and offers a most unique regional resource. In addition to open and wooded green areas catering to passive leisure, the General Development Plan offers the following specific recreational facilities: sport fields, such as lighted soccer, softball and cricket areas; court games such as tennis, volleyball and handball; children's play areas; bicycling; hiking/walking; jogging and cross-country track; arboretum wooded area; skateboarding; swimming; archery; youth group camping; and landsailing. Johnny Mann Sports World, Inc.: The Johnny Mann plan proposes 12 tournament class lighted softball fields, 4 lighted soccer fields, a restaurant, pro-shop, 4 concession buildings, 2 batting cages, an administration building and parking for 918 cars on 86 acres at the. northwest corner of Mile Square Park. A perimeter road, a lagoon and extensive landscaping is also planned. The purse of the proposed project is to provide needed public recreational facilities at Mile Square Park and thereby utilize available public land to serve the community in the manner for which such public park lands are intended. The success of the golf course operations at Mile Square Park convincingly shows that a public recreational facility of this type can be successfully developed and operated by private enterprise. The project would be developed at the sole cost of Johnny Mann Sports World, Inc. Because of the shortage of public funds for developing projects of this type; they feel they can successfully build a recreational complex on the site of substantially higher quality than would be built by public funds. The operation of these facilities would be funded through the admission and team entry fees. Conceptually this method of financing is very similar to the collection of green fees from persons golfing at the Mile Square golf course. The proposed lease provides for a term of 35. Under this lease the lessor would receive a percentage of gross receipts from team entry and admission fees, with a guaranteed minimum of $50,000. Based upon the anticipated revenues which will be obtained from these operations, they propose annual percentage rents payable under this lease during the first, second and third five-year periods as follows: 1) first 5 years (at 3%) - $70,788; 2) second 5 years (at 4%) - 594,384; 3) third 5 years (at 5%) - $1171980. All capital and maintenance costs would be paid for by the lessee. Construction - the initial projected outlay would cost approximately 4 million dollars. This includes landscaping and paving commensurate with the surrounding area. This also includes direct-beam lighting so that there would be minimum amount of light overspill into the surrounding residential areas. The fencing and on-site structures will be environmentally coordinated. The ground cover, stands, backstops, scoreboards and other essential features will be of .the highest quality so as to attract "pure" softball and soccer enthusiasts. Request for City Council Action MILE SQUARE REGIONAL PARK, PHASE IV Page 3 Fountain Valley Plan - According to County information, Mile Square Regional Park is the most heavily and frequently used regional park in Orange County and most users of Mile Square Regional Park are local residents coming from within two to three miles of the area. The Recreational Needs Analysis also shows the highest priority of the public is for wilderness parks or primitive parks with limited development. If, in fact, the majority of users come from a short distance, then their needs and desires become paramount in the planning of the park; and if the park is the most heavily used park in the County, then it is time to provide some relief areas. The point of saturation seems important relative to traffic, noise, visual pollution and supervision. It seems apparent that a balance needs to be established wherein the element of wilderness, primitive or limited development areas compliment the activity areas of the park and adjacent activity areas. Mile Square is listed as the largest developed park in Orange County; however, there are. not natural or relief areas included. The Recreational Needs Analysis makes reference to urban parks as desirable locations for developed facilities and its location .in a residential area. Here again the pendulum needs to swing towards a balance between. active and passive activities. There is room and a definite need for both in Mile Square Regional Park. The plan for the Phase IV development of Mile Square Regional Park proposed by the City of Fountain Valley contains six areas. The areas include the following: 1) youth camping area, 2) picnic area, 3) wooded area, 4) natural wilderness, 5) open play area, and 6) multi-use area. This plan provides a general description of each area including the activities that could take place, as well as, expected usage of each area. The plan was developed around two basic assumptions: 1) that Mile Square Park shall remain passive in nature and 2) that the park should be developed in such a manner as will best allow mobility from the camping area to the wooded, natural wilderness and open-play areas. The design of Phase IV has accomplished these two goals. The overall appearance of Phase IV will be consistent with the existing portion of Mile Square Regional Park. The driveway in Phase IV will connect with the existing driveways and the perimeter of Phase IV, on Edinger Avenue and Brookhurst Street, will have mounds similar to those on Euclid Street and Warner Avenue. In all, the proposed Phase IV should be a welcome and needed addition to Mile Square Regional Park in the City of Fountain Valley. Alternatives: TRecommend approval of VTN plan for Phase IV; 2) Recommend approval of Johnny Mann Sports World, Inc. plan for Phase IV; or 3) Recommend approval of various combinations of all three (3) plans. Funding Source: County of Orange/Concessionaires. NW:dp UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FIRST AMENDATORY CONTRACT AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE LAND PROGRAM CONTRACT FOR ' GRANT UNDER TITLE VII OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1961, AS AMENDED Project No. Calif. OS-30. Contract No. Calif. OS-30(G) THIS FIRST AMENDATORY CONTRACT made and entered into on the date hereinbelow specified, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH herein called the "Public -Body") and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA herein called the "Government"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered=into. that certain Contract for Grant No. OS-30(G), dated on .or about April 2, 1964, (herein called the "Existing Contract"), and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Existing Contract: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and representations contained herein and in the Existing Contract, the parties hereto do agree as follows: The Existing Contract is hereby amended by deleting the land description in Section 2, The Program, and substituting in lieu thereof the following: All that certain land situated in the State of California, County of. Orangey City of Huntington Beach, described as follows: The southerly five acres of Block D of Tract 570, as shown on a map recorded in Book 19, Page 41 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Public Body has caused this First Amendatory Contract to be duly executed in its behalf and its seal to be here- unto affixed and attested; and thereafter, the Governm nt has caused the same to be duly executed in its behalf this C„ day of 5�m1o6� 1978. SEAL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH By ignature Ron Shenkman Mayor Type or Print Name ATTEST: ALICIA M. WENTWORTH C Y CLERK BY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Signature Connie BrockwaV Secretary of Housing and Urban Deputy Development 3 /7 City Clerk By Title Area Director Los Angeles Area Office A':' ROVED AS TO FORM: AIL HUTTON ity Attorney '�� ygy Attorney PAlth- qqU I S I•T I ON t; DEVELOPMENT FUND _ _ - -- ----- -.._ ----_..--- PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET - 1978 - 79 FUND BALANCE , March 31 , 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 , 061 , 493 Estimated Income_ April 1 , . 1978 thru June 30 ., 197A Interest ( 7 , 500 per mo-ntTj. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22 , 500 Gravel Contract , Sully Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , 000 Subdivision License Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 , 500 Unit Lot Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - * 100 , 000 S . B . # 174 (Hamilton Acquisition 7S!) . . . . . . . . . . . 54 , 37S S . B . # 174 (Pleasant: View, Robinwood Dev . ) . . . . . . 81 , 200 Sale/Trade , 2 . 5 Acre 'Taylor Park Site . . . . . . . . . . 29 , 000 Orange County Revenue Sharing (Play Eq . ) . . . . . . . 50 , 000 $ 2 , S89 1068 }encumbrances 1976- 78 "Old Town" Park Acquisition (5 parcels) . . . . . . . . `5 333 , 000 "Sunset Heights" Park Acquisition (6 parcels) . . 100 , 00() Ocean View Swimming Pool Construction . . . . . . . . . . 430 , 000 HCP "Hamilton" Parcel Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 , 500 2nd Phase Development. , PCP (HUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 , 400 Complete 6 Park Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 , 003 , 948 Install Playground .Equi.pment- -6 Parks . . . . . . . . . . 75 , 000 Complete Golden !Vest: College Lighting . . . . . . . . . . SO , 90.1 Taylor School Site Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 64 , 87S Faith Lutheran Perk Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 000 Purchase IAcre of 3 Acre Park # 974 . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 , 000 Acquire HCP Phase Ili Properties (7 . S ac . ) . . . . . 350 , 000 Develop Seniors ' Recreation Center Parking . . . . . 15 , 000 . Develop 1780 ' Street frontage HCP (G . W. ) . . . . . . . S0 , 000 Develop 7 Acre HB Community Perk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 , 000 Develop 2 . 5 Acre Moffett Park . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 , 000 Develop 2 . 5 Acre Summcrficl.d Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 , 000 Develop S . S Acre "Old 'Town" Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 2S , 000 Develop 3 Acre (Golden hest I Palm) Park . . . . . . . 7S , 000 Construction Bartlett Park Restrooms . . . . . . . . . . . 30 , 000 Install Davenport Park Play Equipment - , . . . . . . . S , 000 Install Soccer Light:i.ng (6 Fields) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 , 000 Install Lighting (7 Parks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 , 000 Construct Bleachers (Murdy A Edison) . . . . . . . . . . . 20 , 000 Construct Shade Shelter (Arevalos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . S , 000 Improve Edition Courts (Ilandball./Shut-fle) . . . . . . . 7 , 000 Seal Talbert Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S , 000 Improve Rancho View Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 000 ( w1 , 159 , 50 Cont inue.d . . . . . . . . PARK ACQUISITION fi DFVFl,0PMFNT 1:11N1► 05/0 1 / 7,N PROPOSED CAPITAL, BUDGET - 1 978 - 79 Page 2 ($I , IS9 , SS6) Estimated Income July ] , 1978 thru June 30 , 1979 Interest ( 7 , S00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 90 , 000 Gravel Contract Sully Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 , 000 Subdivision License Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 , 000 . Unit Lot Fee . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SO0 , 00o HUD (SOo on IICP Development) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 , 700 S . B . # 174 (Balance 2nd Year Gr. ant) . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 , 825 S . R . # 174 (3rd Year Grant) . . . . . . . 0, 200 1976 State Bond Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43S , 000 Sakioka Farm Lease (Yorktown , 5 Acres) . . . . . . . . _ I , SOO 1 , 090 , 225 930 , 66 ,r Proposed Acquisition Projects 1978 - 79 I-a-i t iii.,uiferan Park (I'riym6nFTA- .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 ►i , 000 Acquire IICP Phase III. Properties (2 Acres) . . . . 100 , 000 820 , 669 Proposed Park Design 1978 - 79 Contract Hire Landscape Architect F, Draftsman . $ S0 , 000 (1-50 , 000) a 770 , 009 Proposed Development Projects 1978- 79 . Park Site 097S , 3 Acres (Slater A Graham) . . . . . 90 , 000 Faith Lutheran Park Site , 2 Acres (Ellis) : . . . . 60 , 000 Lambert Park Site Phase 1I , 2 Acres (Newland) . 60 , 000 Sunset Heights Park Site ,-5 Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1SO , 000 Bartlett Park Parking Lot ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 , 000 Par Ccursc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 , ()00 Frishee Golf Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 , 000 Sim ' s Grove Parking Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 , 000 Park Site 8978 , 16 Acres (Garfield . to Magnolia ) 370 , 000 7 7 0 ,O I)O__ $ 669 FUND BALANCE, June 30, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 669 Novemb, 8, 1978 PARK DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR SITE ACRES BUDGET/PARK BUDGET/YEAR 1977-78 Robinwood 2 50,000 Terry 5 150,000 Newland 3 75,000 Pleasant View 2 50,000 Hawes 2.5 67,500 Marina Community 11 330,000 Trinidad Island 4 -- Golden West College Fields 4.5 130,000 Misc. (8 projects)`; 308,000 1, 506 00 1,160,500 1978-79 Moffett 2.5 67,500 "Summerfield" #976 2.6 70,000 "Old Town" #973 4+ (1) 125,000 "Faith Lutheran" 2 50,000 Lambert (Phase II ) 2 50,000 "Sunset Heights" 4+ (1) 125,000 H.C.P. (Phase II) -- 287,400 H.B. Community (7) 210,000 "Harbor Peninsula" 5 Site #975 (Slater & Graham) 3 90,000 Misc. (12 projects) 97,500 `? 1, 3 42 00 TT72,400 1979-80 Site #870 (Goldenwest & Palm) (3) 75,000 Site #978 (Yorktown & Magnolia) 10 (6) 400,000 Site #775 (Edinger & Saybrook) 2.5 67,500 542,500 542,500 1980-81 Bartlett 29 (6) 700,000 Easement (S/E Brookhurst) (5) 125 ,000 Site #974 (Chicago & Detroit) (3) 90,000 915,000 915,000 1981-82 HCP Sports Complex 2,000,000 Site #966 (H.B. Company) (3) 90,000 Site #967 (H.B. Company) (3) 90,000 Site #960 (Signal) (3) 90,000 2,270,000 2,270,000 1982-83 Site #950 (H.B. Company) (3) 90,000 Site #955 (H.B. Company) (3) 90,000 Site #969 (Signal ) (3) 90,000 Site #972 (Signal) (3) 90,000 360,000 360,000 1983-84 Site #968 (Signal ) (3) 90,000 Site #979 ' (Signal ) (3) 90,000 H.C.P. 100 2,000,000 2,F80,000 2,180,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT (7 years) $8,600,400 ( ) Land not acquired as of 11/l/78 r PARK ACQUISITION COST ESTIMATE (5 YEARS) FISCAL YEAR 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Ded. Ded. Ded. Ded. Ded. or or or or or Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site Acq. Ac. Site Acq. COMMUNITY 7 H.B.Com. Ded. 3 #966 Ded. 3 #950 H.B. Com. Ded. 3 #968 Ded. 3 #967 Ded. AND 3 #870 Ded. 5 Hbr Pen Ded. 3 #960 Signal Ded 3 #955 Ded. 3 #969 Ded. NEIGHBORHOOD 1.2 #973 175,000 .7 City Gym 150,000 3 #972 Signal Ded. 10 B1saChca Ded. 3 #979 Ded. PARKS 1 SnstHts 100,000 6 Bartlett Ded. 2 #974 Ded. 1 #974 1005000 .5 FaLuth 10,000 4 Trnd Isl Ded. _5 FaLuth 15,000 25.5 385,000 9.2 165,000 9 -- 16 -- 9 -- HUNTINGTON 2.5 Hamilton 125,000 . (180Lt)Encyl 360,000 15 O.V.Msh. 1,500,000 CENTRAL (11 Lots) Encyl 11,000 10 Marion 500,000 5 Slip A 250,000 PARK 17.5 Signal Ded. 5 Brdly 250,000 5(W) Brooks 250,000 5(E) Brks 250,000 26 386,000 15 750,000 15 360,000 25 2,000,000 CASH FLOW (5 YEAR/ESTIMATES) (9 mo) CASH IN 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Cash on hand - 10/1/78 1,686,395 715,383 749,044. 2,364,764 1,444,764 H.U.D. Balance 143,700 State Bond - 1974 80,144 State Bond - 1976 435,000 SB #174 81,200 81,200 35,576 Unit Lot Fee 329,059 411,324 400,000 400,000 400,000 Subdivision Fee 687,185 858,981 800,000 800,000 800,000 Interest 111,325 139,156 125,000 200,000 175,000 Sully-Miller gravel 3,000 Housing Com. Development 20,000 150,000 Taylor Site (Sell 10 ac) 1,500,000r O.C. Revenue (play equip) 50,000 TOTAL IN . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..$ 3,546,864 $ 2,356,044 $ 3,689,764 $ 3,764,764 $ 2,819,764 CASH OUT Landscape Arch. Contract 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 "Faith Lutheran" park acq 10,000 15,000 "Old Town" park acq 175,000 "Sunset Heights" park acq 100,000 .6 park development (Bal) 360,081 Acquire Site 974 100,000 Acquire City Gym site 150,000 Other N & C park dev 1,033,000 542,000 915,000 270,000 360,000 Ocean View pool 430,000 HCP Acquisition 386,000 750,000 360,000 2,000,000 HCP Development 287,400 2,000,000 TOTAL OUT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 2,831,481 $ 1,607,000 $ 1,325,000 $ 2,320,000 $ 2,410,000 BALANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 409,764 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 12� CHOINTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION MUNTINGWN BIACM To Floyd G. Belsito From Norm Worthy, Director City Administrator Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject MINI-PARK (217 MAIN STREET) Date November 16, 1978 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Attached is a sketch of a proposed plan to beautify the Main Street frontage of a . 251A1171 City. owned vacant tot at 217 Main Street as suggested by Councilman Mandic at the City Council meeting of November 6. As noted, the material costs to build a 6'x251 grapestake fence is $128.30. The cost for plants will vary from $70.50 for 5 gallon size to $367 for 15 gallon size. The remaining costs to refurbish existing turf, purchase plant mix and header boards is $56.48. Total material cost of the project would be $255 using 5 gallon size plants or 552 using 15 gallon size plants. We would anticipate the labor to construct the fence would be provided by the Public Works Department and the labor to perform the landscaping would come from the Recreation, Parks ..and Human Services Department. NW:cw cc: H.E. Hartge� a attachment - NIP Ilia- s J � r 1 � v � �y ter. !, .e '.� �! . ♦ . f REQUEST OR CITY COUNCIL A BON pore-) Submitted by Norm Worthy, Director, Department Recreation, Parks and Human Serv. Date Prepared September 13, , 19 78 Backup Material Attached ® Yes No ' Subject ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended I� b pp Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Adventure Playground can only be open during the summer months if it is to be self-supporting. If the City Council wishes to have it remain open during additional periods, funds will have to be allocated. Attached are three (3) plans, depicting various scheduling and related costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That City Council approve weekend, Christmas and Easter vacation use of Adventure Playground in Huntington Central Park (Plan #2 attached). Hours II a.m. to 5 p.m. The estimated cost to operate this plan would be $5,233 and the estimated revenue from admissions would be $2,337. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: In January 1972, City Council approved purchase of the Bruce Brothers' property at Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue as an addition to Huntington Central Park. The cost was $609,000 for the twenty (20) acre site. In March 1972, Recreation' and Parks Commission recommended the property be utilized as a controlled land fill site upon approval of the City Engineer using sanitary fill. In the meantime, Sully Miller opened a rock, concrete and asphalt crushing operation on Ellis Street utilizing their lake site (which City later purchased as part of Huntington Central Park) and that operation made it unfeasible for the City to pursue the filling of the pit with inert material. In May 1974, Recreation and Parks Commission gave approval to institute a three (3) month pilot Adventure Playground program utilizing the acres of Bruce Brothers' pit beginning June 17th. The water quality of the pit was questioned for possible pollution. Micro-biological testing was done by a member of the City Environmental Resources Division and the Orange County Health Department performed limited coliform testing. The test results indicated the quality of the water was satisfactory when using Secondary Contact Sport standards. We have continued to operate under that premise with periodic checks by the Orange County Health Department. Pio sne a f Request for City Council Action ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND -2- September 13, 1978 Due to the success of Adventure Playground, it continued to be open after-school and on Saturdays. On May 31, 1975, Adventure Playground was closed due to review of the facility by the City's insurance carrier. This was brought about by extensive publicity. Modifications which included removal of the cable ride, relocation of the entrance and removal of all activity from the sides of the bluff and bases of cliffs were mandated. The Playground reopened in August 1975 and has continued to be open since. Based on last year's attendance and new reasonable fees, it could not be projected as a self-supporting activity except during the summer. ALTERNATIVES: I. Discontinue operation of Adventure Playground during fall, winter and spring. 2. Operate Adventure Playground after school, weekends and holidays (a $4,891 subsidy would be needed - Plan I). 3. Operate Adventure Playground on weekends only during fall, winter and spring (a $2,714 subsidy would be needed - Plan 3). FUNDING SOURCE: City General Fund attachment ATTACHMENT ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND The anticipated costs for opening Adventure Playground from September 27th through June 17th would be as follows: Plan # Open five (5) days per week (Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 3 to 5 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday I I to 5 p.m.) 35 weeks. Coordinator (30 hours/week at $3.80/hour); Assistant (20 hours/week at $3.30/hour) $6,300 Open Christmas Vacation (two weeks (ten days) from 11 to 5 p.m.). Easter Vacation (one week (five days) from I I to 5 p.m.). Coordinator (40 hours/week at $3.80/hour); Assistant (30 hours/week at fi3.30/hour). $ 753 Operating Expenses: Supplies $ 200 Chemical Toilets ($50/month) 500 $ 700 Plan #1 Expenditure TOTAL $7,753 Plan #1 Estimated Revenue $2,862 BALANCE ($4,891) Plan #2 Open Saturday and Sunday I I a.m. to 5 p.m. (35 weeks) Coordinator (18 hours/week at $3.80); Assistant (12 hours/week at $3.30) $3,780 Open Christmas and Easter Vacations (Same as Plan #I) $ 753 Operating Expenses (Same as Plan #0 $ 700 Plan #2 Expenditure TOTAL $5,233 Plan #2 Estimated Revenue $2,337 BALANCE ($29896) Adventure Playground -2- September 13, 1978 Plan #3 Open Saturday and Sunday, If a.m. to 5 p.m. (38 weeks). Coordinator (18 hours/week at $3.80); Assistant (12 hours/week at $3.30). $4,104 Operating Expenses (Same as Plan #0 $ 700 Plan #3 Expenditures TOTAL $4,804 Plan #3 Estimated Revenue $2,090 BALANCE ($2,714) During the 1977-78 fiscal year, Adventure Playground expenditures totalled $12,053. Our revenue based on a charge of 10� after school and 25� on Saturdays was $850 for the year. Our average daily paid attendance for September, 1977, through May, 1978, was 20 on a weekday and 55 on Saturday. This summer we charged 50� and managed to be self supporting. Our average daily paid attendance during August was 74. If we are open during the fall, winter and spring, we plan to charge 25� after school and 50� on weekends. We would open on Sundays instead of Tuesdays in anticipation of generating additional revenue. 1 From the desk of ALICIA M. WENTWORTH CITY CLERK 536-5226 W 2 aUCt�. r j k, /� 1, ICI �:� I' '.. ,I•+' '' N + ,1 1 r�,�'„r }/j�f,��•�. � y (yr.4'(v�Y i ,'•, `1�;��\�-w�-�.}�_.1�'! , I \ '.G+ `� "�r� . .i, itir 4`' ;4..�.y.,�•L", �, }.reFr `t`i�,r••1((`�f t 1.t1s•,•'• \vs11;fR,�;;� .' ', ,+r il� ..f•a.,^f•>t It(SI'" ; 1 jff I �,r f,f�a�i"' , . 1 M. ,•a p\yhn i m �! f -t .t i'' ' tl rr ,1 '^YI i; � t 'dy, (%�j >4"L� .! � 1 ..,r•'C •• � "�a°�� , •r / r M • Y_�'. ,1cJ , •t1 + 1'ti•., ,+1-{ •p � / •, ��• �lF, ` I# :.iTi +"�. �+• �� I .,,{�, p ��•� p`r I+, ,\� rt+�xi � 1�-'• � Ne � 1�•^x••..."t',._ ._ i 1 I I.d ; 'T—�f—`' 'v O u.. _n�A 1, 1I ,,'. 11'� �a x '� 1 '., S �y'(` +l, / \ \ , 1 1�11, j �� 1 , ` � .�- �, r•._ .. I c+,�i_�T k ,w tifl'�1:s�.r� ` / // 1 � � ,��' /� (� �'�% •..•4 �{ � I .1, »I, �t r\ a� 1 �•.., ;I. s ^�.I � I �•/f'�\��,1, J' 7 ,��f��,^�,e�raa+�sm,�R'�}5y„ ,,� `. 10 ell, , .. : co CY I ` :•Z'• .C"'•'^:� �L p r - p, ./•'� (- ' ( I � 'at. i" it ^t:,. ,f • _ �w I 1 t r I � Sk„ 1 +1 rl ts•�T::'( 1 + --�-c\ —- —, ) •:.*��' I r`t„/}':.�� :!�' I �ed �'yl l•', T...�..• ...�.ti \ -+- --l- III .. r 11C. ,1, 1 1 �. I 1" .,.,... .•'tom , ;�' 1 �� + ,. 1.'iii���' Ix: r a-. � t (,➢,I j/ .�, .r��•�;/`�'' 9, ' a t�yP fir, .f 1" h`. I�•^ 1 � ��� 'Y `• .� �,• //� 1 I � 11 J f;., t r:.�' f .�p.,.� -rru'w•I,If�,.m�n ,�J I ._ __I _,V. 1 rl� , •� LL )'` �(+11°t'N' OF All � p.. .•/.. � 1 JIB .. f /R 1 %/� 1 t t 1 al, � ! i5 �' r5;1 t • / w � N ^ I\... -� / �i... i, r.. �(t21 ,ra,•• 1 /1 '"�ik fi( Irr` ; +Ji /( I 0 I �\ ••./ 1. T 1�� _ r .I , r 1 � /•' „':•� /tit t tl 09: 1 `+•.t 1, } ��, 1 / \\1 aw. .� •-. 1.1 't - �l' �• I � 'a � �ai� t 1r 1 , ,\ � t r r��``^;.• •; \.`�,,.,_...'�•,\ �• '\ •�\ ,!: q � /, �a , � .. � .Y:,r.J +art` 'r •1 - .t i .... q, p w + ',} / 1! h I 3 C+1• + �t n �,,. ` 1•.. �' .. ` !�'1�^�_.,_ ......... 1 \ \ f �I�' may,+1 ,`l I '. 3Ck. r: / V �• I > •11(.�'.: \t i / a \ /' \++'- '1. C ,r ` J �r �v�s,rl 1 '�Q � e;- 1�,i�( 1 �-`-'; / ..._.. / 1'. e • � r',, { .I 'L;, C 'L. tlp ,1- \Y1. ;i'1,aye: Y - n , ..1.. 1 ••1" •la •^1 b ',,. iill j ��. r ` \ 1 y /�1, .. Q:F r r?4i; / I �•+ I f , f Ica71 1 ,` !'la, ' �'1, .ly .al+: �+ 1 ` (� fit,) .'' ••�1'' - p L,�I'. yh��•: ,. r r;tfil IV rY " , .. ✓ t / +,. !- .r„l-J � ���.��:r.o' GI ,k4 ��,ra a la'la . . . 11 ) ; �. I ... I � . , . �, m 01 Il- .i I .. I �. I . ." .. 't (�, 'k. .,- i, ,;j i,�Vijti 1 3 I' . :..I r �, -, - "', .e, "-".,P III N i . .� i :r� ,, . , P. III, , . .. . I -- ! . . . .,,, . .� .- k • - " �_i, 1.11-.-t ., . / ': . .. . . I,_ . i .._... , . . . I 11 . . I� - ;9z , . - � * - - P), ... - � A . .. I V.. . - , Y, I ,_: �! --, ! .1, . - -- 11.. . . 1 ,_ - . .S'L� I X,. ,�-,�i-�--c-1- . t 6 . , i . V, - - , v . 'I -1,- �, / �- , I . �. L•NJ .1111�* . - % A - -: � I Im I . - � - .k - •. - __ .. - -" ' , ., * t, - - .0 - ,­i w . 1. !" 4 . I t I . . � X n .� L.. - t _Ak1b, - - .1 I I M _-* 5 . I 0/, w , . 'i , e! 11 E, - �-i,--­�:�,�t . I . . I., t I ,,..,o ,�'7�7_ , �1111, - , - " 1_� - 1. . ,." ... P" ; � I , Ij - * , .. ,� - -1 'so* .. , , -.;�,I I I, . - - - - - .1 , 0, - �� . - r. - - -- - I - I . v ,r"'Y 4 I Y ,- .v -,".I � N, - ....;. -.-- -4 q �,_. - . I - -, .- . - I- IT -_2 I; c maw----I _; '_.--­t4-a.r7� s. .1 I - - I I I * I. ,� - 4 , ; - ,� ..Olm. "'; i _.,* .�__7. • - . p I - 1, -:-.1 ,,. I." IN I- I I. . I I ,_.il. .11 '.., ' A i I . __ . Ill I'll . . -,. I- i : -, . fl, - - . - � � � - I 11 -.-;-. _iII71-F! -1,11-1 - I I . .. ... ,i • -�, - - . I I I -I 'f,X%, 'I)-k I -i _ � I 11, . ... . - - 1� I ,= �._'i L I t� ,M v i . I , . .,.� '. � _ I, o,� i ­ . I -, t 1:T-# .---3 - . ­ - - , , I . .,. .. �­% ' '41-- . - ,, - . : , f jj*�% 4 ,,,� _Q � - . . • ­)_1%.1. ­'� , I! t �_ tl.. -11' ,-o" I [I - . ---'- 1. -.----!. �1 f. '. �;,. � . -it r I / .1 . or .. % ,11- 10. ,I J N�. I r 1 -_ -_ , - .4 if --1-9A . .Ar.� ----T-T-1- I I - A t - , .;p .. .I ! ., ..�� , ---�' . - 1, ­­4 � - _­*, . ,.4- I ., fl: I \-\1 , ., lb:-A4L _-Q " f. - .� .i t . ..T-.---, I . � . . ... , -1 .* I- ; .. --- . . . - I ­ - - � � I - I I .- II 11 - I r. T. I., �i A:14 .. ,��_ � _: I ;r I- .. ... ')� 4, � , 1­ - I . ,� z ,-- � - ­ .. . I . 1,-i rt :"," , . 11 -1 . - :- I , , .1 , " , .� ` .. ... A:Tf . J: I - *• .ML P , 4 . �1. ,�,�,�. ��Y j�I . , , 6� , ,"I I _ . -L , � , , '* L,j , , _ _. I - . .!'' " . ...: ,� --- .;.;, 7- .1 -,- (__ .%, .. • % i \ 1\1 . . 'i I . . 11 la I I... .% V, . ; I ­ -A ; ., , .'- t.� .. r ,,�- -..-.r !1'. 1 / , I I . . i, -r IN f, • I I .. . I I;- _1 T i4� -- II, r--.. I - - I, - I-..- �-�� ", , ,�i. I ,­ I - . .. . " . -w " .� , , . V : '� a , �, j,;..4 - I., , . I I - -1, Ill" * X11 I . . %P ! I / v - - k ,k.:1-q.,.,_\F: , I- - .., . . . � . , . ft�.. I 1; f ..- - . I f­_ I. ,- i I �.11 I t; .1 - , d- . .. 1 4 . 1,1:,� � , � . I . I : . . -� I . !� . Z"� .,.' / �. - .. ­111; ;"f ­ : -. • ,. i , ? ,� A! I � . " � T - - "!I I - .i - t , 1" . . , , k4 : 11 I I 1, . . � I A. I .. If -ft. � I i .. . . IV I I , - I, 11 ... I - . I , " n. . . 1 ­---4--r1_.__ . . It I. .-- I'-,. . i , lot a . .* . ... , A' !,. _r__1 , .-...­ . ; - ...** . Ak :- :- . . I f . I - !- , , j , , . h 11 i- ,� 114 1..P� '.1 :_ . , I -a. :, .i � -1-1 . I k • I .; , v . ► // I I )W :. - " I 1 11 ..,_ ", ., - . � •.. O ... I� V . .1 . - - ..._1 •,� - '. h'IR. . . "I --n ! - .. 4 : 1, -, - I; , , i4 I_- 1, - r- I " V 1 4 6 11 I X . . I....- - !_ -, . - - . . -_� , -, 11 r' f, i I I i %I! ,M 11 -. ., . :..I.- i I. . I : . . .., s " "4" 1 I. ,,,).O� � . . ­ . - , , \ I i "n � �� I � . I * ,, - , , � t4 . 4 .. . .. I jo .1� .,% , � % � .. - I. .;4' .I .. , !i. -. ,_ b:, :p, : I.�- 4iA-;- - 4 . 11 I.: .. I . . j� . .. I I.. . . ., .., 4 ! A,F li,.A t. ') , . , It I �.. L . .. ­`.. ,., . ;. I I I /.`. .1 ... . I -J 4 . , I, . .-­ I I , - - . I . , . I - O . J0. 0 .1: I . .-. . I .;. t I I r j-m � - .. j, , i I I . ,1� . I I - ! . . � , . . tI ,I - I�11-11'_11)` � ...!, I I I I.; . ­11 ; . I 1. .. . r'A .b .- -.-t I I \a., , .. . �i (r, . , ., .:. I, . .i. . . I, ! I jk .. . - I I - 1, I - 11 . .1,.4 i .i.,� . - I. . . " J-,.I ,�I ):I 1 1 ,- , 6 ;It "..'� I I -!.. .. -_ Ill .1,i . - , , I a- :? .. i . .. 4 . ► , j , #I ,g R . • � O ..., - -- - ; .1 I" I - " .-I I 'Ili I 1i . 1 i . .r.,", - tI 'r.q 1 P. I :..I c :/- ,.a , ..I I -t rl'�.J.w .� ni; I , I ­40, - 44!1:. ;"j� . . . I ! , : I .-I I I.W w---k,­t, .l . I; It I I . � ,I. . . . i_�;;! '-�.I.-1 � 4� ' . i - ;� . . _­ .. ( 'rAp :.w -.All ..... J., , . � , . V I , . -. . I ,..: . . I : 1� I A ,-, 0. , -I ;,. .I i, :. '.18 -- .. -Z4 - 4 - I 11 .i I �. - . I ,, , . �. - .. . I,�� . I- I ./-,�, . � 1, - - _`rz " , . . . i I l"! . , , 46�. 'I,- al 4. �v .I .1 � .,. 1.1v I i I I a I I :,.1 I I . I !i . :1 � _A ..` I U. :: 1..w - -; � a I 7 ,:�, . !.to .. , :.J, . I 1.I ­ - � t , . . -:-S-! I .- . f , L I-i . 11 I " 1- .. � � . I i . ..: I 1. , , ! 1, , � � .1., -� , . . . V!1', I . . � I I �- ,, I 1 i . . v T :, ./� 'a,--I .. : .f. � -I '14,--,,, ,�'�, � '. � ­ : ,Llv-.,a , - I ! . - . < r : -1 : !t-,� I. 11 A I . k. 4�1 - 14 I't � - 1! a I --& 4� . ", I.. ,-, , . .- � : t.t, . '.0 1-1 I C' ...� .� I -, I 4 I. -1- i I - ­­• : I_... �� . I_ . . �. - f�. -.1 If, I �- .", ,�I."- , ,I . - , .:"r "I- a ( -, ': �r . I..� ..I ! I . , 11 4 t'. I I , at I i, It 1 4... f - . r I i . .�,, � " I .j :­� ., (r'' - - \1 11 I .�./ � I - � .,: ,,..( 1- . I_ I .. I I t I 1. �_, � i iii �,I... i. I :, : "' . I... in, ...• .441 - .: --- k .1 (,.� - - _ e �.' .. i�. ...... . . % I �... 3 ..I I I .. . '� 114. ....- I IT I I r.. I ___.. .. ll� . s I V . .. t. . ...-L ."., , - I; I it ­4 � ?i 11 . tl!.� -I " " a. I. / - I- 1; , 1. I * .-�.j - ;r u �l a " , Ic 14C - 4 - r. . .. ...1. I q ,,N I, , �_.�.11\. . I) , .. r, :.., --,-!.. .. Pf'--4-, . I : -�? . . �' - �%. . ! . A- I . -1 Uj_'.'..��.e.4--_1 I ?NKI.i I 'e. ' "t. 11-. , , i - .I . . : I -_ �. - - '­ '� :. 'M ,w .. - I.. --- I i , I --. 7, ­_A I m i br% I'll t .. .. �'*.L'.;.l .. ,-. I r � -� �! --) ... ..." - :1 .1 L:�- .:Ir. . ... .... . . .. ; , -,,j r",:i f'. i -. -..6 1, I �JL. "4 '!, , 1, I :I! ;� e . . ; . . -,;,":t ,�:.I ., ',.I'? .. .- I I : �, .. - . �._: ' 4J_ I -4 I..-.. . - I, r , tu - �� � ,- w - - I I .% �I � � . . I . ty,jfl. - �. . - " . 1_Z) I � : ' - k I 0.,j­ . I I- - 1i4. 0* I- . . 1.. I I ­; VI" � . I . .,47 .­.r, -i �J_q11 �� I - ,i '.I . , / Ill,�.Ito , I - -N .. , 1.­T'i : I-'i . -- j ..' .. - . I I X ij, . -I q I - " � . 1 . 1,4 P.- . _ __ ..- I . , ;I � " i,�,-. , I - - �` I *� I 4 . . 1, ., j it � , "I. . , . , . I , - , .- " '.i `- -1 .. f - . I . .: .t.�,! .., I... . . I * , .-�,--. ,,_� . . . . .• .. 1, . , ... r f - I ..... I 11 k , - - , -4!;I..: t I.., . �a ­ . I. .,/. .1 , � . . ... - I , ., I - , i-i i-.I i !,�, .I . . ; .,� t� �p "..1. t.. . . . : .11 I . . ,. .I . ­< , 1. .., .4, -1 ,*A , I . -.. . ) , I I I . , . .1. • I .W , . .. k.. , : [I.. .....I I• . .v -I I i _...; 11 I . . a • _. , �y� .. ., I �,. L....., . .. . 1-PA -.4-1 11 '. . 1. r .-r - . . i,( , .-o " -�,­ - ��,'��_ ,�W*, I I I � I* I � .. . I I . ! ,I< !2:,� - . , i, '. , . �� � I i� �)I I : , I ,,, �­ . , - 1jr, . . - a- . , .. ; . I I. � - . � �.✓ :� . I t I,ry, F 1,),-7---. -I: : : - - f v 1, I " :), , `.' - I ` �[ ,­ �,•-" )o k , %14- :�" .. , , 0 �t`4 I . , -1 _�,! - - I : . M : ? - " ,,, � 1- I I .. ,I.I I .. ;. �A\' I , . ,­,_!�-.�..,-_.,iL1,;, - - I , -. , 4. Ill, 1 ' ' z I. I. .� .- _ ;� ,.. . -.. ., _. i. . I : A _f,­-- . . I I— .-1--- . I , V , , ,-.. . I ., , __; - 1B - , -- I I " \., K � , , .:, , t I 11 . .- ­ t-.I*- 'L -.1 F.-- ... I .I­-1 T ,.:,.:k�� .,P:�,k : :1­.Z_ :11� I I "- •L i I ,­ . ! -f I,`�_. I , j .� ..� I ". . , "-- . ." I., . 1i j I .11 - I� � . A 4 ,-,. . , .I . . 1!� . - - ..! f ., ,,;'�P_�'51 .. . . , �.j 1--_. .. . 6� T­ t • .T'.-I ... - ..;. - - 4,;/ , " .I.V-S , :1 � �., . ..- - I / -I;. j I- . Ir --,- .-..;�-'.- ':'4. . 11 -f . . . . 4-,; .:I I,I I 'r - ; . 1, ,'i I i 1 t ...- I.: -I I j I-;- : .-I.-.1 . . - :e-�' I I 1., -"1, , _-�! .1 ... 7..-f . .-.1.. .,.t. d i . - .� - m. . , . I . -N �., t I I I ;I I. i --r- I . : I .. . .'.. I : " ..1A " ,�. . . 1,.H.1 1, . � i - I j ,.-. , i J -,: , � �. - .,.-� j, I ;I V - ter It . c... �...4�. .. ,.:�, � _;-->,P Is ,, , 4., �," . . '. I .. .. " . .I ., ........,..,.-f;;!;,!!�':" ,,, 4 , :.-� ­ . I or, I- , 1) -') . I . . . I: - 't . . . 11 - I . - . 4 I- `- � ,. :-�L � 11 • . ..., . I . . I . i I 4 . I , I . . � .� I : ',�t e : / j ., . \ . .-_f go �) , . � - ,. I .. .. 11 .1 • - N , i ," . I 1 . . - . , �. .!:... " " I.. . IV-, - . I � �% - . , . .. .,\ - -Y ,1 "'. ,, . _.. .� - �­ �.. �" , - , .L :. i ) I. I .1�,�_ \ ,I I I � I .: II -W.V, - , . .1 ��-.,�:, i , __ I. I ... iL I IAAA�I -! t�; . ...�X, . I .�. ;. 11 . . 14VI ... . ,;,� i f, '... ..�, !; . ", .. \N I - ., Wnt-I � -r_ . - . I , - , * , • , 0 & " I 40.� - 'r I ... . &­­ 5 . I I .... .. , ,,."'I..4t.'s '.ON, .rjj. I. . . � . .�_�, 4�11. .-. ?,'. ,,., ... I 1. I.,� .. . .- kin - . : , - -�; I ." . - . . . - , 4 I ��. .0, , • .. . . 1 f I , .1 1. '.1- ., _' ,%. " i - 4L L -, � %0 .-":�- ., I , . ! . , 1. .1, . � . �. .. - -, - I - .. .ii , n.. !y " ; '. NP.Z, 4 I lq�.1 q I. � 4t \ __*'At I . ; . .. I . � I . -.'.1 ,.\ . "I .9 ft I 1, ... ... -�- il - . I. ." . . -1 wi I I i - - - .1, I Is z j- .I ., . . , - � 0 -4/­;1 e-. •, ,-: I L .. . .0,rA.% I I 1, -I . =0 sa - ..., ,W - - -. P. , " ... � ,-I 'I ti . I. % ,­ �. %; , . ­., .._. .. I ,'.,.,.v- - .1 . ... -_, , L V# . ! : 4 - .. . . I , -;.' _�, b;A ,� 1, , : i� . •�� . , . I . - . ; 19. I '; U 1�IV ... , . f"­;. I,.ol,,,, ,1 I, � - . I ." x I I � . .., I I %%, /" I I . ..I 11 , ',-;.. ,-, -� _ , - . . 4 . % .� I ,. I.., 1, r--.j I. I� .4.. ..".1. .. .. X.1 ..It\. 11, , . • ,\ . .. ;. � . f. " I k : .- . ...... .. .. I ..- .... I ; . I" . _ a %f - ml . �tl�"" I � 'I,� %1 I q _� -A - . ��. .. , % - " I '..1 ,\ I . -11 r I . U5 . . ;i ,..;:tr,.�r �71111�- ,- /111, C " " I , ��11 I . �. . . .-g��-,­t o;.- _�I - I . .. . � is , -, � . . $, . - , 4 - . I % I/ 1.0-1 . 1, t , . . � ,. -.1­1 - ., 1110 ..- "i- I .r__ , . �t.2 . r'. 'I",� •_t.. I " 1-)� I" -.1 \ -_�I.,. I P, " , ." I I 'k i % 4, - �- I , /)i� �. , : .t--I -I��-��_, • I . .1%U • I .. , � 4,;. : � .:t�,.'* - 4 , I �-Z- 'I �,�'11 . I .1 L. ..1--*I'M ,�;----- - .1. . . f I. ,-­tc.;:1_A­. .., .��-I', ,.;il.I-t' I\�_.� . t, . 0 1 'j., .� , I ... . - � ' ,v .4 . -�. _f4l , . > Nk ez_ . . . . ... ,-:-,,�;, -1,-w- . - '. , :., I ,- iv ,., I •vo . _`1 � . - .. - 'Ir.! I I - 1.�.. . . . , 'y k�_ , • W - " "" 4 I ; , Lk. . % v L : .,L . .- ., 1-,;�j". ."\ I , "" . . - .... � - ... .. I I . ) , - , - _., .­ �.'?. "r. ..­- 4-.- ,�,- , - ,v­ -�_ ,.i 'i - ., : 11 : . , 4 [ _ .. . v.......i ) . --.,." , -, � , . ,!, -, - x .. � . ..".I.'11. . . ,. . .- I I I A I.... . . . 1 �, -,.I 4'...T.�..."f� , I -Y� ;?- i_-) , � If i. 14.. ... ... I.." T ..- ....I I -,V % I ..m...I 11 . 14 .. ......... I 1. . . ! I -.I :I 10, , -- `f,,I;.-=e'... I ', . . -. .. . , '7 " . .. I . . : - - �--`( ;-' Is % I "'.�,I ,I , I-- __ . .� I � I ., I, L'.. 4 ., - I i i-` a - �� � ,a , . , , , .. , ' ,..- .1 �I I .1 - -, ., . . . .p . j I'� " . �..,., , I. 1i 11 . , -.4 \.. , k ". ' #"S . , . i .,��! ,4 ...., I .I, .W, .1 ; . " ,I- I ,I 1. ,­7% .�,,I , ... _..I - " .I, . . . � ...- - � . I I i it , . , ,. . .;z I - I k � --- � , , .. 14 - % .. � .1 ,0, . .. �7., � .1. . �I.-.. -A, ,,'.," .. , , . ­ -"" .. ... I .- . ...� I, ,- . I 1�p .�wpr' .."'I :-"( .. . ,. � , -, "', ., . �4,b -. I i . , - 1 44 ,.. ,;.41" , I V...I !.,. , .!.. I I � _ A1.1,_,_14;S0v- 1) .- : 01 st...�*� .." I .,,�i, , �Ii . ;!to i IT.,;;7.0 .." I, ., ,` -, � " � -4 I 1, , -,.!. I I i '1111� ,* „(w..''..� . . .I ) . � _I' . �1 i t I _.,. .. , " . :� .� � � r - . - . - - ­ I ft I 111,�__, -, I-.-- . . �-m ,..4, _. '. % ... ,% - .., -. .I.'.,�M_.,- . / . � , -e f . . �,, '. 4 . Ij ,I , ,,X , . , , - �- \ , I "!�1.�i-��..,- ", , . I , . . - I .1..-1. ,�. Oz i I • 1. ,:!.. T - - 2 \ ., �. � .el:�, "Im I - I .."" 7�!".L,�'" , , . � I -_I.'..., ".� ,* " ,* .A.. � . . I . i�,'.3 p . .�. , 91 -. . . . . - I ,I . , ,..� . - . I I . ,..�..,%, .. , , ."t - �-. ., .. ._ . .I ) �.":!. -, - , 11 - - ., "; '10 1...` � ,. .,,I. .. �� . :i . I I., . ­ . 