Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmend the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan - Edwards/Goldenwes Council/Agency Meeting Held: 03—ON— bL Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Q Ci y Clerk' ignature 1 I Council Meeting Date: March 4, 2002 Department ID Number: CA 02-07 09 U-18-02< CPNTINvke To 0 -01-02 ri 5- I- I ; coo RI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 8y-01-�2- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION wN�Nup -To 04-ls 2 mw� t 4O -E-1 $,SWVkl�e�if � ) QWN, mstt r ) 0N-- Is-ati = W?N�%p ovo No. 3s4i�C�k 0A a� V-ooM-K OALitp; Wl1►LtreU-1gq",.1 _ s re SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS '" SUBMITTED BY: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney? �'✓"'ic � _ �- PREPARED BY: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney Zoning Text Amendment No. 02-03 0 SUBJECT: -� Implementation of Settlement and Release Agreement between=, _w,-. �� Brindle/Thomas and the City of Huntington Beach regard ingthe� a`tter ©r " of Brindle, et al v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. OCSC #750203 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Aft,6chment(s) Statement of Issue: Whether to repeal Ordinance No. 3287 relating to the designation of a parksite in the Ellis/Goldenwest Specific Plan area. Funding Source: No cost to the City. Recommended Action: (Motion to:) Adopt Ordinance No. 3542, An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Repealing Ordinance No. 3287 Related to the Designation of a Future Park Site Within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the ordinance and do not implement the Settlement Agreement. Analysis: On July 5, 1995, the City amended the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan by approving Ordinance No. 3287, incorporating Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate a future park site on Tract 306 located within the boundaries of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. A copy of Ordinance 3287 is attached hereto as Attachment No. 2. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City entitled Ronald 1. Brindle, Emily Ann Brind!e; John A Thomas and Linda L. Thomas v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 750203 ('the lawsuit"), which alleged, among other things, that Ordinance No. 3287 was an illegal taking of Plaintiffs' property by inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs prevailed on the taking issue in the trial court and on January 7, 2002,"the City entered into a conditional Settlement Agreement with the Plaintiffs. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment No. 3. ��` / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: March 4, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CA 02-07 One of the provisions of the Agreement concerns the repeal of Ordinance No. 3287. In order to fully implement the Agreement, the City must repeal Ordinance No. 3287. The effect of the repeal is that the Specific Plan will appear as it did prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3287. Although a park will still be a permitted use within the Specific Plan area, no specific park site will be identified. Staff recommends the approval of the repeal ordinance in implementation of the Settlement Agreement as approved by the City Council on January 7, 2002. Environmental Status: Exempt. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 3542 Repealing Ordinance No. 3287 and legislative draft 2. Ordinance No. 3287 3. Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims RCA Author: PDA G:\RCA\2002\brind1e.doc -2- 2/25/02 4:36 PM (15) April 15, 2002 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 G. Ordinances G-1. Ordinance for Adoption Mayor Cook recused herself from consideration of G-la as her residence is in vicinity. G-1a. (City Council) Continued from 4/1/02 -Adopt Ordinance No. 3542 Repealing Ordinance No. 3287 (Relating to Designation of a Future Neighborhood Park Site Per Settlement and Release Agreement Approved Between Brindle/Thomas, et al. and City-OCSC No. 750203) (640.10) Ordinance No. 3542— "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Repealing Ordinance No. 3287 Related to the Designation of a Future Park Site Within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area." Submitted by the City Attorney. (Introduction Approved on March 4, 2002 and consideration of adoption continued from 3/18 and 4/1/02.) Recommended Action: Motion to: After City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3542, by roll call vote. (1)Adopted 5-0-1-1 (Winchell abstain; Cook out of room - recused) (2)Any park fund expended should be replaced 6-0-1 (Cook out of room - recused) G-1 b. (City Council) Adopt Ordinance No. 3553—Approves Zoninq Text Amendment No. 01-09 Public-Semipublic 2 Acre Requirement—Amends Chapters 211C and 214.04 Relating to Commercial Districts and Public-Semipublic Districts (640.10) Ordinance No. 3553— "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code by Amending Chapter 211 C and 214.04 Thereof Relating to Commercial Districts and Public Semipublic Districts." (Public hearing held and introduction approved on April 1, 2002.) Recommended Action: Motion to: After City Clerk reads by title, adopt Ordinance No. 3553, by roll call vote. Adopted 7-0 �`� C�q�lNdi a3 04-0� ORDINANCE NO. 3542 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3287 RELATED TO THE DESIGNATION OF A FUTURE PARK SITE WITHIN THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WHEREAS, on July 5, 1995,the Huntington Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3287,relating to the designation of a park site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area; and The City Council now wishes to repeal said Ordinance and remove the park site designation from the subject property; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 3287 of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, Section III General Provisions, Subpart C Community Theme, is hereby amended to delete Subsection 6 thereto, entitled Neighborhood Park. SECTION 3. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan,Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors and Trail System, is hereby amended to be replaced in its entirety by the new Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors, Trail System, and Neighborhood Parks, as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and by this reference incorporated as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 4. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan so as to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance, and on the map attached hereto as Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors, Trail System and Neighborhood Parks. The Director of Planning is further directed to file the amended Specific Plan. A copy of such Specific Plan, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 1 PDA:2002 ordinances:repeal ordinance 3287 Ord. No. 3542 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April , 2002. A, ,z pt. A 14,^ A Mayor ATTEST: - ! APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk 8y-23 aZ C 3 oyb Q Z j SIa y REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI TE AND APPROVED: ( a. �� City Adm' 'strator Director of Planning 2 PDA:2002 ordinances:repeal ordinance 3287 Ord. No. 3542 Ex. A EXHIBIT A ELLIS AVENUE 4 L -ttlttltltl11111Itltl 11/11111t I1111111111111,111111- — •.�� - — u�.1•tO�n ' - 11t � .,� iTfitii•tr fcccrcrclr -- cc I- --1 W LU LLJ uc, C/) r-Al toll — ------- - z Jj LLI cc _Q) Lij i t ItIfIlllltlllftftfltfll � r - - w Illtiftltlt Il/ll"III Illtl slim! it11111 It11I1tIttllltllll Il1f I1t1IlItltltttl t 1 1 GARFIELD AVENUE M-3Open S pace ,1111 l 1 l Equestrian Trail Open Space Corridors and Trail System Exhibit 8 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan 19 (0825Q) Ord. No. 3542 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of March,2002, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April,2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Green,Dettloff,Bauer,Houchen,Boardman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Cook(Recused),Winchell I,Connie Brockway CrrY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on 2002 y� In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway,City Clerk of the City Council of the City Dewty City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT 1 t LEGISLATIVE DRAFT pry C. All trail fencing shall be subject to the provisions contained in the Design Guidelines. d. Interior equestrian trails shall conform to the profiles contained in Exhibit 7. A three (3) to five (5) aere neighbor-hood park shall be established. Th PaFk site rh;;Il he longed in the Area de rated i.e. the map attaehed heme ST*TE OF f ) MORE TA1; T1G 4 ADT V DESGD BED A C T!l7 T ) 1C. D. GRADING Limited grading may be allowed in Open Space Corridors for trails, access bridges or to enhance the open space character of the area subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. A 1982 reference topography contour map shall be on file with the Department of Community Development in order to establish topography prior to development and to resolve land use issues. Grading activities for development in other areas shall not involve more than a two foot cut and a two foot depth of fill from existing topography as depicted in the 1982 topography contour map. Minor deviations may be permitted subject to the approval of Director of Community Development. Grading plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Departments of Community Development and Public Works. These provisions shall not apply to grading for roadways and drives nor for oil well cellars as required by the City's Oil Code. All structural designs shall fit the natural land forms to the greatest extent possible. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Refer to Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2. Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan 20 (0825Q) Revised June 19, 1995 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT ELLIS AVENUE ' L LLJ LLJ Cr LLI CC Uj CO „ttultuuttrl/tuu uutun 1t1u1tittCluttlJill� - G CC , � ;.9 o o L11 ---- ---- r- I l ltttttt,ttr n///,Illli� 1/IIIIIII Ili fill,/to11t 11111 Itttt 1It1111111 ' If III III I III III isI III 111/IIIIIIIt(/ ,r _ T 1 GARFIELD AVENUE *Te .��..._�....., D.,, ;; •• Open Space Equestrian Trail Open Space Corridors and Trail System Exhibit 8 Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan 19 (0825Q) Revised June 19, 1995 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3 2 8 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A THREE TO FIVE ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CODE AMENDMENT 93-1 IWHEREAS, on July 5, 1989, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan; and IThe Specific Plan provides for a three to five acre neighborhood park; and The City Council now wishes to designate the site for the aforesaid park; and Pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning I Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate duly noticed public hearings relative to Code Amendment No. 93-1 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented, the City Council finds that the code amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan; l NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain: SECTION 1. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, Section III General Provisions, Subpart C Community Theme, is hereby amended to add new Subsection 6 thereto, entitled Neighborhood Park, to read as follows: 6. Neighborhood Park A three (3) to five (5) acre neighborhood park shall be established. The park shall be located in the area depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit 8, and legally described as: 1 G:Ord:Code93-1\2/16/95 BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP IN BOOK 51, PAGE-13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING ALL OF TRACT 306, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGE 28 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. SECTION 2. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors and Trail System, is hereby amended to be replaced in its entirety by the new Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors, Trail System, and Neighborhood Parks, as attached hereto and by this reference incorporated as though fully 1 set forth herein. SECTION 3. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to amend the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan so as to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance, and on the ma PP attached hereto as Exhibit 8 Open Space Corridors, Trail System and Neighborhood Parks. The Director of Community Development is further directed to file the amended Specific Plan. A copy of such Specific Plan, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of July 1995 Mayor I ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk?}'-5's REVIEW APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: ity Administrator Director of CommunV Development 2 I G:Ord:Code93-1\2/16/95 SLATER AVE. Li PROJECT W z TALBERT AVE. m LOCATION N Z o w o 9 ELLIS C.Do 00 AVE. C� C� -9 GARFIE o YORKTOWN w ADAMS a.Q tK _ 9'L � o � z Z P VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A N.T.S. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sheet 1 Of 2 I LOT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TRACT 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 y 52 51 '.50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 NO. 306 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 53 64 65 EXHIBIT A N.T.S. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR REZONING PURPOSES OF TRACT NO. 306 BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING ALL OF TRACT 306, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGE 28 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. SEE EXHIBIT "A' ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. I Ord. No.3287 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was.read to said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 19th of June. 1995, and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 5th of July. 1995, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Bauer, Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/kwrwdexn/ordbkpg 7/6/95 ATTACHMENT 3 t G SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND (' J RONALD I. BRINDLE,EMILY ANN BRINDLE, JOHN A. THOMAS & LINDA L. THOMAS This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this�day of 2002, by and between the City of Huntington Beach ("City"), a California r municipal corporation; Ronald I. Brindle, Emily Ann Brindle; John A. Thomas and Linda L. Thomas ("Plaintiffs"). The aforementioned entities may sometimes hereinafter be singularly referred to as a"Party," or collectively referred to as "the Parties." RECITALS On July 5, 1995, the City amended the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") by approving Ordinance No. 3278, incorporating Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-1 (the "Ordinance"),relating to the designation of a future park site on Tract 306 (the "Site") located within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area; and Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City entitled Ronald L Brindle, Emily Ann Brindle;John A. Thomas and Linda L. Thomas v. City of Huntington Beach, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 750203 ("the Lawsuit"), which alleges, among other things, that the Ordinance is an illegal taking of Plaintiffs' property by inverse condemnation; and The Parties wish to provide for the conditional settlement of the Lawsuit and for the full and final release of all claims related thereto,based upon the conditions set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the representations set forth in the foregoing Recitals and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: I G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final 1. Dismissal of Lawsuit with Prejudice After Satisfaction of Conditions. P'.dintiffs, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to dismiss the Lawsuit with prejudice and release the City as set forth in Paragraph 12 below within thirty(30) calendar days after the City's Date of Repeal, Date of Conveyance, and Date of Payment(as defined herein). Notwithstanding California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1036 or any other statute or provision of law to the contrary, if the matter is settled pursuant to the conditions set forth herein, all Parties to the Lawsuit shall each bear their own costs, litigation expenses, and attorneys' fees regarding the litigation of the Lawsuit. 2. Date of Repeal. The Date of Repeal shall be the date that the repeal of the Ordinance is fully and finally effective as a matter of law, pursuant to the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach and the laws of the State of California. The City Council of City shall schedule a hearing to consider and take action regarding the repeal of the Ordinance within 60 days from the date this Agreement is approved by the City Council. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting, in any way, the City Council's discretion to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the repeal of the Ordinance. If the Ordinance is not repealed, since liability has already been determined, Plaintiffs shall have the right to proceed with the valuation phase of the Lawsuit, which is currently set for valuation trial on January 28, 2002, and this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. Depending on the timing of the City's scheduling of the hearing regarding repeal of the Ordinance, the City shall agree to a continuance of the valuation trial, if requested. 3. Initiation of Zoning Changes Regarding the Site. For a period of five (5) years from the Date of Repeal, City shall not suggest or initiate any zoning changes, ordinances or other legislative enactments that, similar to Ordinance 3278, designate Tract 306 as a future park site, or change development standards for Tract 306 in a manner inconsistent with the entire 2 G:42001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final 4 ` Specific Plan area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall not be construed as limiting, in any way, City's procedural obligation to analyze and process a zone change or other land use entitlement application regarding Tract 306 submitted by another person or entity acting as an independent third party authorized to submit such application for consideration by the City pursuant to Section 202.04(c) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code and without a City's official's recommendation or suggestion. If the City adopts another ordinance or other legislative enactment that, similar to Ordinance 3278, designates Tract 306 as a future park site,regardless of whether said ordinance or other legislative enactment is suggested or initiated by the City or another person or entity, City shall be deemed liable in inverse condemnation for such action and Plaintiffs or their successors or assigns shall have the right to seek compensation relating to such change by filing an inverse condemnation proceeding in the Superior Court as they have done in the Lawsuit. 4. Payment of Settlement Funds; Conveyance of Property. Within twenty(20) calendar days from the Date of Repeal, City shall pay Plaintiffs the sum of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), and City shall convey to Plaintiffs the lots owned by City in Tract 306 as listed in the matrix attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and the easements depicted in the Easement Deed attached hereto as Exhibit`B."Title to the lots and the easements shall vest in the Grantee or Grantees as identified by Plaintiffs. On condition that the Repeal is final and said payment and conveyance shall be made in full, this Lawsuit shall be settled. The City shall be relieved from any and all liability, including damages, attorney's fees, interest, litigation expenses, and costs of suit, except as set forth in Paragraph 3 herein. No further litigation of the Lawsuit, including a motion by Plaintiffs for recovery of their attorney's fees and litigation expenses, shall be permitted. Nothing in this settlement agreement protects the 3 G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final City or results in waiver of Plaintiff's rights in the event the City initiates or a City official recommends a zone change relating to the Site as prohibited by this Agreement within the five (5) year period as set forth in Paragraph 3. 5. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement is not intended as, and shall not be construed as, an admission by any Party against any other Party that the other Party has valid claims or defenses. 6. Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for purposes of reference and shall not limit or define the meaning of the provision of the Agreement. 7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 8. Parties Have Not Transferred Rights. Each Party hereto represents and warrants to each other Party that it is the holder of the rights which are being settled, compromised, or restricted as part of this Agreement, and that it has not assigned or transferred to any other Party any of such rights. 9. Litigation Expenses To Enforce This Agreement. In the event of litigation arising to enforce the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and costs in addition to any other remedy it may obtain. 10. Drafting. This Agreement has been negotiated and the Parties have cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. It shall not be construed against any of the Parties in the event of ambiguity. 11. Reliance Upon Legal Counsel. Each Party warrants and represent that in executing this Agreement, they have relied on legal advice from the attorney of their choice, that the terms 4 G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final of this Agreement and its consequences h5ve been completely read and explained to each Party by that attorney, and that each Party fully understands the terms of this Agreement. 12. General Release of All Claims Upon Satisfaction of Conditions. a. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, and in consideration of receipt of the payment of settlement funds and the receipt of the conveyance of properties as described hereinabove by City, hereby fully release City, its successors, and all other persons and associations, known or unknown, from all claims and causes of action by reason of any injuries and damages which have been sustained, or may be sustained, as a result of the adoption of the Ordinance and the facts alleged in the Lawsuit. This release shall only be effective after the Date of Repeal, Date of Conveyance and Date of Payment as set forth herein. b. Plaintiffs acknowledge and agree that this release applies to all claims that Plaintiffs may have against City arising out of the adoption of the Ordinance and the facts alleged in the Lawsuit for injuries, damages, or losses to Plaintiffs' persons and property, real or personal,whether those injuries, damages, or losses are known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, or patent or latent. c. Plaintiffs certify that they have read Section 1542 of the Civil Code set out below, and indicate that fact by signing their initials here: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor. d. Plaintiffs hereby waive application of Section 1542 of the Civil Code. 5 G:42001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final e. Plaintiffs understand and acknowledge that the significance and consequence of this waiver of Section 1542 of the Civil Code is that upon City's satisfaction of the settlement conditions set forth herein, even if Plaintiffs should eventually suffer additional damages arising out of the adoption of the Ordinance or the facts alleged in the Lawsuit, they will not be permitted to make any claim for those damages. Furthermore, Plaintiffs acknowledge that they intend this release to apply to any claim for injuries and damages that may exist as of the date of this release but which Plaintiffs do not know exist, and which, if known, would materially affect Plaintiffs' decision to execute this release, regardless of whether Plaintiffs' lack of knowledge is the result of ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or any other cause. f. Plaintiffs acknowledge and warrant that their execution of this release is voluntary, and that this release pertains to a disputed claim and does not constitute any admission of liability by City regarding the adoption of the Ordinance or for the facts alleged in the Lawsuit. 