HomeMy WebLinkAboutEstablishment of City-Wide Park-Beach Improvement District 7 MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE-AMERICANS'WITH DISABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to
members of 'our- community who require special assistance to• participate In City
Council/Redevelopment Agency meetings.
If you require, American sign language Interpreters, a reader during the meeting, and/or
large print agendas, please contact the City Clerk (714) 536-5227 to make arrangements. To
make arrangements for an assistive listening system (ALD) for the hearing impaired, please
call Building Maintenance Department(714) 536-5534..
(Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this ineefing.)
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1996
5:00 P.M. -Room B-8
7:00 P.M.-Council Chamber
Civic Center,2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
5:00 P.M. Room B-8
Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting to Order.
Roll Call: Harman, Leipzig Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo
Study Session
1. Review of the Fourth of July Police Tactical Plan (960.30)
2. Discussion and Update from the Council Committee on the Park/Beach
Improvement District Alternatives (120.25)
Call Closed Session of City Council/Redevelopment Agency
Closed Session - City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its
designated representatives William Osness, Personnel Director and Daniel Cassidy, Esq.,
Liebert,Cassidy& Frierson regarding labor relations matters -meet& confer re: the
following employee organizations: MSOA, POA, PMA, MEA, MEO, HBFA, &SCLEA.
(120.80)
COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS IS AVAILABLE
PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETINGS(TELEPHONE NO. 374-4215)
Ar *4-15-1996 4.07PM FROM CLARK " GREEN ASSOC 714 434 9109 �• �
T
MEMO
DATE: April 15, 1996
O s
TO: Huntington Beach City Council
FROM: Michael Green '
RE:
I have just received the Sports Facilities Development Proposal placed before you tonight and
would like to offer the following comments as part of your discussion.
Save Our Kids has worked diligently since the election to crdate a new advisory measure that
meets virtually every criticism levelled against Measure GG from a cross section of people in .
this community, from members of the Chamber of Commerce, fiscal conservatives, seniors,
school districts and our own sports groups. This was not a very difficult task since we had
indeed embraced most of these same specifics prior to the election and had gained commitments
from most of you on incorporating them into the final assessment district language, assuming
GG passed.
We believe that these changes including the deletion of major capital improvements such as the
Beach Improvements and one of the school site purchases and. other additions such as high
school lighting were major steps forward. and would likely lead to support from many of the
previous foes.
It seems that we should be now focussing on continuing to tighten up the current proposal
including any thumbnail community surveys needed to make final changes or convince naysayers
that we are on the right track.
IT IS VITAL THAT WE COME BACK IN NOVEMBER WHILE THE ISSUES ARE STILL
FRESH IN THE VOTERS MINDS.
There are valid points in the proposal put forward by Councilman Garafalo. We like the idea
of reconfiguring Edison, Murdy and Worth Parks to youth sports field centers and constructing
anew .full size adult softball complex at Central.Park with at least 5 or.6 overlay soccer fields
for 5 or 6 tournaments per year. The decentralization of the youth fields with the central .
headquarters complex for-revenue generating daily use and tournaments was a good step .
forward. However, with 5 AYSO soccer regions, 3 soccer clubs, 4 little leagues, 2 pony-colt
baseball; 2 football and 3 or 4 girls softball leagues, these facilities would be a marginal help
in the overall. picture and no help at all to many of the above organizations.. .
4-15-1996 4:07PM FROM CLARK GREEN ASSOC 714 434 9109
April 15, 1996
Huntington Beach City Council
Page 2
We need to remember how large this City is at close to 200,000 in population and growing.
The short term* dollars provided are nice and are certainly great until the Assessment District
could be enacted after November vote but in terms of the impact, we need to.keep in mind that
our estimates for lighting fields and properly renovating school fields are already very slim based
on a great deal of volunteer sweat equity and cost sharing. We are asking for a fishing pole,
not a fish to help solve our problems. Continuing to band-aid the problem will send good
money after bad, which is what we have been doing in trying to just keep our fields playable,
never mind high quality.
