Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan - Ordinance 3542 Repeals Ordi
PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of PUBLIC NOTICE yAve. Planner Assigned: the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a NOTICE OF Herb NOTICEnIS HEREBY PUBLIC HEARING GIVEN that an initial pa envi- newsP er of general- circulation printed BEFORE THE CITY ronmental assessment,for .COUNCIL OF THE the above Item was pro- and published in the City of Huntington CITY OF accordance completed m HUNTINGTON BEACH foffilaaccordance with the Cali-. Beach, County of Orange, State of . NOTICE-IS HEREBY deter Quality Act. It was GIVEN that on Monday determined that Item #1 California, and that attached Notice is a June 19, 1995, at 6:30 A would not have any signifi- cant environmental effect In the City Council Cham- and that a-negative decla- . bars, 2000 Main Street, ration Is Warranted.The an- true- and complete copy as was printed Huntington Beach,the City- vironmental assessment,is Council will hold a public' -on file at the City of Hun- and published in the Huntington Beach hearing on the following tington Beach Community planning and zoning Items;. Development Department, and Fountain Valley Issues of said CODE AMENDMENT NO: 2000• Main Street, and is TIONNEGATIVE DECLARA= available.for public inspec- newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: TION N0.9239: tion and comment.by con-' .Applicant:City of Hunting tacting the Community De-. ton Beach,Community Ser- velopment Department, or vices Department - To by telephoning (714)536- amend the Ellis- 5271 Goldenwest Specific Plan ON FILE: A'copy of the',_ for the purpose of desig- proposed request Is on file . June 8 1995 nating a` neighborhood' in the City Clerk's Office, r park.The code amendment 2000 Main Street, Hunting- will amend Section III; ton, Beach, California. Community Theme (Pages 92648 for inspection by 14-19), of the Ellis- the public. A copy of the Goldenwest Specific Plan staff report.w 11 be available to include a new category to interested parties at the (No.6) for neighborhood City Clerk's' Office after: parks'and reference the June.15,1995. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that OpenSpacepexhibit.(No.8i--A C ALL'.INTEREed to attend r �Paige 18) depicting the lo- SONS are invited to attend the foregoing' ore oin ' is true and correct. cation of the neighborhood said-,hearing and express b g park. The proposed, code opinions or submit evi- amendment Is to designate, dence for` or. against the a site for the exclusive useapplication as outlined as a neighborhood park: above.'If•you challenge the No Park development is City. Council's action in Executed on proposed at this time. Lo court, you may be limited June s 19 9 5 cation:The propa is can-p rty to-raising only those Issues trally located in the Ellis- you 'or_ someone` else _ at Costa Mesa, California. Goldenwest Quartersection,' raised at the public hearing_ generally at the terminus of described in this notice, or Saddleback and "Quarter-,. horse Lanes. The Quarter- written correspondence section Is bounded by Ed- delivered to:the City at, or wards St.; Goldenwest St., Prior to,the public hearing. Ellis .Ave.,. and _Garfield If there.are any further questions please-call the, Planning Division at'536- 5271 and .refer to the, above items. Direct your' written :communications to the City Clerk. _ ..Conrile-;Brockway, Signature City-Clerk City of Huntington'-. Beach, 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor,Hun- tington Beach, 'Cali- fornla 92648, (714) i 53"227 i Published Huntington Beach-Fountaln .Valley In-. dependent June 8,1995. -062-531 . �JSa• 3a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 19, 1995, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: l__E] 1. AWDE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39: A licant: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department-To amend the / lis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend Section III, Community Theme(Pages 14-19), of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan to include a new category(No. 6),Lor ncighborhood parks and reference the Open Space exhibit(No. 8, Page 18)depicting the location of the neighborhood park. The proposed code amendment is to designate a site for the exclusive use as a neighborhood park. No Park development is proposed at this time. Location: The property is centrally located in the Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection,generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards St., Goldenwest St., Ellis Ave., and Garfield Ave. Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item# 1 would not have any significant environmental effect and that a negative declaration is warranted. The environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. 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 the City Clerk's Office after June 15, 1995. 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 Planning Division at 536-5271 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 (cclg06191) —C Council/Agency Meeting Held: 03 AN- b'l, Deferred/Continued to: Approved O Conditionally Approved 0 Denied jm�Q Ci Clerk' Aignature I 1 Council Meeting Date: March 4, 2002 Department ID Number: CA 02-07 C�N4TMVX-D To 0 4\-OIL S- - I ; ,,A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04-ON 0 2 CPS-,NV,�U REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ,) -T -To oy-1s - 2 rn�1N4 9-2-1 ��l�e � � C"1- A'(3 011-- Is--a' ��� om No. is4i VC�k aA af K63M-K'acw-ieb; NA*gjtu-A85T.'1 N) 5p.<k�eb SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS '"a'"' ^"�'_t Pf*-e' V3 SUBMITTED BY: GAIL HUTTON, CityAttorne� PREPARED BY: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney �-I �T ,a Zoning Text Amendment No. 02-03 SUBJECT: Implementation of Settlement and Release Agreement between..=- Brindle/Thomas and the City of Huntington Beach regard in�th(i:" er �D ' �' of Brindle, et al v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. OCSC #1- 50203 Fstatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Stati+s,A_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 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 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. (j l� 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): NumberCity Clerk's Page Description1. 