13. Arbitration. Any controversy between the parties regarding the construction or application of this Agreement, and any claim arising out of this Agreement or its breach, except Plaintiffs' right to seek compensation for City's adoption of a legislative enactment, ordinance or zone change, if any, in violation of Paragraph 3 herein, shall be submitted to a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court for arbitration upon the written request of one party after service of that request on the other party. REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final 14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized persons or officers on the date first above written. PLAINTIFFS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation Ronald I. Brindle Mayo ���..._ ATTEST Emily An rindle City Clerk -2 z APPROVED AS TO FORM: J . Thomas Cit AttorneyG.- ' r—p try t i' Linda L. Thomas REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City A inistrator INITLffED AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: for of Planning r Micha eif Attorney for Plaintiffs 7 G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final ` r EXHIBIT "A" MATRIX SETTING FORTH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES OWNED BY CITY IN TRACT 306 THAT ARE TO BE CONVEYED TO PLAINTIFFS APN 110-221-05 (Tr 306, Lt 05) APN 110-221-16 (Tr 306,Lt 16) APN 110-221-17 (Tr 306, Lt 17) APN 110-221-25 (Tr 306, Lt 25) APN 110-222-03 (Tr 306, Lt 29, 30) APN 110-222-15 (Tr 306, Lt 51) APN 110-222-17 (Tr 306, Lt 53) APN 110-222-29 (Tr 306, Lt 47) APN 110-222-30 (Tr 306, Lt 48) 8 G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final EXHIBIT "B" PIPELINE EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO PLAINTIFFS 9 G:4:2001 agreement:Brindle settlement#4 final RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: (Space above line for recorders use only) GRANT OF EASEMENT THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of the day of , 2002, by and between THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation ("Grantor") and , ("Grantee"). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California described on Exhibit A attached hereto and shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and each made a part hereof(the "Easement Area"). B. Grantor desires to grant and Grantee desires to acquire an easement for the purposes described herein which will encumber the Easement Area. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a non-exclusive easement (the "Easement") over and under the Easement Area for the limited purposes and upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Grantor reserves the right to use the surface or subsurface of the Easement Area for any purpose which does not materially impair Grantee's use of the Easement for the purposes set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to, the development and operation of the Easement Area in conjunction with the County of Orange as a portion of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. 1 PDA:2001 Agree:Thomas—Grant of Easement 2. Character of Easement; Termination and Assignment. The Easement is an easement in gross to the Grantee. The Grantee may assign its rights under this Agreement to any successor in interest to Grantee under that certain oil and gas lease described in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof(the`Bolsa Chica Lease"). The term of this Agreement shall be coterminous with the term of the Bolsa Chica Lease (i.e., this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the expiration or earlier termination of the Bolsa Chica Lease). In such event, Grantee(or its successors or assignees) shall deliver a quitclaim deed in recordable form evidencing such termination within five business days after written request by Grantor(or its successors in fee ownership to the Easement Area). Except as provided above in this Section 2, Grantee's rights under this Agreement may not be assigned or otherwise transferred. 3. Scope of Easement. The purposes and scope of the Easement shall be limited to (i) the operation and maintenance of the existing subsurface oil pipeline and fresh water pipeline within the Easement Area which services the operations under the Bolsa Chica Lease (the "Easement Improvements") and (ii) surface access to the Easement Improvements over the Easement Area. 4. "As-Is" Condition. Grantor expressly disclaims all express or implied representations and warranties as to the physical condition, value, fitness, use, compliance with zoning or other laws, or any other aspect or matter relating to the Easement Improvements. Grantee has made all inspections regarding the Easement Improvements that Grantee deems necessary or desirable. Grantee accepts the Easement Improvements in their"AS-IS"condition. 5. Obligation to Maintain and Repair. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall, at their sole cost, (i) operate,maintain and repair the Easeement Improvements, and (ii) repair any damage to the Easement Area arising from the use of the Easement. 6. Grantee's Indemnity. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold Grantor and its successors and assigns and the Easement Area harmless from and against any and all claims, suits,judgments, mechanics liens, actions, losses, obligations or liabilities (including without limitation actual attorneys fees of counsel approved by the indemnified party and costs of suit) of any type or nature arising out of or related to the use of the Easement Area or the Easement Improvements by Grantee or its successors or assigns. 7. No Interference with Park Development and Operation. Grantee acknowledges that Grantor, in conjunction with the County of Orange, intends to develop the- Easement Area as a portion of the Bolsa Chica Linear Park. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall not interfere, challenge or in any way hinder the development and operation of the park. Grantee and its successors and assigns shall make no claim of compensation against Grantor or any other public agency regarding the development and operation of the Park. 2 PDA:2001 Agree:Thomas—Grant of Easement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. "Grantor" "Grantee" CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A California corporation INITIATED AND APPROVED: Mayor ATTEST: Director of Public Works REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator City Attorney 3 PDA:2001 Agee:Thomas—Grant of Easement �':=of�r',�..,��z'��`�'� - ..��:t^?��=�,�. '.Lt=-:r`n � J�-,ti t tL �� S f � ��� 1 H�I�BI�fi�:� ♦ - r EXF-ffBIT `A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT PORTION OF LINEAR PARK - PARCEL 5 AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED MAY 14, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95- 0102558, OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OR LAND 10.00 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTER LINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK - PARCEL'5'WITH A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 26.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 890 18' 15" WEST 161.49 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK-PARCEL 5. THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIP ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED SO AS TO TERMINATE AT THE EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK - PARCEL 5. p�pt LA SANE �ygloG��.L No. 3347 Exp. 6-30-04 of C A� wss EN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION OCIATES FOR PIPELINE EASEMENT CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS W.O.No. 0808-388-1 Date 07/18/00 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B•IRVINE,CA 92614-6236 En J.W. Chk. D.W. Sheet 1 of 2 (949)660-0110 FAX:660-0418 �• EXkffBIT `A' �.�SAL I?I;S(_"FIP 1.i.WN M FOR WATER LINE E aSEtiiENT THAT PORTION OF LINEAR PARK - PARCEL 5 AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECORDED MAY 14, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95- 0102558, OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OR LAND 20.00 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTER LINE OF SAID STRIP BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK - PARCEL 5 WITH A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 40.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 890 18' 15" WEST 151.62 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK--PARCEL 5. THE SIDELINES OF SAID STRIP ARE TO BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED SO AS TO TERMINATE AT THE EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LINEAR PARK - PARCEL 5. kSDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES FOR WATERLINE EASEMENT CIVIL'ENGINEERS--PLANNERS—LAND SUItVEYORS W O. No, 080E-388-1 Date 07/18/00 13013 CONVAN.SUITE 310•IRVINE.CA 9.614 Engr. 3.W. Chk. D.W. Sheet 1 of 2 9491640-0110 F.1.\:660-W IS 6E ST 00, 6T -nf b0d EEL r r E= HIBI� ��B� WESTI`RLY LINE OF CITY OF HU NTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY GRANTED 03/14/95 PER INST. N0. 95-0102558 OR. c- I lk I -e O I�� 10.00 `r L.0 vLni� PAR � EASTERLY LINE OF CITY OF ?AKLi. o z 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY GRANTED 03/14/95 PER INST. Z3 wall NO. 95-0102558 OR. m I ooItcr, I ,� SCALE: 1'=100' o r., •ems,%� '���^ _ cq n n u •� <<. 1 2G.001oNt LA \-ANE �9sG�G J No. 3347 a Cis J� Exp. 6-30-04 \� I ^ r" J cm 9f�, OF C . N o N EDWARDS STREET N 005176' W a V N J *14 LDEN & EXHIBIT OB' SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A S O C IATE S LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PIPEL INE EA SEMENT 18012 COWAN. SUM 210, IRVINE, CA 92714 W.O. No 0808-388-001 Date 07/18/00 (714) 660-0110 FAX: 680-0418 En r.—l�L--Chk.-DAL— Sheet.-L_Of — WESTERLY LINE`OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY ` GRAKED 03/14/L.5 PER NO. 45-0102558 O.R. I L nr�nF� ,-.IA Ir- ',) 1. r►F;r. EASTERLY LINE OF CITY OF ,���r`rt 0 �I� 2�,i HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY =I GRANTED 03/14/45 PER 1N5T. a I - NO. 'q.5-0102558 OR. SCALE, 1'=100' i ~ 'j�' •�y,�1�L),� I � O� �ANEpN9 ` 0.0 S Cam\ lOti�o vi No. 3347 J, Exp. 6-30-04 Q F 0 , C I _ l EDWARDS STREET N 00'512G* W G5R.96• N d ALDEN & EXHIBIT 'B' SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A S S 0 CIATE S LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WATER LINE EASEMENT .0012 COWAN, SUIT); 210, IRVINE, CA 82714 W.O. NO 0808=_- -001 Dote 07/Ib/00 (714) 880-0110 FAX: 680-0418 E� J.W'. Chk,� _ Sheet_Z__0f_L_ 62:9T 00, 6T Irtr Sod ZZL A t a� t � � \�� ��\� \ '�] \�} /�; � m , ® Y � �\ $ ��© { /�k . } w » / . � / �R ; f /` � �`�} { \�{ � EXHIBIT "C" 1 BOLSA CHICA LEASE An Oil and Gas Lease dated January 1, 1920, executed by Bolsa Land Company and Bolsa Chica Gun Club, as Lessors, and Standard bil Company, as Lessee, and recorded February 14, 1921 in Book 19, Page 168 of Leases, of Records of Orange County, California, as amended by that instrument executed by Bolsa Land Company and Standard Oil Company of California recorded December 23 , 1941 in Book 1128 , Page 1 of Official Records, and as further amended by that Line Well Agreement executed by Huntington Beach Company, Edward R. Valentine, and Standard -oil Company of California recorded September 22 , 1965 in Book 7675, Page 794 of Official Records, which covers the following described property: Being a portion of Section 34 , Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the County of Orange, State of California, as shown on the map recorded in Book 51, Page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34 ; thence north 1591. 66 feet; thence south 51* 2710011 west 2281. 17 feet; thence south 2150 feet,' more or less, to the north line of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 34 ; thence east 818 feet; thence north 1320 feet; thence east 330 feet; thence north 660 feet; thence east 660 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom that portion of the above mentioned parcel described as follows: Beginning at a point in the easterly line of that certain parcel of land described as "Parcel 1" in Amendment to Oil and Gas Lease, recorded December 23, 1941, in Book 1128 , Page 1 of Official Records, in the Office of said Recorder, said point lying north 1091. 661 from the southeast corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 34; thence along the boundary of said "Parcel 1" by the following courses and distance: north 500 . 001 , west 20. 00 ' and south 51*27100" west 605 . 011 ; thence south 76*00100" east 508 . 261 to the point of beginning; consisting of 2 .74 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT "C" RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: City Attorney SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 02-03 Implementation of Settlement and Release Agreement between Brindle/Thomas and the City of Huntington Beach regarding the matter of Brindle, et al v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. OCSC #750203 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2002 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over$5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (if applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff . Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk -EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: e-- r Space . Only) GERALD L. CHAPMAN PATRICIA M. CHAPMAN 6742 SHIRE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 714.842.3345 FAX NUMBER: 714.843.9846 'PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE'' /FAX NO: FROM: 4 � /���i / NUMBER OF PAGES�f (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) DATE SENT: ,5:�-z �,� TIME SENT: AM/PM OPERATOR'S NAME: OPERATOR'S PHONE NO: "PLEASE NOTIFY OPERATOR IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY" COMMENTS: RECEMM AND AMOEA PARTOf F�OOF pRpAT ."` COUN'8F F TN�ROCKMIAY nuf 1 -1% GERALD L. CHAPMAN, D.D.S. 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7 1 4-848-2278 March 7, 2002 Ray Silver, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Silver: Following Mayor Pro Tem Bauer's direction, I am writing this letter to formally request a written response to the questions I raised at the last City Council meeting. I asked for an explanation of how the city became libel for the inverse condemnation of the designated parkland in the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection. I also asked for the name of the person or persons responsible. The City Attorney, during her staff report, implied that someone did not do their job in a timely fashion. Many homeowners worked extremely hard on the specific plan and the park project. I feel it is extremely important that the city provide an explanation as to how this happened. At the end of the item, I was disturbed by the explanation that the RCA was wrong in that its intent was not to return the specific plan to its original form as stated,but to totally eliminate any possibility for a park in the quartersection. It would seem that mistake would be considered grounds to cause continuance of the item and renotification of the public because the RCA did not properly state the action the Council was taking. I would also like an explanation of how the transfer of parkland by the Council could take place without a Measure C vote. It is extremely important these questions be answered before the next City Council meeting. If the meeting was improperly noticed or a Measure C vote was required, the Council may wish to reconsider their action at the next meeting to avoid the potential of another costly lawsuit by homeowners to get a park in the quartersection or to have their park fees returned. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincei;0y, Gerald L. Chapman, D.D.S. �P OfficeJet Fax Log Report for Personal Printer/Fax/Copier Gerald & Pat Chapman 714 843-9846 Mar-07-02 10:10 PM Identification Result Pages Type Date Time Duration Diagnostic 5365233 OK 02 Sent Mar-07 10:09P 00:01:08 002586030022 1.2.0 2.8 MAR-08-2002 10:51 CITY OF HL#4`fINOTOM BEACH ?14 536 5233 P.01 CITY OF HUNTINigrON 8,9i1 CH city eouriallAdinmArt'refloll Phone(714) "6-5202 Fax(714)$36.5233 TO: J�� i FAX NUMBER g y-T" 3 S25 NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Sheet) DATE 3 62-- xME /b' FROM: �1c.wJ TELEPHONE NUMBER S-575 COMMENTS MAP.-08-2002 10:51 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 714 536 5233 P.02 I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RLs No. REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Assn To Galt Hutton, City Attorney Dace Date: Request made by: Telephone: Department: March 8, 2002 Ray Silver 536.5575 Administration l INSTRUCTIONS: File request in the City Attorney's Office. Outline reasons for this request and state facts necessary for City Attorney to respond. Please attach all pertinent information and exhibits. TYPE OF LEGAL SERVICES REQUESTED: IiI ❑ Ordinance ❑ Opinion ❑ Stop Notice i ❑ Resolution ❑ Lease [] Bond 4 ❑ Meeting [] Contract/Agreement ❑ Deed ❑ Court Appearance ❑ Insurance ® Other: Response Letter Is Request for Preparation of Contract form attached? ❑ Yes ® No Are exhibits attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No Unless otherwise specified herein, I If not for Council action, consent to the disclosure of the If for City Council action, desired completion date: Information contained in this RLS to all members of the City Council. Agenda Deadline ,�,�,, __142ad Council Meeting Signat a of Department Head COMMENTS Attached is a letter from Gerald Chapman dated March 7, 2002. I am requesting that the City Attorney provide a written response to him on the questions and issues posed in his March 7, 2002 letter. This is requested since the Issues he raises relate to a recent litigation matter resolved by the City. Routing: ❑ GCH O PDA 0 LB ❑ SL I a JF ❑ ADL ❑ SF ❑ JM d This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to attorney , extension His/her secretary is , extension Notes: File Name: Date Completed: WP No.: ❑ Shaded areas for City Attorney's Office use only. Document2 � � ^^^^ ••• MHR-Ej8-?©©� 10 51 CITY OF HUNTINUTUN BERCH 714 536 5233 P.03 P GERALD L. CRAPMAN, D.D.S. 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7I4-848-2278 March 7,2002 Ray Silver, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr. Silver: Following Mayor Pro Tem Bauer's direction,I am writing this letter to formally request a written response to the questions I raised at the last City Council meeting. I asked for an explanation of how the city became libel for the inverse condemnation of the designated parkland in the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection. I also asked for the name of the person or persons responsible. The City Attorney, during her staff report,implied that someone did not do their job in a timely fashion. Many homeowners worked extremely hard ort the specific plan and the park project. I feel it is extremely important that the city provide an explanation as to how this happened. At the end of the item,I was disturbed by the explanation that the RCA was wrong in that its intent was not to return the specific plan to its original form as stated,but to totally eliminate any possibility for a park in the quartersection. It would seem that mistake would be considered grounds to cause continuance of the item and renodfication of the public because the RCA did not properly state the action the Council was taking. I would also like an explanation of how the transfer of parkland by the Council could take place without a Measure C vote. It is extremely important these questions be answered before the next City Council meeting. If the meeting was improperly noticed or a Measure C vote was required, the Council may wish to reconsider their action at the next meeting to avoid the potential of another costly lawsuit by homeowners to get a park in the quartersection or to have their park fees returned. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincer , Gerald L. Chapman,D.D.S. MAR-M7-"M'2 77:04 o+.e 04 2 ooze etc-, TOTAL P.03 OFFICE OF e CITY ATTORNEY FrArrn c!`� P.O. Box 190 y,�.✓ :-� 2000 Main street Telephone Gail Hutton Huntington Beach, California 92648 Cg �l�- (714) 536-5555 Ciry,lnorney Fax (714) 374-1590 ' Match 15,2002 Mr. Gerald Chapman FFK)M. 6742 Shire Circle 0�0l1NCIl AWWT�h1ERE00F�DAT Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C F) CrnrC c 00WW Y.CiTY CL OK Re: Repeal of Ordinance No. 3287 mim Dear Mr. Chapman: I have been asked to respond to the questions raised in your letter to City Administrator _ Ray Silver, dated March 7, 2002. Question 1: How did the City become liable for inverse condemnation concerning the adoption of Ordinance No. 3287, which designated certain private property in Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section (Tract 306) as a public park? Answer: The law of inverse condemnation has been dramatically evolving over the last twenty-five years. One method by which a government agency may become liable for inverse condemnation is through the theory of a"regulatory taking."In general, a city cannot regulate land in such a manner as to indefinitely provide the private property owner with little or no economic use of his or her property. (See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003.) In the present case, after the adoption of Ordinance 3287, the majority property owners of Tract 306 sued the City, alleging that the designation of their private property as a public park was a prohibited regulatory taking by inverse condemnation.Unfortunately, the court agreed with the landowners. Many facts unfavorable to the City were discovered in the litigation; for instance,city staff testified that the City would not accept a development application for the property unless the proposed use was for a public park. Additionally,the City did not acquire the property and develop the park within a reasonable time following the adoption of the ordinance. The court determined that these and other facts showed that the Citv adopted the park zoning to essentiallv reserve Tract 306 for future public use,without acquiring the private property for the public park purpose. The court determined that this was an impermissible use of the City's police power, a regulatory taking, and was the basis for the inverse condemnation judgment. Question 2: What is the name of the person or persons responsible? Answer: I do not believe that there is any single person"responsible"for the City's liability in this situation. Probably the City should not have acquiesced to residents' demands for a park designation without also committing sufficient funds to acquire the 1 PDA:2002 letters:Chapman 03-12 remaining private parcels. In your letter, you state that during my staff report, I"implied that someone did not do their job in a timely fashion." I did not intend to make such an implication. However, it appears to me that much, if not all, of the liability in this case could have been avoided if the City had immediately followed the adoption of the ordinance with purchase under threat of eminent domain or direct condemnation of the privately owned portions of the property, and proceeding with development of the park in question.Probably the City should not have acquiesced to the residents' demand for a specifically designated park site without also committing sufficient funds to acquire the remaining private parcels to actually build the park. Question 3: Did the RCA mistakenly state that the adoption of the repeal ordinance would return the Specific Plan to the way it appeared prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3287? Answer:No. The RCA correctly stated that the"effect of the repeal is that the Specific Plan will appear as it did prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3287. Although a park will still be a permitted use within the Specific Plan area,no specific park site will be identified." The above statement in the RCA is completely correct. The only language to be removed from the Specific Plan upon repeal of Ordinance 3287 is the language that was added by Ordinance 3287. Specifically, Ordinance 3287 added an entirely new subsection, Section III.C.6, entitled"Neighborhood Parks."Upon repeal of Ordinance 3287,this subsection will be removed. Although a graphic exhibit has also been adjusted, no other language in the Specific Plan has been changed. Please note that a public park is still a permitted use in the Specific Plan area pursuant to Section HI.A.b.