As an emphasis of the above, North-Huntington Beach Club Soccer has categorically stated that
the reason that most of the fields for their 400 team tournament every September are outside of
Huntington Beach is due to the poor quality of the fields in oust city. This is not only
embarrassing but costs this city hundreds of 'thousands of dollars in direct and indirect
expenditures every year.
w . . ----------
4-15-1996 4:06PM FROM CLARK GREEN ASSOC 714 434 9109 P• 1
oil
'A s,s o c i a t e s
.Landscape Architecture
FA- CSI- MI LE COVER.' SH E E T
Project Name:
Project Number:
ftm
To:
Attention:
FAX Number; .5
From:
We are transmitting pages including this cover sheet. If you do not receive
all pages, please call our office immediately. Telephone; (714) 434-9803. FAX.-' (714) 434-9109.
Comments;
150 Paularina Avenue, Suite 160,.Costa Mesa,'California 92626
(714)434-9803 6 FAX (714)434-9109
Al
COMMENTS ABOUT PARK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Ralph Bauer
4/12/96
Suggestion 1
Put on the ballot in November a list of youth sports oriented projects to be financed
through a Beach and Park Improvement District, but not requiring a Measure C vote.
Rationale, youth sports are in need of space, such space will do as much to prevent crime
through positive experiences by young people. Extensive staff time and money are not
required prior to the vote.
Suggestion 2
Determine whether senior citizens find a remodeled unused school acceptable as a new
senior citizen center. If the answer is yes, then add this as a separate item on the
November ballot for financing by the Park and Beach Improvement District. If the answer
is no, then find a location for a site not requiring a Measure C vote and build a new
building in a revenue neutral, lease back basis. Funding for the building would come from
a bond issue requiring a 2/3 yes vote. Building on city owned property(i.e. Central Park)
is not recommended because a)the Central Park Master Plan does not designate a suitable
location due to land use designation that were the result of many hearings, b) extensive
staff work is required prior to a Measure C vote with no certainty of final approval, c) a
bond issue requiring a 2/3 vote is required, and, d) a Measure C vote is required.
Suggestion 3
Do not put the beach improvement or the Junior Lifeguard Headquarters on the ballot
since these projects can be funded through reallocation of Beach and Parking Income
Programs. It is also suggested that part of the Conference and Visitor's Bureau budget be
used to market the beach and enhance our income from beach related activities. It should
be noted that the junior lifeguard and beach improvements must be done as a package.
Suggestion 4 .
Any other group wanting a brick and mortar structure should suggest a non-city owned
location to avoid a Measure C vote. The financing could be handled through bond issues
with the assurance that the structure would be revenue neutral after principal and interest
on the bond is paid by the organization.
RhnooncEb- T c/eIrk
RECEIVED
CITY OF HUNTINGTON B e
( CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
APR 15 4 50 PIP96
To: Mayor/City Council
Fr: Dave Garofalo
Re: YOUTH SPORTS, ETC.
For about 9 months the Council sub-committee of the Park
Improvement District met with regularity. In addition, I met with
the Community Services Commission on numerous occasions. I have
attempted to listen to all sides and understand the various
interest of all involved. For several months I found myself in
community debates on this subject so I consider my proximity to the
broad based community perspective very high. (i.e. - Youth Sports
is a high priority. Let's do at least what we can afford to and
plan for success through developing a comprehensive plan process.)
The attached is the result of that effort. All it attempts to
do is:
1. Identify Revenue streams and merge them with cost.
2. Apply sound planning principles to help allow for
successful execution.
3. Supply an immediate and major (and affordable) bridge to
a Youth Complex by investing in needed facility expansion
immediately.
4. Bring expectations and resources into focus.
I have tried very hard to try and craft a balance between all
or nothing now or patience, planning, execution and facilities in
just a few months. While no plan is perfect, I have tried to find
some money, invest immediately and plan fore success with more
financing opportunities than we currently have in place.