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 WRCA\2002\brindle.doc -2- 2/25IO2 4:36 PM (15) April 15, 2002 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 15 nl 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 411/02 -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 Zoning 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 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 v6thin 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. Aayvor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: dmw,G ��� City Clerk e4-27-°Z C ty t orneyd REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATE AND APPROVED: City Admillstrator Director of Planning 2 PDA:2002 ordinances:repeal ordinance 3287 Connie Brockway,City Clerk ..._��.,,- _ „. „ City of Huntington Beach i71� Office of the City Clerk r" s R T P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 f U L 11:.: E 'Pi L 110-2-170-11 Ruth L^ n ,rpHTINGtOy 2219 Gree fvc5!�. t `O�_,tlGURi�N,tFO Z9Fe Santa Ana IM C.' _ U N D E IVE F,4,E iE r.� �::SSED PIPED : . . • �V `fB�7.1Z. 909. NTY Cad` PUBLIC HEARING LEGAL NOTICE _ Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk a' us��;r 7;E! P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,ac 14� t r t 159-392-16 Huntington Beach Estates Tp 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave. pHTING Hawthorne CA 90250 h� =NCOP POR47F0 NTLE PUBLIC HEARING 'W IlI II I1IiII II I1 11 II II IIII I '_ " ._.._.. _.-- -- - --_ '-- __._.'-- - -- - `-. .._..�- __•.-_-t',�aft."-.-;:'^._. .: ,. .... .-- �-:'.�.^rr;.-.4'.."'=^'r:�_c_._.. .._-... ._.. .:.-^.r_.:.�3"sT'Ft7i�14^A'L'"t_ :': _ =''._ Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 a e r� "! y 5 -; ,;,,,� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RpF��lFSyF0. - - 110-210-07 INGTpy Spelts Elizabeth Adm of Q� =NCOR PRR47F� �J/ nut St . = sta Me a CA 92627 SPEL471 926274001 IN 06/12/95 RETURN TO SENDER 9 �" Z NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER 17. cpUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - oil Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach t d�� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 "- r t.r it a ;'..,:1 r ^4Ic �'•/,fiJ �'rign �' 110-222-06 Leland C. Fuller 10011-baffodil Dr. Lebanon PA 17042 ` �NTING Tpyd FULL001 170422006 IN 06/13/95 RETURN TO SENDER G9 Q NOS+FUNABLE TTODFER ORWARDON FILE o OQQ RETURN TO SENDERI Its. _ cFcppNTY. LEGAL NOTICE - PUBL Y 40 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk �`�� ! `�� P.O.Box 190 - 4r j°, r j Huntington Beach,CA 92648 s s., U i. 159-392-13 Huntington Beach Estates INGTpy� 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave . Of \N�UeFU74rF F Hawthorne CA 90250 _ .r �� °uNTYI PUBLfHEARING ' E Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �. Office of the City Clerk �' t ' '-�° = �C• ' ��t P.O. BOX 190 M�v -�,_ .- , < : .„ J 1 9 �5 Huntington Beach,CA 92648Ne Jeff p e y for g.. f' a : A tGJ(C„ U%tK r r 159-393-03 Fred W. Gooding P.O. Box 5255 �NTINGTp Chula Vista CA 91912 o .- �puNTv LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING II I, Il1,IP9li„i,IJI,3,I,t1i �I,f, iIII fill If11111 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach iceT",, _...,..�.-. �.,.. a ..L.�. .,.. . .�.. ;: �,r" �;_, •_::;,_.:_ ,.._�_ Office of the City Clerk ;�. • �� ,a ���,, �� �� r _- s-a:. ;. F-. •7 P.O. BOX 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t - A g ^' q yJ =, 159-393-14 H. A. Est Lang P.O. Box 5255 NTINGTOy� Chula Vista CA 91912 O� =NCORPORgrF F ' 7999.P <- cppNTY cps - LFGAL_ NOTICF - P1 JR1 IC HFARINA i Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach s, �'y r, ��;'',"• i`� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 °'":j ' f.'L ' ` 1`i w ' `� (! Catherine Stipe,Environmental 9 Board Chairman 16391 Fairway Lane ' I NGTpy�F C�3 'gin NTY CPS\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING --... - _.+. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach r' @.Q ? Office of the City Clerk s ec"-,;l`=� �I V P.O. Box 190 _ .r._ . •., J'J d 9 b F Huntington Beach,CA 92648 v";? Y EA It.A Zt 159-392-14 untincrton Beach Estat s 1 INGTpy� H- _ J - - Polak- ru uNTY L E"PUBLIC HEARING Council/Agency Meeting Held: MPSAff Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 6/19/95 Department ID Number: CD 95-029 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrate PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALCON, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92- 39 (ELLIS-GOLDEN WEST PARK SITE) D � ���Qi 2 7.s Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) "Vele Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Code Amendment No. 93- 1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 a request to amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend Section III, Community Theme (Page 14), by including a new category (No. 6) for Neighborhood Parks within the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. The new category will allow the establishment of a minimum four acre neighborhood park, include a legal description of the proposed site, and reference the Open Space Exhibit (No. 8, Page 18). The proposed code amendment is to designate a site for the exclusive use as a neighborhood park. No park development is proposed at this time. Funding Source: Not applicable at this time. Future funding sources will be necessary to address land acquisition costs, remediation costs, and park development costs. An in-house prepared fiscal analysis is attached (No. 6) for Council's review. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 92-39", and 2. "Approve Code Amendment No. 93-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission for Site "A' by adopting Ordinance No. .' a S 7 based on findings as outlined in Attachment No. 1". Alternative Action(s): The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Deny Code Amendment No. 93-1 as proposed; or REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-029 2. Approve Code Amendment No. 93-1 for alternative Site "D" with findings; or 3. Direct staff to further analyze alternative park site locations. Analysis: Project Proposal The code amendment will amend Section III, Community Theme (Page 14), by including a new category (No. 6) for Neighborhood Parks within the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. The new category will allow the establishment of a minimum four acre neighborhood park, include a legal description of the proposed site, and reference the Open