(4). I have enclosed copies of the affected pages of the Specific Plan both prior to, and after, the adoption of Ordinance No. 3287. These pages confirm that the language in the RCA was correct, and that the Specific Plan will now appear as it did prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3287. Question 4: How can the transfer of the City's parcels in Tract 306 take place without a "Measure C"vote? Answer: The City owns ten individual parcels in Tract 306. As part of the settlement of the lawsuit,the City has agreed to convey those parcels to the plaintiffs.Measure C,which has been codified as City Charter Section 612,prohibits the sale, lease or other disposition of any public utility or park or beach or portion thereof currently owned or operated by the City without City Council and voter approval. The proposed conveyance of the City's parcels within Tract 306 is not subject to Section 612 because the parcels in question are not"a public utility or park or beach or portion thereof" owned or operated by the City. The City's individual parcels in Tract 306 are within an oil field, not a park. If the park use had been established,the proposed conveyance would be subject to Section 612. I hope this letter has answered your questions. The issues you have raised are complex ones.As a former Planning Commissioner,you are no doubt aware that it is difficult to fully 2 PDA:2002 letters:Chapman 03.12 address complex questions from the public in the time sensitive forum of a City Council meeting. Therefore, I suggest that in the future, in order to receive the best information possible, you may wish to discuss your questions with me in advance,rather than bringing them up for the first time during a City Council meeting. This will allow time for your concerns to be addressed in a thoughtful and informative manner. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Since ely, GAIL HUTTON City Attorney /pda Enclosures: Specific Plans pages 19, 20 and 10 c: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Ray Silver, City Administrator William Workman,Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director Ron Hagan, Community Services Director 3 PDA:2002 letters:Chapman 03-12 PICAVI FobOrdt' navice, 3 �- S C. All trail fencing shall be subject to the provisions contained in,the Design Guidelines. d. Interior equestrian trails shall conform to the profiles contained in Exhibit 7. D. GRADING Limited grading may be allowed in Open Space Corridors for trails, access bridges or to enhance the open space character of the area subject to review and _ approval by the Director of Community Development. A 1982 reference topography contour map shall be on file with the Department of Community Development in order to establish topography prior to development and to resolve land use issues. Grading activities for development in other areas shall not involve more than a two foot cut and a two foot depth of fill from existing topography as depicted in the 1982 topography contour map. Minor deviations may be permitted subject to the approval of Director of Community Development. Grading plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Departments of Community Development and Public Works. These provisions shall not apply to grading for roadways and drives nor for oil well cellars as required by the City's Oil Code. All structural designs shall fit the natural land forms to the greatest extent possible. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Refer to Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2. F. HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION All developments shall submit a legal instrument(s) setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of private sewers, pipes, facilities, drainage swales, recreational areas, communal facilities and private streets. No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Community Development Department as to suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. Dedication for public equestrian/recreational trails/easements shall be offered to the City and accepted by the City only after all improvements have been made. 1. Common open spaces are to be conveyed to the homeowners' association and the developer shall file declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions which will be submitted with the final tract map for approval, which will govern the association. The provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. The homeowners' association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. b. Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. C. The open space restrictions shall be permanent. S�eG ) c' C. All trail fencing shall be subject to the provisions contained in the Design Guidelines. d. Interior equestrian trails shall conform to the profiles contained in Exhibit 7. 6. Nei,hborhood Parks A three (3)to five (5) acre neighborhood park shall be established. The park site shall be located in the area depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit 8, and legally described as: BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST . QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, " TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 11 WEST IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING ALL OF TRACT 306, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGE 28 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS 0 ORANGE COUNTY. D. GRADING Limited grading may be allowed in Open Space Corridors for trails, access bridges or to enhance the open space character of the area subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. A 1982 reference topography contour map shall be on file with the Department of Community Development in order to establish topography prior to development and to resolve land use issues. Grading activities for development in other areas shall not involve more than a two foot cut and a two foot depth of fill from existing topography as depicted in the 1982 topography contour map. Minor deviations may be permitted subject to the approval of Director of Community Development. Grading plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Departments of Community Development and Public Works. These provisions shall not apply to grading for roadways and drives nor for oil well cellars as required by the City's Oil Code. All structural designs shall fit the natural land forms to the greatest extent possible. Use of terraces and split level structures shall be encouraged where appropriate. E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Refer to Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2. cn:� r tA.n.vnet CnPriFer Alan (08250) park 4f!t 11 Pe "II fi Ccl III. GENERAL PROVISIONS The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan shall be subject to the definitions contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The following general provisions shall apply to all development projects: A. PERMITTED USES 1. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (and Tentative Tract Map for subdivisions)by the Planning Commission: a. Residential (1) Single family detached dwellings, one unit per lot. (minimum 8,000 net square foot lot size; minimum 15,000 net square feet for 20% of the lots) (2) Land subdivisions intended for lot sale programs. b. Open Space/Recreation (1) Private recreation area for the exclusive use by members of a homeowners association group. (2) Private recreation area or uses for exclusive use of homeowner(s). (3) Commercial equestrian facilities subject to the commercial equestrian facility development standards contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (4) A three to five acre neighborhood park within the quartersection which may include equestrian orientation. C. General (1) Public School 2. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator: a. On-site equestrian facilities in conjunction with single family dwellings(requires minimum 12,000 net square foot lot size). b. New oil wells and oil consolidation projects shall be permitted subject to applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Filis_Gnldenwest Snecific Plan 10 (0825Q _ 04-01-2002 05:15PM FROM TO 95365233 P.01 RECENED�Hwma M AND L4WEAPMf OFTHE RBOOR�N o"WEoF THE aTY CLERK OONM BROCKVVAY,CITY CUM ffEM. k., � March 30, 2002 To whom it may concern, My husband and 1 are residents of Huntington Shores, which is just one of the associations that are part of the Edwards Hill/ Seacliff Community. As residents we sincerely desire a gated community. This area is most fortunate to have a beautiful Central Park that is so easily accessible. We do not feel the need for one more park. Please ladies and gentleman of the City Council, allow our community to become a secure, gated, safe haven for all. Thank you Sincerely, TOTAL P.01 96% P.01 APR-Gi1-2002 16:29 04/01/2002 16:53 5629270557 ROBERT A CASARES PAGE 01/01 ROBERT ANTHONY CASARES, AGENT Lic#0731391 Auto-Life-Health-Home and Business 9901 PARAMOUNT BLVD., DOWNEY, CA 90240 PHONE 5621 927-2297 FAX 562)927-0557 April 01, 2002 Huntington Beach City Council Re: Council Meeting April 1, 2002 Issue: The Development of a park at the end of Saddleback To whom it may concern: In regard to the proposal for a park within the boundaries of the neigborhood commonly known as Edwards Hill, My wife and I are vehemently opposed. At the present time, the City Of Huntington Beach provides more public park and recreation facilities than any other Orange County City. The surrounding area in which the parr situs is proposed has a wealth of existing park facilities. In addition to Central Park, there is a wonderful playground and park on Summit, not to mention the future park site on Seapoint and the new Sports Complex. To give this issue anymore attention would be a serious waste of taxpayer dollars and is preventing the City Council from addressing more important issues. FRMM� Q Si T TW JNEETMOF A Robert Casares cows 8RaC1aN�►Y,wy aw 6852 Turf Drive rM G- G✓ Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 APR-01-2002 15144 56292?055? 9?% P.Oi Apr- 01—02 02 : 16P P.01 GERALD L. CHAPMAN, D.D.S. 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-842-3345 April 1, 2002 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Recommended Council Action - Second Reading of Ordinance No. 3542 Members of the City Council: I respectfully request that this council postpone the second reading of Ordinance No. 3542 so that the City of Huntington Reach may address several legal issues surrounding this action, The passage and implementation of Ordinance No. 3542: 1)will result in the loss of parks currently owned and/or designated by the City, 2)will result in the use of park in-lieu fees for non-park purposes, and; 3) may result in a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, this Council should not take a second reading of the Ordinance until staff rectifies the current violations of Measure C (Section 612 of the City Charter),the Quimby Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). MFASURE C As part of a settlement agreement to an inverse condemnation action lost by the City, this Council agreed to(1)remove a park designation over the 5-acres of Tract 306(designated by Ordinance 3287 and reflected in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan), (2)convey 10 lots awned by the City within Tract 306 to the successful plaintiffs and (3) pay$75,000.00 to the plaintiffs. These settlement terms allowed the City to avoid paying several million dollars to acquire the privately-field property in Tract 306 at a market rate for developable property. However,the settlement does nothing to address the parkland shortfall that will result from the settlement terms. Section 612(a)of the City Charter states that; "No public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned yr operated by the City shall be sold, leased, exchanged or otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by.. the affirmative vote of at least a -t- s� LA�e ��t� l CATION Apr-01-02 02:04P P.02 i majority of the electors voting on such proposition...." The City Attorney responded to me in writing that Measure C does not apply to the conveyance of the 10 City-owned lots in Tract 306 as the parcels in question are not a park currently owned or operated by the City because the 10 lots are presently "within an oil field, not a park." In essence, Ms. Hutton states that a designated park (or property acquired for park purposes pursuant to applicable park statutes)does not amount to a park. 1 disagree with such a constrained interpretation of what is a park under the law and for purposes of Measure C. The plain language of Section 612(a)is not limited to currently used parks. To the contrary, Section 612(a) states that the majority vote of the electors protects parks"now or hereafter owned or operated by the City." City ownership of 10 lots within Tract 306 at the time when Tract 306 was designated as a park site sufficiently established a park for purposes of Measure C. THE QUIMBY ACT AND OTHER PARKLAND PROTECTION STATU IMS Pursuant to Government Code Section 66477(Quimby Act), the City requires by ordinance the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes. The land or fees exacted are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. The City must develop a schedule specifying; how, when and where it will use the land or fees to develop park or recreational facilities. Also, any fees collected shall be committed within five years after payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed,they shall he distributed and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in a proportional manner. I have been informed by the City that three of the City-owned lots within Tract 306 were acquired pursuant to the Quimby Act. The Quimby Act prohibits the City's use or conveyance of such lots in a manner that is unrelated to park purposes. In other words, parklands cannot be extinguished for the sake of settlement. Other park protection statutes may equally apply to the conveyance of City lots that were acquired by means other than through the Subdivision Map Act. These statutes echo the Quimby Act's protection of land dedicated for park use and the strong public policy in this state of favoring the retention of park facilities. (See, Public Park Preservation Act,Pub. Resources Code Sections 5400-5409.) It is a well-settled principle that land which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication,and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes. Moreover,these park protection statutes are highly procedural. Depending oil the specifics of how the parkland was originally acquired or designated,these statutes may warrant a public hearing;, special findings by this Council, and acquisition of an equal area of replacement parklands. (See, Government Code Sections 38400-38418,38440-38462, and 38501-38510.) No hearings have been held, special findings made, or alternative parklands acquired for the loss of parkland caused by Ordinance 3542. .2- Apra-01-02 02 :05P P.03 THE CALIFORNTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT As a final concern, the Environmental Status section of the RCA blindly states that Ordinance 3542 is"exempt." The RCA does not provide any basis for how,or under what theory,Ordinance 3542 is deemed exempt from CEQA. is the City relying on a categorical or statutory exemption? I s the City asserting that the removal of a park designation and conveyance of park property is not a"project"for purposes of CEQA? Without any explanation in the RCA, 1 don't see how the City can conclude that the removal of this designation does not result in a significant impact on the environment. Clearly this action removes a specific plan designation of parkland. Moreover, it results in the loss of park property. The City must provide the public with sufficient information about the land use and resource impacts of this action and whether any measures have or will be taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate such impacts to City parkland, (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002.) T urge this Council to table this matter with direction to staff to work with concerned citizens like myself to reach an amicable solution that rectifies the harm that Ordinance 3542 currently would cause to our parklands and environment. Thank you for considering and addressing these concerns. Sincerely, 3 Gerald L, Chapman, .D.S. -3- P.O1 r Apr-01-02 02:04P CITY CLEVIK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. CAS GERALD L.CHAPMAN,D.D.S. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1001 APR - I P 2: 2 h _- 18800 MAIN STREET SUITE 202 HUI`<N'INGTON BEACH,CA 92648 "� : 714-848-2278 FAX NUMBER:7%448-3525 ,. --'PLEASE PELIVE9 THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE'" TO: FAAXX NO. `~ NUMBER OF PAGES 4L(INCLUDING COVER PAGE) DATE SENT: TIME SENT: �� AN( M OPERATOR'S NAME: OPERATOR'S PHONE NO: "PLEASE NOTIFY OPERATOR IMMEDIATELY IF NOT RECEIVED PROPERLY*" xrtrtxxrrxrrxxx" COMMENTS' park or :: . ,. . or Section 612(a)of the City Chatter states thatWod byN,heCity shall`be soOr ld,eased,ecxchanged portion thercof now. r O °r' the affirmative vote of at least a or otherwise transferred or disposed Of unless authonzed by. -1- SENT BY: PAIN MANAGEMENT; 562 595 0027; APR-1 -02 11 :04AM; PAGE 1 /1 9 r" t 7 Pain Tana e�ent T I 11 1 � Medical CenterP,;1 01, 2002 1 i 4ity of Huntington Beach Telephone(562)595-0060 FAX(562)595-0027 public Pal k at the intersection of Quarterhorse and Saddleback Lear Huntington Beach City Council aokn G urskis,MD. Diplomats American Board y name is Medhat Mikhael, 1 am one of the homeowners located at 6721 of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Alamitos � � Pp circle in Huntington Beach 92648. 1 am sending this letter qD oppose and e�press my disagreement about this public park proposed at the inteitection of arterhorse and saddleback. Med(rat Mikfaef,MI). � Diplomate American Board Please if you have any questions or needs to discuss any issues regarding this of Anesthesiology and natter. You can contact me at my office after April 9", 2002. Pain Medicine x 1 4ed cerely,hat Mikhael, n, Jlp k i I y i I - 1 f � 1 1 i i Y k � r APR-01-2002 10:53 562 595 0027 95% P.01 04/01/02 MON 11:06 FAM 714 992 3055 St. Jude Pathology f�U01 4/t/02 To whom it may concern Since I am not able to attend the meeting tonight,this letter is to voice my vote,as a residence in Edwards Hill,regarding the proposal for a public park site at Saddleback and Quarterhorse. My husband and I are definitely AGAINST making a park at this site. Please consider our vote as NO to this proposal. Thank you for you consideration. V Shiirin and Shirmard Farahmand I APR-01-2002 11:03 714 992 3055 97; P.01 Facsimile BRIGHAM Transmittal To: Huntington Beach City Council April 1, 2002 Huntington Beach City Hall Fax No: (714)536-5233 CC: Joanne Chivers Total number of pages: 1 Dear %--ouncii menioers, I understand that Monday night, April 1, 2002 there is to be a meeting to discuss the status of a park at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. I will be on vacation at that time, so I will be unable to attend the meeting. Please accept this fax as a declaration of my opinion and wishes in this matter. My family and I are among the original home buyers in the Central Park Estates. When we bought, oui lionut ut 1992, we were assured that our community would be gated very soon. We have since suffered through endless stalling tactics and delays. The entire community, with very few exceptions, have repeatedly voted in favor of the gates and against any proposals that would prevent our community from having gates. These very few exceptions have chosen to hold Us all hostage while they pursue their own personal agendas. We do not need :mother public park in our area. We have the huge Central Park, with equestrian facilities and the new sports facilities, across the street at one end of Quarterhorse, another small park off Summit, easily accessible from the end of Saddleback, and several other small parks very close. It is unlikely that the general public would bypass these other easily accessible parks to use a "public" park buried in the center of our community. Our community would gain absolutely nothing from building a park at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. If nothing else, it would result in increased traffic from non- residents, makini; our small streets even more crowded. Our section already has what amounts to a natural part; in the arroyo area between Quarterhorse and Saddleback off Ellis. That land i� uriusable for anything else and needs to be improved anyway. Please abide by my wishes and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of homeowners in our community. and do riot pursue any efforts to place a park at Quarterhorse and Saddleback, and let us get back to gating our community. Thank you for your attention, Bill Sanharon .Brigham APR-01-2002 00:47 96% P.01 FROM PROSCAPE LANDSCAPE PHONE NO. : 562 597 2668 Apr. 01 2002 10:10PM P1 hprii 1,200, To: Huntington Beach City Council Re: Proposed Park Site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback Dcar City CCuLLut:il. Having resided in Edwards Central Park for several years, the need for gates is imperative. The high volume of speeding traffic down Quarterhorse to the rear of the school is continuously increasing,along with the danger to the children walking to and from school. Putting a public park at the proposed site will further increase the vehicle traffic throughout our neighborhood,risking the lives of our children. PLEASE! Do not put a park at this location. m rely, David and Linda Funder APR-01-2002 10:01 562 597 2668 97% P.01 03/29/2002 11:10 7148480319 CHIVERS PAGE 01 Fax To: Huntington Beach City Council Members Fax #: (714) 536 5233 From: Curt & Joanne Chivers, Date: 2/29/02 Subject: Community Park in Ellis/Goldenwest Quarter Section (Edwards Hill) at Saddleback/Quarterhorse location. HB City Council Members, We have been homeowners and residents in HB since 1974. We want to provide you with important facts you need to be aware of and to let you know where we stand as an individual household on the subject above. I am very concerned that 2 or 3 homeowners who are pro-park are actively lobbying certain HB Council Members and misleading some of you to believe that the majority of the Edwards Hill homeowners are in favor of a new community park at the subject location. This is simply not true and you need to know the facts. About a year ago a mail-based ballot was sent to Edwards Hill homeowners to gauge support for a community park at subject location vs. other uses. Here are the results: All 319 homes were sent ballots. We had a 9 1% voter turnout that represented a "super majority" within each of 8 Edwards Hill HOA's voting down a park within the quarter section (70% or greater for each HOA). The Edward's Bill community clearly does not favor a park at the Saddleback/Quarterhorse location. I will be happy to produce copies of the ballot and the detailed results upon your request to substantiate the claims above. Call my cell at (714) 713 3030 for these copies and/or to arrange to speak with HOA representatives on this matter. As for my personal opinion I am not in favor of a new community park: 1) We have plenty of nice parks close by (Central Park, Peninsula Park, & Lake Park), 2) The City does not have enough funds to fully develop even the currently designated parks (The Sports Complex, Central Park Urban Forrest, etc.) much less fund an additional new community park, 3) This will cause increased through traffic on Edwards Hill interior streets, 4) I'd prefer the City of HB spend more money on infrastructure. Many of us will be in attendance at the April l City Council Meeting to voice our opinion on this matter. MAR-29-2002 10:09 7148480319 94% P.01 ,TO'd %es H1W 6S:60 ZOW-6Z-�HW TO'd 1H101 March 29, 2002 To: The Honorary Mayor and City Council Members This letter is in regards to the deletion of the proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. My husband and I are unable to attend the Monday 7pm City Council Meeting but would like to voice our vote to support the position to delete the proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. Sincerely, (_ t-f. J Linda and otib Pappoff (Hm) 714-848-4856 ('Wk) 714-896-5936 (Heritage at Huntington Beach Shores Homeowners) TO/TO'd 26LV 969 t7TL H1W 60:OT ZOOZ-GE-81Hw Kuhnke, Elaine From: Peterson, Karin [KPeterson@materdei.org] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:42 AM To: 'kuhnkee@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Gate Issue Heritage at Huntington Shores I will not be able to attend the city council meeting scheduled for Monday, April 1 regarding gating of our community. I would like it to be made known that I DO NOT want the park located at Saddleback and Quarterhorse. I AM IN FAVOR OF GATING OUR COMMUNITY. Thank you Karin and Marvin Peterson 1 MAR-29-02 12 :00 PM MENICHIELLOS 7149472322 P. 01 March 29, 2002 Dear City Council Members, I am writing in regards to moving the park location proposed at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. We the homeowners of Edwards Hill voted overwhelmingly against the park at this site as it will prevent us from moving forward in hopes of gating our community. You the City Council previously listened to majority and voted to remove this site for the park. Unfortunately, we have three residents that have protested and continue to run roadblocks in the way of the vast majority here in our community. On Monday, April I` the you will be addressing this issue. Unfortunately, this is during the Spring Break for many of our neighbors, and like us will be on vacation. So please, although we cannot be there in person, be very clear that we desperately want to move the site of this park. It would be a tragedy to allow three loud voiced neighbors control the wishes of so many. We have lived here for 11 years and have always hoped that we would be gated. We are coming close with the very hard work of a few dedicated people. Please vote to move this park. Sincerely, o D/nise Menicheillo 714-841.4272 MAR-29-2002 10:26 7148472322 96% P.01 03/29/2002 13:51 1-714-960-2701 INTERCOASTAL FUND. PAGE 01 March 29, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: I am addressing this letter to the Huntington Beach City Council. My husband and I would like to go on record as to voting against the Proposed Park Site at QuarterHorse and Saddleback. We are homeowners on Edwards Hill and feel that there would be too much traffic in the area. We would prefer to have our area gated. Sincerely, ct Sheila Fogleman MAR-29-2002 12:39 1 714 960 2701 P.01 3730-202 4:35PM FROM HATHERLEY 714 848 01A2 P. 1 JOHN & LISA HATHERLEY Phone 17141847-2239 Fax (714)848-0142 Attention: pate; Office Location: Office Loc lion: Fox Number: Phone Number: 0 Urgent O Reply ASAP �n � 1`- Cl Please comment tJv b �RA ( �, O P Review lapse Re ew C•�nn�J s � 41"For your Information Total pages,including cover. commenft: "Qlea�- do �p1— �� � �� �h C�.