The short term funding source would result .in delaying some
ADA work and delay some additional encyclopedia lot purchases. Risk
and reward ratios are very low. � .
5� �
�l Fa
Recommend Procedure-ISteps to Accomplish a
Successful Ballot Measure and Development of
Sports Facilities
• Complete current study on school and park sites for sports field use
and future needs assessment.
• Develop the report analyzing the option of an adult softball complex
at HCP, thus freeing up Edison, Murdy, and Worthy Parks for youth
sports complexes.
• Reprioritize current park projects and loan the Park Fund $300,000
to immediately light soccer/football practice fields at Edison and
Marina High Schools, and invest with the youth sports groups a total
of$100,000 for current field improvements. (This action will meet
field needs for at least the next three years.)
• Use Council subcommittee to establish a task force to work with a
design consultant to design the needed sports facilities as determined
by the above studies at HCP, School sites, and Community Centers.
• Analyze and prepare a funding plan (with professional help) for
either an assessment district or a tax override bond program to fund
these new facilities.
• After the design work, submit final plan for a CUP which would
include an EIR to be approved by Planning Commission and City
Council.
• After Council approves final design plan, EIR, and funding plan for
sports facilities, use a consultant to survey the community and write
the Charter requirements for a Funding Ballot Measure.
• Place Ballot Measure on either the 1998 General Election or an
earlier special election.
• Have Save Our Kids and other support groups conduct a campaign to
gain a successful vote.
The cost to complete the above process is estimated at $150,000, plus
redesignating up to $300,000 from Park Fund for immediate field
improvements.
"Community News is Our OnW&usiness"
' ® ® David P. Garofalo &Associates, Inc.
5901 Warner Avenue, Suite 429
WSHuntington Beach, California 92649
Serving a Population of 450,000 People
For Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Belmont Shore, Naples,
Seal Beach, Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, Surfside, Sunset Beach and The Harbour
David P.Garofalo,Publisher
•
To": Pat Dapkus
City Council "Helper" -A: 2,
Fr: Dave Garofalo; City Council "Helper"
Re: H - Items
7-0
Please agenda the following items. Any questions, Please call .
1� I respectfully request an update on the status of the
report Council requested regarding the blocks within the Downtown
Specific Plan that are designated -MIXED USE! These designations
require the owner/developer to create commercial & residential uses
combined in these areas . Specifically, concerns include:
-Are these secondary uses (locations) suitable for
commercial operations?
-Are the parcels located in this area served by the Parking
Structure?
-Do these predominately 25 foot frontages accommodate
commercial or residential uses?
-Even with revisiting the use of "Eminent Domain" and
therefore the potential for lot consolidation, should this
present zoning be reevaluated?
0 The issue of the Park Improvement District should be
reviewed. Specifically, I present a motion for consideration"
-"It is moved that the timing for the Park Improvement
District' s Advisory Vote be moved from the current proposed
Special Election in the Spring of 1996 to the General
Election of 1996, and that the minimum vote required to have
the City Council consider such action be 66 2/3rds % vote . "
The issue of moving this Advisory Vote is paramount to any
serious consideration of this proposed $30 Million new tax for our
resident because of the usually low turn-out at Special Elections
and the significant voter turn-out at presidential elections in my
mind at least . However, some discussion would be accepted as to a
minimum standard of no less than 60% "Advisory Vote" approval for
such action is essential for my support . The state of California
mandates a full 66 2/3rd % vote for new taxes, our own City Charter
requires a full 70% vote; we should require nothing less than the
same for our own constituents, however, I remain open to
discussion.
� I .
Telephone: (714) 846 5515 Fax (714) 840-3678 Telex: 277724 TMS UR
I
Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7- 5?