Space exhibit (No. 8, Page 18). No park development is proposed at this time. At the May 9, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the four potential park sites in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection. After public testimony and deliberation, the Commission recommended Site "A" to the City Council as a future neighborhood park. The review focused on 4, five acre sites in the Quartersection (see Area Map/Attachment No. 2). The Community Services Department also prepared an analysis of the locations and presented the analysis to the Community Services Commission on April 12, 1995. As part of the analysis, the Land Use and Recreation Element's goals and policies were used along with the minimum four acre size criteria established in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. The Community Services Commission also recommends Site "A," the centrally located site to the City Council (see Attachment No. 7). History On May 21, 1984, the City Council adopted a Recreation Element to the City's General Plan. The Element identified goals and policies for providing recreational opportunities for the City of Huntington Beach. The Element identifies those quartersections which are not within the neighborhood park service radius. The Ellis-Golden West Quartersection is one of the areas not served by a neighborhood park. To address this deficiency, the Element identified the need for a neighborhood park by designating a neighborhood park in the Quartersection. The Element provides the specific goals and policies for the establishment of neighborhood parks. On July 5, 1989, the City Council adopted the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP) for the purpose of implementing the Estate Residential general plan land use designation within the Quartersection. The specific plan permits estate residential (single family detached residences) on large lots with sensitivity towards the existing topography and provide equestrian amenities. The specific plan also permits the establishment of a three to five acre neighborhood park subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. However, the plan does not identify the location for the neighborhood park. CD95-029.DOC -2- 06/01/95 9:33 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-029 On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly/Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 89-1) which established a comprehensive land use plan for the 768 acres of primarily undeveloped land in central Huntington Beach. The plan included an Open Space Element which identified the need for neighborhood parks within the Master Plan area. The plan established four parks, minimum four acres, within the Master Plan area. One of the proposed parks is within the EGSP area. On June 17, 1991, the City Council received a report which analyzed and identified locations for a proposed park within the EGSP area. The report analyzed three locations. The City Council directed staff to initiate the proper amendments to designate Alternative A, the centrally located site for park purposes. Park Site Analysis The following is a brief planning analysis of the four sites: SITE "A" This five acre site is located in the center of the Quartersection and is recommended as the future park site by the Community Services Commission. The site has a relatively flat terrain with access from both the future Saddleback Lane (local street) and future equestrian trails. Even with the street bisecting the five acres, the park site would yield the minimum four acres for park purposes based upon an analysis by the Community Services Department. One concern expressed with the future street bisecting the park is safety to the residents. This concern should be mitigated by the provision of fenced trails on both sides of the street. This will separate the park from the street. The bisected park however does provide the opportunity to separate an equestrian amenity from the remainder of the park. This amenity has been proposed by some of the equestrian residents of the area for future consideration. One of the major constraints to the site is the existence of two, active oil wells. The Community Services Department has conceptually designed the park around the wells. The design will also provide access to the wells and provide protective fencing. The other constraint to this site is the acquisition of the land for park purposes. The site consists of numerous encyclopedia lots with fragmented ownership. The city will most likely have to condemn the properties to pursue ownership. This will be a costly and lengthy process. CD95-029.DOC -3- 06/01/95 9:33 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-029 SITES "B" AND "C' Both of these five acre sites are not recommended as possible park sites based upon the analysis presented in Attachment No. 7. Staff concurs with the recommendation. Even though both sites yield five acres, both are identified as open space corridors in the Ellis Golden West Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would not allow residential development due to topographical constraints, open space requirements and drainage concerns. The Specific Plan indicates that the corridors shall be limited to recreational trails and designated drainage areas for the Quartersection. The corridors are part of the existing swales which were part of the area before development occurred. The swales have topography constraints which limits useable park area. Both locations consist of numerous encyclopedia lots and are under fragmented ownership patterns. The city will have to condemn the properties to pursue ownership. This land acquisition process will be costly and lengthy. SITE "D" This relatively flat five acre site is located along Garfield Ave. and adjacent to the future Saddleback School site. The site was not originally analyzed in 1991 because of its location and future consideration for residential development. The potential for park purposes is considered now because of the location of the future school. The open space criteria in the Land Use Element (see Attachment No. 6) recommends the location of a park adjacent to a school whenever possible. Typically, a neighborhood park is not situated adjacent a major arterial highway such as Garfield Ave. The arterial highway location presents safety concerns. In addition, parking is not allowed along Garfield Ave. which would reduce access and