Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Study Session 12-9-13 - Huntington Beach City School Distric
©�� IIII® CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Manager's Interoffice Communication To: Honorable City Council Members From: Fred Wilson, City Manager Date: December 5, 2013 Subject: Huntington Beach City School District Proposed Development Alternatives for the LeBard School Site Please see the attached information provided by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD). HBCSD will be presenting three (3) proposed residential development alternatives for the LeBard School site, which is currently`serving as the HBCSD Administrative Offices, at the December 9, 2013 Study Session. The purpose of the discussion is to provide the City Council and the community with proposed alternatives to the development of the LeBard school. Please note that price and terms are not part of this discussion, as that information will be discussed Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8, when City Council recesses to Closed Session to give instructions concerning price and terms of payment. cc: Joan Flynn, City Clerk wo, RAW RUM RD IN ORMAT, ' ffiww%� A tiff- Ni: 10-ft tz E rf 11 0, 1 D 2� I 1 Q i 7 i f 'D , I - r-------WIT7 AT lgj�JJIW I, w Map Region d i "k, 101 Ell u, W 11 JIM J1 AP I IAJ 62= Ox ............. 3 YII 0 . ............... 51", I ,U dMW IF v- 1'.P1111h,11 0111, �91ins III �II III IIII : all taliFil 1�1 tL low �Ift ............. ................................................... Lei T5* , , , 1 MUM) )RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS IRIKELANE C41W&Iffiflk 777� PAM�,'S fill"Till OUNVA il�Y IT 7777� LeBard Schod I n �.:T -�`7r R I Ij�:li! v 1�111W URI: .............:::::: "T,11� I V K Dtl _ All Pil4.l Eli- g9will, _WX 'N'l 17, L . .I....... IIIrI '1111 W: a ..I aal M .., I. 'y" °:,y - Vutl w a rnis ", - — _ r -=,.:f5 It„Ilqutla `IC'uM a VPMcI!WV - A rl' ` - _ _ _ - I� 3 _ _sxA•kmnl�uGlPu,"It m�ry4r,IN:, � _ - r ,,.a t� �,r rO.._ _ au= s":�r�'= w u �b tle r - .. .u:m''%� .. � .. , emu'r p a � ���:�' Ia, .,, r - -„Ir ryII' usrs u, -:. ';; � - --- ,6 +' pllu IxIM!�I,.r,!["""7�"9w"'�`,�.•pm, a v,j".--� H n,..,�y,jll I III W.�tt"'.:�....."_,"�-...., II u I r:.— I pl I r r n ry'1 MG'V V�'�Ny'�x:V I IIr7l II V x1ml �MI I VVI I'"a!':a rr u q j mu N 21� •. oaR", .. ... ._.-_ - - �- I car,.,,.5,� _ GI I ,,r;i; I £,II,rIIIPP III�III III Iy11'� y Ih I I i�'�.� I -� �.�, r<- :':N '_.---�IE yryr lrll III SyCs rS, hI i���k r - = III �, glrlill IIIC�il11 lull lr I - _ _- - � � _ ✓ v' a a��'*sL s _ ���,uV Ir - �j�P : •u,VIA �- � r?+`S.',✓til..ml? _� I��y' Er. da �n r. I IIIII , I , CI m "r�°d, �s, -�r1 : ':, Ix ,t r„uIIIIIIM I _ - �: �,I'i'i, :�x�ul �':,. .::J,,�'. IW,a, `t�i��111�su,."'� •,ydll. � 'Csy WGIGI " I I,,, u, ,:: I I� �� r��� I I r: „" '_ I � III� .,._4 -_.-xrul �`".w✓ I d a ltlyl,W lwl u'V�i�I .., � ';,-r �w' ': i � �,....'' jl1 ^ y...' Ir9�-'a-R,F ''-.� <-_� I 11 IM �N�'l•'"NSA,IIIII IIIII��lp��d•,- q, I I �,E ',. ,r;. I I� ,_ "'.^ur - ' ,•�. ..- � �'41,1' .:°°"Y„_ -__��-, -s-n.. .� �. '�> ���+�XI�`j�'� ,uN�:�iilGGf,P tl n:,P ry„�,:.�- e I '.,s�,i� I :n II��, '.,r... J:I i =- :_ a___��_� � ',: ,dnti,4 �a`-,__ �r .,,-�- ., �. N�M, "--� - � r-' III Irc '��, i 4� . ,„,., ;--,.•-w - _ - l I'II a II 4 II ' Vld�uy u•` R �iI'�I✓,i - - ',�,dk a Itl. ,. ,�'- I = ow III., --. II wr f s ,. �?' II a .,. r- w• ua �' I I� - �l"w � �h""��IIIVa Im1 lupurf -�ti�Viu�N11u m� I N�;NI tlIu I k I IIII'i'III Itl 11 p I;ml I ___I�'I II Irm gyp- -H I ryp�ry�V IIIVII IIII ��IffII I�� Ipq�GVItt IIIIIII�I x IIIIIIIII ' IIIII Ip'I rl: la �dl V I (IIIIIII III�GI I IC � IIII III ': �I III jl ¢¢ N ^�a7 a u� IIIIW�I I elluuuur�tllx91 n�dl�tlBl�lm� "uulugllG� N tl �r v Ir Iwq � Y I € `r� �r�IPlsilj111ljullh;°II u� IIIVI r� 'I� IIII Y mug ���II�I�I l � � .r4��� r4vuIN lllwvll�I,�x a r� 0.h � s - _ u �A Y . � - y .11 ^r�l —� r I r � r�:I II{�1IlII IIIIn III IN III !y i g � A F 1 is SC � a s Existing Building ............... � �. s! �YH�� x 4� ��iv.' t� ' 3 � i r -'�Y � �.`�'�k3 R � �- ~ f�• '. { x ..?.gyp^ i r y gip OU, FOO�M , lnem idnio", UM, .............-- ., RA "Al ......... ------ 7, Full, Yq- l!t Ai r .1 X ...... .6'901 tv Yr -Y z vp ir. x"x "' � y k • � Vic. � �..: "�hk"oat �S"' �� � sf� W �,� �'__- ��� .. .. ....... 4g- 1 7 eAl.mlp ............. ............ .................. ............................. ........... E,X e i s fil Feca t u In,m-.�;ez 30 LJ f; f-, �► �� ��- fir- Y'� .� .� i_ r r - r x . { ` NRCH —1. lei._ ..l. 'r•.^" , .� 11 � � - ,�:°� �s _"� LD ��d.Y� �y�{'".iI {f"�'`!T ��F{� ���.-�� � -� � tl L 1�'�4�i Jf1� '{� � � •I'� � � _ •�.._._ �-- 31� I�.!I�!—.cam t �y PI�. _ �...:�`���-t'�""`4 J �f�. - �j r ,j ?■■+ L J �{y. �•� � C(c,) -�q f��� t M+•w -r,.I y � +i 1 41 } V d_ �4• �y!—••�L` !f, 5— ._. ° `��•..J -r",,''+a� � .�3A+1r t L+irkh Y - r -.. I--�� �i��a �JI I�[ �Y�-1 !•T� `��� �r+„��S !II t7f�� �i m� ,����..J...�1��._ �_� a � r� ° .,-.�-. � � n:.�]J &°I E ' in ions Con dit XIS J�e .......... .......................................... 'A Rl Illia ; NN- WARWICK-DRIVE---1 ONTCUP, M , .-M, r'Ilull Olt$311 RK III Q, 0 6:h,:W I A PIS. �.............. Ex�sfing Condtions Summary of Proposed Project: The Huntington Beach City School District currently uses and maintains the LeBard elementary school building, built in the 1960's and closed in 1980 as their District Headquarters. The District permits the Seaview Little League to utilize a portion of the school grounds for baseball fields on a temporary, year by year basis at a minimal cost. The City owns and maintains the 3 acre park facilities. The SCE easement is open to the public and is not landscaped. Cost to City of Huntington Beach: The City currently maintains the 3 acre park adjacent to the ball fields and the Edison easement of 2 acres. Park Configuration: The City Park currently provides 38 parking spaces for two tennis courts, meeting-room/concession building, tot lot and ambient open space. The School District property permits Seaview Little League to utilize 6 baseball fields of varying sizes. Parking is currently provided on the District property for use by staff and the public. There are 40 public spaces available in front of the District building. Behind the District offices there are areas designated for staff parking and storage. The informal area provides approximately 83 spaces which the District allows Seaview Little League to use for overflow parking. HBCSD Responsible for: The District is currently responsible for maintaining a building that was intended for school use and is in a state of disrepair. The costs to update and repair the building for office uses are estimated to be several million dollars. Other Analysis: The current traffic analysis for the site shows the School District generating 200 daily trips with a peak in the AM hour. The Park generates 173 daily trips with a peak occurring in the PM peak hour. .._. _ -,.- -,.,.., ___ -�. ;_ a '•v'v ',,,i vv vi ..rn' ..a• --=". W -=ni,i qq x• N""',? - - 'q -.ft'� 9 _— . 11 .,,I ,, e , __w,., ='1 I &'_'IBI i1i I .� --,II 'i a� -. —�_. I li.,i ---`- -'.,a M -'-•,,"c ----�-- I I ��, _ .. ..I. - -'' -_` ,I�.---., :r z_ .P - F., ---� fm __- �I _ -.-__,�I I � „�Fm - .P _n.,.. ,�,.- .