4�. M). f I . . . . -.1 .. I. .1 . � I_ . [:7 .M. - ,I. - ii ` - )..W.k I 1. . .I !.0 .I.. . ,� . . . .1 .�� . & . I : I.,I , ...,:,., �'.,`l .. ? .. . �- . . • i -- . . �g)' . �.,�:;;,�;:� 4." . " .I ... A " . -I .... - i - q . �I : - .�gt�V. ^I N., .. �✓ 11 , . I . . ... . * - - - I." .1, � i .-4 1 1 .. I . . �410" v , -�,.­ ,Q - ,47 ,1, : �. . . . %�.% .I'yam 1* - -..- I ."Y' .., I \ , . - . - � �. ,� ­ ..'r.p 1. I ..... . .- . I., ,,a '..), - I 1.:ji .Ov ." .. , , *71 . . . '. I I . - �, . :1 ..". j­.. � . ,. 4%,I �, ,"', .. - . ' ` ..f, : . .�f 11 I . .. i. 1 1 � 0 ...4 j v I. . 1. .1vt. .. � 1 � I 11�- I I :21 pilky k.�li -I.rIq ,,', ."\,I Z , 4 , _. . I , - 711 I / , . . I I ­­ ��.. I ".:, I : . . ,!�O, i . " L � . , ..� , , �-­j - , . 1i .-it : ) - � , p,- 'r. . I . . I ..,I .�. .11 I ". '..� I.,�,.A.. ' ' ..�.. V,t;::� ,��Z� 4' ;..,,�, '.. - ' " . 11 .. .. .. I • A .. ! I - 0. I � . .I uv.p ." r , - � . 4�;oh' � v � ': , , - . '. -, - 4 !. 1�k . I; -, ... t ' ­_' 0. I? , , m , A 4i.,I .I 41 X, . -�. . , ,._.�* .. .- i.�. -- - . " '.. 14 . �­ ". I I., 1­ - . . , -� � ,It - . . I. z - I � I . % %.*� - . - I . . , t i O.- -L I , , I . '. .,., . I . . , .... .�..:. %*., " ­��\, .. . ., � .. . *-�.;- , P.. I - ", !.`til . err I&' IF . �, I L � -I L -�_J. .".:I . . . . .. . - -i& X . - -�, JJ '.­'.."l"'4- .- . . 1. - " " , 4 � \/ ,"1 :.:J. il I ,__ :� , ­� - , - -�t - -.. , �". I ,, :. , . IT 5 *\. ,,\11� �, -At- -,14..-1 __.'!, �. - �,, '.-,; :,...- - - - . 't. ;0 I .. , 1, Ll . ". .. i,� , . . ,.: . .P "'" . ,:.- %, 1. ?.1 I e, A,� - � - P1, i, - . . . i . . , I- . � I �1. ,�­-- -1., .. .. ,. , .. z �, �- � . . ., ; N. '. %., :.. _" N--,\ � . � . , \ 0 - . . w;;w . . . .- . -%, . . ., .. ... ­ 111. . . . . . . � r ­­.' I .. :­ * -_ ��A �, . a __ - __ . - - . ... ._:- .\\, .. . A I I , - - , W_ , , . -I- . ___. -.-.-- . . i I,� . , .. . .. . --1- , - I.... . It j -. I' 'I.,� ,,I' ! . I ', .1 , -, � ...-1 �._ .: -%., ... � .�v, , _,� i- . .. . - � - ---- :::--i - ... , .. ./I I . �. . i ... ...'I , .F , I . a I ..� ". v I , .." ... 1. . , ­.... r . 1­0% .. . � . 1; .. " 11 ,q . \ - , \ 11.11 � .. " . .'ArV..041- , - 11 :, 'i . . .;r,.i'O _'. 11 \ i ­ - . i ..., I. %. I- ,,� . -,3 .� ­. �,/)% � ,. I - I A- , 1� ; . I .1 � I- . . r .�,�. I it ,.,,, -.?;, , , A I . .. - 1,IZ, "...A--. 4 . , I . �.. . 1; - : I I I i ; ,,-- , " - - Ill I I 0. i a ...... .1. . I � . I .1 I . 1� ..� " , N VO'S,. I , � ,- 3-I N A", :), i . . I - . -- I . . " k" v a I I N, 0 11 If .IL �, - �A 11.4.-,V'�. w J, . ­11�--.J­ . I .. -, 1 , I , I'I, i", I � A I, ­A0'I ij "... ;' . " - . G , * I I - I I I I . � �I . c .1 . . , i. .. . . - - N" �4 . ,% .;I I . � ..... '4-,,.!�' ;,-, _. - .. . ... -.., ,'. t , * I , I I ... "-1. 1 . I-I'% . . . . . I , .. ­_ ., , .*. ) . 7 . . . '. , -,i . J%4 ;1, . - - . I , '. _ . ........ , . . , '. I I \ m,-.' . % , , . / I \I . I t_ .C�1" �. A \ \ * I . . ,% I - , � �. il 11 .11.. 'I. 11 - �. . ; . , I I ... .. 4,40,.��, I 0-J­L I p -,. , ,�I . ., .1 ;� , I ! t.. I ;I . .:.-.,.,�*,39 11-Z / -, - - 11 \ \ : . ?..� I •. - . .1 �t. , , . , . I , . , .1 - -. ,, . - - � f I ! -.....' J. _. 4 ]--t--.�.. , � 11 . .I ij. .�.,L �. 1. < .- 1� ­.- . ; I 11 . . .. ,.!.... ..� . .: .-� . I I , , . . . I � _ f I , i • >14 - .. • i 1. ! ., ,�. /, �.�-­_, - , ��­:_ - . • &__ 1 . - "'I, , I I 11 ).� % 11 • I , I'll I.: __ (�- � S'-.',',. / 1.1401 .. '. j -- _* I, - � ,, " , - - ,Z , I I-, I � - . . _ - I - Z. L I - , i I ., .- _ , - ..01A - . �- I ­ - )% .. -- , . IN-1, .. , , - - � ..t I i. _�1,'.ID . - I I I , kt:zl 11. I - - �K, ..., I J..'s . - , .., Z�� .. � ,�i .11�� ..� \......../..--., / - ,�.I � I - 'Y. .; - ! ._�.y .: I .-- - I .. . I !tt,�Lj,,. . ... ..I - m , I I .. I - � ii-v .1 1 ,.4. ,;, - %ft-IS 40 , I - ..- , 1. . .. I ,�. - . , - - � . . - 1�m . .:1. .I 1_�­ 1� " t - • ...� ,%....,O. '. :..., 4 ' ,� " . . Ij , .1 ... , I, .� __ . . I _� .. I i .T , . I I "Y'l -, _� , I - . N,�-�', . t .4, ­ j., - ;_ -: :.......�­ 7.___ �.,� Ot Ir""' .zk _- I .,. , - 7­,�.-- � ,L __�"_,� ... L. - 4p . � .� I :. 'i-6. , \. : ! ,V� - I ., , , �L , - _.- - 1- '34,1. - , . . . . - ......* _.''. I ­I_n�, It,I I : I 4 .�d ,�", - - � 1 All . . I -- -- . , . - ... I I - -- --11-1�_- ­ � � --� . , 11 (­.... I � � " -- I .14 ,J� ,".:) . "� __._ -,- .1- I . , I �` , .,;K L . . , . - , . .� i ���,:* - �� ., . .. ., I - . - , I .1 I 1. � _1w , I .11 � ./ . , - 1Q.-I-14 . , - .�:.:�� , ., 4- 4 i I_- - . . -_+_. - .- �\ . � .1, - .7.1.1....... " �. , I , � - .0. , i J� ;I .--i--- ry 5 ,. .,I. I " 1_' � I ,�_, I 11 I . . . I .1 � I I_ , a, ) I 1 - .. , a, ) ,�\�,-q , a __ I.. I I ­1___ �- . -. 0 . ­) 11.L�, \1`­ ,�, �4 '. . lit ! . I - . 4�- t . ,.�. I ...- . , , It. . I q.!, . �-If . .I- . . ,a O : ) ....r.1 ,� .1 ,.(.,! , . . I A , \ 0, '. � �_ ?,-.-ill�1 _ : �._.- I ... . � : I - - , I � i% fil. t7l l' :. w.11 ­ , . . . I I I .F.- ... ...Pi �-. .. -4 . - -, �� , I . .­1 . -I ) I . I :. I .. .. . .., �.,,L , ..... . K_­ . ... I . � ­1 ­-_� . . _`ZZ_--. I. , 'fl, ZI ­ , . , I _ - - . I I - t 1 I I 1..........: . a . ..,." I I 1,,I, '�, J. . .. � .� � I s -,C I . .,,��[( � ­. I .; .. so I �L - .. �, ?,� =�- ,, - . __ -' 1 -I , ... �" ..4. . I I I I . . ., , ­ - - . - . � I, - ;1 , (O . �.,.,.j I I I/ I: o 1 .1 . "_ . . I - .. -1 dop . 'I": ­ -%Z' - . I "'I"d �(4-'\ . ." ��.. ---- - , A.,: ,C� I 7 j,� :'.., �. I i . - . ...... ;. f, . , 1 ,- . � .i ;�.,� t,� -- I�: -­ ! 1 - ­ . I k..... ( . 1', - . . � - �.'. � . . I ,1, �1 1 i,.., . . . .'� I V, I -� �-7- - , ­ I I I I1. Q . I.;., . -- - .. . A i - . , : :. % t), , , . " Ik , , - A-7 - \, L. j •' I:�, ** 1 ­ 'I., Iat . .. 1:­ . . . . . I , "_� ......I" , :1 O... i , I, I'" "� --- �� - 0 2 m . I . �..:,­ \,. ..... -I .. . I : , . . . . . , . . 11 I I ,--1 I -11.\ � .. , �I" � .) O "I.-, ,)I L I I .- -A %b ,, t 0 . I .t ��. . I ......� , ,. I I t ,c .. .. '. I . 41. - I : . -L � ,:.�'I, . I . I . I O !/.. i . el - � � L,`_' ".. , ­ .. . .. .. . . , 0 .,. A .. i A < I - .,.: ..f - e ! ,T�_ ": "I-I , . . ­1 . 11 , , -- �I !� � �. , .1 , - .,, I IN I . I J'� , . ., . ;\\ a . , . I '. , ,- I . O I ..; .1�; , I;,,.. - I , I I � . �. . ---��., , - , (D _/..,;� � , .,.I;�f I I. i -4 . I . .. I MWI - \ . . �.-I ;_ - I � , ""I,:f, - ) O I 1 .4:::�­,_ . I -.., "F-I, . . .% ,,. I ��,"j]1 1 . i . .. ! - ![,.-' -- I A I I I .,� . l-,_­.z�". , - . 1, I 4t. , . . I i .. , .. I . ­, .--, ",_L ­'� .. . f -,'I .., .1, .., , I -,�. 4t, 1. - I!` , I . 1, L . I __ - I . ... • \ ; \ t.�'g� . . i . .10. ! ffi");% ....... - 1,- , . . . .Z:,. � . ,.�- I i I - I., '.� .... -� I I .. . - I . . . ,I-,r" I ,, , i/ ,.I m ,, - i , .,I. 11 I �, :.,I. v 'I 1 , - 4-4.1­I I I I ," 1'!_ -.-' ' , -- �,_,� 1�. .1 11 - , . �) \J ., -N,- , r . "�, p, I I I( ... I ) I � - . :1L i \1," . I ti .. � ' ­:-...: ' � . . I . - - . i-, ;:__.Z.I-__ . \ . -I �. . t­ �. �_L -, : _rx? I __ .. . - .. . i , . ... .. j _rxI.I.- .*I' 1v . '.X. � , 4 \ , .Jr*-�.-­�_A��,.- I, ­ . I , !..-.-; I . .-oli- W. V .. 1. I- . . I _/ .. ., -, -* CM r� , A -�,- . ­11 ,_ 4 E,iy; -. ! , -� A-i: j 1��:_ , -Pi ,T'�*,,,,-i. I -. , -` -, :'")mind I ll I , .1. . .1d ,�. . I. . I �I-c- . I , , I "". I --,,�-,.: ::,.. .-. ��',, ,�- . , _. . _ . . - . .. . . I. �i ; ­,.� - . " ­ I- I- i 1.� � p. ;,',�, �, 1<_j- 11 .•I ) , IL - -- ... -. I 1,� . . 1.7�. I N I I :��I Q, .. . --�;".',.,.. . . - - . .-- .m :,;-%. .­�',� � -!­.! , ,...! - . - . :� I ." . 1'. ,'._. . E::,."? � !P,1 - - -1: I -. I ­1 I . ; - , .. k� .. f j :�I - _f. 1�11 k n -i �17-. . __ . -1- ...... •­ I. I , �-_-;_'_ , - .z :1 .11 - 11 . I'1. r I . /;'j t.....:...... r !11 ,.-L-wiv­? I. . .. ... . - -��. IN"',-iq), , �. .. 4, 1 �, � . . . I 11 � ;4 I I , - ; 'Cl, ..... . . ,..o • I ­ . __ . . .. ; ,.,J. I., 11� . , ­- ,, - . I I .. ...�. �..w � \.f . J I's, '!I Nit I I 'I : � ,, I I I � ... . I - , it ,.I. 4..... ......-.!.X-.......i . .. L.�.�.. ,. ._. .,...; I . .. ., I ,I .4 ... . .... _... - I /. _ . %,. . ... , j I, . - . � '.. I -, ..,I .. y . !,\�4 j- '. -11 . . .. .. . . .. � � .. I I I i....... , I V. � -� I �� I - \.. - , I ...I"''1� k, 11I ; , • I I L-- , "I . ,C..,-.", \. .: ". . . . '; - . 1. '�J -_� " , (I- -- '.., -', - _� 11: �I 4., *.. .��1� : � . . ., - - .. . . - A �, ..I . I . 1, .1 . . . . . 01 i . 1. ,i I � , " . 1 , . . . I , - ,..'. r. 1�! i V, .... . :: I .. .14\ F . , . �.... I . �� 11 J � ..T. ,I i . . � . .; . . Ilk I - 11 'I..."� 11 : : , , I , , , . :. - -i %. I . 1. - - 1� , . . - - I _1 � ...' .. - I. i x - , ...... �Jl W7 IN t .. - .. . ... . � ),;. li�f It I a Ivj , .., - I I 1�1�_!".. -t.,. -- , " 1 : __ , 1'. ... I I , .� . . .el;b . . .1 .,... . I I .,,A k `.r.. . ;.-I .!......� _:vi'-!-_"._"­."j,..V .11 -W /,r , . I . ,_... it : I . i .N.� ,tj ­'j.Et , ... . . - / f .� � - I I . , . ,:!, ).T 14 - !.,I ... 1.,�.: 1A . 0- I, � .. 1� .. � I i -... I ,,._-=-=,�.,�:­.L* -404---, �;_-,!., -� - ____�S- ._,%vmvTmv__F7__�1 - ____- . . .. . . .. I . , .. - . . ;��. . I Li.. _ i .. ­­­ I . I .., : . . . 0 1 1 , 4 , �1_. I . . .H.P.- 1�.�\j � .1. I I I . ,I, *, 1p. !I. . , . 11 . . I (:I_ . � - . ,� n - m .�, _... I, , , , .- - \ . I I,1. I - _.,......v .1, , I� I­ . . : . - .,.. I � 1,� ...� .. VN I / - - ;j. ! , . ,, -�. 4 . . _,.�,. 1; I I -,...,_.1...-_ --,.. v I :."_'i , � i., (.-.. .. i : �' . . I ,[�:_, K;4 1 ! k�,� - .-I..-. .. I , : -v . I ....," I, : . � -- �,-Y:, I -- r%?<") Q I � '% r I ,,�­'_,-- I ��f-_.-._, ­.- ii:� ...i,�­__.,�,__4 -A:. 1, Q t . . . .. - '.. I . 11 . -1- -------r.- ....,11 I 11 .1 .. .---.- .....::..,..! . - ---. - I. ­.... " KN ..: -; . � !..'' - � � ! ( I k I�.- -'t .. -__ � . .% - . .. - 1 -6 - I . . ,. , I " �,,--.1,-,,,I I.I I,�,l,I I,,I I I ,I�,,*I,,- --- z I I-7- -I I I -�, `11\I 11.I�-I I - `I- I­ ; I."I'`; .-, ,�.,�. I I __I,r. I I L.- I i.- , �tl',, (. . , .� . .. . , :1 - . ­7 . I . -I.... -,, 1 P_ , . I i ­, . i . / , .! ­.. . .. I,-I, -i , . �,:;,..-, I � I 1 0 . 4�_.---­ .: . . 61 ... . , I ...--.....%S -.-.- . k... I ............... " . .- I�, I ,�........ I . I .- ,� ..�. _�.................- .........I/-'� '..S. ,I .. f­, 1�I ...1 I__ I 4 - \ " I , �,..�.. .7... : :-. �_ wvx? i �/ . � � 8a cam, �- .sz, .�. i- !RECEIVED- CITY CLERK CITY OF �w HUNTINCTON BEACH,CALIF. AUG 32 I 10G AM '78 8131178 Ladiea cC , en;Uemen: TleaAe .&e/ ou44 cotmide& the expendiht a o� moni.eA needed to keep Advvtt-' a lola ypwund alive and weLG Sn th.iA won.0 o� aA y, etc., 4dve d-u&e l.Cayptound .c& one wait to g.et kidA 6ack to 6aA!CA. 3Aank you 4o,& yours con&ideAaii_on. Vet. 3. Schuld (MAA. 16782 Cha met Lane lluntington Beach, Cati�' 92649 Cay Cl eAk: K.indLy &ee tha;t counc-d memb e&. have the ha unity to rcead my concerned �ueit. y° ]1 s •-� rAt4 TO ASSEMBLE FRANK LL YD WRI HT 2 `fir - Urn- � 7C c y c q oun U M n6. c � o� fl 0fL Q 92646 •y _ N z ) W d .r 6� 'fa4'� ' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TION Submitted by Norm Worthy, Director- AK/ Department Recreation, Parks & Human Services Date Prepared September 6 , 192B_ Backup Material Attached ®. Yes No Subject "OLD TOWN" PARK SITE City Administrator's Comments APppl0�E�By Approve as recommended. _� C1rY eGU Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: Statement of Issue: As part of the requirements of the Nejedly Hart State;. Urban and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976, an application for a Negative Declaration has been filed with the Planning Department for the "Old Town" Park site. Approval of this environmental document requires that the City Council approve in concept the attached site plan. Recommended Action: That the City Council approve the attached' "Old Town" Park site plan in concept to allow the City to apply for State Park Bond Fund reimbursement for acquisition and development. Analysis: On February 28, 1977, the City Council approved the reprogramming of $50,000 from first year H.C.D. funds for development of the "Old Town" Park and authorized Proposition 2 Funds (Nedjedly Hart State Urban and Coastal Bond Act of 1976) to be utilized for the acquisition and development of "Old Town" Park. Alternative: Not to approve the conceptual plan for development of "Old Town" park which would prohibit the Planning Department from issuing a Negative Declaration; therefore, the City would not receive its $421,000 allocation to be used for acquisition of 1.60 acres and development of the total 5.81 acres. Funding Source: ejedly Hart Bond Act, Park Acquisition-and Development Fund. N \W:dp Attachment \ Pio 3178 u • 1 -- D&AWARE STREET- � w "of Q .•�� �FteA � N�f P �o,�D . D I T fe UK ok� Nt � i1ER P111MESANDS QR/yE A PLAT 1 oou 'fos 00 NOT. a.F. LAKE A ooN�`/Po HUNT/NGTON Exisr. 41 rWreje uwE r S'TREET REQUEbT FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 78-46 Submitted by Floyd G. Belsito Department City Administrator _ Date Prepared September 25 , 1978 Backup Material Attached ❑x Yes No Subject SURPLUS COUNTY PROPERTY - SANDRA LEE STREET City Administrator's Comments Approve as recommended. ,a' a •� J Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions: / STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Recreation and Parks Commission has recommended that the City ?acquire a .7 acre County Site for the development of a low-maintenance park. RECOMMENDATION: Do not acquire the park site. ANALYSIS: In light of the reduced funds available and the increasing burden of park maintenance costs, it is recommended that this park site not be acquired. Even a low maintenance park will place demands on our limited park maintenance staff for upkeep. In addition, the original costs for development must be considered. The Commission is not recommending purchase of the site, but that the City accept the property if the County is willing to dedicate it to the City. The vote to acquire the site passed by a 6 to 4 vote of the Commission. ALTERNATIVE: Acquire the site. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds are necessary if the site is not purchased. Development funds would be provided in a future budget from the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. FB:JC:ik i Pao V78 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LJJ0 V" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Floyd G . Belsito From Recreation & Parks Commission City Administrator . Subject SURPLUS COUNTY PROPERTY - Date September 14 , 1978 SANDRA LEE STREET Upon recommendation by the Park Acquisition and Development Committee , the Recreation & Parks Commission made the following motion regarding the acquisition of surplus County property at Warner Avenue and Sandra Lee Street . MOTION : Mr . Lee Mossteller moved the Recreation & Parks Commission recommend the City acquire the . 7 acre excess County property at Warner Avenue and Sandra Lee Street for the development of a low- maintenance park or beautification site . Dr . Howard Roop seconded the motion . Lengthy discussion followed on the types of low-maintenance beautifica- tion development the Commission desired . Concerns were expressed regarding the effect on our Park Maintenance Crews due to the loss of personnel and budget restraints . The motion carried by a vote of 6 to 4 . Sincerely , N rm 4Jorthy , Secret ryCO44' Recreation & Parks Commission N W : c g s Enclosure U\ j OUNTY OF R/O►IVCaE T. R. EGAN DIRECTOR GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY STANLEY KRAUSE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FACILITIES & REAL PROPERTY G-7800 REAL ESTATE DIVISION GEORGEH. CORMACK, MANAGER 400 CIVIC CENTER DR. WEST P.O. BOX 4106 a_ G iSn ,� A August 15 , 1978 SANTq N A, CA 92702 TA A s3a-2sso CITY OF HUf�P11G1.0'.J -PM. 1135-17 .02 , 22 , 24 , & 25 '(K 1 ,r, 1978 Warner Avenue & Algonquin Street , MR NORM WORTHY RECREATION & PARKS DIRECTOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P 0 BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SUBJECT: Excess County Property - Warner Avenue Near Sandra Lee Street Norm, this is to summarize our discussion concerning the subject excess County property. I understand that City staff has asked the City' s Parks Commission to recommend acquisition of the property for park use. The Commission recommended acquisition in 1975 . However , because of the lapse of time since that recommendation and the chanaes in Commission membership, the current members wish to inspect the subject property before making a recommendation to the City Council . Meanwhile , this office is appraisinq the property' s market value for residential use. We plan to present the results of our appraisal to the County Board of Supervisors along with the proposed City request for dedication of the prop- erty as a park site. In order to give the Board of Supervisors a complete picture of a request from the City, please have the followinq in- cluded: 1 . Description of proposed development. 2 . Estimated development- and maintenance costs. 3 . Time schedule for proposed development. 4 . Discussion of proposed development ' s access- ibility to residents County wide . RLA/so 207A-8 Norm Worthy -2- PM 1134-various I understand that on September 13 at the next meeting of the Parks Commission, the Commission plans to make a recommenda- tion on the City' s acquisition of the subject property. I will be happy to attend that meeting and answer any questions the Commission members may have. As we discussed . you expect a decision from the City Council on the proposed recommenda- tion no later than the last meetinq in September . If the City Council requests that the County dedicate the property to the City, please senrl the request to this office for presentation to the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for keeoina me informed of your progress on this matter . Richard L. Acker Real Property Agent RLA/so 207A8-2 8 .158 �.� <,rAcujry.0 =- FRA'.NGE T. R. Evnr: �•"J DIRECTOI+ STANLEY KRAUS[- GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY ASSISTANT" DIRECTOr, FACILITIES & REAL PROPERTY REAL ESTATE DIVISION GEORGE H. CORMACK, MANAGER 400 CIVIC CENTER DR. WEST P.O. BOX 4106 rD 1+ SANTA ANA, CA 92702 (714) 834-ZSSO IUr February 22 , 1978 PM 1135-17 . 02 , 22 , 24 and 25 CITY Of Warner Avenue and Algonquin Street .-�•I•..,,1•.„l.._ (., . .(.._ Mr . Floyd G . Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT : Excess County Parcels - PM 1135-17 . 02 , 22 , 24 and 25 In our recent phone conversation we discussed the subject parcels ( see attached map for parcel location ) . While the City of Huntington Beach had considered leasing the parcels for open space , you indicated that the City is no _longer interested in leasing or otherwise acquiring the parcels . The last correspondence I have from the City ( your letter dated December 6 , 1975 ) expressed an interest in leasing the parcels. As written clarification of the City ' s position , please sign the enclosed duplicate of this letter and return it to me. Thank you for your cooperation. Richard L. Acker Real Property Agent RLA/lm Attachment G-7800 20B-1 2 . 