safety concerns. Safety concerns can be addressed and mitigated through design. Access is provided from an interior local street and by a local street from Edwards Street. Trail access would also be provided. Another point of access could be through the school itself. This would allow additional access from the Quartersection. The location adjacent to the school would allow the park and school to share amenities and possibly expand their playing fields. The Fire Department has indicated a need for a future fire station to serve the area. A location under consideration is Site "D". The location is not identified in the existing Community Facilities Element of the General Plan nor has the location been formally recommended as part of any future Community Facilities Element. The location is only a consideration at this time. The Fire Department has indicated that a fire station would require a minimum of one and one-half acres of land. This would yield Site "D" only a three and one-half acre park site. This would not meet the minimum four acre size criteria established by the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. Without the fire station, the site would meet the minimum four acre size criteria. CD95-029.DOC -4- 06/01/95 9:33 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-029 The site does have six inactive oil wells on site. Only three of the wells have been abandoned as of this date. Any future development for residential, park, or fire station purposes would require the abandonment of the three inactive wells. This five acre site consists of one parcel of land where the other three sites (A, B, C) consist of numerous encyclopedia lots and fragmented ownership patterns. The parcel is owned by a trust consisting of approximately 200 members. Land acquisition would be costly and lengthy, but negotiations would be with only one entity (trust). SUMMARY: Staff believes both Site "A" and Site "D" have merit for future park purposes. Sites "B" and "C" should not be considered because of topographical constraints, drainage use, and open space corridor requirements. However, based upon staffs analysis, public testimony, and Planning Commission deliberation and direction, staff believes that Site "A" is the most conducive site for a neighborhood park from a land use analysis. This is based on it's size, terrain, and location. Staff, in its final analysis of the proposed code amendment, believes that Site "A" can adequately accommodate a neighborhood park site. The central location of Site "A" will serve the neighborhood and Quartersection and provide the amenities of a neighborhood park. The conclusion is based upon the following findings: Site "A" as a neighborhood park site meets the minimum size criteria. Site "A" has a relatively flat terrain necessary for a neighborhood park. Site "A" will be accessed by a local public street. The proposed code amendment to designate Site "A" will provide recreational needs for the immediate residents and the community. The proposed code amendment to designate Site "A" is consistent with the Holly/Seacliff Master Plan. The proposed code amendment to designate Site "A" is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed code amendment is covered by Negative Declaration No. 92-39. Prior to any action on Code Amendment No. 93-1, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 92-39. CD95-029.DOC -5- 06/01/95 9:33 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/95 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-029 r MTU:MSF:HZ: Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number 1. Findings for Approval 2. Area Map 3. Ordinance No. 4. Legislative Draft 5. Open Space Corridors, Trails System, and Neighborhood Park Exhibit 6. Fiscal Analysis for Code Amendment No. 93-1 7. Park Analysis Memo from Ron Hagan dated April 19, 1995 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 9, 1995 CD95-029.DOC -6- 06/01/95 9:33 AM ORDINANCE NO. 3287 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 WHEREAS, on July 5, 1989, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan; and The 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 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; 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 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 map 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 r Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerkar°r �1�'-5'S -►'.sZ- z/i�/�s REVIEW AND APPRO D: INITIATED AND APPROVED: FvAdministrator Director of Communi Development 2 G:Ord:Code93-1\2/16/9 5 SLATER AVE. w J � PROJECT p Q w LOCATION z TALBERT AVE. co z N w cr in ELLIS co CD AVE. C� CO y GARFIE S� V -- � N cn o YORKTOWN y, w z ADAMS 'Py'LN z0 CD ' z �P :DD VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A N.T.S. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sheet 1 of 2 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 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 63 64 65 EXHIBIT A N.T.S. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sheet 2 Of 2 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. 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 adiourned 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/kw/indexes/ordbkpg 7/6/95 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ,,pp TO: Honorable Mayor Leipzig and RECEIVED FROM C AND MADE, PART UF THE RE OR T Members of the City Council THE COUNCIL MEETING OF �.- 5 s ICE OF FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney C FFIe RO THE CITY CITY-CLERK K DATE: June 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Amendment Agenda Item D-2 City Council Meeting of June 19, 995 1. Back around. We have received correspondence from the attorneys for John Thomas and Ron Brindle regarding the proposed designation of a park in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. (copies attached.)Thomas/Brindle own several lots in the area labeled Site"A." Their attorneys have argued two basic legal points: 1)that the proposed code amendment will give rise to an inverse condemnation lawsuit by Thomas/Brindle; and 2)the proposed code amendment is being considered only to lower the value of the property in anticipation of acquisition by the city. This memo is our preliminary response to these legal issues. 