��, I ,.. . . -— i 171;'� 'Y - '� -_-`� VV _ IIIII„h I- --. IaI ._- n.I,--- �'„„ -_ "bra ---- „I d;,, ,E.k.rF, NPR; �,- 3. NV. ",. al;l•' -----` �," - .,�1 I�� ------' , '_ _�Illtlu ,tl -.� ��tl � x ',F,-�. p -`--�" -=--"„tll ter;: —'- - r. d �_ - h., _.-, ,�' - n. .,, ,T---- i.:._- �„• ,,. ,IIIII ry F,.., ., ... .. .,'s :. -----i„���VYi «rt_�. 'II� ----�, .. ----°' ----ea- _..,.w •- IIII".I e a ��� --'° .. -.--`. � --..... ,vk'",� � � .11�,� r ;.v� - -�'-. 15 � Wk istrative mawl 11'w',vu. uollum f I �n I r Ii�N r.a°"' II71111II�N1a�, $ r I 1 -WARWICK DRIVE WU- I I 77- lj '�,'�I'III II r` I� ! 41111111 ry ,rt'" IIIII w+,;,'" ,g VII III,,II oa �IYIr V � Ito IIIII IIII { IIIIIII IIII IIN s - r I i,ll IIIII u'4 ty, -, I I '- VI eF,, III I',i r N II .e. �;u,,;"p 1;'I' '^J IIII i1,^IIII IIII' IIVI IId 1j11� .i�11111 III _ �- _ 8 u I III I m kI �,.� rI VV�VIII�Itldl � I I olN 4, krsix I III 9 u + .Ww W r i� �:=F-.ru'�J ^w:Wruu"Y J tr Y.VLI.. CYNTHIA DRIVE III R r-� 7 7 27 3KOFF W _____ t g;0=7�,MT, Ag- E3 ,,,;,,r,,, 5 0 te Summary of Proposed Project: This plan would create a residential cul-de-sac of 15 high end homes on the Meredith Gardens side of the park occupying the paved and building area of the School Districts property. Lot sizes will be similar to the existing community. Cost to City of Huntington Beach: The City would need to purchase the land, roughly 6.5 acres that the Little League fields currently sit on if the Little League activities are to remain. The City would be responsible for any park improvements necessary, with the creation of a parking area for the ball fields as much of the existing parking would be eliminated. Most of the current HBCSD parking would be removed. Park Configuration: The park and Little League fields would remain as they are if the City purchases the land and chooses to keep the fields as they are. Twenty additional parking spaces could be provided with the alternative shown. HBCSD Responsible for: HBCSD would have no further financial obligations. Other Analysis: This plan would keep the Little League fields where they are but would require the City to consider the loss of parking that would result from this alternative. No upgraded facilities to the Park would be provided. The current value of the 6.5 acre property is approximately $3,120,000 consistent with the City's interpretation of the Naylor Act. This alternative would not be considered a PUD development and would not be subject to the same requirements for public benefit as the other alternatives. The homes built would increase the values of homes in the area. Piv C� —----- �4 ,"ZI- t'I n -41111E� RM 112 1# 25 Illustrative A, e. s 711�'Tri---77' ]4j IRV- W A H'W I y A w 111 v T 'MT-Fz rrrM it ULLL111 VII W 2ss: , I'd jut" 4tM Aml'!Dini"�t zi�' ........... IVE- PYNTHIA D,R,.-,, 25 Lot &"te Summary of Proposed Project: This plan would develop 25 high end homes. This plan allows for a single loaded road along the edge of the new park. . Many components of the park would be rebuilt including all Little League fields with the addition of restrooms, snack-bar and storage area. The existing park facilities beyond the reconstructed ball fields, along the eastern edge of the park will be retained. Cost to City of Huntington Beach: The City would be asked to waive park fees and staff time for processing the application associated with development of the project but would receive 5.1 acres of land in exchange. The City would also be responsible for any park components necessary over the $1.1 million that HBCSD would provide. With the proposed park fees as a contribution, all Park components could be completed except the area associated with the Edison easement. Park Configuration: The Park would have reconstructed ball fields but limited improvements to the eastern side of the fields. This would retain the tennis courts and most of the existing trees in place. Those trees that cannot be retained in place are candidates for onsite relocation. HBCSD Responsible for: The contribution of 5.1 acres of land as a Public Benefit. HBCSD would provide $1.1 million dollars to the park rebuilding project and with park fee allocations would provide sufficient funding to build the proposed LeBard Park and other improvements associated with the impacts determined by CEQA. Other Analysis: Huntington Beach City would gain 5.1 acres of land and Little League would have new fields built. The improvements would add restrooms to the park and a permanent snack-bar and storage area as well as increase the open space of the park. The open edge of the project along the proposed fields is in keeping with the existing neighborhood structure. 30 Lot Mustrative IIIf lo� VC I'VARWICK DRIVE Aall j, -Zl ON, Ir Fm NI e C YN THIA DRIVE 101 �s ": G -£ *'`+'. - - _ JI„V,; r �.• �,t , :-,ya rwi�' tl _..._.._..u��Vl..uk.w _-.,,__„m--- ,�;,�.,..,,,..... _— .....,.._....�✓��� '%w, t r_..s._..m °i �I Lot II1!1:Aw0 I vm�'d�p I�lil+'I�tl 'Iw'aw I Summary of Proposed Project: This plan would develop 30 high end homes on the Suburbia side of the fields. Many components of the park would be rebuilt, all Little League fields will be rebuilt with the addition of restrooms, snack-bar and storage area. 4.7 acres of land will be provided to the City of Huntington Beach. A larger parking area would be built to increase the number of available spaces. Additionally the proposed Park improvements associated with the Southern California Edison easement would be completed. Cost to City of Huntington Beach: The City would be asked to waive park fees and staff time for processing the application associated with development of the project but would receive 4.7 acres of land in exchange. Park Configuration: The Park would be largely re-built due to shifts in the field configurations and the need to shift the Park elements to the east. Some of the trees will be preserved and the balance of the trees will be candidates for relocation. The proposed park improvements on the SCE easement would also be completed. HBCSD Responsible for: HBCSD would provide $2.1 million dollars and with the current park fee allocation, would provide sufficient funding to build the proposed LeBard Park and other improvements associated with the impacts determined by CEQA. Other Analysis: Huntington Beach City would gain 4.7 acres of land and Little League would have new fields built. The improvements would add to parking, add restrooms to the park and a permanent snack-bar and storage area. The SCE easement would be landscaped and improved. The homes built would increase the values of homes in the area. 3i" 0" �s_.' ` �i'� � �'. .