228 'I p _ SUMTF-Cr PARCELS �P — LLJ � 2 ►7 \..� � J z - J ---------_--...—._ n .'... �-.,....,.,.....a..,�. �.,.. .•.. a-' .�.. ORION - _ STREET cl i Zr• .a •:.•... .. — •.. .. Fr 42 dtti: ZY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HU ITIIJGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING ITS POLICY FOR THE NAMING OF CITY PARKS, AND. REPEALING RESOLUTION N0. 3312 WHEREAS, the city has established a vigorous program to provide suitable park and recreation areas for its residents ; and It is desirable that appropriate names be selected for the city 's parks , and that a policy be adopted by the City Council to accomplish this purpose, NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that the following policy shall be in- stituted for the naming of the city ' s parks : 1. That parks adjacent to schools be named the same as the school but that the parks so named be dedicated in honor of persons who have served their community in an exceptional and distinguished manner. 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 donor. i 3. That if the park is neither adjacent to a school nor was donated all or in part that it be named after Huntington Beach trustee presidents and/or mayors , no longer members of the City Council, the honor to be given first to those oldest who are still living; 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 trusteemen and/or city councilmen who did not attain the. office of president or mayor have a park named in their honor beginning with the oldest still living, then in order by len£;th of service on the Council. WSA :ahb 5/19/78 1 . 5. That if, which seems unlikely , enough parks adjacent to schools do not exist to exhaust the list of names of past lluntinE,ton Beach mayors , then features of Huntington Central and other community parks such as lakes , structures (other than restrooms ) , groves of trees , walkways , , playiizg fields , group camp and picnic sites , gardens , play equipment areas , meadows , amphi- theaters , vistas , bridges and wildlife. refuges shall be named after such mayors to honor them for their service to the city . 6. That exceptions may be included in the above list of priorities for naming parks in order to honor persons who have served their community .in an exceptional and distinguished man- ner or to emphasize environmental features of the community with the concurrence of the Recreation and Parks Commission and the City Council. Resolution No. 3312 and all other resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of June 1978. Mayor a ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk 0S N City .Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Administrator Director, Recreati , Parks and Human Services 2 . Re No. 4622 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENI'WORTH, 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 5r_h day of ,t,,,,p 19__7&_, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Thnman- ManAlligfpr, Rai 1 cad' ManAi er_ Ci chart Qbenk m NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California s ---r^ / 4M V - THECITY OF HUNTINGT0N BEACH Recreation, Pafks H mangy--Seravices�- Pe- rtrn`ent y POST OFFICE BOX 190 • HUNTINGT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 926'48 • TEL. (714)ti_836�Sd8.6 OFFICE: 2000 MAIN STREET J. NORM WORTHY ,ppg®V•ED BY CITY l .:�ivL'.,. N ^ti` DC �%ki977 Director TOM BUSHARD CITY OF`HUNTINGTON`BEACH° Park Superintendent ,_�, ---Z- ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE VIVIAN BORNS M CITY CLG Superintendent Recreation& Human Services TO: Floyd lsito, City Administrator FROM: Norm o y, Director of Recreation, Parks and Huma ervices DATE: December 14, 1977 SUBJECT: ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE FACILITIES - MARINA PARK COMPLETION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Robinwood Little League Incorporated has been playing baseball on the Marina Park site since 1964 and the City Council recently approved plans for complete development of Marina Park which incorporated three (3) little league fields into the design. The six park contract which included development of Marina Park and the little league fields was awarded to the J. B. Crosby Company of Orange on July 5 , 1977. Due to unforeseen delays , there is not sufficient time for the Crosby Company to complete the park prior to the 1978 little league season beginning in April . RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council authorize an agreement be prepared between the City, Robinwood Little League Incorporated and the J. B. Crosby Company to allow for early completion of the three (3) little league fields at Marina Park so they may be used by Robinwood Little League for the 1978 season and authorize up to $19 ,000 from the City contingency fund to cover the expenses . ANALYSIS: Several meetings have been held between Robinwood Little League officials , Crosby Company personnel, staff and Council representatives in an effort to work out compromises that would allow Robinwood Little League to occupy and play on the three (3) new fields in April even though the Crosby Company has until July to complete and deliver the project to the City. next page, please . . . . . . . I RECREATION IS A FAMILY AFFAIR "floyd G. Belsito December 14, 1977 ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE FACILITIES - MARINA PARK COMPLETION Since there was no provision in the City/Crosby contract to allow recreational activity to occur on any of the parks during the time of construction, the Crosby Company will require_ 2 ,800 ' of chain link rental fence to protect the park site from the public. The contractor feels he could complete the grading, backstops , bleachers and field fencing prior to the April season opening but would be unable to complete the four (4) acre sprinkling system. This labor would have to be absorbed by the City Park Maintenance Crew with contract materials . This would also mean the parks crew would assume the responsibility for development and maintenance of the turf and landscaping of the three (3) fields four' (4) months prior to the end of the contract . Total additional cost to the City has been estimated at $191,000 . ALTERNATIVES: 1) That Robinwood Little League Incorporated split their league for the 1978 season and play at three or four Ocean View Schools upon receiving permission from the Ocean View School District Board. This plan would be less costly to the City but would create a hardship on RLL. The costs involved in refurbishing four dispersed school diamonds would be lost beyond the 1978 season and the little league would not make much money from their non-centralized snack operation. 2) That Robinwood Little League Incorporated utilize Marina High School southwest field for three (3) diamonds and authorize $5 ,000 from the City Contingency Fund to assist in field completion. (Cost estimate breakdown attached) . This plan would also be less costly to the City but would also create a hardship on RLL. The Marina High School athletic program has first priority on use of their fields and at times the little league would have to wait for fields to be vacated. Little league would also be restricted from creating base paths or brick dust infields on Marina fields because of the multi-use physical education needs of the school program. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds from the City Contingency Fund. NW:ps att. y �.. COST ESTIMATES FOR EARLY USE OF MARINA PARK AND/OR MARINA HIGH FIELDS BY ROBINWOOD LITTLE LEAGUE INCORPORATED Alternative # 1 - USE OF MARINA HIGH BACK FIELD 1 Backstop -. 20 ' x 62 ' - layback $2 , 975 or, 20' x 62-90' $ - 3, 500 1400 ' 6 ' Chainlink rentafence 1 , 500 1 220V Generator Loan from Park Maintenance ( $20. 00 per day rental ) - $ 5 , 000 Alternative #2 - USE OF MARINA PARK FIELDS FOUR MONTHS EARLY 28001 61 Chainlink rentafence $ 3 , 000 1 220V Generator ( Loan ) ( $20. 00 per day rental ) - Install 4 acres sprinkling system ( Labor ) 12 , 500 Redo 4 acres landscaping 1 , 000 Maintain 4 acres , four months early ( $2, 000 per ac/yr ) 2, 500 $ 19 , 000 • CITY OF HunTinGT0 (1 BEACH J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 n p� TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: November 15, 1977 ',yI i 1JDBY CITYCOUivci:. SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica Regional Park STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: CITY LERK The County of Orange has asked that the City enter into a formal agreement for the coordination of planning efforts for the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park and the development of joint policy state- ments for inclusion in the two agencies Local Coastal Programs. The County wishes to maximize coordination at an early stage in the park. acquisition program and Local Coastal Program process . RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Direct City Staff to negotiate an agreement with the County'.s Environ- mental Management Agency for the coordination of planning efforts 2 in the Bolsa Chica subject to final approval by the City Council. ANALYSIS: In response to a request from the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach recommended that a 38 acre regional linear park be considered for the Huntington Mesa bluff that would extend from Bolsa Chica State Beach to Huntington Central Park. This was done in early May, 1977 (see Exhibit A) . Subsequently, on June 21, 1977 , the Board of Supervisors in response to a feasibility study com- pleted by the County' s Environmental Management Agency , directed that $2 million be reallocated from another regional park project for the "planning and initial acquisition and development of the minimum lands necessary for the linear type Bolsa Chica Regional Park" (see. Exhibit B) . The Board also endorsed the concept of a linear park surrounding the Bolsa Chica Wetlands (see Exhibit C) . On October 11, 1977 , the Board of Supervisors authorized the Environ- mental Management Agency .to negotiate an agreement with the City pro- viding for coordination of planning efforts on the linear regional park configuration, definition of acquisition boundaries and joint state- ments of policy regarding the Bolsa Chica area for incorporation in the two agencies ' Local Coastal Programs (see Exhibit D) . J \/ Y - Page Two The County' s acquisition efforts., primarily the determination of precise boundaries and the development of budget level price estimates are in -very preliminary stages awaiting input from the City regarding the placement of several street alignments and clarification- of the City' s support for the project. The County' s first acquisition priority .is the Huntington Mesa area recommended by the City. Specifically, the extension of Bolsa Chica Street, the extension- of Edwards Street and the realignment of 38th Street need to be resolved in order to fix the precise boundaries and configuration. of the proposed regional park. These items are to be addressed as part of the Local Coastal Program. The County is proposing that a formal agreement be executed to insure coordination of these and other matters that effect the Bolsa Chica and the regional park. City/county cooperation on planning for the Bolsa Chica and regional park was a significant feature of the Local Coastal Program: Work Program approved October 17 , 1977 . Also of importance to the regional park configuration is the City ' s annexa- tion plans, the State' s proposed acquisition and the ultimate con- figuration of the Seacliff Phase IV project recently submitted for processing. ALTERNATIVES : 1. Voluntarily cooperate with the County ' s efforts but do not enter into official agreement. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Director EDS:DBA:gc Attachments : Exhibit A City of Huntington Beach Regional Park Nomination Exhibit B Board of Supervisors. Resolution #77-1022 Exhibit C Concept Plan I Map Exhibit D Board of Supervisors Minute Action October 11, 1977 r EXHIBIT A. � r r city Of Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE.OI TIIG CITY ADMINISTRATOR May, 13 , _ 1977 Mr. Robert G . Fisher, Chief Special Project- Planning Lnvironmental Management Agency Advance Planning Division P . O. Box 4108 Santa Ana, California 92702 File: Master Plan of Regional Parks Update 1_977 Subject: Candidate Sites for, W.est Orange County Regional Park Dear Mr. Fisher: Per the County ' s request for new regional park site candidates , the City of Huntington Beach would like to request that a linear park along the westerly bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa extending from Pacific Coast 'Highway to Huntington Central Park be included in the Master Plan update. This potential regional park would include the bluff , the Coastal Commission ' s required setback area , and approxi- mately seventy-five (75) additional feet of area for trails facilities and landscaping . West of the extension of Garfield Street, the park area could be expanded and extend from the bluff to . the proposed 38th Street (see attached map) . This proposed park would preserve a Significant topographical feature, preserve the vistas of the ocean and Bo,lsa Chica wetlands that currently. exist , increase the enjoyment of those vistas by allowing more people access and provide a green- belt linkage between Huntington Central Park and Bolsa Chica State Beach. The following represents the information that has been requested for each site: . (1) A U. S.G. S-. map indicating location (enclosed) . (2) Major topographical features : . The major topographical feature is the bluff that denotes the edge of the Huntington Beach mesa . ' ']:'lie bluff line varies in height from 27 ro 75 feet above the Bolsa Gap. (3) Size : 38 acres (4 )' Current General Plan designation: Several. General Plan land : use designations apply to this site . They are (1) resource TelePhoiie (714) 536-5201 Page 2 production, (2) planned community, (3 ) planning reserve , (4) residential estate and (5) low density residential (see x enclosed map) . Current zoning designations include M1-02 , M2-0 , �? R3-0 , Rh-O .and Rl-CD. (See enclosed map. ) (5) Site availability, price, etc . : The majority of the proposed site is vacant, however oil extraction facilities and equestrian stables are. located in the area . No immediate plans for the development of the parcels involved with the . exception of the planned community area between the Garfield Street extension and Pacific Coast Highway have been identified . Based on the a appraised value per acre of parcels in Huntington Central Park for which the City is now negotiating , the acquisition price of , this site would be in excess of $1 . 1 million. ' We feel that designation and development of the Bluffline park as a j regional park will preserve one of the most significant vista areas I. , and geologic features of this portion of Orange County . It will also compliment Huntington Central Dark, Bolsa Chica State Beach and any preservation or d-evelopment activities that may occur in the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Should you desire any additional information or wish to discuss the matter in more detail, please feel free to contact Edward D . Selich, our Planning Director, at 536-52.71 . We are most anxious to' cooperate `. with your Master Plan of Regional Parks update efforts . Thank you. Sincerely, p' Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator i FGB:EDS : BA:gc i i i II EXHIBIT B 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOI:S OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ALSO ACTING AS 4 THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ORANGE COUNTY HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS DISTRICT 5 June 21 , 1977 6 On motion of Supervisor Schmit, duly seconded and carried, the 7 following Resolution was adopted : 8 WHEREAS, by Minute Order of April 5, 1977 , this Board directed the 9 Environmental Management Agency to study the feasibility of the City of 10 Huntington Beach request for a cooperative agreement for acquisition, 11 ' development and maintenance of. Huntington Beach Central Park as a County 12 regional park; and 13 14 WHEREAS, on February 8 , 1977, this Board requested the Environmen 41,1 tal Management Agency to undertake a feasibility study for a regional 16 park linking the Huntington Beach Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Marshlands and related bluffs; and 17 IS WHEREAS , the Environmental Management Agency has submitted its 19 reports on said studies with recommended actions to this Board by letter 20 of June - 21 , 1977 ; 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RIZOLVFD that this Board continues and 22 reaffirms its support for State Budget Item #396 . 5, successor to AB 643, 23 (Bolsa Chica acquisition bill) to provide state funding for the purchas( 24 of 924 acres of the Bolsa Chica lowlands to permit public use of the arf 25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the $2 million , previously budgeted 26 for the Nike Missle Base Park Site , is hereby re-allocated for the plan. ning and initial acquisition and development of the minimum lands 26 necessary for the linear-type Bolsa Chica. Regional Park. Resolution No. 77-1022 1. Bolsa Chica. Regional Park/ Huntington Beach Central Park Feasibility Study I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that goals 1 through 8 (pp. ' 44-45) of the 21 Bolsa Chica Regional Park Feasibility Study of June , 1977 , are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as the guide for future County action 4 and this Board respectfully requests that these same goals be considered 5 for adoption by the City of Huntington Beach. 6 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board requests and directs that 7 the Bolsa Chica area be incorporated in the work programs of both the 8 County and the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program and said 9 area is assigned "high priority" for early certification under the 10 California Coastal Act. 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board hereby authorizes schedulin 12 of general plan amendments to land use, conservation, open-.space, safety, 13 scenic highways, recreation and circulation elements as set forth on page 14 Al to A5 of said Bolsa Chica Regional Park Feasibility Study. 