2. Regulatory takingt heory. Normally, damages for inverse will not be found merely because the City applies a particular zoning designation to a piece of property. This type of inverse is called a"regulatory taking." The usual context is that the City adopts a zoning regulation that limits the uses allowed on the property. If the regulation denies the owner all economically viable use of his land, a taking has occurred. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council(1992) 120 L.Ed. 2d 798.) In the well known"Whitehole" matter in the city, we have previously determined that the proposed zoning did not work a regulatory taking because some private, economically viable uses were theoretically available to the property owner. The current facts are different from that situation, because the area is not being zoned"coastal conservation" or some other designations such as hiking, nature study, aqua culture and oil production. Here, the City Council wants to designate a site for a public park in the middle of property zoned estate residential. Depending on the site, this designation appears to exclude all other private uses. Thus, no matter which site is designated, an inverse condemnation lawsuit may arise. As to the proposed site"A," the current oil production will have to be treated as a prior non-conforming use. The current park design for Site"A" shows that the existing oil production use will be allowed to continue even after the site is acquired and the park is built. This fact is helpful to the city because it demonstrates that some economic use has been reserved to the particular property owner of the oil producing lots. G*Thompark\6/19/95 \ ' Mayor and Council Members June 19, 1995 Page 2 3. Down-zoning prior to acquisition. The property owners' other argument is that the city is intentionally down-zoning the site to lower its value in anticipation of acquiring it. Such down-zoning is an impermissible use of the police power. However,we are informed that the city has no present intent to acquire any site due to lack of funds; and that it would probably be several years at minimum before sufficient funds are accumulated. This lack of present intent to acquire the property shows that the city is not designating the park site merely to lower its fair market value. We cannot guarantee, however, that the park designation will be the controlling zoning designation for purposes of valuation, should the issue ever come to trial. It could be determined at that time that it should be valued as estate residential. 4. Emerging area of law. This is an area of law with new cases being decided almost weekly. We have tried to adequately address these important issues in this preliminary reponse. We would appreciate the opportunity to provide a definitive legal opinion, if the City Council so desires. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services G:4:Thompark\6/19/9 S LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603,J MAIN { STREET [=j�N J, 44� JJ�� T�N� d�ANGELO J. PALMIERI' CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT JL1i4 �!�EA{gJ Sy�1 R UITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON* JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CA 92713-9712 ALAN H,WIENER' MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO - IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 927WG228 ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J.VOTAW _~°-1- '-I Y 1351-9400 JAMES E.WILHELM* NORMAN J. RODICH ��i Y Mr rile s_ WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER' GARY C.WEISBERG �!'` vF DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J. GREENE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER ii t l' _ FRANK C. ROTHROCK' MICHALE D. MURPHX (1 i k�t FF f t DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R.CARPENTER 851-7294 DAVID D. PARR' RICHARD A. SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER' DOUGLAS M.STEVENS TELECOPIER (714) 851-1554 GEORGE A WALL O.SUSAN WIENS June 8, 1995 (714) 851-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE (7141 757-122S PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CYNTHIA S. PAULSEN (714) 851-2351 DON FISHER SEAN P. WCONNOR GREGORY N.WEILER SUSAN T.SAKURA WARREN A.WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S, GALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. 'A/ROMSSIONAL COR/ORAVON 1 6 1 9 3-0 1 3 VIA FAX (714) 374-1590 AND MAIL Gail Hutton, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date : January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Dear Ms. Hutton: This firm represents John and Linda Thomas, and Ron and Ann Brindle (collectively "Brindle/Thomas") . In addition, this firm represents the Defendants in the City of Huntington Beach v. Patte Main, etc. , et al. , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 72 01 62. Brindle/Thomas owns the oil lease covering all of the lots sought to be impacted by Park Site A. Brindle/Thomas also own the majority of the five acre site ("Site A") in fee. The Brindle's own the easterly property occupied by the business American Landscape Supply, which is also occupied by oil production. The Thomas's own constructively continuous acreage easterly across Goldenwest Street. City Staff has informed Brindle/Thomas that it has no more than $200, 000. 00 budgeted for the acquisition of this park site. The property owners have provided the City with a preliminary estimate of the City's acquisition costs to be several million dollars. City Staff has also indicated that the City has no foreseeable ability to fund the acquisition of the property. The City has sought to impose the park zoning to prevent development PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON Gail Hutton, Esq. June 8, 1995 Page 2 and use of the Brindle/Thomas Site A property. Further, there has been several years of precondemnation activity which has included the City's study of this site and the exploration of means to acquire this property. The present ordinance's open space zoning district changing the density from residential dwellings is only for the purpose of reducing the acquisition price in a subsequent City acquisition or condemnation proceeding. Therefore, to avoid liability for inverse condemnation, the City must agree that for the City's valuation purposes, the property must be valued based upon the zoning and planning standards in place before adoption of the present ordinance. On a related issue, Brindle/Thomas is concerned that the City has not made clear that the City undertakes all responsibility and agrees to indemnify Brindle/Thomas for any claim brought against Brindle/Thomas based upon its operations of oil production on the Site A neighborhood park. Very t my yours, Michael ei er MHL:pjr cc: Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Mr. and Mrs. Brindle Mr. Dick Harlow F:\DOMAIN\888\16193013\CITY6.LTR 06/08/95 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS tt! L260A P `' STREET R Ill ! ANGELO J. PALMIERI' CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON• JOEL P. KEW _ �; IRVINE. CA 9 2 713-9 712 ALAN H.WIENER* MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO •t �__If11(Ifl$yCALIFORNIA $2714ff228 ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J. VOTAW v{=`" yt r00F. 851-9400 JAMES E.WILHELM• NORMAN J. RODICH t.