��'� ,�'�'_3 Tw Gv��5? `S�� --—----- M-g �npb4 - ",-. - 41 ,Vr,n Pr R --------- -g, %NO, ------ N 1 T imefine 5�q, -TA "MA '9 @1 ❖ City and District cannot agree on ❖ District prepares alternative land the terms of the Naylor Act use plans for discussion with City Staff ❖ Project does not move forward ❖ District conducts meetings with City Staff on numerous occasions to refine the project application ❖ District conducts meetings with SeaView Little League to participate in the proposed field layout ❖ District holds a public meeting to invite comment from interested constituents gM 5� -ji 2 L 0, -11: AIII ernat III e Develop 25 high end two story homes Park is open on all sides Fields will be reconstructed Summary of Proposed Project Concession / restroom building built Tennis courts and much of City park to remain SCE easment to remain as is Lot Size (approximate) 5,520 square feet average Land Transfer to City of Huntington 5.1 Acres Beach (approximate acreage) Land Acquisition Cost to the City of None Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City School District $1.1 million Contribution to Reconstruction Park Fees Park fees to be reinvested in the park and parking improvements and/or used for CEQA mitigation City of Huntington Beach Investment in Any amount in excess of$1.1 million Reconstruction Waiver of Entitlement Fees City staff time related to entitlements to be waived E I R Consultant Paid by District � t.. "` :�:_r { xi S s�k ♦ fi `.. x :9.3z �— z 5ffi.4��,3e°; r�.•.",t'`" ^. _�'--- dr'3 . vrir `!- F .,NA. A Pr .. - _-�� pn: _ ^i I�'iryp �I 1FVi➢i7Yi.,..-:, _ s's°'g4,'.g,�'tli ���I�Isk = - +~,� �_ - w,.+yY,m" tl :v-�� � - — � �� _ _ _ i � u, 9r� � - saM - �,,.�aNi%ivf, �IIR i -- = �� 1✓���d = -` .'c7� - °r�, 11-1,1111 „mp �i I I�I, Ii... ' 1 *w'i" ' �r � uli�k �,, rp im,,u'w I i�wmuu i uwil,,� ve �1„`; "uCCI ip µ1�w�'_ !�r m�uuuu�luuvu�ompurwiu ,..,...,.� �, � � �i ,�,^,VVIUVudwu� e rum�veup�'IhW Ali iilr,cuval'✓�u li �II% �uWW�VW���'llui�I'll auuy tl N i ro,;I 30 Lot Alternative 25 Lot Alternative 15 Lot Alternative Project Description Develop 30 two story homes on the Develop 25 two story homes on the Develop 15 lot cul-de-sac on the Suburbia side of the fields. Little Suburbia side of the fields.This plan Meredith Gardens side of the park League fields will be rebuilt with the allows for a single loaded road along occupying the paved and building area addition of restrooms,snack bar and the edge of the new park.The exisiting of the District property.The City would storage area.Park components would park facilities beyond the reconstructed need to purchase the remaining District be rebuilt and trees not preserved or Little League fields along the eastern property and be responsible for any relocated would be replaced. Parking edge of the park will be retained, park improvements and parking to would be added on the edge of the Minimal new parking added with no accommodate the Little League fields, landscaped and improved SCE SCE easement improvements. easement. Lot Size(approximate) 4,500 square feet minimum 4,800 square feet minimum 6,000 square feet minimum 5,185 square feet average 5,520 square feet average 7,000 square feet average Land Transfer to City of 4.7 Acres 5.1 Acres 6.5 Acres Huntington Beach(approximate acreage) Land Acquisition Cost to the City None None Minimum consistent with City of Huntington Beach interpretation of Naylor Act is approximately$3,120,000 Huntington Beach City School $2.1 million $1.1 million None District Contribution to Reconstruction Park Fees Park fees to be reinvested in the park Park fees to be reinvested in the park Park fees to be reinvested in the park and parking improvements and/or used and parking improvements and/or used and parking improvements and/or used for CEQA mitigation for CEQA mitigation for CEQA mitigation City of Huntington Beach Amount in excess of$2.1 million+ Amount in excess of$1.1 million+ All additional costs in excess of park Investment in Reconstruction park fees to reconstruct park to City park fees to reconstruct park to City fees to reconstruct the park to City standards standards standards Waiver of Entitlement Fees All City fees and staff time related to All City fees and staff time related to All City fees and staff time related to entitlements to be waived entitlements to be waived entitlements to be waived EIR Consultant Paid by District Paid by District Paid by District ' I" N 9 7,711.1_m�`K' r-W LASItH uwr ItH z5hK� . .. ....... . .. .......�_Fdd A 71, �x . ...... ..... ----- 0, IF Wit Ow .. .......... -4' W, i" �2 4 Ns-N. - 3,WARWO(_ 5FI JTJ 44 ZA, 40, n- 04 IS ,k' Avpj'Po Dip W4 � 15 Daub Lot Lav"A Use Rar�i IV, I It I 3 A "tJ 6.5 AC 3.1 AC, 1 .9 AC 44 all tll - ",,, y,ul�„„hll r dq*!I :,r, m 4 ,Sr,.r {�: VM f VVUuIq"I IV,. ._'— r u d —: ,dI CI Vllu�r _.x�IVI 4> I,i :SlF, 41 �V lk";" tj RESIDENTIAL PARK =rgjjjjjl,�'- ---- ------- r l4 OtMEN Rl AM= Land Use Man 21111 5 1 1 ot :1z inPal I'' I — I Y Oil" .......... J, "4011 II T'N jl Ad In PF 41, kk y� 1,J1 h 4 5 -AC . ..... A 1 4, x, III j',� MA7, .4, T N l jpi!1111 1, WW� d� -J J� �qq A� p 411111 izll�, p3 N� �'111!111 Jill u -C f7777777-1 RESIDENTIAL PARK gyp pq pg qA"V allOu— .1 N, ;m E.2 - MY 1, 12: ot and e P alln: kS I A m, IP . 11 0 l MCK VARA7CK,. 44 417 A 5.0 AC 3.1 AC 1 9 AC 1" 77 3F, 01 MI T CYNTMA DR o N, . ....... AU0 So Is. , —',r 10 t: loa "1,:l:NNI` Ill I: RESIDENTIAL � PARK 'ry���rd PI I„uudgvr jr :r E X I 'i i II1 nc1�� ir uuuuuLdu' nd, P wr dWml l wlVI+Iw ouli11111 p w',I mm� !% Vl,l l 10 pti l mv,udIII ulll mu4'I' „ .� V' s,�ui w mlul I'iIoUjj� 4 ^ u ��aa.77ri4„N,Ws" � VII � INuu,u, g,y ��'" T 1 t .......... 1 +� � ^ j r✓� 1 A Y 4fs,, � � I 15 "N 4 ✓ ,.,..,. � 'F,..,,,. ...;^, — WAFitV1CK(i�,rl�_� � r� - N'i i �ii✓�I� E �_, � ! i t p '����II G""_l11AR61/tCR OR€YF 1 P M 1 l�l��� - r��14� 41I III r� �11�''", �'pada� �1v+ulltl'Is :'it'll I I u _,._._...� Ipl ✓I T9r�'�,I,hll II'd r :.''{ -m-nL'W rrRtti 17 1'"T -j PUBLIC-(RQ REVI) ftaUAL LOW DEN51TY OPEN SPACE-PARK RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY OPEN SPACE PARK Existing General Plan Proposed General Plan 1� 17 -I vs e d 7 Propo n n g CR I ET-DRIVE 41 P, WARWIL RL $ yf ITNTMA I)Rf jj M VIVVE PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC OPEN SPACE-PARK AND RECREATION DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL I OW DENSITY OPEN SPACE-PARKAND RECREATION DESIGNATONS Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning ._- -„ --'.va ---`.. -- r:l -- of -`= - .:rP Im I ----- um:,..p I v+.�.„cy--,_. ---:, Vlp b., _�_-n::. ---'-,,:�: :.--`.'.. -E, ------- I -.,"➢l d F --.:. .,I I N ____ tl r__--,,:: { -,_- l I __ —__- .III mR.¢� S]^.v I I ->-- .,,,91 I: P g - I II _-S, I •h.-__- III�u<-__, - u�yl .�,I I -,:: I �r:"'Irl' -.'1' ,I�' - III -- Y 3n q,. r,Ml -.,:n:l: .-._ �k'„"W _,,:III L p v __-.. -.--_,- rvNu. :-- % -- I::1 ^'".' J .-->- -..., „ � re_.- ...,:M IIr- .,Ili :M 'k."dl,:: - ,<I: �t $ : A .«^•�'' I -_-,'iY" IV,,,� n-te iligillo �Ulllft o f the Buflding • f I ukNll II I P' � �k1 I � 3 -k - I - :tlIM III II II II „NII IIIII II Idler n = r Iq� a v p - 'k f"y • V NI114 q: �I �IIIP6��,„-, �I'INk¢14kI Ida u P,1i16 �' I I g: I I I I L kll II k I' " If44'y,' VIsIIuInIIIII�II I I t�"' k�°�'I s°p IIIIII,I��IIIIkuIfp11P�I�ppl7l:hl�l p I41J I „� �,IIII II I III I..xl�m rl �� gl p � �J,� 's,:Cll � NI t-�: m'I� ,•':.I, I uri �'r,:, � pup r�:� � I I � IV r �" " - >; �� � u� �;.�� „ �+ �_,� � N �r:'r�npum���� I,"x - I�pn4 m P, r r�f N'{m� N pn� a I�-„ "I � III 0.� •-� i _ pd p 1II IIII:I: ps ',N�r�� !III IIIII N � III I� I IfI+ II II II III „,I''dr �:e r �I a'a 19 �I �Nr�4p,d E I i� _ td, irk, _ — �:. :e°?, t' � '+t i-• ? - +�� j,l� � s i 4�— .� - - f = r F di = d,191C�1 a I,IIi�II:4ru ��', r � :k I. •ram=�llll� �, .�• .�._",� '�'�� - _� „�-'° I -",`._ 141p`;N� ar.�,', � :°,-�$ m +*.,'�I�,f �.�V,I:III ,'I llr --;I,:. � G,. �_ •N IPkll v ti �� � _ _ II�F 2,- r I +_, 6vds-= '-�'�-�.# I u _ ✓n y„ I PP I: ':, I w �i.;� � _ �� ��£ I r.'I!II' '.a:�.``- �,r1 p�l l,,is i;`, ,.,... I e ._,._ :::` II '_ p i;dk:J II •.