16 17 r ti 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AYES: SUPERVISORS LAURENCE J. SCIMIT, RALPH A. DIEDRICH, PHILIP L. 26 I ANTHONY, RALPH B. CLARK, AND THOMAS ,F. RILEY NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE 28 ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 2. i ± ) STATE OF .CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ► � I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of. Supervisors of Orange County, California, Also Acting As the Governing Board of the Orange ? � County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board l at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June , j 19 77 and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board . j A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 1 _ 21st day of June . 19 77 2 j G .'t•S 4 1 Clerk of rtlae I#oard of SL]pe.rvisors of Orange Cnfity,,. California,; A1Go Actin IAA,. the Governing ,Board of the Orange• .County Ilarbors.: Beaches and hatks. District�. ^..�, A• •�. 0ANG �. 9 6 3 d 5 :G 7� i . �8 3. BOLSA CHICA REGIONAL PARK CONCEPT PLAN 1 F'"4 STATE AB 643 Fs> 'll._J ACQUISITION s p r--- COUNTY MINIMUM 1 r. $I...... o. L__� ACQUISITION �� R i STATE-COUNTY LEASE OR JOINT OPERATIONS — ALIGNMENTS NOT DEFINED. SCENIC / TREATMENT THROUGHOUT VISTA POINTSos�/ ;— EQUESTRIAN A. FACILITY \ LBE , j - v t7l H i I i `Q Airport r_ �,'\ P i � {� - .. 0• n It �Pe• �Ys 1 i HA :::::::::::::..:. •x Y A3 { f i .�. ::::::: o i ..-_.35 �•�yr•r AR IMO' k:� A3 _ �� YAKKING.. l•: ` !J/ B - Bunker '- •- STATE RESTORED ECOLOGICAL AREA PARICING NEYiPORT INGLEWOOC_ FRACTURED ZON v _ A3NA A4 'a' -- y STATE RESTORED ECOLOGICAL AREA PACIFIC COAST --- FLUSHING ACCESS FLUSHING ACCESS figure 9 - -- -- —-—-— — — — `t,` via--"�• = z+t_ _^s---" .r^! 'j LOB_Aa rU5 4✓:. �'.. I • I: o El \ _ We,. r_ ?�o o• Tank, ji ZZ d F: \\ \� \ _ .`ram' _� � � ?/S4c• - _ -- -'- --;� Sa :�: uw cncu vi OX._LOCATION a ~ y. P ' \\.\ '-A T-\TI\GTii� .sg� - 0iAco J - P Ll MAKE& ®N HUB hr"MM01ll BEACH _ NOTE: ` .` ;� =ri ,.�. c:,�• , -`, <_ LABELS INDICATE GENERAL PLAN ' •'� \  `� LAND USE DESIGNATIONS EXHIBIT D MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECEIVEL OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Ocl 13 1971 October 11 , 1977 IN RE : PROGRESS REPORT BULSA CIIICA REGIONAL PARK On motion of Supervisor Schmit , duly seconded and unnn:im6usly carried, the progress report on the planning and ncqui sitinn Q a linear regional park site in the nolsa Chi.ca area , is received and orj" cd filed and the following recommendations are FltiopLud as recC'i+!;Iunded by the Director of the Environmenral: Management: Aj-,ency i h his letter d,-,Lced OcLober 1.1 , 1977 : 1 . F.MA is authorized to nc.,f;ot. i aPv An agrck;; nL Wi ti , t hn State Lands Commission and De11;11" count: of , i:h and Gil'wr for joint: environm6stal , sch(`mat.i c planning and ;iCclllisition configuration studies , including exploration VE N l.t ornn- tives for reinhurWent: from .lncNI funds ; 2 . FMA is nuthvr:i zed to nvout i , ! rt an •c•w • ; r v i i h t h.- C:.i_t:y of Huntington Bunch provi_di on foi• coord.i naV iun & 1'l rinfii.nE efforts on the linear regional part c an f Qura t i c,n , definition of acquisition honodaries and .joint: :: LaLc•went:; of policy regarding tho Rols" Cif i ,:n aron for :i r.,:c,rporat i_on in the two a ender ' Local .Co. gral Programs ; 3 . GSA is AuLhorizud to pi•c.:l,ava bttclgut —lc•vc l e-:t iw.., os O We cost to acquire: lands alone Lhc: bluff cof from Central Park to Pacific Const Highway , wink o connc•c tion to the stage ' s wildlife 1>>-eservc pru i . i 1 1 (1:'/7Gi Bud: John Fulton of the Scenic Hwy Adv. Board called and wanted this letter included with other material on agenda for the City Council when the Bolsa Chica matter comes up again for meeting. } v� lie- October 27 , 1977 e—YI�i�ed-er Mayor of City of Huntington Beach Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Madam: The Scenic Highways Advisory Board of Orange County has reviewed the EMA staff report on the proposed Bolsa Chica Regional Park. The Board commends the farsighted vision detailed in "Concept I." The use of linear greenbelts and scenic highways as set forth in this Concept I would enhance the public's enjoyment of the Bolsa Chica ecological reserve. We note with approval the appropriation of funds by the county Board oC Supervisors for the acquisition and planning of LI)e hni-l(. TI)c Itohi:i iJilc.i liar♦ tremendous potential as an ecological and recreational resource for the people of Orange County. Implementation of Concept I will insure its maximum benefits, both now and in many years to come. Furthermore, the preservation of the sensitive ecological character of the coastal marine environment has critical implications for California's future. Although choices between various interests must constantly be made, our experience indicates that with the rapid population growth of Orange County and the land use pressures that result, every possible step that can be taken to preserve valuable open space is a positive step into the future. Therefore, this Board strongly urges the city of Huntington Beach to plan cooperatively with state and county authorities in support of the regional park and scenic highways proposed in Concept Plan I. Very truly yours, SCEN C HIGHWAYS ADVISORY BOARD George f. Riley Chairman n j: Fj 1 JCS:bd i.', �n 1'� I cc Supervisor Laurence Schmit, Second District M J Ji Planning Commission, City of Huntington Beach Assemblyman Dennis Mangers, Huntington Beach CITY OF The Resources Agency, State of California CIT111 p0i1r,h'`II rlr=ii ORDINANCE NO. 2230 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 974 PERTAINING TO PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9740 . 1 thereof to read as follows : 9740 . 1 . REQUIREMENTS. Every residential developer or person who develops land for residential purposes shall dedi- cate a portion of such land, pay a fee , or a combination of both, at the option of the city as set forth in this article, for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities at the time and according to the standards and formula con- tained in this article . This article shall not apply to the following: (a) Alterations or additions to an existing dwelling unit (s ) provided that alteration or addition does not create an additional dwelling(s) ; and (b ) The replacement of a structure that has been demolished or destroyed, provided that said replacement structure be of a like classification to the structure that was demolished or de- stroyed. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause same to be published within fifteen days after adoption in the Hunting-ton Beach News , a weekly news- paper of general circulation, printed and published in Huntington Beach, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of October, 1977 . MT:ps ATTEST: Mayor Pro-Tempore City Cler 1 , .�" 2230 REVIEWED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO FORM: AS TO CONTENT: Ole +. C y Administrator Cit Attorney �- INITIATED AND APPROVED: Plan Zng irector 2 . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: 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 the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 16 seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of October 19 77 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof. held on the 17th day of October 1977 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Gibbs, Siebert, Shenkman NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Pattinson .. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach., California �� /a� �� • CITY OF HUnTInGTOn BEACH J� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 lb 7 3 T0: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator col FROM: Edward D. Selich, Planning Director DATE: September 26, 1977 SUBJECT: Architectural Se ection for Bushard Community CenktZr and Oakview Day Care Center STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Both of these Housing and Community Development projects fund the construction of buildings that require the services of a licensed architect. Letters of interest were requested from six architectural firms and the review of these letters of interest has resulted in the following recommendation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve and order the Clerk to execute the attached contract for the architectural services of the firm of William Blurock and Partners for the Bushard Community Center and the Oakview Day Care Center in the amount of $30, 067. 20 and waive the formal proposal procedure. ANALYSIS: Included in the City' s Second and Third Year Community Development Pro- grams are funds for the construction of the Bushard Community Center ($304 ,000) , and the Oakview Day Care Center ($165, 000) . Since both of these buildings will have a variety of users, complex physical needs, and must meet standards for school construction and be approved by the State of California, the services of a licensed architect are required. Letters of interest were requested from six architectural firms and these letters were reviewed by an Architectural Selection Committee consisting of representatives of City Administration, HCD Staff, Parks, Recreation and Human Services Staff, and the Huntington Beach Boys ' Club and County Superintendent of Schools. This committee recommends the firm of William Blurock and Partners on the basis of the detail of their letter of interest and the City' s previous successful experience with the firm. To speed the implementation of these projects, and to enable this matter to be brought -to the Council' s attention at this time, the general services proposal procedure was utilized. Therefore, a determination by the City Council pursuant to Section 3. 03. 070 (b) of the Municipal Code that the formal proposal procedure is not required in this instance is also requested. i P ag e Two FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing and Community Development Program. Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Selich Director EDS:SVK:gc Attachment . 4 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document B141 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION AGREEMENT made this day of in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Seven BETWEEN the Owner: City of Huntington Beach and the Architect: William Blurock & Partners For the following Project: (Include detailed description of Project location and scope) Bushard Community Center and Oakview Day Care Center The Owner and the Architect agree as set forth below. AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • @1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 I . THE ARCHITECT shall provide professional services for the Project in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement . II . THE OWNER shall compensate the Architect for Basic Services as described in Paragraph 1 .1 the sum of $30 ,067 . 20 . FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES, as described in Paragraph 1 . 3, compensation computed as follows: A. Principals ' time at the fixed rate of Forty Dollars ($40) per hour. For the purpose of this Agreement, the Principals are : ALAN E. SMITH, AIA - PARTNER B. Employees ' time (other than Principals) at a multiple of 2 112. times the employees ' Direct Personnel Expense as defined in Article 4 . C . Services of Professional consultants at a multiple of 1 .1 times the amount billed to the Architect for such services . FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, amounts expended as defined in Article 5. III . THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement that : A. IF SCOPE of the Project is changed materially, compensa- tion shall be subject to renegotiation. B . IF THE SERVICES covered by this Agreement have not been completed wit.hin twelve (12) months of the date hereof, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth in Paragraph II shall be subject to renegotiation. 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO AGREEMENT DATED 1977 BY AND BETWEEN OWNER .AND ARCHITECT Paragraph II and the terms and conditions of AIA Document B141 - Owner-Architect Agreement - January 1974 Edition are hereby modified as follows : 1 . Lines 1 and 2 and subparagraph A of paragraph II are deleted and the following is substituted therefor: "II . The Owner shall compensate the Architect for Basic Services as described in Paragraph 1 .1 the sum of $30,067 .20 . " 2 . Article 1 - Architect ' s Services - Delete subsections 1 .1 .10 through 1 .1 . 21; in section 1 . 3 , line two, :after the word "Owner, " add the following phrase : "and approved by the Huntington Beach City Council ," 3 . Article 6 - Payments to Architect - Delete section 6 .1 thereof in its entirety and substitute the following therefor: "Payments for Basic Services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed so that the compen- sation at the completion of each Phase, except when the compensation is on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense, shall equal the following percentages of the total Basic Compensation: Schematic Design Phase . . . . . . . . . 25% Design Development Phase . . . . . . . . 50% Construction Documents Phase . . . . . . 95% Bidding or Negotiation Phase . . . . . . 100% ' Add wording in subsection 6 . 2, add following: "All such statements shall be certified under penalty of perjury by a principal of Architect to be true and correct services performed and in the case of basic services, the ratio of such services to the total of any phase of the work to which such services relate . " 4 . Delete Article 14 in its entirety . TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ARCHITECT ARTICLE 1 of Probable Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and in awarding ARCHITECT'S SERVICES and preparing construction contracts. 1.1 BASIC SERVICES four CONSTRUCTION PHASE—ADMINISTRATION The Architect's Basic Services consist of the $ice OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT phases described below and include normal struc- 1.1.10 The Construction Phase will commence with the tural, mechanical and electrical engineering services award of the Construction Contract and will terminate and any other services included in Article 14 as when the final Certificate for Payment is issued to the Basic Services. Owner. SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE 1.1.11 The Architect shall provide Administration of the 1.1.1 The Architect shall review the program furnished Construction Contract as set forth in AIA Document by the Owner to ascertain the requirements of the Project A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construc- and shall confirm such requirements to the Owner. tion, and the extent of his duties and responsibilities and the limitations of his authority as assigned thereunder 1.1.2 Based on the mutually agreed upon program, the shall not be modified without his written consent. Architect shall prepare Schematic Design Studies consist- ing of drawings and other documents illustrating the 1.1.12 The Architect, as the representative of the Owner scale and relationship of Project components for ap- during the Construction Phase, shall advise and consult proval by the Owner. with the Owner and all of the Owner's instructions to the Contractor shall be issued through the Architect. The 1.1.3 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a State- Architect shall have authority to act on behalf of. the. ment of Probable Construction Cost based on current Owner to the extent provided in the General Conditions. area, volume or other unit costs. unless otherwise modified in writing. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1.1.13 The Architect shall at all times have access to 1.1.4 The Architect shall prepare from the approved the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress. Schematic Design Studies, for approval by the Owner, the 1.1.14 The Architect shall make periodic visits to the Design Development Documents consisting of drawings site to familiarize himself generally with the progress and and other documents to fix and describe the size and quality of the Work and to determine in general if the character of the entire Project as to structural, mechani- Work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract cal and electrical systems, materials and such other essen- Documents. On the basis of his on-site observations as tials as may be appropriate. an architect, he shall endeavor to guard the Owner 1.1.5 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a further against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Con- Statement of Probable Construction Cost. tractor. The Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE quality or quantity of the Work. The Architect shall not 1.1.6 The Architect shall prepare from the approved be responsible for construction means, methods, tech- Design Development Documents, for approval by the niques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions Owner, Drawings and Specifications setting forth in and programs in connection with the Work, and he shall detail the requirements for the construction of the entire not be responsible for the Contractor's failure to carry out Project including the necessary bidding information, and the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. shall assist in the preparation of bidding forms, the Con- 1.1.15 Based on such observations at the site and on ditions of the Contract, and the form of Agreement the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect between the Owner and the Contractor. shall determine the amount owing to the Contractor and 1.1.7 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any shall issue Certificates for Payment in such amounts. The adjustments to previous Statements of Probable Con- issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall constitute a struction Cost indicated by changes in requirements or representation by the Architect to the Owner, based on general market conditions. the Architect's observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph 1.1.14 and the data comprising the Appli- 1.1.8 The Architect shall assist the Owner in filing the cation for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the required documents for the approval of governmental point indicated; that to the best of the Architect's knowl- authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. edge, information and belief, the quality of the Work is BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE in accordance with the Contract Documents (subject to an evaluation of the Work for conformance with the 1.1.9 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of Contract Documents upon Substantial Completion, to the the Construction Documents and of the latest Statement. results of any subsequent tests required by the Contract AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 3 Documents, to minor deviations from the Contract Docu- 1.2.4 Through the on-site observations by Full-Time ments correctable prior to completion,and to any specific Project Representatives of the Work in progress, the Ar- qualifications stated in the Certificate for Payment); and chitect shall endeavor to provide further protection for that the Contractor is entitled to payment in the amount the Owner against defects in the Work, but the furnish- certified. By issuing a Certificate for Payment, the Archi- ing of such project representation shall not make the tect shall not be deemed to represent that he has made Architect responsible for construction means, methods, any examination to ascertain how and for what purpose techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety nre- the Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of cautions and programs, or for the Contractor's failure to the Contract Sum. perform the Work in accordance with the Contract 1.1.16 The Architect shall be, in the first instance, the Documents. interpreter of the requirements of the Contract Docu- 1.3 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ments and the impartial judge of the performance there- under by both the Owner and Contractor. The Architect The following Services shall be provided when au- shall make decisions on all claims of the Owner or Con- aid e in writing by the Owner, and they shall be p tractor relating to the execution and progress of the Work paid forr by the Owner as hereinbefore provided. and on all other matters or questions related thereto. 