-�-- Qu.�✓G� ho avL d sa AALVILxtC� . - Ov a west rs c�.rea vow tiO M haAx, 4xj- SC1,001 a-YICJ �o rates C1 wu-t ," � C� -�-D fie, a�e-d 1 l.e� OLLA r\f,,5 4e rh&CL cv" o� ---t-� vrvti h �h�5 h�t► S a-�--cl . . . P`2a L-e�-- . (� r �Y"Dw -ems UJWs, In�, t MAR-30-2002 15:13 714 848 0142 97e P.01 FROM KEN ANN FAX NO. : 714 948 9336 Mar. 31 2002 10:36PM P1 C� f MAR-31-2002 09:29 714 849 9336 95% P.01 Mar 31 02 12: 50p TERM REHAB, INC. 17148436891 p. 1 March 31, 2002 Huntington Reach City Council Dear Council Members; My name is Walter Hekimian and my family and I have lived continuously in Huntington Beach since 1987. Since 19911 have resided at 6592 SiIverspur Lane, an area commonly referred to as Edwards Hill. As the original homeowner I have had the opportunity to see the area develop many new tracts and developments,most as gated communities. Recently, the associations for the numerous tracts adjoining the tract 1 reside, took a vote of all the homeowners to decide once and for all if the areas surrounded by Garfield,Edwards,Ellis, and Goldenwest should be gated. Overwhelmingly,the vote resulted in favor of gating this area. I feel very strongly that this is the appropriate action that should be taken and so do the voters in this area. Presently we have two parks adjacent to this area in addition to an area set aside for horse trails. I am not sure of how many of the residents of this area actually participate in riding horses through our tract, but this too is yet another example of this development is meeting the "needs" of the city. Yet another public recreation area is now under construction adjacent to the main branch of the city library. Public recreational areas and parks abound in the general vicinity of Edwards Hill. I am strongly opposed to creating yet another park in this area especially at the expense of my fellow residents. Let me be clear about this issue. I do not favor the creation of a park in the vicinity of Saddleback and Quarterhorse. Please do all you can to allow these tracts to establish their own gated community. Should you have any questions about my views or position on this issue I may be reached at the telephone number listed below. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4�-�Ia�, Walter Hekimian (714) 841-3877 MAR-31-2002 11:27 1714e436891 95% P.01 Mar 31 02 08: 43p Richard Louis Amaral 714 8488929 p. l JO Q U CJ J ''D 7A- /rvfox-��4 G '�,�,�p v 'r y�v � -r 0 oi�,2 Pdv MAR-31-2002 21:03 714 8488929 95% P.01 FROM (MON) APR 1 2002 12 :231T. 12 :23/'NO, 6306037680 P 1 April 1,2002 Huntington Beach City Council To Whom it May Concern: As homeowners in the Edwards Hill development, we are in accord with the overwhelming majority of our neighbors in favor of gating our community. We feel that there are already enough parks in the immediate area(i.e. Central Park). We believe that gating our community would benefit the immediate area more so than another park. The new sports complex being developed nearby is adding to the openness of the area and we feel that that is more than adequate in providing the community with the amenities that another park would offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, C�3:�1 .1�1 Dennis& Kathy D'Ambra APR-01-2002 12:24 96% P.01 LAW OFFICES OF ERIC T. FRESCH %lephone (323) 583-8811 Fax (323) 826-1425 RECEIVE ® March 28, 2002 A P R 0 1 2002 City of Huntington Beach Via fax: 714-536-5233 City Council Office Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Opposition to Proposed Park Site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback Dear Mayor and City Council: I represent Bruce and Vivian Malkenhorst of 6651 Churchill Drive, Huntington Beach. They wish to express their opposition to the possible siting of a proposed park at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. They support the efforts of the Heritage at Huntington Shores Homeowners Association to obtain authorization from the City through the reactivation of a Conditional Use Permit, to gate the entire Quarterhorse section to ensure the security of residents. The Malkenhorsts support the City's efforts to settle the outstanding inverse condemnation lawsuit over this proposed site and NOT invoke Measure C over this matter. Given the City's limited resources and numerous planned capital projects, the Malkenhorsts believe the City's residents are better served in this instance by the City Council's original decision to settle the lawsuit and not entertain alternate land use proposals for this site. I am available to discuss this matter with whomever you deem appropriate. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Sincerely, , 1,�L Eric Fresch cc: Bruce and Vivian Malkenhorst FROM JD TECH PHONE NO. : 714 e41 6969 Apr. 14 2002 10: 15PM P1 Attn-. City Council Members Rea Edwards Hill Homeowners (Community Gate/ Community Park) My husband& I received 2 letters last week regarding the gating of our community vs. the public park. I have attached both letters. In the later letter it states that both can be obtained by building the park at a different location, such as the ravine along Ellis. If this is truly the case my husband & I would like to see that happen. We are opposed to the park location interfering with any plans for our community to be gated. Si�cc�ely, � � Jim&Elise Mowrey N � 6672 Shire Circle a c Huntington Beach, CA 92649 0---i <;-, )% > �- n CJl n N D 43 :3 APR-14-2002 22:41 714 e41 6969 qe% P.01 FROM : JD TECH PHONE NO. : 714 841 6969 Apr. 14 2002 10:16PM P2 k Attention Edwards Hill Homeowners Community Gate vs. Community Park Voice Your Opinion Monday April 15, 7:00 PM At the April la HB City Council meeting our Council voted 6 to 2 to postpone the final vote on whether to approve a 5 acre community park in our quarter section at the intersection of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Streets until the April 15" City Council meeting. We had approximately 5(1 Fdwards Hill homeowners in attendance at*April la meeting and many public speakers. All public speakers opposed the park on this particular night. There were many stated reasons behind the opposition such as: • We have plenty of fine parks close by-we don't need another one. • A park at this location would kill our chances of gating our community-we want a gate over a park • A park will increased through traffic on our interior streets • It would be illegal for the City to designate this land for a park without first paying the financial damage it would cause for the current landowners. A judge has already ruled in open court ag s tbt ll=city"d in favor of the cuircnt landowners on this matter.The City Attorney had previously advised the City Council of this legal outcome: • The City can't afford it-it would cost the City millions of our tax dollars to liuy the property from the current owners plus the cost of development and maintenance of a park we don't need and don't want. • The vast majority of Edwards Hill homeowners do not want this park-last year in a 91%voter turnout 85%voted against a park and for the gate. Your attendance aT This mecLhig is muare uiipurlaut 111ZU1 foL Ll►c 411 iv,66tiag. Mark your calendars and join your neighbors at the HB City Council Chambers at 7:00 PM on April 15"'. Speakers need to sign-up at 6:45 PM. The City Council will hear our arguments for and against before they vote. You can be assured that there will be marry speakers both for and against the park on 4/15. Come to personally speak or support those you agree with through your presence and applause.The City Council definitely weighs in this public support at the council ututings on their voting dooisiona. If you oannot attend in pereon at least voice your opinion via a fax to the City Council. A single fax sent to the following number will reach all seven of the Council members: (714) 536 5233. Send your fax by this Friday the 12'b to be sure each Council member has a chance to know your opinion by the Monday, 4/15 meeting. Better yet-both attend and send a fax You can also leave voice mail for each council member on their individual extensions at City Hall by dialing 536 5511, option 5, option 1,then leaving your voice mail for each of them one at a time. APR-14-2002 22:41 714 841 6969 9e% P.02 FROM JD TECH PHONE NO. : 714 e41 6969 Apr. 14 2002 10:16PM P3 A11EN ION Edwards trill homeowners It's NOT Community Gate vs. Community Park We can Gate AND have a Paris! WE need your support at the upcoming HB City Council Meeting at City Hall: April 15, 2002 @ 7:00 PM A recent flyer has misstated some facts about the gating process. ✓ It is true that the final council vote regarding the park AT ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION has been postponed until April 15"'. 1( It is We that the n4 rite it the intiairtinn nE���Prhiri� O ill i jarrhnnr-thr PnIFTN ILV(,Al1VN-was rutec against Dy the udge w o s ed wit t e an owners andag st thLy. ✓ It is true that a park at this location would kill our chances of gating. ✓ It is true that if the City persists for whatever reason to still set this site as the park for our community, then they will have to pay the landowners trillions of dollars. ✓ It is true that all public speakers on this issue opposed the park AT THIS LOCATION. ✓ It is true that the vast majority of Edwards Hill homeowners voted in favor of the gate- but they were concurrently voting against the park AT THIS SPECI7 1C T.QCATION- not Against a park in general! ✓ It is true that the City cannot afford the cost of persisting with the park at that site,BUT NEITHER CAN IT AFFORD to pay back all the homeowners in this quartersection for money that they paid directly or through the developer for the creation of this very park! That is a requirement of the Huntington Beach City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Title 25, Chapter 254, Section 254.08 `Parkland Dedication', subsection F3 `Use of Money' (go to www.surf`citxcom/clerk/zoneltitle25). If the 1park is not developed within five Xears of 50% building development the money paid to the city must be returned to the homeowners!! That time limit was up several years ago. ✓ It is NOT true, however, that all speakers opposed a park for our community, or that everyone in this community opposes a park for our quartersection. Many of your neighbors would still like to see a park for this local community- the same as all other communities in this City. ✓ It is NOT true that we do not need another park. Why should we give up either a natural site (the most likely outcome since the City, after designating the site as a park, will never actually develop h) or a green park? The City uwcs us tlus Na,k, as a�.viaaivaity. 4vlty not mom green? Why more development potential- if it doesn't affect the gating process? Why would anyone oppose such a park if moving it from its original site no longer impacts the gates and if the City, at the very least, OWES US MONEY? Because these people are mostly a few who back up to the next most likely park site, a ravine along E is or who do not have kids and see no purpose in pushing for the park, or perhaps just o not understand some of the nuances of the situation with the City. IT IS TRUE- We du nce-A vuu to vvmge Mosiday night 7 PM to voice Your opinion. Support the Gates for Edwards Hill by opposing the park at the original site. And let them Itnow you would like the Park moved, or you want your REFUND! NINE YEARS IS TOO LONG TO WAIT TO BECOME GATED! - ,r3 APR-14-2002 22:41 714 841 6969 98% P.03 FROM : JD TECH PHONE NO. : 714 e41 6969 Apr. 14 2002 10:09PM P1 Attn: City Council Members ]fie: Edwards Hill Homeowners (Community Gate / Community Park) My husband& I received 2 letters last week regarding the gating of our community vs. the Public Park. I have attached both letters. In the later letter it states that both can be obtained by building the park at a different location, such as the ravine along Ellis. If this is truly the case my husband&I would like to see that happen. We are opposed to the park location interfering with any plans for our community to be gated. Sincerely, 1-j L I" A J U 6672 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APR-14-2002 22:34 714 e41 6969 P.01 r To: Huntington Beach City Council From: Dennis and lie Anna Holloway Re: The placement of park near Goldenwest and Garfield Certainly this will not be an easy decision for the council to make. Like many, this decision, will make some people happy and some angry. It must be very difficult to walk a wile ui your shoes. The decision of placing the park in its present location picsents some interesting issues. On one hand you have a plan to work with and the plan says a park should be located in this area. On The uthcr llalld a park in this location will be very expensive in settlemp.nt costs with the landowners and upset the majority of homeowners in oldest Edwards Hill community. The majority of homeowners would like to have a gated community. As you well know, if a park is put in the present location there will be no chance-of a gated community. The last few months have been the real turning point for us. Since the opening of the school more and more parents are finding the most convenient way to drop off their children is by parking at the end of Quarterhorse and walking them to the school gates. It seems the number of parents grow each week. The situation has now become a safety hazard that the council needs to be aware of. Our streets arc uut designed to liandle foot or vehicle traffic of this nature.. The parent's convenience has become our safety issue. With today's litigious society we would have to disclose this condition if we were to sell our home. Dise.lnsina the problem doesn't bother me nearly as much as the safety issue itself. 1, ®emnis, have personally witnessed parents and children hand in hand walking down the middle of the street with no regard for the homeowners leaving for work in the morning. Parents double park, park the wrong way and even block the street so vehicles can neither come or go until their children are unloaded, all the while children dart in and out of the parked cars on their way to school. To make matters worse the later it gets in the morning the faster these parents drive. There are a number of parents who 1 have RFR-13-2002 17:10 Sze P.01 r followed uut of the tract at approximately 40mph, which could prove deadly for other children walking to school. This situation puts us in an awkward position. One of these days someone is going to get hurt or even killed yet we have no long-term solution available to us. It is a private street so the police won't patrol it yet the general public is allowed to use and abuse at as they see fit. In order to insure safety we,the homeowners, will need to take on the responsibility. If we must take on the responsibility it's only fair we are able to do it in a way that uaakes long term scnse. The final point if discussion is where the city council stands regarding our plea to gate our community. I don't think the people lobbying for the gates are aware of the city's position. Isn't it time the neighborhood knows where you stand'? There are questions like, is this park location a way to end the Cate dispute? Do we have a real chance of having our community gated? What can be done about the safety hazard created at the end of Quarterhorse by the new school school? There are many hurdles we have to overcome and many residents truly believe they have a chance of setting Oates. But we have heard otherwise. We have heard the park is not the issuc and we have no chance of gating our neighborhood. We are fairly certain the council is unaware of our growing safety hazard. In light of this safety prublviii you must now think a. little differently about your long-term 6-cicion of allowing us a safe community. Unfortunately it all starts with this park and its position. Breaking the mold of a consensus in order to have cites can he dealt with later. Please take note of our need for a safer environment because all the money in the world won't help a youngster that has been injured or god forbid, killed. Sincerely Dcnnis and De Anna HolloN.1; y APR-13-2002 17:10 97% P.02 04/1312002 09:13 714e4e@319 CHI'JERS PAGE 91 FAX To: Huntington Beach City Council Fax off: (714) 536 5233 From: Curt &Joanne Chivers, 6582 Polo Circle, HB, CA Date: 4/11/02 Subject: Community Gate in Ellis Goldenwest Quarter Section at Intersection of Quarterhorse and Saddleback I have been a homeowner in l IB continuously since 1974 and at the above Edwards Hill residence for the past 11 years. I am oPposed to the subject park for the following reasons: • We have plenty of fine parks close by—we don't need another one. We already have: Central Park to the North, Peninsula Park to the South, Seagate Park to the East and the Harriet Weider Regional park soon to the West. We're surrounded by nice parks and thank you, City Council, for that. • The vast majority of Edwards Hill homeowners do not want this park—last year in a 91%voter turnout 85%of the 319 households voted against a park at this location and in favor of community gating. • A park at this location would kill our chances of gating our community—we clearly want a gate over a park. • History has proved that gating will raise our properties resale values by a minimum of 6% and up to 15%thus raising the tax base for the City after each resale. Plus it will reduce costs and liability to the City as we privatize certain streets now owned and maintained by the City of HB. • A park will increase the through traffic on our interior streets, which is already a problem and what about the parking problems? • The City can't afford it—it would cost the City millions of our tax dollars to buy this little piece of property from the current owners plus the cost of development and maintenance of a very small park we don't need and don't want. We realize that the limited park development funds should be spent on developing the currently designated parklands such as South Central Park, Sully Miller Lake, and others 1 know You wish we had the budget for. • It would be illegal for the City to designate this land for a park without also paying the millions in financial damage it would cause for the current landowners or to purchase the property. A judge has already ruled in open court against the city and in favor of the current landowners on this matter. The City Attorney had previously advised the City Council of this legal outcome. The City already owes these landowners hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney and court fees due to the City's loss in court. This park issue is costing HB taxpayers money. • Please help us stop this foolishness started by a very small number of Edwards Bill pro-park homeowners and vote down the park. Sincerely, C Joanne Chivers APR-13-2322 Oe:16 714e4e2319 94% P.01 FROM : HOLTHAUS' HOUSE FAX NO. : 714 e4e5e94 Apr. 13 2002 O9:29AM P1 April 13, 2002 ]Dear City Council Members, Re: Community Park or Gating Edwards Hill Community (Ellis-Goldenwest-Garfield-Edwards Quarter section) We have sufficient parks. There is a new park/athletic facility under construction across the street from the library-which is in our community. The residents don't want another park. What we want is to gate the Edwards Hill community- already a laborious lengthy "' �Icarc uvu L diiaZ�c uueirb II1ULC CXpellSIVe (a parx isn't rree) Please go with the (already declared) desire of the residents Please deny the park and let us proceed with gating. Warren and Fran Holthaus 6862 Hitchingpost Cir 37 year HE residents 14 year Edwards Hill resident APR-13-2002 10:04 714 e4e5e94 P.O1 I April 13, 2002 City Council Members City of Huntington Beach Re: Edwards Hills Community Gate Delivered Via Fax(714) 536-5233 Dear Council Members: We are writing you to urge your suppo for the proposed community scale for the Edwards hill quarter section. The reasons for support include the fact that the homeowners have already voted on this issue with a 91%voter turnout 85% voted against a park in favor of the gate. Hundreds of hours of community volunteers' time and property owners' money have been invested in the research, consensus building and design of a master planned gating of our neighborhood. Our community is fortunate to have many beautiful parks and one more in the Edwards Hill quarter section is not necessary.. In fact, it would be detrimental to the City, as it would cost the City millions of our tax dollars to buy the property from the current owners plus the cost of development and maintenance of a park that we don't need or want As residents of Huntington Beach with three small children between the ages of 1 to 11, we are very concerned about the increased volume of traffic that a park would have on our neighborhood and corresponding danger that it brings to our children. We have no sidewalks in our neighborhood and this increased non-neighborhood traffic heightens our concern for the neighborhood children's safety. More than 9 years ago, when we bought the land to build our residence, the developer sold us on the intent to gate our community. It is one of the primary reasons why we chose to buy, build, raise a family and live in this Huntington Beach community. Jay serves on the.Board of Directors for our Homeowners Association(HOA)and knows that this is an important issue to our members. Our HOA also supports the approva[of a community gate. Please do not delay, vote to sum rt our gate on Monday, April 15, 2002. Thank you for your consideration and support. Sincerely, �.dtni'S B. avis Lynne B. Davis 6782 by Circle 6782 Derby Circle Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Huntington Beach, California 92648 APR-13-2002 15:49 99e P 01 T®'d %L6 Lb:80 F0W-ST-6dd April 15, 2002 TO: Huntington Beach City Council Members THANK YOU FOR LEADERSHIP IN MAKING HUNTINGTON BEACH A WONDERFUL PLACE TO LIVE. HOWEVER,, PLEASE, PLEASE NO MORE PARKS. PLEASE LET US HAVE THE GATED COMMUNITY WE VOTED TO HAVE FOR OUR. COMMUNITY. SINCERELY, RALPH & MA.RLENE WEAVER 6942 STEEPLECHASE CIRCLE HUNTINOTON BEACH, CA 92648 714-848-7788 Ate^-13-02 1O: 36A James K _ & Patricia M_ De 714-847-0832 P _ 01 FAX COVER SHEET James k. DclloRlisso, M.D. 18915 Rockinbhorse Lane Huntington Beach CA 92649 Tel. 714-847-6961 Send to: --From: Huntington Beach City Ball James K. DelloRusso Attention: Datc: All Council members April12, 2002 ®ffice location; Offtcc location: Fax number: Phone nurnber: 71 4-5 3 6-52 3 3 1.714-84 7-6961 ._.1 Urgent � Reply ASAP ___i Please comment Please review _{ For your information RE: Edwards Hill Park and Gates Total pages, including cover: 2 ` CQYI "fq!n�( V p-,"Ti-1&10 Comments: To all Council members: I am very concerned about a process that has taken too much time for many homeowners on Edwards Hill and many City staffas well. This concerns the Crating process that we have faithfully attempted to bring to the City and go through the required steps to be able to gate our community. In response to the survey we sent out to the quartersection's homeowners the overwhelming majority of over 900io responded in favor of gating. Since at that time we knew that the possibility of having the gates and having the park at the original site (the site in dispute now) was small, we asked homeowners in a specific way. We asked them if they would rather have the gates or the park given the likelihood that the two were mutually exclusive. During the years I have worked on the Gating project I have spoken with many, many people in this quartersection, and as a Board member for the Hamptons HO A, I have discussed this situation with many of these homeowners also. When the issue was explained properly, many people wanted to have a park, but were willing to give it up in APR-13-2002 12:03 714 847 0932 96% P.01 Apr-13-02 10 : 37A James K _ & Patricia M - De 714-847-0832 P _02 order to get bated. (liven that the park will likely be moved 1 believe that many people would still be in favor of having a park for our community. Many issues involving this community have become problematic for the City, including this park. 