Deferred/Continued to:
)(Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied dCfty Clerk's Signatur
Council Meeting Date: 8/7/95 Department ID Number: CS 95-033
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator �L�
PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services
SUBJECT: PARK-BEACH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, PROCESS AND
TIMELINE FOR ADVISORY VOTE
Estatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Council has directed staff to develop a process and a timeline to put
an advisory vote before the people on March 26, 1996, with regard to the establishment of a
Park-Beach Improvement District.
Funding Source: Not applicable.
Recommended Action: Approve the process and timeline contained herein for considera-
tion of establishing a Park-Beach Improvement District, and direct-staff to proceed accord-
ingly.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Do not proceed with a Park-Beach Improvement District.
2. Direct staff to complete all technical design cost estimates and specific project
designs for the proposed projects to be included in the assessment district prior to
implementing the advisory vote for a November, 1998 general municipal election.
Analysis: Council has indicated its desire to explore an advisory vote next March to deter-
mine public support for establishing a Park-Beach Improvement District pursuant to the 1972
Landscape and Lighting Act. While the act is very specific regarding the steps that must be
taken to establish an assessment district, staff believes that Council can determine public
support through an advisory vote prior to going through the specific steps required by the
act.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-033
Over the past two years, staff has explored numerous ways in which to fund the beach and
park improvement master plans that Council has adopted. The normal ways such improve-
ments have been funded have been through the Park Acquisition and Development (PA&D)
Fund and state and federal grants. However, the PA&D Fund is dependent upon develop-
ment fees. The city has reached a state of build-out, and what used to be a major source of
income during the growth years of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, is now just a few dollars in the 90s.
For example, during the 70s and 80s, the PA&D Fund averaged over $1 million a year in
income. From 1990 to 1994, the fund averaged less than $200,000 per year. This amount
does not pay for rehabilitation of necessary improvements to existing facilities and leaves
nothing for acquisition, development or completion of the beach and park master plans.
During the 60s, 70s and 80s, the federal government funded park projects through the Land
and Water Conservation Program. This program has been all but eliminated in the 90s.
The state passed park bonds in 1968, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1988.
There has been no park bond since 1988, and it is unlikely that the state will pass another in
the foreseeable future. Consequently, if the city is desirous of completing the South Beach
Improvement Plan, Huntington Central Park Master Plan, youth sports facilities, and neigh-
borhood parks within the city, it will have to do so on its own.
Although Council has approved the master plans for the above mentioned projects, the city
has not proceeded with the engineering, architectural, environmental, or final designs. How-
ever, preliminary cost estimates have been obtained to enable the city to determine a range
of assessment in order to raise the money to complete them.
In establishing a citywide Park-Beach Improvement District, the city could take two courses
of action. The first alternative would be to meet with the various user and support groups to
put a list of general projects together that would be built and maintained by the proposed
assessment. Those projects and range of assessment would then be put on an advisory
ballot. If the vote were substantially positive, the city could proceed with doing the technical
work and final entitlements leading to a public hearing to adopt the assessment district. Or,
the city could expend at least $1 million doing the technical work first, i.e., hiring a benefit
assessment engineer, completing the environmental work, completing the final project de-
sign and cost estimates, and obtaining the development permits. Once this technical work is
completed, specific projects could be put on an advisory ballot to determine support.
Staff is recommending that Council proceed with the first alternative (an advisory vote on a
general list of projects and range of assessment) and, if successful, then complete the tech-
nical processes to implement the assessment district.
The process and timeline for proceeding this way would be as follows:
0013586.01 -2- 08/02/95 10:53 AM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-033
September- October, 1995 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1. Meet with community support and
user groups to determine a realistic
list of projects that Council wishes to
complete with the establishment of
a Park-Beach Improvement District.
2. Prepare preliminary cost estimates
for these projects.
3. Prepare the range of assessment with
a minimum/maximum that would be
charged each residential unit and
commercial property in order to raise
the revenue to build and maintain the
proposed projects.