1.3.1 Providing analyses of the Owner's needs, and pro- The Architect's decisions in matters relating to artistic gramming the requirements of the Project. effect shall be final if consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents. 1.3.2 Providing financial feasibility or other special studies. 1.1.17 The Architect shall have authority to reject Work which does not conform to the Contract Documents. 1.3.3 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations, envi- Whenever, in his reasonable opinion, he considers it nec- ronmental studies or comparative studies of prospective essary or advisable to insure the proper implementation sites. of the intent of the Contract Documents, he will have 1.3.4 Providing design services relative to future facili- authority to require special inspection or testing of any ties, systems and equipment which are not intended to Work in accordance with the provisions of the Contract be constructed as part of the Project. Documents whether or not such Work be then fabricated, installed or completed. 1.3.5 Providing services to investigate existing condi- 1.1.18 The Architect shall review and approve shop tions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof, drawings, samples, and other submissions of the Contrac- or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other informa- tor only for conformance with the design concept of the tion furnished by the Owner. Project and for compliance with the information given 1.3.6 Preparing documents for alternate bids or out-of- in the Contract Documents. sequence services requested by the Owner. 1.1.19 The Architect shall prepare Change Orders. 1.3.7 Providing Detailed Estimates of Construction Cost 1.1.20 The Architect shall conduct inspections to de- or detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, termine the Dates of Substantial Completion and final equipment and labor. completion, shall receive and review written guarantees 1.3.8 Providing interior design and other services re- and related documents assembled by the Contractor, and quired for or in connection with the selection of furni- shall issue a final Certificate for Payment. ture and furnishings. 1.1.21 The Architect shall not be responsible for the 1.3.9 Providing services for planning tenant or rental acts or omissions of the Contractor, or any Subcontrac- spaces. tors, or any of the Contractor's or Subcontractors' agents or employees, or any other persons performing any of 1.3.10 Making revisions in Drawings, Specifications or the Work. other documents when such revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given 1,2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES and are due to causes beyond the control of the Archi- 1.2.1 If more extensive representation at the site than tect. is described under Subparagraphs 1.1.10 through 1.1.21 1.3.11 Preparing supporting data and other services in inclusive is required, and if the Owner and Architect connection with Change Orders if the change in the agree, the Architect shall provide one or more Full-Time Basic Compensation resulting from the adjusted Contract Project Representatives to assist the Architect. Sum is not commensurate with the services required of 1.2.2 Such Full-Time Project Representatives shall be the Architect. selected, employed and directed by the Architect, and the 1.3.12 Making investigations involving detailed apprais- Architect shall be compensated therefor as mutually als and valuations of existing facilities, and surveys or agreed between the Owner and the Architect as set forth inventories required in connection with construction in an exhibit appended to this Agreement. performed by the Owner. 1.2.3 The duties, responsibilities and limitations of au- 1.3.13 Providing consultation concerning replacement thority of such Full-Time Project Representatives shall be of any Work damaged by fire or other cause during con- set forth in an exhibit appended to this Agreement. struction, and furnishing professional services of the type AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • ©1974 4 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 set forth in Paragraph 1.1 as may be required in connec- 2.5 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, tion with the replacement of such Work. chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re- 1.3.14 Providing professional services made necessary ports as required by law or the Contract Documents. by the default of the Contractor or by major defects in 2.6 The Owner shall furnish such legal, accounting, and the Work of the Contractor in the performance of the insurance counseling services as may be necessary for the Construction Contract. Project, and such auditing services as he may require to 1.3.15 Preparing a set of reproducible record ascertain how or for what purposes the Contractor has p g p prints of drawings showing significant changes in the Work made used the moneys paid to him under the ConstructionContract. during the construction process, based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by the Contrac- 2.7 The services, information, surveys and reports re- tor to the Architect. quired by Paragraphs 2.3 through 2.6 inclusive shall be 1.3.16 Providing extensive assistance in the utilization furnished at the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of any equipment or system such as initial start-up or thereof. testing, adjusting and balancing, preparation of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnel for opera- 2.8 If the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect tion and maintenance, and consultation during operation. in the Project or non-conformance with the Contract 1.3.17 Providing services after issuance to the Owner of Documents, he shall give prompt written notice thereof the final Certificate for Payment. to the Architect. 1.3.18 Preparing to serve or serving as an expert witness 2.9 The Owner shall furnish information required of him in connection with any public hearing, arbitration pro- as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of ceeding or legal proceeding. the Work. 1.3.19 Providing services of professional consultants for ARTICLE 3 other than the normal structural, mechanical and electri- CONSTRUCTION COST cal engineering services for the Project. 3.1 If the Construction Cost is to be used as the basis 1.3.20 Providing any other services not otherwise in- for determining the Architect's Compensation for Basic cluded in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in Services, it shall be the total cost or estimated cost to accordance with generally accepted architectural practice. the Owner of all Work designed or specified by the ARTICLE 2 Architect. The Construction Cost shall be determined as follows, with precedence in the order listed: THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1.1 For completed construction, the cost of all such 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information, including Work, including costs of managing construction; a complete program, regarding his requirements for the 3.1.2 For Work not constructed, (1) the lowest bona fide Project. bid received from a qualified bidder for any or all of such 2.2 The Owner shall designate, when necessary, a rep- Work, or (2) if the Work is not bid, the bona fide nego- resentative authorized to act in his behalf with respect to tiated proposal submitted for any or all of such Work; or the Project. The Owner shall examine documents sub- 3.1.3 For Work for which no such bid or proposal is mitted by the Architect and shall render decisions per- received, (1) the latest Detailed Estimate of Construction taining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in Cost if one is available, or (2) the latest Statement of the progress of the Architect's services. Probable Construction Cost. 2.3 The Owner shall furnish a certified land survey of 3.2 Construction Cost does not include the compensa- the site giving, as applicable, grades and lines of streets, tion of the Architect and his consultants, the cost of the alleys, pavements and adjoining property; rights-of-way, land, rights-of-way, or other costs which are the responsi- restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed re- bility of the Owner as provided in Paragraphs 2.3 through strictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations, 2.6 inclusive. dimensions and complete data pertaining to existing buildings, other improvements and trees; and full infor- 3.3 The cost of labor, materials and equipment furnished mation concerning available service and utility lines both by the Owner for the Project shall be included in the public and private, above and below grade, including Construction Cost at current market rates including a inverts and depths. reasonable allowance for overhead and profit. 2.4 The Owner shall furnish the services of a soils engi- 3.4 Statements of Probable Construction Cost and De- neer or other consultant when such services are deemed tailed Cost Estimates prepared by the Architect represent necessary by the Architect, including reports, test borings, his best judgment as a design professional familiar with test pits, soil bearing values, percolation tests, air and the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that water pollution tests, ground corrosion and resistivity neither the Architect nor the Owner has any control over tests and other necessary operations for determining sub- the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the con- soil, air and water conditions, with appropriate profes- tractors' methods of determining bid prices, or over com- sional recommendations. petitive bidding or market conditions. Accordingly, the AIA DOCUMENT 0141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • ©1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 5 Architect cannot and does not guarantee that bids will ees, or his professional consultants in the interest of the not vary from any Statement of Probable Construction Project for the expenses listed in the following Subpara- Cost or other cost estimate prepared by him. graphs: 3.5 When a fixed limit of Construction Cost is estab- 5.1.1 Expense of transportation and living when travel- lished as a condition of this Agreement, it shall be in ing in connection with the Project; long distance calls writing signed by the parties and shall include a bidding and telegrams; and fees paid for securing approval of contingency of ten percent unless another amount is authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. agreed upon in writing. When such a fixed limit is estab- 5.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling lished, the Architect shall be permitted to determine what of Drawings and Specifications excluding duplicate sets materials, equipment, component systems and types of construction are to be included in the Contract Docu- at the completion of each Phase for the Owner's review ments, and to make reasonable adjustments in the scope and approval. of the Project to bring it within the fixed limit. The archi- 5.1.3 If authorized .in advance by the Owner, expense tect may also include in the Contract Documents alter- of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates and nate bids to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed expense of renderings or models for the Owner's use. limit. 5.1.4 Expense of computer time for professional services 3.5.1 If the Bidding or Negotiating Phase has not com- when included in Paragraph II. menced within six months after the Architect submits the Construction Documents to the Owner, any fixed limit 5.1.5 Expense of computer time when used in connec- of Construction Cost established as a condition of this tion with Additional Services. Agreement shall be adjusted to reflect any change in the general level of prices which may have occurred in the ARTICLE 6 construction industry for the area in which the Project is PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT located. The adjustment shall reflect changes between the date of submission of the Construction Documents 6.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Basic Serv- to the Owner and the date on which proposals are ices shall be made as follows: sought. 6.1.1 An initial payment as set forth in Paragraph II is 3.5.2 When a fixed limit of Construction Cost, including the minimum payment under this Agreement. the Bidding contingency (adjusted as provided in Sub- paragraph 3.5.1, if applicable), is established as a condi- 6.1.2 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be tion of this Agreement and is exceeded by the lowest made monthly in proportion to services performed so bona fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Detailed Esti- that the compensation at the completion of each Phase, mate of Construction Cost or the Statement of Probable except when the compensation is on the basis of a Mul- Construction cost, the Owner shall (1) give written ap- tiple of Direct Personnel Expense, shall equal the follow- proval of an increase in such fixed limit, (2) authorize re- ing percentages of the total Basic Compensation: bidding the Project within a reasonable time, or (3) co- Schematic Design Phase . . . . . . . . 15% operate in revising the Project scope and quality as re- Design Development Phase . .. . . . 35% quired to reduce the Probable Construction Cost. In the Construction Documents Phase . . . 75% case of (3) the Architect, without additional charge, shall Bidding or Negotiation Phase . . . . 80% modify the Drawings and Specifications as necessary to Construction Phase 100% bring the Construction Cost within the fixed limit. The providing of such service shall be the limit of the Archi- 6.1.3 If the Contract Time initially established in the tect's responsibility in this regard, and having done so, Construction Contract is exceeded by more than thirty the Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accord- days through no fault of the Architect, compensation for ance with this Agreement. Basic Services performed by Principals, employees and professional consultants required to complete the Ad ARTICLE 4 ministration of the Construction Contract beyond the DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE thirtieth day shall be computed as set forth in Para- graph II for Additional Services. Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the salaries of professional, technical and clerical employees engaged 6.2 Payments for Additional Services of the Architect as on the Project by the Architect, and the cost of their defined in Paragraph 1.3, and for Reimbursable Expenses mandatory and customary benefits such as statutory em- as defined in Article 5, shall be made monthly upon ployee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, presentation of the Architect's statement of services ren- pensions and similar benefits. dered. ARTICLE 5 6.3 No deductions shall be.made from the Architect's compensation on account of penalty, liquidated dam- REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES ages, or other sums withheld from payments to con- 5.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the Com- tractors. pensation for Basic and Additional Services and include 6.4 If the Project is suspended for more than three actual expenditures made by the Architect, his employ- months or abandoned in whole or in part, the Architect AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • ©1974 6 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 shall be paid his compensation for services performed the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, prior to receipt of written notice from the Owner of such successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other suspension or abandonment, together with Reimbursable party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Expenses then due and all termination expenses as de- Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign, sublet fined in Paragraph 8.3 resulting from such suspension or or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the abandonment. If the Project is resumed after being sus- written consent of the other. pended for more than three months, the Architect's compensation shall be subject to renegotiation. ARTICLE 11 6.5 Payments due the Architect under this Agreement shall bear interest at the legal rate commencing sixty ARBITRATION days after the date of billing. 11.1 All claims, disputes and other matters in question ARTICLE 7 between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construc- tion Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitra- Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses pertain- tion Association then obtaining unless the parties mutually ing to Additional Services on the Project and for services agree otherwise. No arbitration, arising out of, or relating performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, joinder Expense shall be kept on a generally recognized account- or in any other manner, any additional party not a party ing basis and shall be available to the Owner or his to this Agreement except by written consent containing a authorized representative at mutually convenient times. specific reference to this Agreement and signed by all the parties hereto. Any consent to arbitration involving an ARTICLE 8 additional party or parties shall not constitute consent to TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT arbitration of any dispute not described therein or with any party not named or described therein. This Agreement 8.