'rhe logical and clear choice is to move the park site, 'This will save the City millions of dollars it would cost to purchase the land from the landowner. [f the City opts to simply abandon the park, then it will also cost a significant amount of money to repay the homeowners who have paid into the park funding, typically through the developer. City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance'1'itle 25, Chapter 254, Section 254.08 'Parkland Dedication', subsection F3 `Use of Money`, which states that if the Dark is not developed within five yews, of SO% building development the money paid to the city must be returned to the homeowners!! That time limit was up several years ago, We have worked long and hard- for more than nine years- to try to become gated within this quartersection. We have worked patiently with many staff members, planners, and departments, and still have not accomplished very much, I believe it is high time for the City Council to intervene on behalf of this frustrated group of approxiiiiately 290 homeowners and help us bring this process to the City for resolution, and to settle this park issue promptly to Facilitate our efforts. APR-13-2002 12:03 714 847 oe32 36% P.02 FROM (FRO APR 12 2002 14 : 23/3T. 14 : 20/N0, 630603 i`i44 P 1 April 1,2002 Huntington Beach City Council To Whom it May Concern: As homeowners in the Edwards Hill development, we are in accord with the overwhelming majority of our neighbors in favor of gating our community. We feel that there are already enough parks in the immediate area(Le. Central Park). We believe that gating our community would benefit the immediate area more so than another park. The new sports complex being developed nearby is adding to the openness of the area and we feel that that is more than adequate in providing the community with the amenities that another park would offer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis & Kathy D Ambra 6541 Silverspur Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 APR-12-2002 14:29 95> P.01 nPR-12-2002 02 : 19 PM D( MROH P. 01 6771 Plmlloo Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone:714)39"843 America Online, Inc. Small;Ldamron®aol.ccm Fax Toa HB City Council From: Lauren Damron Fox: 714)536-5233 Psees: Phonel536-5511 IDatet 04/12/02 Re: Opposition to Perk on CC: Saddieback/Quarterhorse ❑Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑Please Recycle e Comments: Dear City Council Members: I would like to inform you of my opposition to the proposed park at the intersectlon of Saddleback and Quarterhorse. As a homewoner on Edwards Hill, I am extremely concemed about the detriment another park with cause on our home values. A park will eliminate the chance for us to gate our community and It will Increase the vandalism In our community. Also, its my understanding that the city of HB can not afford the necessary costs for moving forward on a park. Hbhas lots of great parks,lets make them more useful and safe for our Children! Lets spend our tax dollars wisely and not focus on what HB really needs. Please advise If you would like to speak to me directly. I can be reached at 714-596-8843. Thank you for your support on this Important issue. Kind Bards, Lauren Damron APR-12-2002 14:24 94> P.01 APR-12-02 09 ;41 AM P. 01 o C) `.D Ir v EW c�-D /ZJZ-4� 7 p 0 '( P,2. oK OL APR-12-2002 09:32 94% P.01 TO'CA %es d1W TS:OT cOOZ-ZT-2Jju TO'd 7dlol Apri] 12, 2002 To: The Honorary Mayor and City Council Members This letter is in regards to the deletion of the proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. My husband and I are unable to attend the Monday 7pm City Council Meeting but would like to voice our vote to support the position to delete the proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback. We .support the Community Gate. Sincerely, . . 1 Linda and Bob Pappoff 6711 Alamitos Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (Hm) 714-848-4856 (Wk) 714-896-5936 (Heritage at Huntington Beach Shores Homeowners) I©/TO'd ZeLb 9se bTL tilt-J ZO:TT EOOc-ET-8c4b Agee^—12-02 10 :43A BEACH BROKERS BG 714 536 9866 P_O1 To: Huntington Beach City Council Members. Fm: Gary &Janet Mykles 18955 Rockinghorse Ln. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dt: 4/12/02 Subject: 5 acre community park at the intersc*ction of Saddleback& Quarterhorse in Edwards Hill. We will be unable to attend the Council meeting on 4/15/02 when the Council will be hearing arguments& voting on the Park. As a resident &property owner we are against the park, We have hundreds of acres of next to our area & we see no reason why the city needs to spend additional S for more park in the area. The park location will kill our chances of gating our community, we want the gate&don't need the park. The vast majority of the Edwards Hill homeowners are against the park(85%). The Park will increase traffic in our area & the City can't afford it. As a local business owner 1 know the Council has better places to spend the money, besides building & maintaining another park in the area. Thanks, Gary Mykles APR-12-2002 12:01 714 536 9966 95% P.01 04/12/2002 14:25 3757341 KPC PLIA-1BING PAGE 01/01 ffl--DrW-XNMWW'roaP AY+! (TI C9 Oj 0 gSo 71 � -''V\-y M ����� �,Mil uaatut=*Mid ® dVW Al&-% ® n+auai MOA god aoa8 �33 YL 2I IK4-5L£-trIL :auaq x$3 :2UOqd xeg s aI v :01 8carpnpu!saSzdp pgmnX -7, =jEa xvi -9-1 U31aiT UCPUI=Unll `g#OUB-1 nIW-Ir,) ZiSLI 3UT uiq>ranld :)d m APR-12-2002 14: 18 3757341 97e P.01 Kuhnke, Elaine From: kpckevin@netscape.net Sent: Friday,April 12, 2002 2:37 PM To: kuhnkee@surfcity-hb.org Subject: No to the park!!!!!! Dear Huntington Beach City Counsil Members, My household of four people are TOTALLY opposed to putting a new park at Saddelback and Quarterhorse, for the following good reasons: 1. we would like a gate at the community over a park. 2. We had already voted to have a gate instead of a park, by an overwelming 85% margin, with a voter turnout of 91%. 3. A judge had already ruled against the city to construct a park. I do not understand why we are even voting on this again. The homeowners have already spoken over and over again. VOTE AGAINST THE PARK, ON MONDAY APRIL 15, PLEASE. Kevin P. Conlisk and family 6531 Silverspur Lane Huntington Beach Phone 714-651-7300 Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ 1 FROM : TMI FAX NO. 714 848 7233 Apr. 12 2002 11:45AM P1 RECEIVED t APR 12 2002 f City of Huntington Beach TO: P6 c ' COMPANY: City Council Office FROM: Paulette W' helmy �duj FAX NUMBER:RE: © ew Coif" 0y\ ` DATE: PAGES INCLUDING COVER: This message is intended only for the use of the iidividual or entity to which it it:addressed and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recoent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is obiody prehibitod. If you how raoonnod thin oommur iootion of orror,pl0000 nstity us Immadiotoly by tolophano and romm the original rneaaage to us at the address below. Thank you. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: (1), � VIP c. 1/10 us .-e, A oId S v� 6531 Silverspur Lane ■ Huntin"onach, Califomia 9264 .1516 Dhnno-71A Rd.R 79ZZ r t:.m�il• wilha1m�rn/.?io:2rthlinlr nat APR-12-2002 12:38 714 848 7233 94% P.01 Page 1 of 1 Kuhnke, Elaine From: Paulette Wilhelmy [wilhelmyp@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:27 PM To: kuhnkee@surfcity-hb.org Subject: No to the park!!!! Dear Huntington Beach City Council members, My household of four people is ADAMANTLY opposed to putting a new park at Saddleback and Quarterhorse, for the following good reasons: 1. We want a gate over a park. 2. We voted to have a gate over a park, by an overwhelming 85% margin, with a voter turnout of 91%. 3. A judge has ruled against the city doing this already. In fact, I don't even know why you are voting on this again. Haven't the homeowners already spoken, again and again? VOTE AGAINST THE PARK, ON MONDAY APRIL 15, PLEASE. Paulette Wilhelmy and family 6531 Silverspur Lane HB Phone 714-848-7233 4/12/2002 Page 1 of 1 Kuhnke, Elaine From: Martin & Denise Menichiello [marty.mm@gte.net] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:09 PM To: kuhnkee@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Park on Edwards Hill Dear City Council Members, My husband and I will be unable to make the Mon. April 15 vote on the approval or disapproval of the 5 acre park at Saddleback and Quarterhorse. We are 11 year homeowners on Horseshoe Lane in this quarter section and sincerely hope that you listen to the vast majority of our neighbors in our desire not to have a park at this location. We truly have only a handful of residents in our neighborhood who are insistent that this park remain, regardless of the desire of the majority. Unfortunately this small minority are very influential in City Hall. . We believe there are PLENTY of parks very close by& more open space than most of Huntington Beach. For goodness sake, Central Park is a stone's throw away. This is an unnecessary expense to put on the backs of other tax payers in our city. I'm sure you are also aware that if the park goes in this location, we will be unable to develop our neighborhood into a gated community like the other neighborhoods around us have done. We have worked very had for many years to make this a reality. Almost every household in our quarter wants to be gated. Last year 91% of our homeowners turned out to vote on this matter&85%voted against the park and for the gate. Please listen to the majority&realize the unnecessary financial burden this park will be to all the people of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Denise Menichiello 6591 Horseshoe Lane Huntington Beach 714-841-4272 4/12/2002 FROM : CUONG*DIET*TRAN PHONE NO. 714 847 0801 Apr. 15 2002 10:39AM P1 April 14, 2002. From:Dr. &Mrs. Cuong Viet Tran 6701 Pimlico Circle I•Iunting*ton Beach, CA 92648 To: The City Council City of Huntington Reach Re: Proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback Dear City Council, As citizens of the city of Huntington Beach, we oppose the plan for a park at Quartcrhorse and Saddleback. This park is unnecessary and costly to taxpayers. Furthermore, it will increase the local traffic and prevent the establishment of a gate to our community. We request you to abandon the plan for this park location. Respectfully, Cuong Viet Tran APR-15-2002 10:32 714 847 0e01 95% P.01 FROM PRO9CnP9 LWD9CnP6 PHONG NO. : 562 597 2999 nPr. 15 2oo2 09:15()M P1 April 15,2001 To: Huntington Beach City Council: Debbie Cook Ralph Bauer Connie Boardman Grace Winchell Pam Houchen Peter Green Shirley Dettloff Ke: Proposed Park Site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback Dear City Council: Unfortunately we will be unable to attend the City Council meeting this evening; however,we have very strong feelings around the proposed park site. Our biggest concern is the increase in traffic through our neighborhood. Since the construction of Huntington Seacliff Elementary, the traffic down Quarterhorse has incxeased significantly. Many parents from neighboring housing tracts are speeding down Quarterhorse to drop their children off at the rear of the school instead of dropping off at the front of school. Our neighborhood does not have sidewalks for our children to walk to and from school, therefore,the children's lives are at risk walking to and from school daily. Putting a park at the proposed site will further increase the traffic throughout our neighborhood, further risking the lives of our children. PLEASE!,PLEASE! Do not put a park at this location. David and Linda Fender 6622 Silverspur Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APR-15-2002 10:05 562 597 2668 96% P.01 04/15/02 08:37 FAX 714 848 7139 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1115 Odl April 14, 2002 John P. and Helene N. Skratt 6701 Alamitos Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-596-6908 Huntington Beach Mayor and City Council: We are opposed to the proposed park site at Quarterhorse and Saddleback for the following reasons. 1. The quantity and quality of existing park facilities in this are is more than sufficient. As a family we make substantial use of the existing Huntington Beach Central park library,playground,park paths and Shipley Nature Center.This varied area provides ample opportunity for near-by residents and others throughout the Huntington Beach community to experience the outdoors.We have an eigbx-year-old son who has enjoyed the existing facilities. Another park is both redundant and unnecessary to support this area. 2. We are strongly in favor or gating the quarter section bounded by Ellis,Edwards, Garfield and Goldenwest—which we understand will not be possible if a park is permitted at the proposed site. Additionally we would be directly and adversely affected if Quarterhorse were changed into a through street. Our home backs up to Quarterhorse and the increased traffic and noise would be very negative. Since we have been residents only since the fall of 1997,we are aware that others have been trying,unsuccessfully for the past ten years,to gate this community.It is clear from the votes that were taken last year that the overwhelming majority of Edwards Hill homeowners want the community gated rather than have a park. We are also unfamiliar with details of the lawsuit but have the impression from City Council discussions that this issue was resolved with the City's concurrence. Yet members of the City Council persist in keeping open the possibility of a park in this area. We are extremely concerned that the desires of our community seems to be ignored by our elected officials—please prove that impression false by ceasing efforts to establish this park. As Huntington Beach residents and taxpayers in the directly affected quarter section,we are strongly opposed to an additional park site at Quaterhorse and Saddleback. Sincerely, o P. S Helene N. Skratt APR-15-2002 09:26 714 848 7139 96Y P.01 y. n Apr'-14-02 1O: 5OP Gerald & Pat Chapman 714 843-9846 P.O2 GERALD L. CHAPMAN, D.D.S. 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-842-3345 c April 13, 2002 �' a Ray Silver, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street C Huntington Beach, CA 92648 y N Dear Ray: I am writing this letter to you to let you know how disappointed I am that no one from the City has responded to my April 1, 2002 letter to the City Council on Item G-1 a on the Council Agenda. I thought that I brought up some extremely important issues that warranted a response. I also want to let you know the questions I plan on asking at Monday night's public comments so staff can answer them during the discussion of Agenda Item G-1 a. 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act) and the City's Zoning Code Chapter 254 Section 254.08 (Parkland Dedication), the City must develop a schedule specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees to develop park or recreational facilities. Has the city ever developed a schedule for any park fees paid in the quarter section? 2. Also, any fees collected shall be committed within five years after payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in a proportional manner. Has the city ever returned any of the fees to owners of record? 3. If schedules were developed, where were the funds committed and distributed? OV ^MM_4 w_^M(211 7Z a AQ . P.02 Apr-14-02 1O: 51P Gerald & Pat Chapman 714 843-9846 P_O3 I will truly appreciate your cooperation with this request. Sincerel , L Gerald L. Chap an, D.D.S. I. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: April 15,2002 SUBJECT: Implementation of Brindle/Thomas Settlement Agreement; Conveyance of Tract 306 Parcels and City Charter Section 612 BACKGROUND In June of 2000, the City Council unanimously approved in concept a settlement approach for the matter of Brindle v. City of Huntington Beach, OCSC # 750203. Pursuant to the terms approved by the City Council, the City would pay$75,000 in cash, and convey ten parcels owned by the City and located within Tract 306 of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area(the "City-owned parcels") to the Plaintiffs. On January 7, 2002, the City Council unanimously approved the formal settlement agreement that memorialized the settlement terms previously approved in June 2000. On March 4, 2002, the City Council unanimously approved the implementation of the agreement by approving the payment of the settlement funds and the conveyance of the City- owned parcels. Also on March 4, 2002, the City Council unanimously approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3542, which would repeal the park designation on Tract 306 that caused the lawsuit. On March 18, 2002, the City Council continued the approval of Ordinance No. 3542, and requested a legal opinion regarding whether the conveyance of the City-owned parcels to plaintiffs is a transaction that is subject to voter approval pursuant to City Charter Section 612. Tract 306 is comprised of approximately 66 individual parcels of land, all of which are encumbered by the Copeland Oil Lease (the "Oil Lease"). Plaintiffs are the owners of the Oil Lease, and currently use the entirety of Tract 306 as an oil field pursuant to the Oil Lease. ISSUE Is the conveyance of the City-owned parcels subject to voter approval pursuant to Charter Section 612? 1 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels y ANSWER No. ANALYSIS 1. City Charter Section 612. Section 612 of the City Charter was amended by approval of Measure "C" by the voters in 1990. It provides as follows: Section 612. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PARKS AND BEACHES. (a)No public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City shall be sold, leased, exchanged or otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. (b)No golf course, driving range, road,building over three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100,000.00 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. (c) Section 612(a) and 612(b) shall not apply; (1) to libraries or piers; (2)to any lease, franchise, concession agreement or other contract where;- the contract is to perform an act or provide a service in a public park or beach AND - such act was being performed or service provided at the same location prior to January 1, 1989 AND - the proposed lease, franchise, concession agreement or other contract would not increase the amount of parkland or beach dedicated to or used by the party performing such act or providing such service. (d) If any section, subsection,part, subpart,paragraph, clause or phrase of this amendment, or any amendment or revision of this amendment, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections, subsections,parts, subparts, paragraphs, clauses or phrases shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. (12/7/90) Essentially, Section 612 requires both City Council and voter approval of: a) the proposed conveyance of any"public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City," (Section 612(a)) and 2 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels b) the development of a golf course, driving range,road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area or structure costing more than$100,000.00 "on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City." (Section 612(b).) 2. Principles of Statutory Construction and Charter Interpretation. When considering an issue of charter interpretation,the Charter itself provides guidance as to how its provisions should be construed. The Charter states that: The general grant of power to the City under this Charter shall be construed broadly in favor of the City. The specific provisions enumerated in this Charter are intended to be and shall be interpreted as limitations upon the general grant of power and shall be construed narrowly. (Charter, Section 104.) Since Section 612 provides a limitation on the broad powers set forth in the other sections of the Charter, it must be narrowly construed according to the Charter itself. Common-law rules of statutory construction also provide insight. All parts of the Charter must be considered together in order to ascertain its true meaning. (McQuillan,Municipal Corporations, Section 9.22) If there is apparent conflict between two sections, they will be so construed as to make both effective. (Id.) 3. Application of Section 612 to the City-owned Parcels; Identification of the Issue. First, it is necessary to identify the issue. Section 612 applies to public utilities, parks, and beaches, or portions thereof,now or hereafter owned or operated by the City. (Charter, Section 612(a).) There appears to be no argument that the City-owned parcels are not a public utility or beach, or portion thereof. Also, since the City-owned parcels are subject to the Copeland Oil Lease and are currently used by the owners of the Lease for oil production purposes,there does not appear to be any argument that the City-owned parcels are a park, or a portion thereof, that is "operated"by the City. Given the above, the issue to be determined is whether the City-owned parcels are a park, or a portion thereof, that is "owned"by the City. 4. Factors To Be Considered. There are several factors that support the argument that the City-owned parcels are not a park, or a portion thereof, owned by the City. First, the City-owned parcels do meet any of the common or legal definitions of a"park." Second, the City-owned parcels are not used or developed as a park. Instead, they are used by the owners of the Copeland Oil Lease for oil production purposes. Third, the City-owned parcels are not contiguous to each other, and do not meet the minimum size necessary to be a City park. Fourth, due to the existence of the Copeland Oil Lease, the City-owned parcels are not available for recreational use by the public. Finally, none of the City's regulations about park use are applicable to the property. 