November, 1995 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 Council adopts Resolutions calling
election for March 26, 1996, and sub-
mitting to the voters a measure contain-
ing Council-approved advisory vote
language for the March 26, 1996 special
municipal election to be consolidated
with the statewide primary election.
December, 1995 - January, 1996 4 4 4 44 1. Establish a team of key people within
the various community and user groups
that would canvass the community with
information and answers to questions
regarding the improvement district.
2. Prepare information and media packets
and presentation materials for the team
to use.
February - March, 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Distribute information and media
packets and have team members meet
with as many community groups as
possible.
April, 1996 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 Council makes a determination whether
to proceed based on the outcome of
advisory vote.
0013586.01 -3- 08/02/95 10:53 AM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 8/7/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS 95-033
Environmental Status: Not applicable.
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number
...................................................
_....................................
...................................................
....................................................
................................
.........._. ..........._.
-
--.............................
1. Excerpt of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, California
State and v Hi hwa ode Section 22525.
Highway C
...:.
2. Park-Beach Improvement District Potential Capital Projects
0013586.01 -4- 08/02/95 10:53 AM
§ 22525. "Improvement" .
"Improvement" means one or any combination orihe following:
(a) The installation'or planting of landscaping_ `a
(b) The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and: other ornamen-
tal structures-and facilities.
(c) The installation or. construction of public lighting facilities, including, but
not limited to, traffic"signals.
(d) The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to.
any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance
or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal
of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks.-
or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage,�or electrical facilities_ _
(e) The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but-not
limited to, all of the following:
(1) Land preparation, -suclr.as grading,- leveling, .cutting and. filling, sod,
landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage.
2 Lights,ts, la ound equipment, play courts, and public restroom .
(f) The maintenance or servicing,'or both, -of any of the.foregoing.
(g) The acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open-s
P P.
_ ses_
ace.
(h) The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant
to this section. r
PARK AND BEACH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS
The following projects and priorities are to be considered for inclusion within a Park and
Beach Improvement District:
1. South Beach Improvements--The South Beach Improvement area $7,500,000
is from Lifeguard Headquarters to Beach Boulevard and includes
improvements to the parking lot, lighting, landscaping, division of
beach path to wheel and nonwheel trails, beach sand wall and razing
existing rest rooms and building new accessible unisex rest rooms.
Project will also include renovating Lifeguard Headquarters including
building of facilities for women lifeguards and a new junior lifeguard
headquarters to accommodate the demand of over 900 youth each
summer and to remove building from sand to area at Huntington
Street.
2. Tower Zero/Pier Rest Rooms--Pier rest rooms no longer exist and a $500,000
modular trailer unit is being used; a new rest room facility is needed
to accommodate the public on the pier. Tower Zero is the original
structure that was built on the pier. It is beyond the point of
restoration and needs to be replaced. Tower Zero is the primary point
for lifeguard surveillance on the pier and the beach and, therefore, is
needed for public safety.
3. • H.C.P.Youth Sports Complex (outdoor facilities)--To meet $5,000,000
public demand for youth sports facilities, a youth sports complex is
being proposed east of Golden West Street and south of Talbert
Avenue in Huntington Central Park. It will include, but not be
limited to, baseball fields, basketball courts, soccer fields, foot-ball
fields and roller hockey. It will also include lights to provide practice
and playing fields during the winter months.
4. School Field Improvements--Youth sports groups currently utilize $1,000,000
school fields for a variety of sports including football, soccer, baseball
and softball. Funding in this area will be used to assist the groups
and the school district in maintaining and improving these school
fields.
5. • Closed Schools-Open Space Acquisition--Twenty of the fifty $5,000,000
schools in Huntington Beach are currently closed. All of these sites
are utilized by the public as recreation open space, but school districts
are selling these sites to raise revenues. A consultant will review and
make recommendations as to which closed school site should be
retained for recreation open space for use as a neighborhood park or
youth sports facilities. The city will then negotiate with the school
district to acquire those sites.