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party to arbitrate and any agreement to arbitrate with an addi- upon seven days' written notice should the other party tional party or parties duly consented to by the parties fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms hereto shall be specifically enforceable under the pre- through no fault of the party initiating the termination. vailing arbitration law. 8.2 In the event of termination due to the fault of par- 11.2 Notice of the demand for arbitration shall be filed ties other than the Architect, the Architect shall be paid. in writing with the. other party to. this Agreement and his compensation for services performed to termination -- with'the American=Arbitration Association. The demand date, including .Reimbursable,Expenses then due and'all - .:'shall:be.made within a reasonable time after the claim, termination expenses. dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the 8.3 Termination Expenses are defined as Reimbursable date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings Expenses directly attributable to termination, plus an based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question amount computed as a percentage of the total compen- would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. sation earned to the time of termination, as follows: -20 percent if termination occurs during the Schematic -.11.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be fi- Design Phase; or nal, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance 10 percent if termination occurs during the Design De- with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction velopment Phase; or thereof. 5 percent if termination occurs during any subse- quent phase. ARTICLE 12 ARTICLE 9 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or and shall remain the property of the Architect whether agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may the Project for which they are made is executed or not. be amended only by written instrument signed by both They are not to be used by the Owner on other projects Owner and Architect. or extensions to this Project except by agreement in writ- ing and with appropriate compensation to the Architect. ARTICLE 13 ARTICLE 10 GOVERNING LAW SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be gov- The Owner and the Architect each binds himself, his erned by the law of the principal place of business of the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to Architect. AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIAO • CD1974 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 7 ' I ARTICLE 14 OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES Attached hereto is Exhibit "A" to this Agreement which is incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth in the place first appearing in this document. This Agreement executed the day and year first written above. OWNER CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ARCHITECT WILLIAM BLUROCK & PARTNERS UJI&I* 9&AA� 776 WBP, Inc. Presiders A California Corporation AIA DOCUMENT B141 • OWNER-ARCHITECT AGREEMENT • JANUARY 1974 EDITION • AIA® • ©1974 8 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735,NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 C R 974: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE By Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City At rney m 'T REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ity Administrator Planning Director /17" *~C� • CITY OF HunTinGTon BEACH JJ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. O. BOX 190, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 TO: Floyd G. Belsito, City Administrator FROM: Planning Department DATE: July 13 , 1977 SUBJECT: LAND VALUE IN NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Transmitted for your adoption is Resolution #4490 establishing $65 ,977 as the median fair market value per acre of land in all neighborhood parks . The fair market value is used to determine the amount of fee , required to be paid in lieu of dedication of land. A per acre value of $65, 977 is based on a July, 1976 appraisal of neighborhood park land in the City. Based on the cost of land and the cost of housing now prevailing in Huntington Beach as well as the City ' s stated park goals, it appears that the increased fair market value per acre and the resultant increase in park fees are justifiable. The Planning Department will be further evaluating the schedule of park fees in terms of the method by which they are computed as part of the comprehensive Parks Study. This study, which attempts to deal with every aspect of the City' s Parks Program, - is being performed as called for by the Open Space and Conservation Element, adopted December, 1976 by the City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve City Council Resolution #4490 establishing the median fair market value of land in all neighborhood parks for the pur- pose of determining the amount of fee required to be paid in lieu of dedication of land. EJ:ja Enclosure i ,T �,♦ / 1 , y� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9} INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 4?��uy� HUNTINGTON BEACH �_��}, To F. G . Belsito From kirector , othy City Administrator Recreation , Parks d Human Subject "Old Town" park acquisition by AprPlices Dept . Date , 1977 eminent domain (Resolution #yyyq ) Our staff negotiating team has failed to reach agreement with the property, owners of parcels #25-07-08 ( 1 . 1 ac'. ) and #25-07- 17 ( 1 . 6 -ac . ) Mr . Jim Foxx and Mr . Joseph A . Silva for acquisition of their land in the "Old Town" neighborhood park . An appraisal of subject parcels , including a complete engineering study , was performed and many negotia- ting sessions held with Mr . Foxx. Since an agreement could not be reached , partly because of a cloud on the title of the Silva property relating to right of surface entry for oil extraction purposes by a third party , both Mr . Foxx and the staff negotiating team felt the values of the two properties could best be resolved by the court . B Attached are the legal notices of intention to acquire the aforemen- tioned property by eminent domain . The rules require a public hearing be set with the property owners so notified 10 days in advance . They have the right to appear and be heard on the matter if they file a written request within 15 days upon receipt of the notice . RECOMMENDATION Adopt Reso l ut i on No . g4111f acqu i r i ng the ,two pro-pert i e_s descr i bed 'i n 'the attached em i!n'ent domain -notices l i st i ng as owners , a J,im Foxx and Joseph A Silva , for' park purposes through application of eminent domain in the ''Old Town" n6A;ghbor_ho9d . NW/ms cc : Recreation & Parks Commission (700.. f --- - a . _ CITY CLERK : THIS ITEM SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA UNDER "RESOLUTIONS" AND NOT UNDER "PUBLIC HEARINGS" . HOWEVER, IF MR. FOXX HAS INDICATED HE WANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, HE MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY SINCE NOTICE HAD BEEN SENT TO HIM RE THIS HEARING. ELGA RESOLUTION NO. 4449 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON-BEACH- DECLARING..THAT THE. .PUBLIC INTEREST .AND NECESSITY;,: REQUIRE THE;ACQUISITION OF A CERTAIN PORTION:OF,'.,REAL ;:PROPERTY :ADJACENT TO HUNTINGTON STREET :AND.'A. CERTAIN.' PORTION; :OF REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT'TO'DELAWARE STREET BETWEEN YORKTOWN AVENUE AND UTICA• AVENUE ._IN .THEICITY' OF HUNTINGTON. BEACH. FOR PUBLIC BARK PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF .SUCH- PROPERTY. BY EMINENT DOMAIN WHEREAS, the City of Huntingt'on 'Beach. is._ proposing a public improvement , namely, the development .of a public park for public use; . and Acquisition of the: real property referred_ t6 h'ereinbelow is necessary for implementing :this public.`proJ& t ; ' and Government Code Section -37350 .5 `authorizes a city to acquire by eminent domain any property. nebessary to carry out any of its powers or functions ,. and providing adequate public -parks is an essential city function, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows; 1. That the real pro perty: •or. interest . in real property, described herein and graphically depicted in Exhibit A hereto, is necessary for said proposed _public-:i MID ro:-y ment . The specific description of the property �`is,: Block 2303 of the. Eastside •Villa Tract , .city' of Huntington Beach_, county.:.of Orange; state of California, as `shown:.on-,a map recorded in Book 4 , page 6.5 of Miscellaneous. .Maps. in. .the Office of the "County Recorder of said: county . EXCEPTING THEREFROM the north 62..00 feet 'and the south 33. 00 feet.. The north 165 feet of .Block 2204--.of the Eastside Villa Tract , city of Huntington Beach, county of JOC::er 1. .. "" - - - - - rr. - •4•s.f vha:•,^Gh:'A•aQ ^-uCw'K•9a�.�:.-wc+ptln?-y.ssi-w•✓*•^4.... :-^iTYNt7e»�.r.l±-. Y... . .. ..-...._, . i .�,.✓.....,.-•.k Orange, state of California, , as .shown. on a map recorded in Book ' 4, page 65 of. Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county . : 2. The public interest and necessity require the ac- quisition, construction and public improvement for development of a park by the City of Huntington Beach. 3. The proposed project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest good and the least private injury. . 4. The real property described .hereinabove in this resolu .tion is necessary for the proposed project . 5. It is necessary that the taking of said property or interest in said real property be in fee simple, and acquisition of the property in fee ownership will be most compatible . with the greatest public good and the least .private' injury. 6 . The City Attorney: for the .-City of Huntington_ Beach is hereby authorized, directed .and .empowered to .acquire in the name of the City of Huntington Beach,. a municipal corporation, a fee simple estate in and to' the above described real property or interest in real property by condemnation under. the laws of the State of California relating to eminent domain and such other statutes of the State as may be applicable, and to commence such. proceedings as are necessary for the acquisition of said property . 7. The real property or interest' in .real property which is authorized for condemnation by this :resolution is situated in the City of Huntington Beach, County . of Orange, State. of. .California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City•,Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the "18th day of April, 1977• ATTEST : Mayor 1 City Clerk REVI WED AND APPROVED:` AD.D AS TO. FO ty Administrator INIT ED AND APPR• TO CONTENT FISCAL F*SCAL Flf�i?+NCIHLviw�pA CT RE°ORT PLAT YORKiOWN AVENUE - .Z Z z ALLEY "•.tip A �\\ 7,1 N 1 N c� y 4J O C}s nv�:�ut SHE ET-LOF, SHEETS RM. Exhibit A �. Res. 4449 STATE 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 18th day of April 19 77 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Wieder, Coen, Siebert, Shenkman, Pattinson NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs City Clerk and ex-offic,io Clerk :. of .the. City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California i . The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. j- City C od1 u V the City j Council of t,e C;*Lv f, ' ;; �� f r° �r�,ngtcon, I✓Each, Ca I. By I&PUty . r a • • f l 4K J'A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH `D' Wr rU / III To Honorable Mayor & City Council From Norm Worthy, Director 4�� Attn: F . G . Belsito Recreation, Parks and Human City Administrator Services ,V Subject BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION Date March 29 , 1977 Under the provisions of SB 174 a Block Grant Application has been prepared in the amount of $81 , 374 to fund 7S% / go V of. the projected development costs of Pleasant View and 1' Robinwood Neighborhood Parks . The remaining 2S% matching funds will be supplied from the Acquisition and Development �a Fund in accordance with the previously approved 1976- 77 schedule . r�� Enclosed you will find the required resolution approving the Block Grant Application for grant funds under the Urban Open Space and Recreation Program. Upon City Council approval , we will submit this application in order to receive ninety per cent of the $81 , 374 prior to the initiation of construction. A6 or Worthy, Direc or "Z6 Recreation, Parks & Human Services NW:ac RESOLUTION NO 4441 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE URBAN OPEN-SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program, which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities within urban areas-to meet urban recreation needs ; and The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the F program, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and Said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of applications prior to submission of said applications to the state; and Said applications contain a certification that the application will comply with all federal, state , and local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative actions , and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws and regulations prior to the expenditure of the grant funds ; and The project (s ) applied for under this program must be of a high priority and satisfy the most urgent park and recreation needs with emphasis on unmet needs in the most heavily populated areas ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby 1. Approves the filing of an application for Block grant er 1. funding under the Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program; and 2 . Certifies that said agency understands the general provisions of the agreement ; and 3 . Certifies that said agency has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project (s ) funded under this program; and 4 Certifies that said agency has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project(s ) included in this application matching money from a nonstate source ; and 5• Certifies that the project (s) included in this appli- cation conform to the recreation element of the applicable city or county general plan; and 6 . Appoints the City Administrator as agent of the City of Huntington Beach to conduct all negotiations , execute and submit all documents , including but not limited to, applica- tions , agreements , amendments , payment, requests , and so on which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project (s) ; ' and 7 . Appoints Don Bonfa, City Attorney, as legal counsel for said agency with authorization to sign the certification on page 4 of this application. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1977• ATTEST: Mayor A]inia M_ Wentworth 'gorCity C1 rk By , Deputy REVIE ED AND APPROVE ROVED AS TO RM: C ty Administrator C t or y INI TED AND A D 0 CONTENT : f G'72fL'' NO FISCAL IMPACT FISCAL 111�`c�,�.r,T FISCAL l, 2 . REQUIRES FINANCIAL 11%APACT REOORT l a. No. 4441 S'rA'1'E 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 me.Mbers of said City Council at a regular meeting .thereof held on the 4th day of Aoril 19 77 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Coen, Pattinson, 'Shenkman, Siebert, Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Gibbs Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By Deputy City Clerk I f State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Urban Open Space and Recreation Program BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION Applicant (Agency) Name: Department of Recreation, Parks & Human Services , City of Huntington Beach Address: P. O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Person with day-to-day responsibility for the project: Name: Sylvan D. Finestone Phone: ( 714) S36-S479 State Senate District No. 36 State Assembly District No. 7 3 Attach a copy of the Resolution authorizing application for grant funds from the applicants governing body (A sample resolution may be found in Appendix B of the Procedural Guide.) Certification I hereby certify that the applicant has met, or will meet, ail federal, state or local environmental, public health, relocation, affirmative action, and clearinghouse requirements and all other appropriate codes, laws, and regulations prior to the expenditure of the grant funds. (Public Resources Code 5626 (c) (See Appendix G, State Regulations, of the Procedural Guide.) I further certify that the applicant fully understands that the State Department of Parks and Recreation will not assume any responsibility to ensure compliance with any applicable federal, state or local codes, laws or regulations, but that the Department may conduct an audit to ensure compliance. it (Signed) Legal Counsel for Name of Applicant B-1 DPR 454 (1/77) l PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Name of Project Pleasant View Neighborhood Park (2 acres) Project Location (enclose city or county map indicating project location) South of San Diego Freeway, West of Magnolia, See attached map with Location marked #1 , City of Huntington Beach Project Description This part: site , acquired in May, 1974 , is co- located with an elementary school , grades K-6 . The area is low density residential without alternative public recreational facilities within a twn mile radius _ The p rnjPrt wag p 1nnned fnr deirel pp- ment in the current fiscal year. Any contingent cost in excess of the estimated $60 , 000 can be absorbed without further a 4i i__ca- tion for state funding under SB 174 . Attach additional pages if necessary Estimated Total Project Cost $60 , 000 • Amount of Grant Request $4 0 ,6 8 7 Amount of Matching Funds $ 19 , 313 Source of Matching Funds City of Huntington Beach, Park Acquisition $ Develop- ment Fund 2. Name of Project Robinwood Neighborhood Park (2 acres) Project Location (enclose city or county map indicating project location) East of Bolsa Chica , South of MacFadden, City of Huntington Beach. See attached map with Location marked #2 . Project Description This park site , acquired in June , 1974 , is co- located with an elementary school , grades K-6 . The area is low-density residential without alternative public recreational facilities within a two mile radius . The project was planned for develop- �' ment in the current fiscal year . Any contingent cost in excess of the estimated $60 , 000 can be absorbed without further application for state funding under SB 174 . Attach additional pages if necessary Estimated Total Project Cost $ 60 , 000 Amount of Grant Request $ 40 , 687 Amount of Matching Funds $ 19 , 313 Source of Matching Funds City of Huntington Beach, Park Acquisition $ Develop- ment Fund. B-2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AC EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION V.O. BOX 2390 CITY F•. SACRAMENTO 95611 OFHUNT(NGTON BEACH . (916) 445-4441 APR 29 1977 .Recreation & Parks DePartm April 27, 1977 eft Mr. Sylvan D. Finestone City of Huntington Beach Department of Recreation, Parks and Human Services P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Mr. Finestone: Congratulations! Your grant application for funding assistance under the Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program has been } approved. Enclosed, for your files, is a copy of the fully executed agreement. Up to 90% of the grant amount may be advanced when you are ready to i commence work on the project. At the time you wish such an advance, submit the 4 (four) enclosed billing statements to the Office of Grants and Local Assistance. Your agency will have three years to complete the project as described in this agreement; hopefully, you will com- plete the project in a much shorter period of time. You are encouraged to review the Procedlural Guide for information on accounting procedures and allowable costs. If the State Grantss staff can be of further assistance, please contact them at (916) 445-1370. _ Sincerely, Russell Porter Chief 1 Office of Grants and Local Assistance Enclosure } BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program Applicant CitX of Huntington Beach Agreement Number 119, 0•- ig 3 D Q DoZ Name of Applying Jurisdiction Leave Blank This agreement is hereby made and agreed upon by the State of California, acting through the Director of the Department.of Parks and Recreation and the Applicant pursuant to the Roberti-Z'Berg Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program Act, Chapter 32, Division 5 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name(indicate adquisition or development) 1 . Pleasant View Neighborhood Park - Development . 