3 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels There appear to be two factors that support the argument that the City-owned parcels are a park, or a portion thereof, owned by the City. First, that City Ordinance No. 3287 adopted a park zoning designation over the entirety of Tract 306, including both the City-owned and privately owned parcels. Second, that at least three of the City-owned parcels were either purchased for park purposes, or purchased using park acquisition funds. As will be discussed more fully below,balancing of all these factors leads to the conclusion that the City-owned parcels are not a "park or portion thereof' owned by the City for purposes of Charter Section 612. a. Factors That Indicate The City-owned Properties Are Not A "Park." Many factors lead to the conclusion that the City-owned parcels are not a park or portion thereof. Unfortunately, the Charter does not define what is meant by the term "park." Clearly, the City-owned parcels do not meet any ordinary or legal definition of a park. Webster's Dictionary defines a park as: 1 a. An enclosed piece of ground stocked with game and held by royal prescription or grant; lb. A tract of land that often includes lawns, woodland, and pasture attached to a country house and is used as a game preserve and for recreation; 2a. A piece of ground in or near a city or town kept for ornament and recreation; 2b. An area maintained in its natural state as a public property; 3a. A level valley between mountain ranges; 3b. An open space and especially a grassland that is often all or partly surrounded by woodland and is suitable for cultivation or grazing; 4 . A space occupied by military animals, vehicles or materials; 5. An enclosed arena or stadium used especially for ball games. (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 8th edition, 1974) The City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code defines the word "park" as follows: "Park" includes every park recreation center, lake, pond or other body of water, riding and hiking trail,parking lot and every other recreation facility owned, managed and/or controlled by the City and under the jurisdiction of the Director." (HBMC Section 13.48.060(g).) Finally,Black's Law Dictionary defines a park as "an enclosed pleasure-ground in or near a city, set apart for the recreation of the public." (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.) In the present case, the City-owned parcels lack the essential elements noted in the above definitions that would normally be expected to be present in a park. Notably, the City-owned parcels are not available for use by the public for recreational purposes, or even for passive enjoyment in their natural state. The City-owned parcels are currently used by a private party for oil recovery purposes pursuant to the Copeland Oil Lease. The City-owned parcels are not 4 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels contiguous to each other within Tract 306, and do not meet the minimum three to five acre land area necessary for a neighborhood park under the City's standards. Further, none of the City's park regulations are applicable to the City-owned properties,nor does the City attempt to enforce any of those regulations on the City-owned properties. Thus, it is clear that the City-owned parcels are not a "park" as one is commonly defined or understood. Nor does the City itself consider the City-owned properties to be a park, since they do not meet the City's definition of a park, they do not meet the minimum size of a neighborhood park, and the City does not enforce (or is it legally able to enforce) any of its park regulations on the City-owned properties. Since the City-owned parcels are not a park, or a portion of a park, Charter Section 612 does not apply to the proposed transaction. b. City-owned Property Does Not Become a "Park" as for Purposes of the Charter Upon Adoption of a Park Zoning Desi ai tion. At the outset, it must be first acknowledged that Charter Section 612 does not apply to zoning decisions. In other words, the City Council's decision to adopt or remove a park zoning designation on city or private property is not subject to voter approval. If it were, Section 612 would impermissibly interfere with essential government functions by imposing procedural hurdles upon otherwise authorized planning activities. (Citizens For Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange(2002) 94 Cal. App. 4th 1311; 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90.) The zoning of property by local government is a dynamic, not static, process. Zoning designations change over time to accommodate necessary or desired uses of property. Further, it must be noted that a zoning designation only permits a property to be used in a certain manner; the adoption of zoning, by itself, does not vest the use of the property in the manner permitted by the designation. Actual commencement of the use is generally required for vesting purposes. (Avco v. South Coast Regional Comm'n (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 785.) For instance, suppose that the City owned a one-tenth interest in a commercial office building, and adopted a park zoning designation on the property. Would the adoption of the park zoning designation on the office property mean,that the office building was a park subject to Charter Section 612? Obviously not; an office building is not a park. In the present case, the city owns several parcels in the middle of an oil field, and has adopted a park zoning designation on the oil field. The city's parcels are still within the oil field. The adoption of the park zoning designation has not magically changed the oil field into a park. It should also be noted that the City-owned parcels are to be conveyed after the effective date of the repeal ordinance. Thus, at the time the City-owned parcels will be conveyed,the park designation will have been removed. C. Quimby Act Funds. The other reason that has been advanced in favor of applying Section 612 to the conveyance of the City-owned parcels is that Quimby Act funds were used to acquire at least three of the City-owned parcels. The Quimby Act requires land developers to either dedicate 5 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels property for park purposes, or pay a fee in-lieu of such dedication. We are informed that none of the City-owned parcels were acquired by dedication to the City by a developer. All of the City- owned parcels were purchased by the City. Since none of the City-owned parcels were dedicated to the City for park purposes by a developer, the issue becomes whether any in-lieu fees paid by developers in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area were used to purchase any of the City- owned parcels; and if so, whether Section 612 apply to such parcels. Unfortunately, the City's accounting system is not sophisticated enough to conclusively determine whether any Ellis-Goldenwest developer in-lieu fees were used to purchase any of the City-owned parcels. It may well be that the developer in-lieu fees paid on behalf of the Ellis- Goldenwest area subdivisions were spent to purchase the City-owned properties, or were spent on other recreational facilities that serve the Ellis-Goldenwest area subdivisions. However, we have confirmed that in general, Quimby Act fees are credited to the Park Acquisition and Development(PAD) fund, and from the information we have been given, it seems clear that at least three of the City-owned parcels were purchased using money from the PAD. Therefore, we believe that the PAD fund should be reimbursed from the General Fund to the extent that PAD funds were used to purchase the City-owned parcels. Although the Quimby Act is silent on this specific issue, it appears to us that this reimbursement will satisfy the intent behind the Quimby Act, which is to spend park in-lieu fees on recreational facilities that will serve the subdivision. Given the fact that Section 612 must be interpreted narrowly and in harmony with the rest of the Charter, it is inescapable that Section 612 cannot be interpreted to apply to the City-owned parcels, solely because a few of the parcels may have been purchased with developer in-lieu fees. This is especially true if the reimbursement to the PAD, as described above, takes place. d. Other Issues. Some other issues have been raised in two letters received by our office. The first letter is from Mr. Mark C. Allen III, an attorney who claims to have authored the initiative measure that gave rise to Charter Section 612. Mr. Allen argues that Charter Section 612 should be construed broadly to effect its purpose. (Allen Letter, copy attached hereto, Page 4.) However, as discussed above, both the express language of the Charter(Section 104) and state law require Section 612, as a limitation on the broad powers given to the City, to be construed narrowly. Thus, we are unable to reach the conclusion that Charter Section 612 applies to properties that are clearly not a park or portion thereof. Further, Mr. Allen's letter continually references that Section 612 applies to property that has been dedicated as a park. As discussed above, although a park zoning designation was adopted on Tract 306, none of the City-owned parcels were dedicated as a park, nor does a park exist on any of the City-owned parcels, nor has the public ever used the City- owned parcels for park purposes, due to its current status as an oil production facility. The second letter received by this office on April 11, 2002, is from Dr. Gerald Chapman. He argues that Section 612 should apply to the City-owned parcels, and that since some of the City-owned parcels may have been acquired with Quimby Act funds, those parcels are subject to various park protection statutes. (Chapman letter, copy attached,Page 2.) 6 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels Although we have not had sufficient time to fully analyze Dr. Chapman's letter, our initial review of the statutes mentioned in Dr. Chapman' s letter indicates that they do not apply to this situation. First,the statutes related to park abandonment cited by Dr. Chapman do not apply to charter cities like Huntington Beach. (Wiley v. City of Berkeley(1955) 136 Cal. App. 2d 10, 288 P.2d 123.) Second, the park abandonment statutes cited by Dr. Chapman presume that a "park" has been dedicated by map or other means. (See, e.g., Gov't Code Section 38400 et seq.) No such dedication has taken place in this situation, and as discussed above, the City-owned parcels are not a "park." Finally, Dr. Chapman argues that the City is violating CEQA by categorizing the adoption of Ordinance No. 3542 as "exempt" under the environmental analysis portion of the RCA. We disagree. The adoption of Ordinance No. 3542 will repeal Ordinance No. 3287. The effect of the repeal is that Tract 306 will no longer have a specific park zoning designation, and will instead be treated like every other property in the Specific Plan area. Thus, the adoption of Ordinance No. 3542 will have no impact on the environment. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment, as here, the activity is not subject to CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).) Additionally, the adoption of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan was previously analyzed pursuant to the approval of the original Specific Plan in July of 1989. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the transfer of the City-owned parcels to the plantiffs, as approved by the City Council in the Settlement Agreement, is not subject to voter approval under Charter Section 612. If you have any further questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. GAIL HUT ON City Attorney cc: Ray Silver, City Administrator William Workman, Asst. City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Ron Hagan, Community Services Director 7 PDA:2002 Memos:Tract 306-conveyance of parcels LAQUER, URBAN, GLIFFORD Sc HODGE LLP LAWYERS ARK C. ALLEN 111 3700 SANTA FE AVENUE, SUITE 300 PASADENA. CALIFORNIA ellenOluch.com LONG BEACH. CAI"OBNIA 00810 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON LAS VEGAS. NEVADA (310) 830-0292 FAX 1310) 830-9902 FILE NO. March 29, 2002 Gail Hutton, City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Measure C Dear Gail: I have been asked to comment on the letter you wrote March 15, 2002, to Mr. Gerald Chapman regarding repeal of Ordinance No. 3287. I was asked specifically for my comments regarding your answer to question four in that letter. The question reads, "How can the transfer of the City's parcel in Tract 306 take place without a `Measure C' vote?" In your answer, you indicate that the parcels are not"a public utility or park or beach or portion thereof'within the purview of Measure C (Huntington Beach Charter §612). The reason you give is, "The City's individual parcels in Tract 306 are within an oil field,not a park. If the park use had been established, the proposed conveyance would be subject to section 612." I know nothing about the circumstances regarding the appeal of the ordinance, the ensuing litigation, or the appropriateness of these transfers. However, I do know something about Measure C, having been the author of that measure. Your statement that the park use must be"established" in order for Measure C to apply might lead one to the conclusion that a nark would have to be developed or operational in order for the proscriptions of Measure C to apply. If this was your meaning, I believe your interpretation is contrary to the plain language of Measure C and is inconsistent with established California precedence. Since I am told this is a matter of some controversy, I thought it might be worthwhile to provide some information and background on this subject to avoid unnecessary controversy. No specific development or operations are needed to create a"park"within the meaning of Measure C. All that must happen is for the City to own the land and to designate it as a park. Let me explain why this is the case. Below I explain a little bit about the history of the control of parklands,which may help explain the context in which Measure C was adopted and written. I then turn to the specific language of the Measure. Gail Hutton, City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH March 29, 2002 Page 2 Background of public municipal parks in California. Prior to statehood, under Spanish law, all the cities in California had what were referred to as "pueblo lots." Such lots were owned by the public at large and were managed by the government of the city or town. Such lots were encumbered with a public purpose very much like the "commons" or the"public square"under English common law. They were not conceived of as being "owned"by anyone but were instead intended for the common benefit of the community. The pueblo rights prevent such public lands from being used for anything other than the purpose for which they were set aside. When California joined the union in 18.50, it adopted this doctrine of Spanish law. These"pueblo lots"became the"parks"of the American cities. California courts have enjoined cities from using such"pueblo lots" even for public purposes when the purpose was inconsistent with the purpose for which the lots were set aside. See,Mulvey v. Wangenheim (1913) 13 Cal.App. 268 [park commission prevented from taking pueblo rights to build a road along the side of Balboa Park in San Diego]. The courts also determined that where a private party dedicates property to use as a park, such lots would be treated like the "pueblo lots"—the city could not use the park for any other public or private purpose. Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. (1924) 66 Cal.App. 615. But the courts made a distinction between property that was dedicated for a particular purpose and property owned in fee by the city itself. "A distinction is to be observed between cases where the land for a public park or square was dedicated without special restriction and cases where the dedication was restricted to a particular purpose. Where the dedication was without restriction any usual proper and reasonable public use may be made of the park;but where a particular purpose was expressed the land must be used accordingly. This distinction is clearly apparent where, on the one ` hand, land has been dedicated for park purposes by a private individual, and where, on the other hand,the municipal corporation holds the full title to the land for public uses without restriction. Where title is in an individual the land must be used as directed by him. But when the municipality holds the title for public uses, without restriction, the legislative power may regulate the purposes for which the public may use the land, so long as such use is consistent with park purposes." Humprheys, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco (1928) 92 Cal.App. 69 at 75. Some cases determined that where a charter city owned property in fee, the right of power to change the use of all or a portion of the park property was a municipal affair and that the park use could be modified or eliminated. See, Spinks v. City of Los Angeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366; Wiley v. City of Berkeley(1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 10;Mallon v. City of Long Beach (1955) Gail Hutton, City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH March 29, 2002 Page 3 44 Cal.2d 199; City of Redondo Beach v. The Taxpayers, Property Owners, etc., City of Redondo Beach (1960) 54 Cal.2d 126. Because of the possibility that the parkland used and owned in fee could be used for other purposes, charter cities, state, and even the federal government have various laws discouraging _ restricting or preventing the use of parkland for other purposes. All of these restrictions were designed to put all parkland owned by governments under restrictions similar to those long existing for"pueblo lots" [Spanish law] or"commons" [Anglo-American common law]. For example, both state and federal law prevent the use of parks for highway use unless there are no other feasible alternatives. There are sound public policy reasons for doing this. As Justice Marshall stated in the famous case of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe(1971) 401 U.S. 402, [T]here will always be a smaller outlay already required from the public purse when parkland is used a [for highway construction] since the public already owns the land and there will be no need to pay for right-of-way. And since people do not live or work in parks, if a highway is built on parkland no one will have to leave his home or give up his business. Such factors are common to substantially all highway construction. One might add that this holds true for almost any other public use,not just highways. For this reason, the state passed the Park Act, which severely restricted the use of parks for any other purpose. Public Resources Code §5401 et seq. Most charter cities have provisions severely restricting or preventing altogether the modification of park uses. Measure C falls squarely within this long tradition of protecting park resources. It protects both land provided to the city pursuant to a dedication and land owned in fee to prevent transfers or changes in the character of land without a vote of the people. It also requires a vote of the people to extend development of the parks since public bureaucracy seem to always have a penchant for turning land into buildings. Application of Measure C to undeveloped parkland. As can be seen from the above authorities, once a parcel is owned by the city and dedicated as a park, it falls within Measure C. Whether it is actually used as a park is irrelevant. Measure C clearly applies to parkland that is"owned or operated." This disjunctive phrasing captures property that is owned as parkland but not"operated." It would be a perverse reading of a charter provision designed to discourage over development of parks to require park development in order for the provision to take effect. Gail Hutton, City Attorney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH March 29, 2002 Page 4 A moment of refection will show that this must be the case. Consider a famous example—the Grand Canyon. It was owned by the government of the United States and declared a national"park." At the time of its designation, several uses that would ordinarily be considered inconsistent with park purposes, such as mining and farming, were taking place in the canyon. Nonetheless and beyond peradventure, the Grand Canyon became a"park" at the time it was so designated, notwithstanding that further action to develop the park, to provide public access, and to eliminate incompatible uses lay decades in the future. City charters are the constitutions of municipal corporations. Charter provisions should be read broadly to effect the purposes of their provisions. The people adopted §612 of the Huntington Beach City Charter by an overwhelming vote to protect city parkland from being undervalued or overdeveloped. Any interpretation which fails to effect that purpose conflicts with §612 and is, perforce, illegal. I hope this letter is helpful in your deliberations. For good order, I add once again that I am not expressing an opinion about this particular situation, or any particular situation, as I have no specific knowledge about the facts of any particular situation. Very truly yours, LAQ R,URBAN, CLIFFORD & HODGE LLP C. ALLEN III MCA/nsv A;+r-11-UL UU:OOA P . 02 ~' G ERA LD L. CIIAPMAN, D.D.S. 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-842-3345 April 1, 2002 Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street I luntington Beach, CA 92648 Rc: Rccommcuded Council Action - Second Reading of Ordinance No. 3542 Members of the City Council- 1 respectfully request that this council postpone the second reading of Ordinance No. 3542 so that the City of Huntington Beach may addrms several legal issues surrounding this action. 'rhe passage and implementation of Ordinance No. 3542. 1) will result in the loss of parks currently owned and/or designated by the City, 2) will result in the use of park in-lieu Fees for non-park purposes, and, 3) may result in a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, this Council should not take a second reading of the Ordinance until staff rectifies the current violations of Measure C; (Section 612 of the City Charter), the Quimby Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.1EASURE C As part of a settlement agreement to an inverse condemnation action lost by the City, this Council agreed to (1) remove a park designation over the 5-acres of Tract 306 (designated by Ordinance 3287 and reflected in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan), (2) convey 10 lots owned by the City within Tract 306 to the successful plaintillIs and (3) pay S75,000.00 to the plaintiffs These settlement terms allowed the City to avoid paying several million dollars to acquire the privately-held property in Tract 306 at a market rate for developable property. However,the settlement does nothing;to address the parkland shortfall that will result from the settlement terms. Section 612(a) of the City Charter states that: "No public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City sliall be sold, ]cased, exchanged or otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by...the affirmative vote of at least a .,r -1- APR-11-2002 09:02 96% P•02 Apt--11-02 08: OOA P. 03 majority of the electors voting on such proposition ..." The City Attorney responded to me in writing that Measure C does riot apply to the conveyance of the 10 City-owned lots in Tract 306 as the parcels in question arc not a park ur 'entj_y owned or operated by The City because the 10 lots arc presently "within an oil field, not a park." In essence, Ms. Button states that a deli-natcd park (or property acquired for park purposes pursuant to applicable park statutes) does not amount to a park. i disagree with such a constrained interpretation of what is a park under the law and for purposes of Measure C. The plain language of Section 612(a) is not limited to Currently used parks. To the contrary. Section 612(a) states that the majority vote of the electors protects parks "now or hereafter owned or operated by the City." City ownership of 10 lots within Tract 306 at the time when Tract 306 was designated as a park site sufficiently established a park for purposes of Measure C •I11E QUIMBY ACT AND OTHER PARKLAND PROTECTION STATUTES Pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), the City requires by ordinance the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes. The land or fees exacted are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. The City must develop a schedule specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees to develop park or recreational facilities. Also, any fees collected shall be committed within five years aater payment of the fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of*the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and paid to each record owner of the subdivision in a proportional manner. I have been informed by the City that three of the City-awned lots within Tract 306 were acquired pursuant to the Quimby Act. 