Page two
6. • H.C.P. Sixteen Acre Passive Park, west of Golden West Street $2,000,000
at Talbert Avenue--This sixteen acres will be a continuation of the
theme of the surrounding park which includes picnic area,_turf,
parking, tot lots and rest rooms. Instead of one large group picnic
area, there will be family size picnic shelters. There will be more
parking developed on this site than is actually needed by the
activities located on the sixteen acres in order to mitigate some of the
problems that exist on the currently developed park to the west
where, on busy days, the public parks in the residential area. y
7. H.C.P. Sully Miller Lake--This project includes terracing and $1,000,000
constructing two docks to make it is accessible to the general public
for fishing. This area will also include a group picnic shelter and
other facilities for a corporate picnic area as well as a tackle shop for
fishing.
8. Park View School Sports Complex--Park View is located next to $2,500,000
Murdy Community Park. Its addition to the park will enhance the
active recreation amenities for the general public and enable the city
to create a youth sports complex in the northern end of the city. In
addition to sports fields for football, baseball and soccer, there are
plans also to include a gymnasium and, possibly, roller hockey.
9. • Clapp/Peterson School Sports Complex--This closed school site $2,000,000
is also a potential location for a youth sports complex in the southern
end of the city. It would accommodate youth sports field space.
10. . Ellis/Golden West Park.-This project includes acquisition of the $2,000,000
land which is estimated at $1.5 million, and development which is
estimated at approximately $500,000. This will provide the
neighborhood park facilities for this quarter section.
11. Bartlett Park--A thirty acre park site. Development will include $2,000,000
the traditional park facilities as well as maintaining the
environmentally sensitive habitat area. A survey of the community
will be conducted to determine what recreation amenities will be
included on the site.
Page Three
12. Talbert Meadow, Nature Center. Lakes--The eliminating of silt $500,000
and dirt from Talbert Meadow to recreate it as a lake, improvements
to the Shipley Nature Center, and other lake improvements will be
included under this section. The purpose is to improve the water
features within the community as well as to improve habitat for
animals and fowl.
13. Gibbs Park Phase II--This project completes Norma Brandel Gibbs $200,000
Park and includes approximately thirty percent of the park on the
western side. It will include open turf play area as well as tot lot.
14. . Aquatics Complex--Huntington Beach High School's aquatic 3,000,000
complex has been closed down. There is no such complex at Ocean
View High School. The city only has the small, indoor teaching pool
at the City Gym and Pool, plus the two outdoor aquatic facilities at
Edison and Marina High Schools. The community needs an aquatics
complex to meet the demand for swimming lesson programs,
therapeutic swim programs for the disabled, mentally challenged,
and senior citizens, recreation swim programs as well as swim
programs for competitive teams. In order to accomplish this goal, an
aquatics complex with a 50 meter pool, diving well and general swim
lesson pool is required.
15. • Senior Center--The senior citizen population in Huntington Beach $2,000,000
continues to grow. In order to address seniors' needs, additional
facilities are needed such as an adult day care center. A survey will
be utilized to determine specifically what seniors' facilities should be
included in this improvement district.
16. H.C.P. Ten Acres Northwest Ellis/Golden West--This ten acre $1,000,000
site on the corner of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street will
include the proposed therapeutic riding school, traditional turf play
area that can also function as an overflow parking lot, tot lot and
paved parking lot. The cost projected is for the park, rest room and
parking lot improvements. It does not include the cost to develop the
therapeutic riding school.
17. H.C.P. Urban Forest--This area is located east of Edwards Street, $1,000,000
north of Ellis Avenue, and will include parking, viewpoint, staging
area as well as multi-purpose trails.
Page Four
18. H.C.P. Gun Ranye--A new gun range will be developed that $2,000,000
includes a section for police and law enforcement, plus a separate
section that will be used by the general public. The.gun range is
planned for its current location, east of Golden West Street and south
of Talbert Avenue.