2 . Robinwood Neighborhood Park - Development Special Provisions Total Estimated Project(s) Cost $12 0 ,0 0 0 Total State Grant(not to exceed the grant entitlement nor to exceed 75 percent of Project(s) cost) $ 81 , 374 The General Provisions listed in Appendix A of the Urban Open-Space and Recreation Program Procedural Guide are made®part of and incorporated into the Agreement. City of Huntington Beach Applicant(name of applying jurisdiction) (signature f authorized representative) Title Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION By DEPARTMENT OF Title BY (.- V a j:�� Date Date a',. ; 9 9 97s'1 Budget Act of 1 ,4 7 6 ' 7'� Budget Item Number c 71 (Leave an (Leave Blank) B-4 State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ;e CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING CONTRACT NUMBER FUND �{ AMOUNT OF THIS ESTIMATE APPROPRIATION UNENCUMBERED BALANCE ITEM CHAPTER STATUTES FISCAL YEAR ADJ.INCREASING ENCUM- FUNCTION BRANCE ADJ.DECREASING ENCUM- LINE ITEM ALLOTMENT BRANCE t I Hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds T.B.A.NUMBER B.R.NUMBER are available for this encumbrance. SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNT NG TT CE ate; i DPR 526(6/73) J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ;... MAR 2 4 1977 Recreation & Parks Department SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COOPERATION FOR REGIONAL PROBLEMS f00 SO. COMMONWEALTH AVE. • SUITE 1000 • LOS ANGE-LES,_-CA.,•9.OPga ► 21:3/385-1000 DATE: Marcie 21 , 1977 TO:. S. D. r=inestone, Department Analyst City of Huntington Beach FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse RE: Robinwood/Pleasant View Neighborhood Park Projects SCAG File Number: OR-1397-CAL In compliance with the State Administrative Manual (Sec. 0911 ) , other state review requirements and, in the case of State Plans, Part III of OMB Circular A-95, we have disseminated information on the referenced application to cities, counties and some special agencies in the region which may be affected by, or interested in, the project. Additionally the project has been reviewed by the SCAG staff to determine the relationship of your project to adopted regional policies, plans or programs. Comments generated through the review process are listed below, and must be attached to the "Cover Sheet for Federal Grant Application" (Notice of Intent Form) when it is submitted to the funding agency. Should any additional comments be made by the SCAG Executive Committee or other local agencies, they will be transmitted to your office and to the funding agency. 0 The SCAG staff review found that: 1 . . The proposed project is consistent with and supportive of SCAG' s adopted Regional Development Guide goals and policies -on recreation arid open space. 2. The project is primarily local in nature. 3. No comments have been received by SCAG staff in response.to the inclusion of this project on the areawide Clearinghouse Listing. 1421r�_`i(n—gh iou_s_e Official FBW:fjw � J jL I I'll 17Mw°w7 p�'% u, ' �`„1 " it Co _f Lo � per,/� t�� L�—��Zt 1�����e►� e'en' "C—, a.D) '�-�'� 3'-' UL ; Llo L J-� h,��p i •LIT f l •""— ED cc L J VF F��7s-� •� ~ r� � K `may. :Q� —'!• w,ne'>.rl ul` �`�� :1-���j )s t� s.,\ � Oki,"!'.OD /� IIIr7I��tII^�II� r Ly � i..i. ',aA naa�oo r:�1 � ;�i� ~:�I„ �� sl�,:�, I'1 ram, �r`'�ry• .aaw � �I';'� r ;�._?, N .'I I ���h I �r✓1 O LL. /i�. e' &� °fir" I_II' In(—it Vn� , I „C°J �-1Lr� t4,1'1� �„����i I LL71 I�U tI J tilJi .AJ�,ii U_Z •;, — 1�r� 14 C._�'J^a •a�.� PinL.'`i`jJi1f�1 1��'r '11.1 1L' y -cot Ctlall.O C' I toa F,�a {.i .ly��,, `s( � !.I� l �> low 4. yam f-- d I �o, t" O — e�e� , �) f 1 1 x � ���i I r.anr �•�� •~d t r-•u n n ru.�.r t" I' , t f t I1 '!�r ,7c���•�u I ,;' �( �I—C7 Ir, 1,L�tFL 4.NnU U °U I+� r- iTWO �r� t �s� 1�f1�+ F-4l, 'i .)l :1_3an.L1 n ' ��__ 1 fu:,. i , �•• / ,-'._` �, :7 --ra hh 1 �" Lan �• � `I. � � 1-0 E ��t Roll_. L _ Il�._. " o 7 _ �] X1, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAML Adii INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIO --�^ HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACFI ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To F. G. Belsito, City Administrator From Recreation to Parks Commission and City Council Subject PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURE Date February 14, 1977 NEJEDLY-HART STATE, URBAN, AND W; ., COASTAL BOND ACT OF 1976 ,v Attached is a resolution approving the distribution plan of $6,933,679 allocated to the County of Orange wider the provision of the Nejedly- Hart State, Urban, and Coastal Bond Act of 1975. This bond act appeared as Proposition 2 on the November state-wide ballot. While it did not carry in Orange County, it passed on a state-wide basis. . The bond act provides that each county must consult with all cities and districts within the County to develop a Priority Plan of Expenditures (PPE) for the County's allocation. The PPE must be approved by at least 50% of the cities and districts within the County, and by the Board of Supervisors, then submitted to the State for approval. A proposed PPE has been developed based upon the following criteria: 1. Two million dollars for County Regional Park projects. 2. A minimum of $ 10,000 for each city and park and recreation district. 6 3. The balance of funds to be distributed to cities, park and recreation districts and unincorporated area local parks programs on a population basis. As shown on attachment "AI, this City's share is' $434,936. If action can be accomplished on this resolution at this time, it is possible that monies for projects can be allocated for disbursement in the 1977-78 State Budget. Since this is direct funding, without a requirement for match- ing funds, it may be possible to utilize these funds in the 1977-78 budget year for acquisition and development of park property. RECOMMENDATION: Mrs. Betty Kennedy moved the Recreation and Parks Commission recommend to the City Administrator and City Council that the attached pri- ority plan for expenditures for jurisdictions within the County of Orange from the Nejedly-Hart State, Urban and Coastal Bond Act of 1976 be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Bill Osness. Motion carried. Red tfully submit ed, NW:ac Norm Worthy, Secre ary cc: Rec. and Parks Commission Recreation $ Parks Commission Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 4416 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENDORSING THE PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURES FOR JURISDICTIONS- WITHIN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FROM THE NEJEDLY-HART STATE, URBAN AND COASTAL PARK BOND ACT OF 1976 WHEREAS, Senate Bill 3121 approved' by the Governor. of the State of California on June 24, 1976 created the Ne,jedly-Hart State, Urban and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976; and The voters of the State of California on November 2 , 1976 adopted the Nejedly-Hart State, Urban and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976 and authorized .the issuance of bonds in the amount of $280 million to provide funds to acquire, develop and restore real property for state and local park, beach, recreational and historical purposes; and Approximately $6 .9 million of these funds will be available for use by Orange County and its cities and districts for the acquisition and development of high priority projects; and Section 5096 .127 of the Public Resources Code requires that each county of the state submit a prior plan of expenditures to the State Department of Parks and ,Recreation prior to June 30, 1978; is and The plan must be approved by at least fifty percent of the cities and districts within the county representing at least fifty percent of the population of the cities and districts, and by the County Board of Supervisors; and Similar provisions were required for the State Beach, Park, Historical and Recreational Facilities .Bond Act of 1974_ and, after numerous meetings, more than fifty percent of the ,jurisdictions representing more than fifty percent .of the population agreed that the expenditure plan should provide approximately twenty-nine 1. /cs percent of the available funds to Orange County in recognition of its regional park responsibility as well as its local park responsibility and the remaining seventy-one percent to be made available to cities and districts on an equal per capita basis except that no jurisdiction would receive less than $19,000; and The Orange County Division, League of California Cities, Ad Hoc Task Force for Proposition No. 2 met January 14, 1977 and adopted the attached priority plan for expenditures by unanimous vote, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that it hereby approves the priority plan for expenditures for Orange County as identified above and attached hereto . PASSED AND ADOPTED* by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of February, 1977 . ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Mayor Deputy City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO .FORM: Citt Administrator City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED AS .l`CONTENT : / r 2 . `+. No. 4416 StXfE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENIWORTH, 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. 22nd day of February , 19 77 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen,. Gibbs, Siebert, Wieder NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Shenkman Alicia 'M: Wentworth City Clerk and exrofficio Clerk of the City Council .of the City of Huntington Beach, California By -Z�" Deputy Ci y Clerk 1 Proposed Priority Plan of Expenditures 1976 State Bond Act Based upon the 1976 Special Census , the estimated $6.9 million of 1976 State Bond Act monies have been allocated using the ratio of city popu- lation to County population after allocating $2 million to the County Regional Park Program. City Population Allocation Anaheim 196,382 $ 562 ,624 Brea 21 ,920 62,799 Buena Park 61 ,6-56 176,640 Costa Mesa 76 ,404 218,892 Cypress Park and Recreation District 46, 112 132 ,108 Fountain Valley 52,81.4 151 ,308 Fullerton 94,475 270,664 Garden Grove 118, 179 338,575 Huntington Beach 151. ,500* 434,936 Irvine 35 ,393 101 ,398 Laguna Beach 16,422 47 ,048 La Habra 43,208 123,788 La Palma 14,744 42,241 Los Alamitos 10,903 31 ,236 Newport Beach 63,1.01 180,780 Orange 82,661 236,818 Placentia 31 ,281 89 ,618 San Clemente 22, 100* 63,315 San Juan Capistrano 13,658 39, 129 Santa Ana 1792499 514,252 Seal Beach 27 ,671 79,275 Stanton 23, 150* 66,323 Tustin 29,799* 85,372 Villa Park 6,841 19,613 Westminster 67 ,437 193,202 Yorba Linda 23,266 66,655 Sub-total-Incorporated Area 1 ,510,581 $4,327 ,709 Sub-total-Unincorporated Area 211 ,513 6052970 Total Estimated County Population 1 ,722,094 $4,933,679 *City did not participate in the 1976 Special Census, consequently have supplied a 1976 estimated population based on a census performed in 1973 or 1974. The above dollar figures may change slightly when the state provides, the exact amount of the allocation to the county. The percentage distribution would re- main unchanged. L1L:rm30la( l) J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Alicia Wentworth From Norm Worthy, Director City Clerk Recreation, Parks and Human Services Subject GOLDEN WEST HOME OWNERS CASH Date January 11 , 1977 DONATION/SHIPLEY NATURE CENTER Mr . Doran Hastings , President of the Golden West Home Owners Association and his wife , Barbara, will be present at 7 : 00 p .m. next Monday to present a check in the amount of $800 .00 to the City Council to be used in Shipley Nature Center for cases to display mounted birds and mammals and artifacts from Ora #82 dig on Edwards Hill .. r Norm Worthy, Dire or Recreation, °- Pdrks and Human Services NW: ac cc : City Council & City Administrator Recreation and Parks Commission H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 76176 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH 1\ J�'�` ��,1b CA To The Honorable Mayor and From Floyd G. Belsito City Council Members City Administrator Subject PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT Date November 5 , 1976 PRIORITIES At the November 1 Council meeting staff was directed to advise the City Council of the established priorities for acquiring and develop- ing parks for FY 1977 . The list established by the Recreation and Parks Commission is as follows : Acquire 1 . 5 acres , Lambert Park $ 86 ,951 Acquire 2 acre , Faith Lutheran . Park 10 ,000 Taylor School site payment #3 68 ,750 Develop 2 acre Robinwood Park 60 ,000 Develop 2 acre Pleasant View Park 60 ,000 Develop 3 acre Newland Park 90 , 000 Develop 5 acre Terry Park 150 ,000 Develop 2 . 5 acre Hawes Park 75 ,000 Develop 2 acre H.C. P. water tank area ) Develop H. C. P. (additional walks , landscape) Huck' s , bike racks , picnic tables , etc. ) 52 ,500 Install additional lighting in H. C. P. ) $578 , 201 Respectfully submitted , Floyd Belsito City Administrator FGB/DLC/bb • City of Huntington Beach U�+mil P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92640 \� ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT \� December 1, 1976 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach Attention: Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator Subject: Professional Services Contract for Park Improvements Various Locations Dear Council Members: Over the past several months you have given Mr. Worthy approval to proceed with the construction of several park improvements consisting of 1) Central Park improvements, 2) senior citizens center , 3) Terry Park community center and 4) restroom facilities at the Newland House. It had been Mr. Worthy' s intent that our engineering office would provide the design service, however , our present work load and priorities are such that the design cannot be commenced for at least six months. We offer the following three alternatives : B 1. Obtain outside services of a landscape architectural firm for the park design. 2. Obtain outside services of a civil engineering firm for some public works projects. 3. Accept the six months delay. The contemplated work is as follows: 1. Central Park Improvements - Consisting of additional lighting, water tank revamping, and development of park land adjacent to the Nature Center. Estimated cost $287,000. 00. 2. Senior Citizens Center - Revision of landscaping, and parking lot. Estimated cost is $100, 000. 00 . 3. Terry Park Community Center - Revision of existing buildings for Community Center use. Estimated cost $30,000. 00. 4. Restroom Facilities at Newland House - Estimated cost is $30,000. 00. Honorable Mayor and City Council December 1, 1976 Page 2 The cost of the preparation of the plans and specifications for the four projects would amount to about $50, 000 and should be financed from the Recreation and Park Development fund whether the work were to be done by this office or a consultant. Due to the fact our design office personnel consists primarily of civil engineers and not landscape architects, the in-house cost would probably be greater than that of a consultant. Recommendation I recommend that you authorize the staff to request proposals for professional services. In addition, I recommend that the City Council waive formal request for proposal procedures as provided in Section 3. 03. 070 and authorize procedure in accordance to Section 3. 03. 060 of the City Code. This latter request is suggested as a means of expediting the project by four to six weeks. Final selection of the consultant will be made by the City Council. Very truly yours, /4��- . E. Hart Director o PPublic Works HEH:ae f AMENDMENTS PL1NuiNG CST, —_ ._ MASTER PLAN OF. ARTERIAL COMMSS M COUMCR ' sPRINGOALE sT. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS . .�„ .... y LEGEND \ _— FREEWAY MAJOR__. __-__12O'R/W PRIMARY_..____100'R/W CENTER D R. SECONDARY-..._..80'R/W SAYBROOK LN. NOTE: _— --- I SOLID LINES INDICATE LY EXISTING RI RIGHT W WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS 11 \ �SYMBOL DENOTES PRIMARY COUPLET T 1 SLATER AVE. 1 ' � 1 MAIN & GOTHARD STS. i \ CERTIFICATIONS ' ....... RL~4 CO4MIS3IDN w � 1 LAKE & MAIN STS. ��� YORKTOWN AVE. - J� CITY COUNCIL`I•A `\%\ �~ /�� - I- �I i I pc" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHORANGE COUNTY COUNTY CALIFORNIA \� �✓ /i y�\ A R T E R I A L HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM COOPERATIVE PROJECTS WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE 1977 - 1978 PROJECT SUBMITTAL 441 CE�/17R- 4Z C/TY . .9, ,W L/B1P41eX ,BOI/NDARY i I Q 7, 4,41/0 S16NAL ' TO BE /�(/STALLE,D j T•PAFF/C S/&A1WL TO BE IIV67ALLED .ovEtilrE I Tq�BE�T Q' r �I i ,4 CCESS APO,4 D 72� BE /rt/S%ALLEp O W