� �• ,;.«,:I I e�-:'a,:m. _ LuR III �,, a~v IIIII : r�9 II rl,.". �,.:t� r:.'� �:,m�I � ,,:.'.�-; + „r- I I: N:"":I•.,' I, d+ ::;I I :s ,.�-..:: 'f ,y>"WV .,, _ �I„,'I L":, ,I, rpr ..'- N -- III ,::': �';+a�4:{' ,� .,I'li '.CI°,91 �+':--'�: II I r. _ IIII .yl;pl,,N III ,.,d�r^�, �I: �,fir,, fl , I ✓.; ����=__� :,f = III 13 _ - N rlalI u - _ �t f a F I I rl a III l: :: : IIIII I I I II P:r r. I IIII I I II II ,�IMIf � � IIIIII V `^:VI „ _ .:r r .._.--.:a, ----�- ,. ..A_ :. r:, :m r, .;' -, r_< ., ,.. :yr y ,�'.,, ,�,;C'If =-•::I - �' ':. ±I `-� 1 I:..:�r •�— I I I III I I I I I I I � I -� L:�I .I ,,:Isl1 ,:a::IIl1611 Ii IIIIII I ,I IIII,IIII II I L. r III I I I I II I I L. I I",. IIIII I. -_,_,.,.. ___-, „IIII I r' -��� _".- .r- ":� s al ,4'+k �.':� ,.., _ � N s,�ul III Id. --.-b" :,„I a'L..--=.� �'�:" I„c`_'-a b�l� I a r'r'_II NIII .0 :•��. �C k II — a HN _4.----_`--- .:-.., :• .. -. -..._ "- _.-_�'.�. -_ -._tom-® ?,'.!.._ � .:. .. ,a - � - - -- ' ,6 - ,,,' ' I� -.. N:: VI I ,,,.,:,:,,I mdMu'Y, : .��m. I,,,,,,,n+pk,a I:...,,:,,, ,::IIIVIIIIIVIk61mw'�uIIVI��IIIIVu�uIIN r I, .:: _ -.. :- :."L, ... -_- .:, RS: II ,. :,IV,I;�P _�..,.:.IIIIII I� IVY,._-•IIIII -- - _ .,:,, ru rr rll��I". - pr. ,. F IV N-= (IIIIIIII ^, _- -"•,!:Irk ,. �,',:d1VIl III. ow,rq;mlw�`® I a _�.q ;,'-. r t VGA rnterior of the Bufldng qffi III, o I CA o: fl 1, Ell 5, Flo FPS al oo lN pin 11111 1 o VA +� .......... lo, —Ent Z', 4j�l�111, 1 �WT OV 0 11Ioil oll Mill Ro: jj�,1, ........... ....................... 0 MV r.. Alternatives q w f 9 , f F' • '. `� ,�. { �� mow- :., Pius' � } q { �.FTi.♦�a 3';�+''3� j - a .. .. I ......___..._ . F 1 ...j. IA'A.Ft11'D aSCHooI, Af rFlf,;,r�OF huNmwxaw ffAcK cfr.RWry OF rtW :. PMR, - a INNER`i � i I i � a w -- S, . • p,la Owl;mow' � __.��� ! j }t � � h 4 txT 3 ,..,_. i. i�A Mw sift" �i l.+f/I9/.M,lla v'Ni,c:'!lY CV-lie°'-x-lPrr l(ih 8.A rC q, r xIArY€11 f Ara 6 Y r 4 tuf;� r z i LEB RD SCHOOL ISITT, e ? agiP r .s' r '" 43&xa" tr d sP 1 , j i. ill 4 r f+ f LFfJ=RD SCHOOL SITE p ar TKC O Y t.61W BCAfW 4kJN!/Cl.l.R4WY, } I IA It Or C4i frN AA 77, 6, 2 JX +- 1 l -_-___--............ �~` .- -_--_-- ' � x�oa�ua SCHOOL SITE �*�mrm~ mruamvz \ |_ xmz ' F .S�y,.i s �&+x¢�v€ 9•'.•,,,.� .T-, •a �Ey•�. 33�... .k �� y � .L M1 j � � � � r� q� 3a �~.. :._sue � F�•+��q :} ��. �� R 4.. f. Ai SL „r._'W,7'C,k AM v V air 1 RF mr- fox ------—----—--- UP --------- mom RM 0 ---------- Mft�� VMS ism. MEL ............ 7N NOW FF Alp, AC. L: V py a l i I r y* } . I' '•'. Fes' t i �a EH ..a § rti� ry S-�� v s6.:4 `4'r; �ssz �- 'w: .z �. a S� .,•� r g - �.. .... ..,a• :, ,.....�. fix.-..�. .:....n •'• - »_ar ....�. ..; - ..'i.x .r:.i,.,.,, .... _ ,n,- 1dr, .... r_ x ... ,.. ...ar,.. ...M.-.,. 1 -r, k • f .rs p„ @@ I G a4 r r r, i T I.., NT 77; lv. 77 WAR, ° ILK� —J E w cr- CC F 1 WARWICKDR lC7�5C1?A4 tL� dui ".��, S co fiTs'' poo PRQPOW PARA REM '?C `I I41 d� � F►E FI �'Pr m — ( ,�`i.r ilp, I"id"i`iiB I � .. MY I If C.VNTHIA OR .' T Ir ��5�9 o G 4,`�k k 7.7- gq 110,,�,�, � ,ggsk-ff�jp!—� .,p.POM Mal --_ —2. �Ilmwmk ONO, ---------- CRAILET DR— 10 ul: i3z- rx 'AELD 10 `2 40'), CIC 8 WARWICKDR 52, CONC st FIECO ESTO L 'rE)VN)S - I �� comrs., �� - P080 W FIK cr Zz> Cc I'd CYNTHO DR .-F, im,J V. xta S F F, Mn-7;j77,, g -------- '7' . _--- _F G. Product 4,1 PLAN 7 V� 1� I', n�i � InIN I IIiViwow � z'�� m��� �V, a ,.m— f G':�:q�G� r zV.� � ....I I I PLAN 6 PLAN 5 HiONI ELEVATIONS Esparza, Patty From: The Frieds[friedclan@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:37 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park Pamela Leonard 10172 Beverly Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 714-968-9649 friedclan@verizon.net Dear City Council, I have lived in Huntington Beach for over 20 years and have owned a home in Suburbia Park for the past 9 years. I have recently viewed the plans for LeBard Park. While I prefer no development, the only viable option for LeBard is Option 3 (14-15 Unit Development). This will allow us to keep the baseball fields and park/tennis courts in their current location with out a "Rebuild" (which may never happen or happen slowly) and also give the school district funds to move. Parks are vital to Huntington Beach's ability to attract families and maintain property values. Even the HB Sands states on the front of their latest flyer"Parks Make Life Better!" I implore you to vote for Option 3 and to purchase the fields so they will remain open space for our children and future children. Thank you for your attention to this matter. PQfda 40-f4W HB resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meetlng Date:_ lq� J3 Agenda Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From: WMSB@aol.com Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 7:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard Park The taxpayers own and have used the current open space for 50 years; it should not be conveyed to school district to sell as asset as belongs taxpayers. The only physical asset school district owns and should be allowed to convert to an alternative use is current building footprint; all other space is open space to be preserved as is; as originally described in zoning in the early 60's. Any compromise of open space is un unearned reward to the School District who has mismanaged the physical asset at the location due to lack of maintenance until was beyond reasonable repair according to their presentation. The current Tennis Courts were partially paid for with funds raised by Meredith Gardens Homeowners Assn. and would be a gross disserve to the contributors to convey to a collateral use of a 3rd party. Barry Le Williams 45 year resident adjoining property to LeBard Park. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: oZ Agenda Item No.� i Esparza, Patty From: Janet&Jim Froning [froningj@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 4:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Site development As a longtime Meredith Gardens resident, I am strongly in favor of the 15 unit development plan. My family has enjoyed over 20 years using the open space, tennis courts and ball fields at LeBard Park. I look forward to continuing to do so for many years to come. I also believe that the 15 unit development will best retain the neighborhood homes' equivalent value, and not create additional traffic issues. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. James C. Froning 10202 Jon Day Dr. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date:_ //3 Agenda Item No. s - 1 Esparza, Patty From: Susan [susanclaudius@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:39 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park Of the options presented, I would like to support the 15 lot plan. It it will keep in tack the very important recreation facilities which have been used and enjoyed and have been a source of independence for the children of Huntington Beach for many years, to say nothing of not tearing down and reconstructing. Please take that into your consideration. Susan Claudius SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: LcI-- Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: Herman Kuhlendahl [herman@tension.com] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 9:20 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park/Scholl District Development Plans To the Entire City Council I am completely opposed to the school districts plans for either 30 or 25 lot development on the LaBard site of putting this many homes on the site. I am willing to support the 15 lot proposal as I do understand the school districts need and decision to move from the property, but we need as a community to keep the little open space that we have for children to organized sports and for families to enjoy the open space park in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Herman Kuhlendahl 20011 Beaumont Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Cell: 714.308.6563 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No. W 1 Esparza, Patty From: Mark Harrer[harrermm@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 8:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park Development Dear City Council, I understand that you are getting ready to vote on a redevelopment plan for LeBard park. As a resident of Meredith Gardens, I am requesting that you vote for the 15 home development plan that preserves the existing park and open spaces. This will also allow my 2 year old son to use the existing park. This option is a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved. Thank you for your support. Mark Harrer Meredith Gardens Resident SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: oC Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: September Mirghanbari [smirghanbari@mac.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 6A8 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LEBARD PARK PROPOSALS Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I am writing regarding the proposed sale of the HBCSD property and restructure of the LeBard Park. I have lived in this neighborhood for nearly 20 years and live directly across the street from this site. I will be one of many tax payers in this neighborhood whose quality of life will be directly affected by the decisions The Council makes regarding this proposal. As a resident of the southeastern part of the city, we have already lost Lamb and Wardlow to more housing, and that can never be gotten back. We are a community that-needs to spend more time outdoors doing healthy things to improve our lives. On our city's website, it states, "i'ark; Make Better! in Huntington Beach by providing access to the serenity and inspiration of nature, outdoor space to play and exercise; facilities for self-directed and organized recreation; positive alternatives for youth which help lower crime and mischief, and activities that facilitate social connections, human development, the arts, and lifelong learning. Parks and Recreation programs assist the City of Huntington Beach in achieving our mission: To provide sustainable quality services to maintain and enhance our safe and vibrant community." I believe this and hope that by not allowing any of the open space to be taken away from the many that use it, we can continue to have a good quality of life. If HBCSD insists on selling the site to fund their move,please consider the design of the project. If the more than adequate baseball fields can stay as is, leave the open space open, and just build 15 homes on the current facility pad, most of the negative issues go away. I believe this plan will be supported by homeowners in both neighborhoods affected. Thank you for your consideration. September Mirghanbari SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: /Z� Agenda Item No. W 1 Esparza, Patty From: Kelly Ramsey(GMAIL) [kelly.c.ramsey@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 11:02 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: KELLY RAMSEY Subject: LeBard Park Redevelopment Plan Dear Huntington Beach City Council, My name is Kelly Ramsey. I am a new resident to the Meredith Gardens track adjacent to LeBard Park. We selected this neighborhood as much for the schools and open space as the home itself. My 8 year old son plays for Sea View Little League and attends Hawes Elementary(HBCSD). We walk our dog, play tennis and practice soccer there. I agree that the Huntington Beach City School District desperately needs a new home. And I think selling some of the land for development makes sense. But it should complement the neighborhoods that are already there. Please select the 14 lot home development. I think it will enhance the area even further. Thank you, Kelly Ramsey Homeowner and registered voter 10052 Stonybrook Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 (949) 533-0427 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: o�- ( Agenda Item No. i Esparza, Patty From: ,Jennifer Gunther Dennifergunther1966@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 10A7 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Park site plan Importance: High The Gunther Family (12 year residents of Meredith Gardens, 48 year residents of Huntington Beach), supports the School Districts 15 lot plan if it meets the MGHA LeBard goals. MGHA LeBard goals are: Preserve all the open space the taxpayer has purchased and used for almost fifty years. Ensure homes built adjacent to Meredith Gardens are of equivalent size and value and built with equivalent lot sizes and street sections. Have sufficient parking available for users of the open space. Have no increase in traffic volume. Preserve LeBard Park as it exists. Sincerely, John and Jennifer Gunther SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION IMeetirg Date: /a• Agenda item NoQ i December 7, 2013 Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association P.O. Box 6883 Huntington Beach CA 92615 To: Huntington Beach City Council Subject: LeBard Site The Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association board of directors would like to support a development plan that meets our goals and does not contain the many negative impacts in the school districts 30 lot and 25 lot alternative plans. One of the most egregious negative impacts in these plans is the demolishing of city park space and baseball fields and then undesirable reconstruction of same. Our LeBard site goals are: Preserve all the open space the taxpayer has funded and used for almost fifty years; Ensure homes built adjacent to Meredith Gardens are of equivalent size and value and built with equivalent lot sizes and street sections; Have sufficient parking available for users of the open space; Have no increase in traffic volume; Preserve LeBard Park as it exists Our board of directors has indicated the 15 lot alternative could be supported if the sufficient parking goal can be met. Our recommendations are; City staff offer modifications to the 15 lot plan to solve the parking problem. School district headquarters move to the recently modernized and vacant Kettler school site. We will vigorously oppose alternatives that require demolishing and relocating the City's park. We will utilize all legislative and legal means available to protect the public's interest in this matter. Ed Kerins Secretary Meredith Gardens Homeowners Association SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item No.