TOTAL $40,200,000
H.C.P.= Huntington Central Park
AUG 07 '95 14:23 P.1/1
5942 Edinger Ave.•Suite 113-307•Huntington Beach,Ca 92649
"Dedicated to the 60,000 youth of Huntington Beach"
August 7, 1995
G =
Connie Brockway
City Clerk ;, �, m
City of Huntington Beach p ^�
a
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
r_
_ Dear Connie,
Save Our%ids would like to register its support for the inclusion of the Park Commission recommended
amendments to the General Plan,under discussion at August 8th meeting of the Planning Commission.
Recent Council action to establish a"Landscape and Park assessment district"would also seem to support
the importance of establishing a more rigorous interpretation of Open Space,to include active facilities and
youth sports. The Park Commission recommended action would seem to do that,therefore,I would assume
the Council would be in favor of this action too.
Please copy this letter to the Planning Commission and City Councilmembers.
Sincerely,
(?11064'
Gluck Beauregard
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AGENDA I INKOVED BY CITY COUNCIL
19L
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 17, 1995 IL
c CL K
SUBJECT: Establishment of a City-wide Park-Beach Improvement
District
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The city currently has insufficient funds to pay for needed park improvements, a Youth Sports
Complex and other related capital improvements needed in the park/beach system. The
prospect of obtaining such funding in the foreseeable future is unlikely. Establishment of a
city-wide Park- Beach Improvement District, approved by the voters, would provide the
necessary funding to make these improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Tentatively approve in "concept"the idea of establishing a city-wide Park- Beach
Improvement District, as authorized by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
(California Streets and Highways Code section 22500 et. seq.).
2. Direct the Community Services Director to develop a list of suggested city-wide
improvements needed in the Park/Beach system and identify the approximate cost of
each such project.
3. Direct staff to submit the list and cost estimates to the Community Services
Commission and the Finance Board for review, comment, and action.
4. Direct staff to return to Council with a RCA concerning the Park- Beach Improvement
District for final review and action by the Council.
5. Direct staff to accomplish the foregoing in a timely manner so that the question of the
establishment of a Park- Beach Improvement District could be submitted to the voters
in March, 1996.
ANALYSIS
Lack of Funding - The Park Improvement Fund maintained by the City, literally has a zero
balance. In the '70's and '80's substantial amounts of money were paid to the fund from
developers who had to pay park fees. Residential development in the City has slowed to a
trickle. No Park Improvement Fees will be received from the Holly-Seacliff Project because the
developer was allowed to donate land for the Linear Park in lieu of paying park fees. Given
this posity of funds, it is submitted that the only way there will ever be any money to build the
needed park/beach improvements, is to establish a Park- Beach Improvement District. There
is considerable demand in the community for these types of improvements. Therefore, the
chances of the voters approving the establishment of such a district seem favorable.
Council Agenda Item - Park Beach Improvement
June 28, 1995
Page-2-
Proposed Improvements and Tentative Cost Estimate-A memo from Ron Hagan concerning
park improvements is attached. His preliminary estimate of the cost per household is $26 per
year for a period of ten years to fund $40 million worth of improvements.
Community Support- I envision the establishment of a support group composed of a coalition
of people from AYSO, Pop Warner football, Little League, Bobby Socks baseball for girls,
Equestrians, YMCA, Friends of the Park, etc., all of which could be organized to build-up
community support for the establishment of the Park- Beach Improvement District.
Consistent with Stated Goals and Objectives of Council - Completion of the Youth Sports
Complex and improvements to Central Park are part of the adopted goals and objectives of the
City Council. Approval of the proposed assessment-district will provide the funding necessary
to accomplish these stated goals and objectives.
Authorize Types of Improvements- Only certain specific types of improvements can be
financed with funds from an assessment district established under the authority of the
Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. Please see the attached copy of Streets and Highways
Code Section 22525 which defines the types of improvements that can be constructed.