'fhe Quimby Act prohibits the City's use or conveyance of such lots in a manner that is unrelated to park purposes In other words, parklands cannot be extinguished for the sake of settlement. Other park protection statutes may equally apply to the conveyance of City lots that were acquired by means other than through the Subdivision Map Act. These statutes echo the Quimby Act's protection of land dedicated for park use and the strong* public policy in-this state of favoring the retention of park facilities. (See, Public Park Preservation Act, Pub, Resources Code Sections 5400-5409.) It is a well-settled principle that land which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land ftom use for park purposes. Moreover, these park protection statutes are highly procedural. Depending on the specifies ol'how the parkland was originally acquired or designated,these statutes may warrant a public hearing, special findings by this Council, and acquisition of an equal area of replacement parklands. (Sec, Government Code Sections 38400-38418, 38440-38462, and 38501-38510.) No hearings have been held, special findings made, or alternative parklands acquired for the loss of parkland caused by Ordinance 3542. •2. APR-11-2002 09:02 96% P.03 * Apr-11-02 08:01A P-04 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMEI\TAI, QUALITY ACT As a final concern, the Environmental Status section ol'the RCA blindly states that Ordinance 3542 is 'exempt." The RCA dries not provide any basis for flow, or under what theory, Ordinance 3542 is deemed exempt from C1QA. Is the City relying on a categorical or statutory exemption') Is the City asserting that the removal of a park designation and conveyance of park propcity is not a"project" for purposes of CEQA? Without any explanation io the RCA, I don't see flow the City can conclude that the removal of this designation does not result in a significant impact on the environment. Clearly this action removes a specific plan designation of parkland. Moreover, it results in the loss of park property. The City must provide the public with sufficient information about the land use and resource impacts of this action and whether any measures have or will be taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate such impacts to City parkland. (State C:EQA Guidelines Section 15002.) 1 urge this Council to table this matter with direction to staff to work with concerned citizens like myself to reach an amicable solution that rectifies the harm that Ordinance 3542 currently would cause to our parklands and environment. Thank you for considering and addressing these concerns. Sincerely, Gerald L. Chapman,}- U.S. APR-11-2002 09:02 96% P.04 NOTICE OF' PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON PROOF OF PUBLICATION BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 4, 2002, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main STATE OF CALIFORNIA) Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council ' will hold a public hearing SS on the following item: 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. County of Orange ) 02-03 (IMPLEMENTA- ,TION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFFECT- ING THE ELLIS GOLD- ENWEST SPECIFIC 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a PLAN) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Re- resident of the County aforesaid; I am quest: To amend Spe- over the age of eighteen years, and not a Goo Plan No. Z lis- denwest Sp(e clific ol party to or interested ' in the below Pan) by repealing Or- dinance No. 3287. The repeal of the Ordinance entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of would remove the neigh- borhood park site desig- nation 306 the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a within the fro Pan area. Location: Ellis- newspaper of general circulation, printed Goldenwest Quarter- and published in the City of Huntington section (between Ellis and Garfield Avenues Beach, County of Orange, State of and Edwards and Gold- enwest Streets) Staff Contact: Paul D'Alessa- California and that attached Notice is a ndN NOTICE IS HEREBY true and complete copy as was printed GIVEN that Item ex 1 t categorically exempt and published in the Huntington Beach from the provisions of ,the California and Fountain Valley issues of said Environmental Quality Act. . newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Of- fice, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Cali- fornia 92648, for inspec- tion by the public.A copy of the staff report will be available to interested February 21 2002 parties at City Hall or the Main City,Library (7111) Talbert Avenue) on March 1, 2002. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and ^, C I declare, under penalty of perjury, that express opinions or c � submit evidence for or ti the foregoing is true and correct. against the appabove. Ia n as outlined above. If you challenge the City Coun- cil's action in court, you maybe limited to raising N CD f '' only those issues you or Executed on someone else raised at i February 22 1 2002 the public hearing de- D , mwrittentcc at Costa Mesa, California. or in t cam-,) j 7C respondence delivered , J- to the City at, or prior-to, , `b the public 'hearing. If D there are any further questions please call the City Attorney's Office at 536-5555 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communica- tions to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, Cit Clerk, Signature Hunti gtonoBeach, 2000 Main Street, -2nd Floor, Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Published Huntington / Beach Independent February 21, 2002 024-800 Ill e s-'4-aZ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 4, 2002, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ❑ 1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 02-03 (IMPLEMENTATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AFFECTING THE ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Specific Plan No. 7 (Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan) by repealing Ordinance No. 3287. The repeal of the Ordinance would remove the neighborhood park site designation from Tract 306 within the Specific Plan area. Location: Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection (between Ellis and Garfield Avenues and Edwards and Goldenwest Streets) Staff Contact: Paul D'Alessandro NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) on March 1, 2002. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the the City Attorney's Office at 536-5555 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:legal s:02cc0304) I r CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: 02--(D3 v DEPARTMENT: ., (�4 10-itYl i 4—MEETINGDATE: CONTACT: ho-t PHONE: N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? G-1 cep b 2l l� oZ- ' Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appeicant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) JW Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? k� Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the Resident labels attached? ( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date ( fl 2. Number of times to be published I 3. Number of days between publications IN* 110-210-30 110-210-31 110-210-32 John A. Thomas Matthew L. Sadinsky Wade E. Caron 18526 Derby Cir. 18542Derby Cir. 18556 Derby Cir. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-33 110-210-34 110-210-35 Zaher F. Khalaf Patrick F. Goepel Nghia H.Nguyen 18566 Derby Cir. 18582 Derby Cir. 18596 Derby Cir. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-36 110-210-37 110-210-38 Ralph B. Weaver Jae Y. Yang Craig V. Towers 6942 Steeplechase Cir. 6916 Steeplechase Cir. 6892Steeplechase Cir. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-39 110-210-40 110-210-41 Hans R. Van Doornum Henry Van Goethen Larry M. Lambert 6881 Steeplechase Cir. 6891 Steeplechase Cir. 6915 Steeplechase Cir. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-42 110-210-43 110-210-44 William D. Fay Nasser Khalil Peter Kahn 6941 Steeplechase Cir. 6946 Preakness Dr. 6936 Preakness Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-45 110-210-46 110-210-47 Gerald Barbisan Keith Wolzinger Jay Q. Huang 6916 Preakness Dr. 6896 Preakness Dr. 6882 Preakness Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach,CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-48 110-210-49 110-210-50 Van D.Nguyen Robin Pham Rajesh Contractor 6881 Preakness Dr. 6895 Preakness Dr. 6911 Preakness Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-51 110-210-52 110-210-53 Scott E. Robinson Tuan Pham Dennis G. Flanagan 6921 Preakness Dr. 6931 Preakness Dr. 6951 Preakness Dr. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-210-54,55,56 Triple Crown Estates 5626 East Santiago Canyon Rd. Orange, CA. 92869 110-212-18,22 110-222-13 Judy Amark 110-213-03 Harold C. Morton 292 Joseph Dr. Kenneth V. Beer P.O. Box 1097 Talent, OR. 97540 2207 East 3020S Carlsbad, CA. 92018 Salt Lake City,UT. 84109 110-222-18 110-222-20 159-351-02,18 Nellie A. Townley James C. Tsai Western Homex Corp. R1 Box 23 P.O.Box 9947 419 Main St. #50 Montague, CA. 96064 Fountain Valley, CA. 92728 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-351-03 159-351-19 159-351-20 California Cattle & Land Inc. Edwards-Lindborg-Dahl Country View Homeowners 15941 Goldenwest St. 30110 Crown Valley Pkwy. 17205 Pacific Coast Hwy. Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 Laguna Niguel, CA. 92677 Sunset Beach, CA. 90742 159-3 51-21 159-351-22 159-3-51-29 Barbara J. Adams Richard S. Flores Curtis J. Chivers 9582 Hamilton Ave. #353 6551 Polo Cir. 6582 Polo Cir. Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-351-30 159-351-33,34,3 5,36,37/159-352-23,26/159-391- 159-352-01 Li Di-Son 9-412-020322,28,29,35,37,39,44,47,48,49,50,51,52/t5 Brian Welch 6572 Polo Cir. David D.Dahl 15260 Ventura.Blvd. Suite 2100 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Central Park#15,98,#9 Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403 505 Park Ave. Balboa Island,CA.92662 159-352-07 159-352-21 Gordon M. Watson 159-352-17 Western Homex Corp. 6732 Shire Cir. Bruce Bent P.O. Box 1188 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 6482 Doral Dr. Sunset Beach, CA. 90742 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-371-11 159-391-31 159-403-06 Harvey Dorren Andrew M. William Horace P. Jen 6841 Corral Cir. 6601 Horseshoe Ln. US Con. Gen. Hong Kong Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 PSC 464 Box 5 FPO,AP 96522 159-403-12 159-411-12 159-411-28,29,30,31,32 Christopher L. Knight Wayne M. Smith Ellis-Central Park#9 6702 Alamitos Cir. 5591 Serene Dr. 123 Agate Ave. Unit B Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 Balboa Island, CA. 92663 Dwayne Fuhrman 159-451-21 159-462-05 18740 Saddleback Ln. Christine K.Ngo John G. Makoff Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 18956 Silverbit Ln. 18866 Rockinghorse Ln. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 110-211-03/110-212-12,17/110-213-01,11/159-393- 110-210-23 110-211-15/110-222-26,27,28 04,05,06,08,09,11,12,16,19,20,22,24,26,27,32,35,36, 37,39,42,43,49,51252 Francis Komin Ronald P. Borghetti Thomas Dubar 2660 East Coast Hwy. 10208 Disney Cir. 1619 East Spring St. Corona Del Mar, CA. 92625 Huntington Beach, CA. 92646 Long Beach, CA. 90806 159-462-24 159-462-25 159-462-26 Behadad Payami Carl Tenbrink Michael L. Amaro 18872 Rocking Horse Ln. 18892 Rocking Horse Ln. 18912 Rocking Horse Ln. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-462-27 159-462-28 159-462-29 Mike Lee Toni K. Faber David M. Berri 18932 Rocking Horse Ln. 18946 Rocking Horse Ln. 18962 Rocking Horse Ln. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-462-30 159-462-31 159-462-32 Scott S. Smart Charles M. Ward Gary L. Mykles 18976 Rocking Horse Ln. 18975 Rocking Horse Ln. 18955 Rocking Horse Ln. Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-462-33 159-462-34 159-462-35 Stephan Plotzker Raece B. Richardson Jefferey E. From 18935 Rocking Horse Ln. 18915 Rocking Horse Ln. 18895 Rocking Horse Ln. Huntington Beach,CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 159-462-36 159-462-37,38,39 Vu Q. Van Huntington Beach Hamptons HOA 18875 Rocking Horse Ln. 520 Broadway Suite 100 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Santa Monica, CA. 90401 110-210-12 110-210-13 110-210-14 IBRAHIM H.ELBARD KEVIN D.&LORA L.CRUZE GARY W.&RITA R.STENLUND 6992 DERBY CIR 6982 DERBY CIR 6972 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 110-210-15 110-210-16 110-210-17 JHANGIANI HARESH S DEAN O.&KATHLEEN G.GREGG A. &M.ABDELMUTI 6962 DERBY CIR 6942 DERBY CIR 6932 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 110-210-18 110-210-19 110-210-20 MACKEY 1999&D.DAVIS MICHAEL J.&KATHY M.COLONNA BARTOLI JOSEPH&ANNA M TRUST 6912 DERBY CIR PO BOX 577 5200 WARNER AVE STE 209 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1563 SUNSET BEACH CA 90742-0577 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4033 110-210-21 110-210-22 110-210-23 TERRY D.&PENNY L.NELSON KHANH G.PHAM FRANCIS E.&SHARON K.KOMIN 6921 DERBY CIR 6935 DERBY CIR 6961 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1564 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1564 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1564 110-210-24 110-210-25 BRADLEY SCOTT&SANDRA LEE HARRISON BEACH HAMPTONS HUNTINGTON 6981 DERBY CIR LOS ANGELES CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1564 R 14007 LOT D 90071-1406 110-211-011y,(I�a/Ito-trZ -ro rr 110-211-02 ' it 12 110-211-06a7 OF,/ Itc'2%-2--`9,°''i 7 11 O -LZ'2-p$1 o') YOUSEF GHODOOSHIM RONALD P.BORGHETTI WEIR OIL CO 320 CROWN DR 10208 DISNEY CIR 401 20TH ST APT A LOS ANGELES CA 90049-2802 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646-4338 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3859 Ito —22 1 -- 2--.- 110-211-09 1 10 110-211-11 1 IZ`'31'4 IF Sclo JLLc—'e MIKE PEREZ MIGUEL VARGAS PEREZ t-31�) 0kx-S',,E- 2230 FLORIDA ST PO BOX 1645 �`� �^� Q 'i 1 CA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-2918 COSTA MESA CA 92628-1645 1CcN�t-�l-► {-i��-� +'tt�+3'gS �i 8� 1e�RF1A CT S face�M ` CA. 9 s629 - 92.3� 110-212-01 110-212-02 1 0 3 , "41, &�) '-) %19'f I't!a`,Z4 110-212-06 r 1 P ANTOINETTE C.VAN BUSKIRK BUSKIRK CECIL J.FOLMAR RONALD I.BRINDLE 745 CALLE DE LOS AMIGOS 230 HOSPITAL CIR 18851 GOLDENWEST ST SANTA BARBARA CA 93105-4438 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-3953 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1511 1 - 12-07 -212-1 0 110-212-17 WEIR OIL CO YOUSEF GHODOOS MILTON H.MAROW 401 20TH ST 320 CROWN DR 864 N BUNDY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90049 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3859 -2802 LOS ANGELES CA 90049-1507 110-213-02 110-213-03 110-213-04 LOREN S.BATES KENNETH V.BEER DWAYNE &CRYSTAL FUHRMAN 18761 CAPENSE ST 2207 STILLMAN LN 17971 CYPRESS ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7213 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109-2424 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-5109 110-213-05 110-213-07 i'D,e y 110-213-10 1 JANN V.BOWER DWAYNE &CRYSTAL FUHRMAN ERIK WALLBANK 2679 SAN MIGUEL CIR 5200 WARNER AVE STE 209 162 HARRISON ST THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360-1326 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4033 ASHLAND OR 97520-2920 110-213-12 ��P RONALD P.BO TTI 1 0208 DISNEY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92 159-351-01 159-351-03 159-351-04 WESTERN HOMEX CORP CALIFORNIA CATTLE&LAND INC SAMUEL M.O.&BETTY Y.C.TSANG PO BOX 1188 6522 TROTLER DR 6541 TROTTER DR SUNSET BEACH CA 90742-1188 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1528 159-351-05 159-351-06 159-351-07 WERNER &KATHLEEN NOLFF RAYMOND JOHN ORLANDO OCEANUS TRUST 6561 TROTTER DR 6571 TROTTER DR 6591 TROTTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1528 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1528 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1528 159-351-08 159-351-09 159-351-10 VICKI L.MILLER LAZAROS A.BOUNTOUR JAMES WARREN THOMAS 6601 TROTTER DR 6621 TROTTER DR 6642 TROTTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1541 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1541 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1540 159-351-11 159-351-12 159-351-13 CHARLES W.WALKER PETER T.&LISA G.ONEILL PETER M.WHITTINGTON 6622 TROTTER DR 6602 TROTTER DR 6592 TROTTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1540 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1540 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1527 159-351-14 159-351-15 159-351-16 GENE A.&ALBERTA E.BUSCHE KOVAC TRUST ANDY J.&MEREDITH A.GOETZ 6572 TROTTER DR 6562 TROTTER DR 6542 TROTTER DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1527 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1527 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1527 159-351-17 159-351-21 159-351-22 ALFRED A.FAAS BULLET DISTRIBUTION INC RICHARD S.FLORES 6522 TROTTER DR 6531 POLO CIR 9401 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1105 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1527 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1543 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212-2924 159-351-23 159-351-24 159-351-25 STRAYER GREGORY&R 2001 TRUST WILLIAM D.&SHARON L.BRIGHAM J.A.CAMPBELL 6571 POLO CIR 6581 POLO CIR 6601 POLO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1543 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1543 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1544 159-351-26 159-351-27 159-351-28 PUNDARI K.&SUNDARI CHEMITIGANTI KENDALL BERNARD ANDERSEN GOVINDBHAI M.&GAJRABEN G.PATEL 6621 POLO CIR 6622 POLO CIR 8791 GARDEN GROVE BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1544 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1542 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844-1211 15 -351-30 159-351-31 159-351-32 LC D SON LAURENCE KUTINSKY SAMUEL F.&WANDA L.SHON N/AVA 6552 POLO CIR 10602 HUMBOLT ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1542 LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720-2448 159-351-33 -3 ( '3 159-3 1-34 159-351-35 V /� PARK 15 CENTRAL PARK 15 CENTRAL PARK 15 L 505 PARK AVE 505 PARK AVE 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 926 00 r. 159-352-01 159-352-02 159-352-03 ROBERT J.&LETITIA M.MORETTA BRADLEY D.&R.E.SMITH SALVATOR W.&BARBARA F.CRACCHIOLO 6651 SHIRE CIR 6671 SHIRE CIR 6691 SHIRE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 159-352-04 159-352-05 159-352-06 MICHAEL A.&SANDRA F.DAVIS COURTNEY DUBAR GERALD L.&PATRICIA M.CHAPMAN 6711 SHIRE CIR 6741 SHIRE CIR 6742 SHIRE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 159-352-08 159-352-09 159-352-10 MACKEY TRUST VINCENT CHEE KEI&JOYCE L.F.ENG MOWREY 2001 TRUST 6712 SHIRE CIR 6692 SHIRE CIR 6672 SHIRE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 159-352-11 159-352-12 159-352-13 NOLL N.&KARIN EASTER GURWELL HONG TRUST CLARK S.&NANCY L.BEARDSLEE 6652 SHIRE CIR 6657 SHETLAND CIR 6671 SHETLAND CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 159-352-14 159-352-15 159-352-16 PHILIP N.&JOAN M.GATTON DONALD B.&SALLY L.JANKOWIAK JACK C.&BONNIE M.COLLINS 6691 SHETLAND CIR 6711 SHETLAND CIR 6731 SHETLAND CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 159-352-17 159-352-20 159-352-22 1 z i BRUCE &DEBORAH BENT BRUCE W.&PAULA L.WINSATT VIEW HOMEOWNERS COUNTRY 17191 LYNN ST 6672 SHETLAND CIR 17205 PACIFIC COAST HWY HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 SUNSET BEACH CA 90742 1 9-352-23 159-352-24 159-352-28 DAVID D.DAHL EDWARDS-LINDBORG-DAH ROGER E.&CRISTINA C.KETELSLEGER 505 PARK AVE 30110 CROWN VALLEY PKWY 6722 SHETLAND CIR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1 LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677-2043 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 159-352-29 JOHN T.FISHER 6692 SHETLAND CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1526 e MICHAEL S.SUMMERS SANG &KYOUNG CHUNG CON BLISS 6861 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6851 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6841 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1531 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1531 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1531 159-371-04 159-371-05 159-371-06 PHILIP D.&MARILYN B.LAYTON GILDERMAN TRUST GARY M.&FRANCES T.OKURA 6821 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6822 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6842 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1531 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 159-371-07 159-371-08 159-371-09 JEROME IRWIN STILLMAN WARREN E.HOLTHAUS STOIBER 6852 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6862 HITCHINGPOST CIR 17662 GAINSFORD LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4723 159-371-10 159-371-11 159-371-12 GREGORY G.&DONNA R.HIRN HARVEY B.&NOBUKO K.DORREN RICHARD &KATHLEEN FIFIELD 6851 CORRAL CIR N/AVAIL 6821 CORRAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1534 LAS VEGAS NV 89103 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1534 159-371-13 159-371-14 159-371-15 p MICHAEL R.CULLY RANDALL C.GALL RON RINDLE 6826 CORRAL CIR 6846 CORRAL CIR 18851 GOLDE T ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1533 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1533 HUNTINGTON BEAC 92648-1511 159-371-16 1%1) i �8 0 CENTRAL PARK ELLIS 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 159-381-01 1aa-1301-va CHRIS &LINDA LEICHT PAI TRUST JEFFREY V.&BELINDA DAVIS 6811 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6781 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6761 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1531 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 159-381-04 159-381-05 159-381-06 WALLY A.&DEBORAH L.AL-ASEER JEFFREY C.JOY LORRAINE A.&ALTON P.FORAN 6762 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6772 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6792 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 159-381-07 159-381-08 159-381-09 R.R.&M.MACHADO LAWRENCE J.GEISSE SUNG MO&MYUNG S.HONG 6812 HITCHINGPOST CIR 6811 CORRAL CIR 6791 CORRAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1534 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 159-381-10 159-381-11 159-381-12 THOMAS M.BACON ALEX &MARIA KUTAS TIMOTHY J.&GENA RYAN 6771 CORRAL CIR 6761 CORRAL CIR 6762 CORRAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 159-381-13 159-381-14 159-381-15 ALBERTO A.&CYNTHIA C.MONIES ALAN A.&NORMA D.ANKERSTAR PAUL L.KOLLAR 6772 CORRAL CIR 6792 CORRAL CIR 6812 CORRAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA92648-1532 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1533 159-381-16 F'7 I E (9 i n CENTRAL ELLIS 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT EACH CA 9 -1000 159-391-05 1 c 1- O 159-391-07 159-391-08 PARK 8.CENTRAL ✓j[ THOMAS C.PETERSON SHIRMARD &SHIRIN FARAHMAND 505 PARK AV 6621 SILVERSPUR LN 6601 SILVERSPUR LN NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662- 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1521 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1521 159-391-09 159-391-10 159-391-11 CARL V.FOLGMEN THEODORE G.&CHERYL L.LASKER ERIC RESCIGNO 6581 SILVERSPUR LN 6571 SILVERSPUR LN 6551 SILVERSPUR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 159-391-12 159-391-13 159-391-14 DENNIS F.&KATHLEEN D.DAMBRA KEVIN P.CONLISK AMARAL TRUST 6541 SILVERSPUR LN 6531 SILVERSPUR LN 6525 SILVERSPUR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 159-391-30 159-391-32 159-391-33 TIMOTHY THIEN BUI MARTIN A.MENICHIELLO GERARD ROCCANOVA 6621 HORSESHOE LN 6591 HORSESHOE LN 6571 HORSESHOE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1525 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1525 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1525 159-391-34 159-391-36 159-391-38 STEVEN J.&LAURA D.LOSCHIAVO RONALD IRVING&EMILY ANN BRINDLE RONALD &STEPHANIE JOAN BOSS 6561 HORSESHOE LN - 6521 SILVERSPUR LN 6515 SILVERSPUR LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1525 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1516 159-391-40 159-391-41 159-391-42 CLINTON G.GERLACH JACK &BARBARA FALFAS CORY &KATHERINE MEREDITH 701 OCEAN AVE # a=3 6542 HORSESHOE LN 6552 HORSESHOE LN SANTA MONICA CA 90402-2631 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1523 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1523 159-391-43 159-391-45 159-391-46 DANIEL A.AGAJANIAN JAMES D.