�-; ^r. WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER' GARY C. WEISBERG ,t . . n r A Ii�+ DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J. GREENER MICHAEL H. LEIFER �j{� l; -I" FRANK C. ROTHROCK' MICHELE D. MURPHY DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R. CARPENTER 851-7294 DAVID D. PARR* RICHARD A. SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER* DOUGLAS M.STEVENS TELECOPIER(714) 851-1554 GEORGE J.WALL D. SUSAN WIENS (714) 651-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE April 18 , 1995 (714) 757-122S PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN (714) 851-2351 DON FISHER SEAN P. O'CONNOR GREGORY N.WEILER SU AN T. SAKURA WARREN A.WILLIAMS TIM THY S. GALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER RO YN DIMINO BRUCE W. OANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. 'A PROFESSIONAL CON►ORATION 16193-013 Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter section Dear Mr. D'Alessandro: This is to confirm that at my request you researched whether Mr. Hagan had obtained and read from a written opinion letter from the City- Attorney's office regarding the park site selection matter. Pursuant to your investigation, Mr. Hagan was not reading a letter written by the City Attorney's office concerning the matter. Very truly yours, Michael It,//Le i f er MHL:pjr F:\DOMAIN\888\16193005\D'ALESSI.LTR 04/18/95 SET , BY TALMIERI,TYLER ; 6-15-95 ; 18:27 ; ROTHROCK-1 374 15404 2/ 4 LAW orFICc9 PALMIERI, TYL R, WIrNEM, WILTiEL.M & WALDRON A rAXT1 cn]HIF INCLUDING r119rS931ONAL.CORPORATIONS 2e03 MAIN STREET AN(FIA.I, PAI,MIrPI* [..YNYNIA M WC)I�-.nTT AST TnWF,.R • SIJITF 1300 P. O. Fa0x Ig712 ROBERT F. WALDRON• JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9 2714-6 2 26 IRVINE, CA 0271-3-0712 AI AN M. WIFNrP' MIAHFI I F m fI1;11MOTA ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J. VOTAW (714) 831-Q400 jAmrA r WI114r.IM6 NORMAN,I. RAnI[`M WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER* GARY C. WEISBERG DIAL. NUMVER MIC,NAr,I .1. RRrr Nr% MI[t.NArl, N I rIFFP FRANK C. ROTHRDCK• MICHELE D. MURPHY D C ^(] hFNNIc W. GWANI 8C6TT R. CARPFNTFR 851-/'7 294 DAVID D. PARR" RICHARD A. SALU5 CHAR4F5 H. KANTER4 DOUGLAS M. STEVENS +� TELECOPIER 1714) aSi-ISS4 T OEOROE J,WALL D, SUSAN WIENS June 15, .1.995 (7141 831-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE 1714) 7$7-182G PATRICK A. Hr.NNESS2Y CYNTHIA 9, PAULSRN 1714) 851-23SI DON FISHER SCAN P. O'CONNOR GREGORY N, WEILER SUSAN T. SAKURA WARReN A. WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. OALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO SRUCE W. DANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. 'A rNV11881VNAl CONrOM.1-0N 16193-013 VIA FAX 1 7 - 71 City of Huntington Beach Attn: Mayor Members of the City Council Re: Coda Amendma t No. 93--1/Negatiae Daolaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location : Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: We have been info med that our letter of June 8 , 1995, to the city Attorney, was omitted from your agenda package. Attached for your review and consideration is a copy of that letter. Please consider that my clients intend to take appropriate further action if Site A is rezoned for future City acquisition. Very truly yours r n Mic el - =1 -< MHL:pjr cr) ;Z;o Attachment ;r c_r-1 SE J BY�PALMIERI,TYLER ; E-15-93 18:27 ROTHROCK--� 374 15404 3/ 4 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYL A, WIENER, 'WILHELM & WALDRON A PART 49PSHIP INCLUOING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Z1503 MAIN STRE9T ANGELO J.PALMICR1* CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT AST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O, BOX 19712 ROBERT F. WALORON* JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92 714-6 2 2 8 IRVINE, CA 92713-EP?Ia ALAN H.WIENER' MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO ROBERT C. IHRKE• ELINOR A VOTAW (7141 851-0400 JAMES E. WILHELM• NORMAN J. ROOICH WRITERS DIRECT DENNIS Q, TYLER' QARY C,WEfSBERQ OIAI NVMt7tR MICHAEL J. GREENE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER PRANK C. ROTHROCK" MICHELE D, MURPHY 851-7294 OENN19 W. GHAN* SCOTT R, CARPENTER OAVIO D. PARR' RICHARD A.SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER' DOUGLAS M. STEVENS TELECOPIER (7141 $51-ISS4 GEORGE J.WALL D. SUSAN WIENS June $, 1995 1714) 861-34344 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE 1714) 787.1215 PATRICK A. HENNESSCY CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN 1714) $5I-2351 DON FISHER SCAN P. O'CONNOR GREGORY N,WEILER SUSAN T. SAKURA WARREN A.WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GA.UUHA JOHN R. LISTEA ROBYN OIMINO BRUCE W.pANNEMEY RePtA TO FILE NO. JLR i y ...6PEASIONAI cOnronATMN 16193_013 VI 374-1590 Gail Hutton, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 9 648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter section Dear Ms. Hutton: This firm represents John and Linda Thomas, and Ron and Ann Brindle (collectively "Brindle/Thomas") . In addition, this firm represents the Defendants in the City of Huntington_ Beach v. Patte Main etc. . et al , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 72 01 62 . Brindle/Thomas owns the oil lease covering all of the lots sought to be impacted by Park Site A. Brindle/Thomas also own the majority of the fivI acre site ("Site A'") in fee. The Brindles own the eastel,ly property occupied by the business American Landscape Supply, which is also occupied by oil production. The Thomas s own constructively continuous acreage easterly across Goldenw st Street. City Staff has inf rmed Brindle/Thomas that it has no more than $200, 000. 