Advisory Election - The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 does not require voter approval
in order to establish an assessment district. Such an assessment district can be established
by the legislative body acting alone. However, because of the magnitude of the proposed
bond issue, I am proposing that the question of the establishment of such an assessment
district be submitted to the voters for approval or rejection at the primary election to be held in
March, 1996. This vote would be an "advisory" vote only. If a majority of the voters approved
it, it would then be up to the City Council to move forward with the establishment of the Park
Beach Improvement District.
Let the Voters Decide - Simply stated, the Council can go to the general public and say "If you
want these park improvements you will have to pay for them". Let the citizens make the
choicel
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Current cost estimates are unknown, however, consultant fees and legal fees would no doubt
be necessary in order to take the steps necessary to establish an assessment district.
Additionally, if the assessment district were adopted, it is projected that there would be a cost
of approximately $26 per year for ten years for each household in Huntington Beach.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Reject the concept of a Park- Beach Improvement District and attempt to find alternative
sources of funding to make the needed improvements.
Council Agenda Item - Park Beach Improvement
June 28, 1995
Page-3-
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo to Councilmembers Harman and Sullivan dated 5/25/95, from Ron Hagan,
regarding the Park and Beach Improvement District.
2. Copy of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22525.
Submitted by:
Tom Harman, ouncilmember
TH:Ip
Park Beach Improvement#12956
{
l
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNnNG70N SUCH
To Councilman Tom Harmon
Councilman Dave Sullivan
From Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services
b____�
Date May 25, 1995
Subject Paris and Beach Improvement District
Attached is a list of projects that I think should be considered for -
inclusion in the Park and Beach Improvement Bond we recently spoke
about. Could you review and give me your comments on the list. To
raise $40 million, it would cost approximately $26 per parcel per year
for ten years. Let me know what you think.
RH:cs
Attachment
cc: City Administrator
f�f 2
;�
CITY
cis
O;•,-1m
m
:�;U r• `
T
A
PARK AND BEACH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS
The following projects are to be considered for inclusion and prioritization within a Park
and Beach Improvement District:
BEACH
• South Beach improvements $7,500,000
• Tower Zero/Pier rest rooms 500,000
HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK
• Youth Sports Complex (outdoor facilities) 5,000,000
Sully Miller Lake 1,000,000
• Urban Forest with parking, view point, etc. 1,000,000
• Sixteen acre passive park with picnic area, tot lot
parking and rest rooms 2,000,000
• Gun Range 2,000,000
• Ten acres northwest Ellis/Golden West 1,000,000
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROJECTS
• Ellis/Golden West (acq. and dev.) 2,000,000
• Bartlett (development) 2,000,000
• Gibbs Phase II (development) 200,000
HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS
• Talbert Meadow, Nature Center, Lakes 500,000
SCHOOL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS 1,000,000
DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSED SCHOOL SITES
• Park View 2,500,000
• Clapp/Peterson 2,000,000
CLOSED SCHOOLS—OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION 5,000,000
SENIOR CENTER 2,000,000
AQUATICS COMPLEX 3,000,000
TOTAL $40,200,000
§ 22525. "Improvement" _
"Improvement" means one or any combination of`the following:
(a) The installation'or planting of landscaping_
.. .. .:L-._.
(b) The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamen-
tal structures and facilities. .
(c) The installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but
not limited to, traffic*signals.
(d) The installation or construction.of any facilities which are appurtenant to
any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance
or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal-
of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks;
or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities..
(e) The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but-.not
limited to, all of the following: _ _ -
(1) Land preparation, such- .as grading,• leveling, .cutting -and. filling, sod,:
landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage. = VT '
(2) Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms. -• =�
(f) The maintenance or servicing,*or both,"of any of they foregoing.
(g) The acquisition of land for parr, recreational, or open-space.purposes_: :
(h) The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant
to this section.
=s
�m
t� c->
m< rn
Z
_n
C.J'1
W
1�77W� //RENT /