� Vu Esparza, Patty From: Larry/Linda Lee [lee2l@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 2:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: edkerins@netscape.net; medwards42@gmail.com Subject: LeBard Site Choices Dear City Council, As a longtime resident of Meredith Gardens, I would appreciate it if you would select the plan that would leave the park intact as is. There is no logical reason to destroy existing mature shade trees and incurring the cost to move baseball fields. Please select the 15 lot development plan. Regards, Larry and Linda Lee 10262 Wesley Circle 714-962-8319 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: 9 Agenda Item Noe 1 Esparza, Patty From: trickypat@aoi.com Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LeBard Site Development Plans These are the most important concerns of our neighborhood. Our family purchased our home in 1968. Thank you. Preserve all the open space the taxpayer has purchased and used for almost fifty years. Ensure homes built adjacent to Meredith Gardens are of equivalent size and value and built with equivalent lot sizes and street sections. Linda Natale-Schlagel SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Waetirc Date:_ Agenda Item No. W 1 Esparza, Patty From: Alan Walls [alandwalls@aol.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 4:40 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: becky.hart@yahoo.com; sevasquez1@yahoo.com; Ibco@earthlink.net; marti.cf@verizon.net; dave@dsadave.com; rkoch2@yahoo.com; matt.fleming555@gmail.com;jmbui70 @yahoo.com; greg@skyviewhomes.com; alandwalls@aol.com; rob.fix@verizon.net;. smirghanbari@mac.com; motorcyclesareus@yahoo.com; bnthart@verizon.net; rhardy2 @socal.rr.com; bpetersl@socal.rr.com SUPPLEMENTAL Subject: Fwd: LeBard Study Session COMMUNICATION -----Original Message----- From: Alan Walls <alandwalls@aol.com> Meeting Date: To: city.council <city.council @surf-city.org> Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:32 pm Subject: LeBard Study Session Agenda Item No. W Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Three plans will be presented to you concerning the development of LeBard Park during the upcoming study session. Only one preserves the two acres of open, passive space in the park adjacent to the site upon which their district office is located. That plan of 15 houses on the four acre footprint of the former LeBard school represents a compromise that the surrounding neighborhoods endorse. Retaining the District Office in as good a condition as the surrounding homes would have been our first option, however lack of normal maintenance has left it in a sorry state. The estimated value of that land by their consultant generates more than enough funds to move to the vacant Kettler school. Two months ago an engineering firm employed by HBCSD estimated it would take from $3 -$5 million to reconfigure Kettler into a first class office building. Why then now propose two different development plans eliminating open parkland?As shown below, it's simply to generate enough monies to move to an office building befitting the status of a Huntington Beach School Board; a mind set that excludes any former school building. - Since the 1990's, various HBCSD School Boards have tried to generate funds from sale of the entire LeBard site but were unsuccessful due mainly to Little League influence. Relocation to another school site was never promoted by the Board. Co-location with another school board (HB has five), although legal, also was never considered. - In 2005 special funding allowed millions spent for infrastructure to HB schools including Kettler. In 2007, the City Council offered $7 million for portions of the LeBard site but was turned down. That would have been more than enough to reconfigure Kettler into a district office. -The current initiative involving their consultant, TRG Land Inc. began in the fall of 2010 and produced many development plans. That initiative to date have cost more than $500,000. The only one chosen was the 30 house plan which was given in July 2012 as a fait accompli at the only public meeting ever held about their LeBard plans. When a current City Council Member asked Superintendent Haulk about moving to Kettler he dismissed that suggestion advising it would be too expensive and estimated a $3 million cost to do so. - More than a year later, after community opposition to the loss of public space and the election of new City Council Members, the Board narrowly voted to fund a professional redesign of Kettler for use as a district office. Both the Board President and Vice President voted against the funding. There will be City price tags associated with each proposal. Please note that of the six acres of adjacent parkland, four are for the exclusive use of the Little League. The commercial value of those four acres is far less than the rest of the site since a developer would have to purchase land to move the baseball fields and build new ones. The sale of public land commands more careful examination that of private property; more so when it is parkland which must be protected as the Mayor Pro Tern recently proclaimed. HB has already lost 20 acres with the sale of Wardlow and Lamb schools. Bottom line: This is public land, purchased with public monies and intended for public use. It is really a win-win scenario in that enough funds can be generated from developing the school footprint to move to a first class district office while saving open park space. The Suburbia Park community thanks for your careful consideration. 1 Dornbo, Johanna From: DWicKr123@aol.com Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 3:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LaBard site development I am writing to you to express my wishes that the LaBard site development be one of only 15 homes whose size and lot size would be equivalent to the existing homes in Meredith Gardens. This will also allow the park to continue in size with baseball fields and tennis courts that has existed for many years. To have any more homes than the 15 proposed would only impact the area around the park but add to the number of automobiles that will driving in and out of the area.....Traffic on Brookhurst Street is very heavy at various times in the day and it is not easy to exit from the streets of Meredith Gardens to enter Brookhurst. While we do not need more homes in Meredith gardens, developers are SO EAGER to find land they can build on and fill their own pockets with money. Once they are done building, off they go and they do not care what problems we are left with. Please vote to approve only 15 homes. Regards, Mrs. Betty Wickersham, 20092 Viva Circle, Huntington Beach, CA Dornbo, Johanna From: Starla Thompson [sthompson@creativenetworks.net] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 8:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Save Our LeBard Park Our Family Memories were made at That Little League Field, Our Son went on to pursue a Career in Playing BASEBALL! He is now Coaching our Future BASEBALL PLAYER Please — Please— Please DO NOT TAKE OUR FIELDS FROM US. On Opening Day Every Year our Streets In Meredith Gardens are Filled With Family's on there way to a New Season. . . Parking is Difficult but just for one Special Day! Please reconsider If you have to build BUILD LESS NOT MORE! ! Shhompson@creativenetworks.net 714 335-1112 Starlamae 1 Dombo, Johanna From: WMSB@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard Park From: mdardis@verizon.net Reply-to: hbtalks@googlegroups.com To: hbtalks@googlegroups.com Sent: 12/9/2013 6:22:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time Subj: RE: Le Bard Park Barry: This park belongs to the residents and the taxpayers. Keep the school district faceless bureaucrats out of the park and off the grass. Many of us have raked the field when there was little or no grass. School district would not allow us to use their tractor for leveling let alone show up and help. Now they want to claim a park that they did not put in any sweat and tears. It is about time to eliminate "they" and let the park stand and be used the children and young people and the taxpayers who have to pay the salaries of the bloated school bureaucracy. The school bureaucracy should work on consolidating the various school districts into one and stop the duplication of salaries and copier machines. Keep your hands off Le Bard Park. Milt Dardis Ethics: We have no Stinking Ethics The KFC derelict building is still standing as a testament to the BB Political Machine and its campaign contributors. Dam the taxpayers and voters. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups"Wtalks" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hbtalks+unsubscribe(o-)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt out. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 4:24 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16860 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Robert Fix Description: From: Robert Fix [mailto:rob.fix@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 4:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard Park Importance: High Honorable Mayor and City Council, Long Time HB Resident and Taxpayer: I'd like to voice our opposition to the proposed development of the Le Bard School Site. My wife is a lifelong Huntington Beach resident and former valedictorian of Huntington Beach High School (Class of 1982) She's also a Phi Beta Kappa member with University of California, Irvine—Information and Computer Science Graduate. Our two sons are second generation Huntington Beach . I moved to Southern California from Nebraska in 1984 when my Father's Corporate Law Firm brought him to Newport Beach. I spent my first two years of college at the University of Nebraska, and after our family's move to California, finished with my degree at California State University, Fullerton—emphasis in Finance Since graduation, I've spent my professional life as a Regional Bond MangerNice President for large surety companies here in Orange County..Over the last 25 years , I've held Sr. Management Positions with Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, St. Paul Insurance, and Great American Insurance Group. The product I specialize in is SURETY BONDS which guarantee the completion of ALL PUBLIC WORKS construction/development projects. My clients include many public works CONTRACTORS and DEVELOPERS that the City of HB works with. It's a small community. Many of my clients have completed projects for HBUSD,HBCSD and the City of Huntington Beach. After 25 years of marriage here in HB, and with our two sons going through Hawes, Sowers, and now Edison— (My oldest son plays Varsity Soccer on Edison now. My younger son is in 8 th grade at Sowers right now on the basketball team). Both boys are GATE students with straight"A"s so far, partly because of this wonderful neighborhood we live in. Also, both boys went through Sea View Little League behind our house, and I coached through minor"B". i When my family moved from Nebraska to Southern California, I was SO disappointed in the amount of land vs. price compared to what I was used to. When my HB local wife and I married in 1988, 1 wanted to buy our home somewhere we had more space. The Suburbia Park neighborhood satisfied all our needs, BECAUSE of the little league park and space behind our house. As a 22 year resident at 20522 Suburbia Lane, we are strongly against any plan for the school district other than on the current footprint of the existing Le Bard school. The original Developer gave that space as a condition to getting their permits/entitlements to the City/School District as a condition for their entitlements/permits for the project. — I.E. - For FREE to the School District!!!!! Why should the school district get the benefit of that increased value in land for an office/operational budget???Additionally, all of the upgrades that have been done to little league/park/tennis court, over the last ten years are grants from the City of HB. More Waste!! So if the HBCSD get their way, we will throw away all of the GRANT money from the City over the last ten years, all of the State money for the school site due to dilapidation, demolish all that has been built(trees, little league fields,park) spend three years re building with a developer who is selling a"BILL OF GOODS", and then re-build the little league parks, tennis courts, etc. under the power lines??? As I understand it, none of that money is for the kids, or I wouldn't be writing this. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Robert Fix 20522 Suburbia Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Expected Close Date: December 10, 2013 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 4:25 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16861 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Greg Howell Description: From: Greg Howell [mailto:greg@skyviewhomes.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard School site Honorable Council Members, I have been involved with the Suburbia Park residences following the HBCSD plan to sell off the Le Bard school site and Little League fields. I also live on the corner where all the new traffic will converge. It is very frustrating speaking at school board meetings. They look at us with plank faces for our 3 minute time allotment. Of coarse with no response. After HBCSD submitted the incomplete application to construct 30 homes 1 year ago, planning requested HBCSD to meet with Meridith Gardens, Suburbia Park residences' and Sea View Little League. This has yet to be done. They keep drumming up new plans in the hope you will eventually support some variation of compromise. We feel it is absolutely insane to build on anything but the current school footprint. We should require the open space & ball-fields remain unchanged as these communities were planned around that open space and recreational area as the orignal vision for Huntington Beach. Thank you for not burdening our community with poor urban planning, Greg Howell Suburbia Park Expected Close Date: December 10, 2013 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i 9t w rM ! p /y r�ezt°ems` ae ,�A 13 20532 Suburbia Lane City Council Huntington Beach,CA.92646 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach,Ca.92648 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: My name is Alan Walls and I live adjacent to LeBard Park. I want to thank you for occasioning this study session. Indeed,this is the first time more than one LeBard development plan has been made public by HBCSD since their consultant,TRG Land Inc.was first hired in the fall of 2010. HBCSD staff and the consultant did privately contact certain groups such as the