&KATHRYN M.LEO ROSEN 6572 HORSESHOE LN 6592 HORSESHOE LN 6622 HORSESHOE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1523 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1523 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1523 159-393-02 03 v 9 l c 159-393-14 159-393-15 CITY OF HUNT[ ON BEACH H.A.LANG HAROLD C.MORTON 2000 MAIN PO BOX 5255 6741 SHIRE CIR HUNTI TON BEACH CA 92648-2702 CHULA VISTA CA 91912-5255 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 159-393-17 159-393-18 159-393-29 HEBER T.HANKS DANIEL &INGRID LIAO HUGO J.ENENBACH 80 S LAKE AVE 2 3 18622 QUARTERHORSE LN PO BOX 152 PASADENA CA 91101-2615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1502 POCATELLO ID 83204-0152 159-393-30,z-; 1 3 i 7s- 159-393-44,vsf yb 159-393-531 C"( COURTNEY DUBAR MICHAEL A.&SANDRA F.DAVIS TIMOTHY J.&GENA RYAN 6741 SHIRE CR 6711 SHIRE CIR 6762 CORRAL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1500 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1532 159-392-01 159-392-02 159-392-03 JOAN C.VENDITOZZI DECATUR L.DILDAY CHARLES D.&STEPHANIE BUCKALEW 18622 QUARTERHORSE LN 18612 QUARTERHORSE LN 18602 QUARTERHORSE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1502 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1502 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1502 159-392-04 159-392-05 159-392-06 KATRINA H.NGUYEN RONALD M.&JANICE M.MITTERMEIER M.T.&E.A.MCCALL 6652 CARRIAGE CIR 6662 CARRIAGE CIR 6672 CARRIAGE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 159-392-07 159-392-08 159-392-09 GOPAL REDDY YETURU RACHEL TRUST LONG &ALEXANDRA KIEU 6682 CARRIAGE CIR 6692 CARRIAGE CIR 6681 CARRIAGE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 159-392-10 159-392-11 159-392-12 GUNTER WETZEL TRANG T.NGUYEN THIEN DEAN A.BARLOW 6671 CARRIAGE CIR 6661 CARRIAGE CIR 6651 CARRIAGE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1501 159-392-13 0.1 1 1r, I�. HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTATES 4431 W ROSECRANSAVE -*e-v HAWTHORNE CA 90250-1502 IJJ-TV I-V I V��v -vr.J - - - - •�- '-- -' 1 l 1S9-4V? -18t��12V�Zj �2Z BRUCE V.&VIVIAN L.MALKENHORST SHORES HUNTINGTON MAHA CHABAREK 6651 CHURCHILL DR 18011 SKY PARK CIR STE L 6756 PIMLICO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1536 IRVINE CA 92614-6517 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 159-402-02 159-402-03 159-402-04 DAVID A.&CONNIE L.HEATH JOSEPH &JUDY BOOKOUT GLENN C.&MARTHA A.MORROW 6766 PIMLICO CIR 6712 PIMLICO CIR 6702 PIMLICO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 159-402-05 159-402-06 159-402-07 CUONG VIET&QUYNH HUONG D.TRAN MICHAEL P.PUST DAVID T.&MICHELLE T.MAI 6701 PIMLICO CIR 6711 PIMLICO CIR 6721 PIMLICO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 159-402-12 159-402-16 159-402-17 JEFFREY A.&LAUREN L.DAMRON EDWARD S.&MARGARET H.RHEE JOHN A.&LINDA L.THOMAS 6771 PIMLICO CIR 6731 PIMLICO CIR 6741 PIMLICO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 159-402-18 159-402-19 JOHN CHIEN NGUYEN MIKE &SHIRLEY L.KAO 6751 PIMLICO CIR 6761 PIMLICO CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1539 159403-01 159-403-02 159-403-03 ')OC ovrrv:,-"T-t4 MEDHAT &MONA MIKHAEL ROBERT P.&LINDA T.PAPPOFF JOHN P.SKRATT 6721 ALAMITOS CIR 6711 ALAMITOS CIR 6701 ALAMITOS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 159403-04 159-403-05 159-403-06 MARC &JANE PARNES DENNIS A.&DE ANNA C.HOLLOWAY HORACE P.JEN 6691 ALAMITOS CIR 6671 ALAMITOS CIR 6672 CHURCHILL DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1552 159-403-07 159-403-08 159-403-09 JEFFREY K.&KRISTINE K.BERGMAN WILLIAM ITO HAMAMOTO TRUST 6652 CHURCHILL DR 6661 ALAMITOS CIR 6662 ALAMITOS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1552 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1538 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 159-403-10 159-403-11 159-403-13 RANJIT SINGH&MARILYN JEAN AHLUWALIA CHIKAU RICK FUJII PACITA PINERO 6672 ALAMITOS CIR 6692 ALAMITOS CIR 6712 ALAMITOS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 159-403-14 159-403-15 159-403-16 JOHN A.&LISA A.HATHERLEY MARVIN E.&KARIN PETERSON LARRY D.&LAUREN REDNOUR 6722 ALAMITOS CIR 6732 ALAMITOS CIR 6742 ALAMITOS CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 159403-17 159-403-18 t 1 ia z ZZ DOUGLAS M.&JEAN A.MOORE SHORE N 6752 ALAMITOS CIR 18011 SKY PARK CIR ST l l HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1537 IRVINE CA 92614-6517 159-411-01 159-411-02 159-411-03 DAVE &JILL WIGNEY JUNG W.KIM BYRON &KAITE KONSTANTINIDIS 6861 DERBY CIR 6841 DERBY CIR 6831 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 159-411-04 159-411-05 159-411-06 GARY A.&ROBIN A.HYBL JOSEPH B.&F.Y.YOUNG DOROTHY T.COURT 6811 DERBY CIR 6801 DERBY CIR 6781 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 159-411-07 159-411-08 159-411-09 WILLIAM P.&LINDA A.KANNOW ANTHONY W.PASCOE RONALD K.MARKS 6771 DERBY CIR 6751 DERBY CIR 6752 DERBY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1505 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1506 159-411-10 159-411-11 159-411-12 ARNOLD &THERESE BRENDER JAY B.&LYNNE B.DAVIS WAYNE M.&VICKI L.SMITH 6772 DERBY CIR 6782 DERBY CIR 6772 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1506 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1506 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1529 159-411-13 159-411-14 159-411-15 WAYNE &RACHEL LEADER DISPALATRO GELSON&M T TRUST JAMES D.&IN R.RYE 101 RAINBOW OR ate• '4y10 18691 JOCKEY CIR 18711 JOCKEY CIR LIVINGSTON TX 77399-9330 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1507 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1507 159-411-16 159-411-17 159-411-18 JUNG-CHOU CHANG H. YATA MAHVASH KEYVANA2AR 18721 JOCKEY CIR 18731 JOCKEY CIR 9594 NIGHTINGALE AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1507 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1507 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-7233 159-411-19 159-411-20 159-411-21 JAMES J.CHRISTIANO DAVID R.&CANDACE J.MELIN PATRICK B.&JOYCE CAROLYN ROCHE 18752 JOCKEY CIR 18742 JOCKEY CIR 11254 JAMAICA ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 CYPRESS CA 90630-5316 159-411-22 159-411-23 159-411-24 HARTMAN TRUST RAYMOND CHUNG WANG JERRY H.PABBRUWEE 18722 JOCKEY CIR 18712 JOCKEY CIR 18702 JOCKEY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 159-411-25 159-411-26 159-411-27 G at R +-S)v i.+d+i .-. 'I c tZlzc•'t ARMSTRONG TRUST THOMAS J.&J.WATKINSON THANH VAN TRAN 18692 JOCKEY CIR 18682 JOCKEY CIR 18662 JOCKEY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1508 159-411-28 159-412-01 159-412-02 PARK ELLIS-CENTRAL DWAYNE &CRYSTAL FUHRMAN PARK 9.CENTRAL 123 AGATE AVE 17756 SAMPSON LN 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1015 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6751 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 159-451-01 159-451-02 159-451-03 SIAVOSH &ANNA K.TALMOOD STANLEY L.&NANCY A.WEATHERLY CHARLES A.ADAIR 6755 LIVINGSTON DR 6771 LIVINGSTON DR 6785 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1561 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1561 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1561 159-451-04 159-451-05 159-451-06 SADDEK R.&NAHED A.GIRGIS FRANK R.&KATHLEEN L.LEWIS MICHAEL W.&SARAH L.S.MARSHALL 6805 LIVINGSTON DR 6821 LIVINGSTON DR 6841 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1562 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1562 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1562 159-451-07 159-451-08 159-451-09 CHIH-SHENG LIU TAM MINH&HUYEN THI THU NGUYEN BEACH HAMPTONS HUNTINGTON 6855 LIVINGSTON DR 6871 LIVINGSTON DR 333 S HOPE ST FL 38TH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1562 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1562 LOS ANGELES CA 90071-1406 159-451-10 159-451-11 159-451-12 FRANK &KATHLEEN ANDRUSS DAVID A.BASOK MYUNG H.&SEEUN CHO 6915 LIVINGSTON DR 6925 LIVINGSTON DR 6945 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 159-451-13 159-451-14 159-451-15 JOHN RIMLINGER ALFRED J.&JOAN S.WISEMAN WH &AK WOLFORD 6961 LIVINGSTON DR 6971 LIVINGSTON DR 6981 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 159-451-16 159-451-17 159-451-18 JUAN A.&JEANNE A.ESCOBAR DEAN C.&GINA M.GILBERT WILLIAM E.&JACQUELINE L.STACY 6991 LIVINGSTON DR 18916 SILVERBIT LN 18926 SILVERBIT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1555 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1548 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1548 159-451-19 159-451-20 159-451-21 DAVID A.&JUNG HWA MILANOSKI DARRYL &BETTY J.BLACK CHRISTINE K.C.NGO 18936 SILVERBIT LN 18946 SILVERBIT LN 15762 BROOKHURST ST HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1548 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1548 WESTMINSTER CA 92683-7510 159-451-22 159-451-23 159-451-24 EDWIN FARNWORTH STEVEN R.MILLER ROGER PTGEORGE 6992 TURF DR 6982 TURF DR 6966 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-451-25 159-451-26 159-451-27 STOPNIK TRUST VLADIMIR GENDLER ANDREW M.PIETER 6952 TURF DR 6932 TURF DR 6916 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 159-451-28 159-451-29 159-451-30 NAM XUAN&LAN H.NGUYEN KENNETH W.&MERYLN A.WHITE JOHN B.&AGNES C.DETERS 6902 TURF DR 6882 TURF DR 6866 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1546 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 159-451-31 159-451-32 159-451-33 ROBERT A.CASARES MICHAEL MCCAA NGOC MY THI HUYNH 6852 TURF DR 6832 TURF DR 6816 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 159-451-34 159-451-35 159-451-36 MARK S.&VIRGINIA J.BILLES CHARLES F.PLHAK LINDA M.MC CARLEY CARLEY 6796 TURF DR 6786 TURF DR 18951 YORK LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1556 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1553 159-451-37 DOE 18945 YORK LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1553 159-451-38 159-451-39 159-451-40 LAWRENCE N.&ELIZABETH M.DISTLER EDWARD CLAYTON LEWIS YOLANDA SEP SALSBERG 18935 YORK LN 18925 YORK LN 18915 YORK LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1553 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1553 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1553 159-451-41 159-451-42 159-451-43 WILLIAM C.&PAULINE L.COLE JEANNIE CHAN JERRY A.&DIANA M.KLETT 6796 LIVINGSTON DR 6816 LIVINGSTON DR 6832 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 159-451-44 159-451-45 159-451-46 RICHARD S.HANK) CHI-SHUANG &CH1N-CHI HOU LIU MIKE &SANDY L.MASON 6852 LIVINGSTON DR 6866 LIVINGSTON DR 6882 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1560 159-451-47 159-451-48 159-451-49 DENNIS R.HARNISCH GENCAGA &LILIANA ALIYAZICIOGLU GELB TRUST 6902 LIVINGSTON OR 6916 LIVINGSTON DR 6932 LIVINGSTON DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1554 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1554 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1554 159-451-50 159-451-51 159-451-52 MINH C.DO JONATHAN 0.&KAREN L.HARRIS JOHN L.MAURER 6952 LIVINGSTON DR 18921 SILVERBIT LN 18925 SILVERBIT LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1554 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1549 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1549 159-451-53 159-451-54 159-451-55 COLLEEN M.WILSON JOHN A-THOMAS STEVEN C.&DARA L.DRAEGER 18941 SILVERBIT LN 6951 TURF DR 6931 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1549 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1545 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1545 159-451-56 159-451-57 159-451-58 M.C.&REBECA A.CHRISTY MARVIN F.BLASKI DAVID P.&LINDA L.WHEELER 6915 TURF DR 6901 TURF DR 6881 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1545 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1545 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 159-451-59 159-451-60 - 159-451-61 HSU CHIEN W&SUSAN H RICHARD J.&TERESA FOSMIRE JUN CHI LIU 6865 TURF DR 6851 TURF DR 6831 TURF DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 159-451-62 159-451-63 159-451-64 r 6 i a �� r b81 4 yr 7 t Ili-�►��.—z3 RANDY L,&PATRICIA A.RUMMEL JONATHAN TRAN HB HAMPTONS HOMEOWNERS 6815 TURF DR 6795 TURF DR 333 S HOPE ST FL 38TH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1557 LOS ANGELES CA 90071-1406 159-451-72 7 3r 7 y BEACH HAMPTONS HUNTINGTON 4100 NEWPORT PLACE DR STE 350 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-1401 159-461-01 159-461-02 159-461-03 PAUL A.&CATHERINE G.ALBERT MICHAEL &MARY JACOBS DAVID S.&SOPHIE P.KRAMER 6615 CHURCHILL DR 6595 CHURCHILL DR 6575 CHURCHILL DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1536 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1513 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1513 159-461-04 159-461-05 159-461-06 FROST KELLER TRUST JOHN M.&CATHERINE J.GREGG LISA C.MCNAMEE 6561 CHURCHILL DR 6545 CHURCHILL DR 18791ACADEMY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1513 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1513 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-461-07 159-461-08 159-461-09 WILLIE &RENATE PENNINGTON ELIZABETH J.MC SHANE SHANE BASANTA K.MAHATO 18806 ACADEMY CIR 18816 ACADEMY CIR 18826 ACADEMY CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1514 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1514 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1514 159-461-10 159-461-11 159-461-12 CARLOS E.&HELENE M.SANTIZO STE:VE J.&KIM M.BERNS STEPHEN T.&JACQUELINE M.ONEILL 18836 ACADEMY CIR 18861 ROCKINGHORSE LN 18845 ROCKINGHORSE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1514 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1550 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1550 159-461-13 159-461-14 159-461-15 LARRY R.&BETSY S.KOPPES DELLORUSSO TRUST RANDAL E.&GLENDA B.SECOR 18831 ROCKINGHORSE LN 18815 ROCKINGHORSE LN 18801 ROCKINGHORSE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1550 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1550 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1550 159-461-16 159-461-17 v 9 (S`)-`(b2-Zo,2�,zZ HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS L P HB HAMPTONS PARTNERS L P 520 BROADWAY#110 520 BROADWAY STE 100 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-2420 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-2429 F 1 aw-•►oc-uc — 159-462-03 PHILLIP B.MC ELROY ELROY TIMOTHY K.ROSS GARY &BRENDA ADAMS 18806 ROCKINGHORSE LN 18822 ROCKINGHORSE LN 18836 ROCKINGHORSE LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1551 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1551 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1551 159-462-04 159-462-05 159-462-06 t_1�ve-6 7 . SHANDLING MAKOFF JOHN G&JUSTINE M TRUST TOD &SUSAN F.KINGSLAND 18852 ROCKINGHORSE LN PO BOX 426 18906 CADDINGTON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1551 GLENDORA CA 91740-0426 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 159-462-07 159-462-08- 159-462-09 HOAN T.&NANCY N.L.TRUONG VAN YU&DEANIE TING WILLIAM T.LEWERENZ 18916 CADDINGTON CIR 18926 CADDINGTON CIR 18936 CADDINGTON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 159-462-10 159-462-11 159-462-12 JOSEPH F.PUISITYS SCOTT A.&JULIE A.BERGMANN EHAB H.GHALY 18946 CADDINGTON CIR 18956 CADDINGTON CIR 18962 CADDINGTON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1559 159-462-13 159-462-14 159-462-15 DAN Q.VU JOHN C.&MARSHA S.CORCORAN THI LISA TRAN 18961 CADDINGTON CIR 18955 CADDINGTON CIR 18945 CADDINGTON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 159-462-16 159-462-17 159-462-18 DANG KHA MARK S.SEEMAN LEYNA T.NGUYEN 18935 CADDINGTON CIR 18925 CADDINGTON CIR 18915 CADDINGTON CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 159-462-19 159-462-20 z 159-462-23 r4�)V t t CHRISTOPHER A.&DELIA Q.BRUCE HB HAMPTON NERS L P U BCH HAMPT UNTINGTON 18905 CADDINGTON CIR 52013ROADWAY STE 10 333 S HOPE ST FL 38 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1558 SANTA MONICA CA 90401-242 LOS ANGELES CA 90071-140 zE Connie Brockway, City Clerk v-1 GN �, ; ,,t' �� City of Huntington Beach �' Office of the City Clerk ~a z : b P.O. Box 190 �,; y rro7.1'i,? 0 ���� _ Huntington Beach,CA 92648 C A it METER'42221i1 ' p-� .4A O2�d3 110-213-04 1 DWAYNE &CRYSTAL FUHRMAN INGTp', 17971 CYPRESS ST FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708-5109 _— Ti. E, t a R UF" I 1- - �ouNTr o'y LEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HEARING . �;-�I'ii;Ii� �a>�i��i�a Iltltt,tltl�lltttlttltttl�li,�tt�tlll�lttlltttltlttll�tt��l�ll Connie Brockway, City Clerk 021 u.S.Pll�iir..GF City of Huntington BeachOffice of the City ClerkP.O. Box 190 112 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H METER 422^Vlx:x. VAIDU'F'EJ `_�EE'F'�)IVM kEc_�� �—n� 159-401-02 1 ,1 t y 1S 1S4.407 _ t$%1�'2.Ot21 t2Z �3-�y-oZ SHORES HUNTINGTON w ��MTINGTp', 18011 SKY PARK CIR STE L IRVINE CA 92614-6517 a MTY LEGAL NOTI PUBLIC HEARING �a�r,>q�,+.t,�1�r, 3� Il�lt���ltltlltul��llultllt�unlll�l��lltt�ltlttlln���l�ll Connie Brockway, City Clerk U City of Huntington BeachOffice of the City Clerk �! sP.O. Box 190 t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ILL, H METER n22 d 1,l k ✓1t •x:x. 4�UUF'.E�� `-;ER�)It.E F'.Er�UE�;7EG U"�2z—�.� 159-351-33 1 -VS � INGTQy PARK 15 CENTRAL Q� ��o„lw�rfe B 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 RETURN ;, --� —' �._�.�� �— TO SENDERA :. - 1, NtY NOT KN ! LE AL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 1 el"t 32 S•r4-NE"�a •1i a1 II1111111111111i11111i111111111l111111111111111111111111111111 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ;; \ U.S.�c'`'TA`'F Office of the City Clerk ~a i � (t P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "�- C A k METER-42222) t •x:x. 2-23,26/159-391- 05 06,15,21,22,28,29,35/37 39544,47,48,49,50,51,52/15 9412-02,03 _ David D.Dahl Central Park#15,#8,#9 INGjU�,� 505 Park Ave. RETURN SENLt �•�; �o� TO SENDER - -L TO ENF'1 EC! COUNTY ATTE 1 TE K N n E D LEGAL NOTICE- PUBI,&M. RIN �T i� ,i�1 i-- �... ....: Sze, II1I11i1111111111I11 IL 1I1 11111111111111111111 I1Iil II1,1111111 ,.....+n. Connie Brockway, City Clerk u c.• t oN U.S.PC* Af, t City of Huntington Beach A Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA92646 c A H METER 4222;1T f IN CENTRAL PARK ELLIS �--� Oy (`` 505 PARK AVE w NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 -vT O Z a 3 w _ - R ETUWIN r;LTURN �;; A 6F� P� TO S�NDERI'--- .-� TO SENDER' M1 . t. �UMTY �' LEGAL NOTIC , ` �t`� � RING:, ��. �► '� .a '-j=; I{�{ ��I�{�I{���I��{I��L!! lll,f��ll���l�l��ll��„�I�II Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ,_,tn �G T 0IV U.S."IS saes �. Office of the City Clerk � _, „ �:�P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i CA H METER 422.12,3 159-412-02 PARK 9.CENTRAL Z O ING, 505 PARK AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1000 �QUNTY LEGAL NOTICE- PU6 �,gRING--: - ' �" _ 92� —G �U �_ i:�, Ilsltis�yl�I�ll�i�l,fIll 1{1{{1�����{I{�{��Ili���ili��li��iil�ll Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0 IV- Office of the City Clerk A- P.O. Box 190 fJ VL821'02 n -11" 1 0 0,5. L, h Huntington Beach, CA 92648 mmJul a�� - C a H METERA227.1.21 -1 mvjms',:"� a- p.mous E r-e-ora-is A% RFT 0. 'p 0 9 -01' NE &CRYSTAL FUHRMAN ING 1 1 56 56 SAMPSON LN dQ) *HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647-6751 �ppNTI LEGAL NOTICE- PUBS RING-22'- 47 11 11 If I fill II III IIIIII If 11 1 11 111111141111 1111 Ii -------------------- Connie Brockway, City Clerk U.S.mr,IA City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk FEB21'02 0 U. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 O-Z C a H METER,42212SI o®r- 0 FEB21'032 vr) 1 9-4 11-28,2 9,30,31,3 2 —01 Ili tral Park#9 1 3 A at Ave. Unit B ING alb a slad CA. 92663 R E I U R N T 0 TO SENDER� ATTE N I LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC. ING IN 01,...P, 0,141 N 's 7-s.41K'e-g If stj 11 1 1 It 111111 11 It I if 11111 11 fit 111111111 it I IIIII If III(if 1111 it 11 Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C a ILL" H METER 159-451-72 0 ING BEACH HAMPTONS HUNTINGTON 4100 NEWPORT PLACE DR STE 350 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-1401 OZ-03 IRLETURN RETURN NTY g9v LEGALI�* H��AR I IIIIIIIIIIII III oil IIIIII Conn'*n* Clerk n.;ayt 0 1d1qJiiV gi each T Div C, lerk -iON3S ,-;Qi U.S.POSIAW. tm p R NHn -74'u n t' f FBI z u fington*B"each, CA 92648 f EBB 0 0 C a H METER'42.*�;"�,11 Mes T—re—qL 159-351-02.18 0 Western Homex Corp. ING 419 Main St. #50 fo� .C)D, --0 3 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ��,,� IF(t /6-W cm COAq4CF?C UA1t)r-kj1/ N0AVj;r A4A',, r��iNnl Ty -Aob/iii, CC-/vc4f, CY LEGAL NOTICE- PUS� -S��Cp Alt Connie Brockway,City Clerk 02VYG u.s,Pc)ST,�rt City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ,!P.O. Box 190 ,`� 0 �.� 2Huntington Beach, CA 92648H METER 422 :0x:x. HUUE ,EF'�)I�:E Fc� z2—U 159-411-28 \ PARK ELLIS-CENTRAL I NSTQ�r ` \ 123 AGATE AVE NEVVPORT BEACH CA 92662-10 1Tn cF= j 1FR 1 t GAL NOTICE-_PUBLIC_ Ja t w t.4t a' k 1 a r'r �ll !!!il}�111}!!,}tlllil}11!}}!!l�flll}!11}Ilill!llllti!l�F�i ��t��� is-7'11 f!ii�S .�•�t•t it Connie Brock ark , �,��IV U.S.PO�""IAG'1' City of Hun, dch Office of I clerkF1 a 2 P.O. -40 ij t 3- Huntington I o, CA 92648 04 H METER 422. \111-C�rl R UU 7F EV 6► M Ve 2--fsZ 1-69-393-29 ING HUGO J.ENENBACH PO BOX 152 40, POCATELLO 10 83204-0152 CQ �ppNTY cps. C;1 LEGAL NOTICE - PLIBLI A—A M AAM p 6-3 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 10 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 "j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 u) C a H METER 422'.-A 110-212-01 �NTINGTpC.VAJ4,,BUSKiRk BUSkA,,bf 74 Os L-E-,pE OS AMIG SANTA Cm �pp NTY ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBI.j,Q HIII III 11111f 1111i Whiff fliff I.,IIIIjf!Milli Connie Brockway, City Clerk ��T o� !� City of Huntington Beach � o, ��}�+.e3•c >> Office of the City Clerk <� P.O. Box 190 R ;i L 1' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CG ;G..�'. NU'i.]'f?'E:}� •:��E�•)Is..rC. F°'•.'E..C)1�'E 11 i'j'�—'?z—U�' 159-352-17 BRUCE &DEBORAH BENT ING 17191 LYNN ST �Q� �rcwro���Ee BF9 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649-4303 v BENT19± 926495014 IN 12 02/25/02 Cp RETURN 1.0 SENDER ~ .t NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE �CF Qom` UNABLE TO FORWARD IX»�+ �� RETURN TO SENDER �puNtr LEGAL NOTICE - PUBL&H RIN _ t- ..i=� G = ':'= Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 � � x Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I I ' + C p H MEIE; 159-371-11 HARVEY B.&NOBUKO K-DORREN INs jp I S VEGAS NV 89103 R —TO I N s u GAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HM15 `�'-�.+°°i:r ° - - � Itiliiillifilliiltiill3lfi114li33S11iiliil�iiili�3311333?? ce of the City Clerk G 2 P.O. Box 190 gton Beach, CA 92648 C A H METE�? 159-371-07 JEROME IRWIN STILLMAN �pNTINGTpy 6852 HITCHINGPOST CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-1530 D E 1 JR�E T U IR N T"S�N`�^/-{�� �F SUN T Y LEGAL NOTICE - PURL! T- 11.1 -hid MilJillilibliMP If ill III-IiIIIIH I Brockway, City Clerk f Huntington Beach ATTEMPTED NOT KNOWN 9 of the City Clerk 4 n 0 �ORWARDING ORDER EXPIRED P.O. Box 190 0 INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS H METER ton Beach,CA 92648 0 BOX CLOSED NO ORDEF 13 NO SUCH NUMBER "I OTHER xx izu?Ess pu' 159-393-14 ('-\\ Y I NGTpy H.A.LANG PO BOX 5255 CHULA VISTA CA 91912-5255 91IN TA/ N Brockway, City Clerk old Huntington Beach -3 of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 LDL on Beach, CA 92648 H METER �QIDRESS SEP-Mva FEVMI�� 110-210-25 BEACH HAIMPTONS HUNTINGTON �MTINGTpy LOS ANGELES CA 10,14 R 14007 LOT D 9011406 Ax LEGA NOTICE - P BLICMIP 7 13., ss D 6 11 ill---- Connie Brockway, City Clerk 0 1v 01V ON City of Huntington Beach IT Office of the City Clerk 1(r, L P.O. Box 190Cu"'1'0-1 , j, ', '2 ,, L 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1,1 C/ C A H MEIER 42-17'81 ,03 159-351-03 ING California Cattle & Land Inc. DI/ 15941 Goldenwest St. Ah. Huntington Beach, CA. 92647 C-a R I T i'R'71 REl URN )ER 01 ... , TO To TO SENDER" -SCADS T E LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC VI I I A-4 9; 4 NOY Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 'T ID N Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 s".Huntington Beach, CA 92648 "1 -VAIX E AS A "407'[)ELIVEF 02 UNABLE T-C) poftss'E�� — Wv�RD WAPx. C A H METER FJMF#4 To C)F:F:M OF ILM 110-213-03 ADDRESS FOR VERIFICATION KENNETH V.BEER OF FORWARDING EkEhO��VN�Tm*+?j ING 6. C2 ew �cpp NTY LEGAL NOTICE— P I AEARwr, I I lot I t .