00 budget d for the acquisition of this park site. The property owners hav provided the City with a preliminary estimate of the City's cquisition costs to be several million dollars. City Staff has also indicated that the City has no foreseeable ability to fund the acquisition of the property. The City has sought to impose the park zoning to prevent development SENT BY:PALM I ER I,TYLER ; 6-15-05 ; 18:27 ; ROTHROCK-j 374 13404 V 4 w PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHEL &WALDRON Gail Hutton, Esq; June 8, 1995 Page 2 and use of the Brindle/Thomas site A property. Further, there has been several years of precondemnation activity which has included the City's st dy of this site and the exploration of means to acquire this property. The present ordinance's open space zoning' district --hanging the density from residential dwellings is only for the purpose of reducing the acquisition price in a subsequent 2ity acquisition or condemnation proceeding. Therefore, to avo d liability for inverse condemnation, the City must agree that for the City's valuation purposes, the property must be valued based upon the zoning and planning standards in place before adoption of the present ordinance. on a related issu , Brindle/Thomas is concerned that the City has not made clea that the City undertakes all responsibility and agrees to indemnify Brindle/Thomas for any claim brought against rindle/Thomas based upon its operations of oil production on the Site A neighborhood park. Very t my yours, c . Michael , ei or MHL:pjr cc: Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Mr. and Mrs. Brindle Mr. Dick Harlow F-.W0MA1N\888\16143013\CITY6ATR O6/OS/95 J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 7. HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner, Community Development FROM: Jim B. Engle, Deputy Director, Community Service DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST QUARTER SECTION COST ESTIMATE As I indicated in my memo on June 1, I had included all of the costs except for the proposed extension of Saddleback Lane through the park. Doug Kato, Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works, indicates that the cost for the road will be $102,246. He indicates that this does not include cost of the horse trail, but the number I gave you for park development would be able to absorb the cost of the horse trail. If you have any other questions regarding this matter, please call me. JBE:as Attachment • 6/5/95 Filename:#12461V1-Qua rterhorse/Saddleback Park Within park boundary No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Extended Price Amount 1 Excavation 1435 CY $12 $17,220 2 AC 697 Ton $27 $18,819 3 AB 2092 Ton $11 $23,012 4 C&G 1250 LF $13 $16,250 Subtotal $75,301 Contingency @ 20% $15,060 Total $90,361 Outside park boundary No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Extended Price Amount 1 Excavation 152 CY $12 $1,824 2 AC 74 Ton $27 $1,998 3 AB 222 Ton $11 $2,442 4 C&G 280 LF $13 $3,640 Subtotal $9,904 Contingency @ 20% $1,981 Total $11,885 Grand total $102,246 SUBJECTHE3 r� RV DATE ,/je�CC NO. Mrrn.ciom•tad I F 1 / I � � b 5 o � � CHKD.BY DATE SHEET NO. OF SUBJECol BY 77!r DATE 2 CC NO. HUWPOOM Btu ea l� .771/ Z�,a•�o � CHKD.BY DATE SHEET NO. OF SUBJECT HE3 BY DATE CC NO. HUNTWGION KACM let If CHKD.BY DATE SHEET NO. OF luCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jim Engle, Community Services FROM: Paul S. Larkin, Real Estate Agen �- DATE: May 23, 1995 SUBJECT: Estimated Cost Analysis for Total Acquisition - Tract 306 66 Parcels 30 owned by Brindle/Thomas 8 owned by the City of Huntington Beach 28 owned by 19 separate owners Title Litigation Guarantees $23,000 Appraisal $15,000 Escrow& Title $40,000 *Purchase Price $1.4 Million± Legal Costs $250,000 - 300,000± Total $1,728,000 - $1,778,000 * Lots selling currently for $15,000 to $18,000. Estimate based on $20,000 per lot. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan by proposing to designate Site "A" for a minimum four acre neighborhood park is consistent with the City's General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies regarding open space and conservation, recreation, circulation, land use, and community facilities. 2. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element by encouraging beautification of oil-producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil land, and maximizing the outdoor and environmental potential of the city by providing comprehensive , coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of the community. 3. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Recreation Element by providing an adequate neighborhood recreation facility that is a minimum four acres in size, centrally located within a neighborhood and will serve an area within a quarter mile radius. 4. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Circulation Element by providing adequate transportation improvements and access to a future neighborhood park by means of a future local (public) street. 5. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element by capitalizing on the outdoor and environmental potential of the city and by insuring that adequate open space is provided in all residential areas of the city. 6. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Community Facilities Element by coordinating park development with the provisions of community facilities. Attachment-6/19/95 (cd95-029) ATTACHMENT 2 ------,-------- ,..K ELLIS - GOLDENWESI QUARTER SECTION Da-118IT TA r 1bn7 To Ci ran lase I It FT m ler I i lit Fit" cr nrnLD Lij i ' ' I i f.��cv�ao�t.���►�¢.IG. t>r E7 nlrr I141 l - i r i i 1 T7T�^� I 714 TaatT I �� CT 7 7��l_ I � LUJ � ( TaACT 1401,41 V 7 ( II I r REVISIONS REFERENCES O 1 THE _ PLANNING EXHIBIT FOR KEMI ELLIS/GOLDENWEST 1/4 SECTION ootilrwlt� -- ,...___ .