Oceanview Little League but only the 30 lot plan was presented publically as a fait accompli in July 2012. Both adjacent communities support the 15 lot plan since it retains two acres of open, passive parkland and will remove the District Office which has deteriorated due to insufficient maintenance. Further analysis of the three options makes this plan the least expensive to the City. The Assistant Superintendent of HBCSD has advised the 6.5 acres of parkland is valued at$3,120,000 million after application of the Naylor Act. He continued that equates to$1,920,000/acre at fair market value. in fact,the resulting$6,720,000 for the 3.5 acres encompassing the 15 lots may well be a reasonable expectation. After all,the homes would be within a prestigious neighborhood;2 y miles from the beach;and nestled adjacent to a beautiful park. Completion of the probable MND,development plans, and City approval would make the land even more valuable. More than enough for the District Office to move to a reconfigured Kettler school which cost was professionally estimated at$3 to$5 million. Although$3,120,000 is even less than half of what the City offered in 2007,the 6.5 acres may not even be valued that highly for commercial use. Six baseball fields take up about 4%acres of the park. Before a developer could get approval to build,he would have to purchase other land for the Little League; have the current fields demolished and rebuilt;and overcome the same strong public objections to losing open parkland. The other two plans not only reduce the City-owned play area by 1 and 1%acres respectively,but under the consultant's"Investment and Reconstruction"section it calls for the City to be responsible for expenses over the consultant's estimate of$2.1 million for one plan and$1.1 million for the other. The former plan calls for removal and rebuilding of all the facilities on the 6.5 acres and the latter all but the tennis court. This represents an open-ended liability for the City and is essence,"a pig in a poke." Bottom line:The 15 lot plan represents a win-win for all parties.HBCSD garners enough funds to move to a first class facility. The public and Little League retain their park usages. The City-owned park remains at 3 acres.The City gains 6.5 acres of park at a low cost. Sinc ely, A Is ;Member,Committee to Save LeBard Park Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@ user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 16870 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: September Mirghanbari Description: From: September Mirghanbari [mailto:smirghanbari@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: LEBARD PARK PROPOSALS Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I would like to thank you for the attention that you gave the LeBard Park proposal in last evening's study session. I was one of the speakers and appreciate the encouragement that you gave while listening. I certainly am not comfortable speaking in front of a large group, but felt that this matter warranted me stepping out of my comfort zone. The questions that Councilman Carchio asked of the school board regarding the number of employees that were there on a daily basis versus an infrequent basis showed me that you were carefully listening. Most of the residents in this area feel that the school board members are trying to "keep up with the Jone's" when it comes to an appropriate office space. There is quite a bit of competition between the Fountain Valley and the Huntington Beach school district's boards just like there is between the schools. Fountain Valley has a separate office space that is quite nice and this school board wants the same. I can understand that. In the last few years that this project has been discussed,residents have encouraged the board to move to the Kettler facility. Nearly$3M has already been spent on that facility and it is more than adequate to house the board's needs. It's not as glamorous, but it is a responsible move for them. I have heard the numbers involved in that move to be somewhere near the $5M range for the buildout, and quite frankly, I don't believe that at all. I question those numbers and feel that they've been inflated because at least two of the board members are strongly against a move there. I feel comfortable saying that if a public vote was taken as to whether they should move to a facility that is already owned by the district or buy yet another one, the voters would be fully behind using what we already have. Councilman Carchio's point regarding the need to plan for the future growth of the student population was spot on! One of the board speakers stated that they have only picked up approximately 7 students from the Pacific Shores housing development, and therefore are not concerned about downsizing the number of facilities that we currently have in the district. I challenge them to look inside those homes and see how many of 1 them have babies that just aren't school age yet. Babies turn into kindergardeners, who turn into grade schoolers, who turn into middle schoolers and high schoolers. Lastly, he also mentioned that the proceeds of the sale cannot be used on maintenance or other expenditures, but have to be used on facilities. I haven't specifically counted how many portables this school district has on its school properties, but if their main job is educating children maybe they should consider using that money on building additional, appropriate facilities on the sites they already have. Those portables are extremely hot in the summer and were never meant to be permanent fixtures. Ideally, they should have maintained the facility all along instead of letting it get into a state of disrepair. However, they need money and want to sell their asset to get it. Understood. However, if they move to Kettler, instead of other options, they will be able to sell that property to a developer who can build 14 homes on the current footprint, which will give them the funds they need to move to Kettler. Of the 3 plans that they presented last night, the 14-home plan does the least damage to the surrounding neighborhoods and overall environment. Thank you so much for your consideration. September Mirghanbari Expected Close Date: December 11, 2013 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Paa From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:53 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW: Le Bard Site From: Rebecca Hart [mailto:becky.hart@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Le Bard Site Dear Council Members, I wish I could be at the meeting tonight but my son is sick and my husband is out of town (we have no family in the area). I would like to simply reiterate my talk from the last meeting in which I stated that you should NOT let this land get developed, not even the 15 house plan! We have such a ridiculously small amount of free space here in HB, and this is an opportunity to not only save the existing free space but to even add to it. Why not buy up the whole area and turn it all into a park? Is this really too expensive? Don't you think the citizens of HB could perhaps pay a very tiny tax in order to have a new park, all for them? Once we give this up, it will never come back. How final. How sad. Respectfully, Dr. Rebecca L. Hart i