-X-* wool F N ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPEClr i%: PLAN LEGISLATIVE DRAFT The setback easement area shall be privately owned and maintained. All fencing within the landscaped setback area shall conform to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. C. Rights-of-Way for Internal Collector Streets. The internal collector streets shall include an area which can serve as a trail link for / development projects which do not have direct access to the public Open Space Corridor and can also serve as an emergency parking area. d. Interim Barrier: An interim barrier shall be placed at the location depicted in Exhibit 6 subject to the requirements of the Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Development Departments. At such time as the internal collector street is fully improved, a determination to retain the barrier shall be made. All property owners within the 160 acre quarter section shall be notified in a timely manner prior to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 3. Private Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accordance with the conceptual design standards for residential streets depicted in Exhibit 7. All streets shall be curvilinear if feasible and shall contain a five (5) foot wide pedestrian easement adjacent to the curb. 4. General. Recreational circulation shall conform to the Orange County Master Plan for bikeways/trails. III. C. COMMUNITY THEME 1. Open Space Corridors Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit S. Development within Open Space Corridors shall be limited to recreational trails with appropriate fencing and public works facilities and utilities. The open space corridors have been designated as primary components of the overall drainage system in the quartersection. The Open Space Corridors shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Corridors shall be held as common open space by homeowner associations. The open space corridors shall generally be delineated by those areas below the fifty (50) foot contour. The precise dimensions and location of the Open Space Corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Departments of Community Development and Public Works.The corridor shall include a minimum easement dedication of sixteen (16) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail. The equestrian/ recreational trail shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any habitable floor area. 2. Common Areas Common open space and private streets shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant running with the land describing the open space and its maintenance and improvement for the benefit of residents of the development. Prior to recordation the developer shall file with the Department of Community Development, with the final subdivision map, all legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common / spaces for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights in common areas to the City. All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be completed by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. All lands to be conveyed to the homeowner's association and/or the City shall be subject to the right of the grantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and improvements of the common space and public trails easement. 3. Landscaping- Landscaping shall meet the following requirements: Landscaping shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. All setback areas fronting on or visible from a street shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. Such landscaping shall consist primarily of ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other living plants. Plant materials shall be drought resistant. b. Decorative design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculpture, planters and similar elements may be permitted provided such elements are incorporated as a part of the landscaping plan. C. Permanent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. d. On-site trees shall be provided as follows: one (1) thirty-six (36) inch box tree for each residential unit or the equivalent of thirty-six (36) inch box trees as provided herein. Seventy-five (75) percent of the total requirement shall be thirty-six (36) inch box trees and the remaining 25 percent of such requirement may be provided at a ratio of one (1) inch for one (1) inch through the use of twenty-four (24) inch box trees. Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well-balanced landscaped development. e. A distinctive landscape area shall be provided at the corners of arterials for enhanced landscape treatment subject to the requirements of the Design Guidelines. The area shall be greater than the general 25 foot perimeter setback and the perimeter fence shall have a 45 degree angle at the corner. (0825D) 4. Fences, Walls and Hedges Fences and walls shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. Front ,yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms shall not exceed three and one-half(3-1/2) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback area provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. Fencing is not permitted within five (5) feet from back of curb. b. Side and Rear Yard Fences. The use of solid fencing including wood, poured concrete, concrete block, brick fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located on the required side or rear yard property lines. Wrought iron or other similar type of see-through fencing may be used in conjunction with swimming pool areas, subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development. C. Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the nearest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by measuring 25 feet from the intersection of the front and exterior side property lines. Trees trimmed free of branches or foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven (7) feet are exempt from the above prohibition. d. Heipht Measurement of Fence or Wall. The height of a fence shall be as defined in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. Equestrian Trails A minimum sixteen (16) feet in width public equestrian/recreation trail easement shall be dedicated to the City for a public equestrian/recreation trail. All developments must provide trail access to the open space corridor or primary equestrian/recreation trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development and shall be in conformance with Exhibit 8. Equestrian trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet. Trail tread area shall be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstructions from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. 0825D) 7) 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. Neighborhood 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 OF 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. (0825D) ATTACHMENT 5 1 FI.LIS AVENUE L ,�Itlltit11U1tt111fU t1/ttltlt Uttlttlt11t11U1t111- - rl - ItIt111ti1 I �-- tll iTfYill 11/tlt .. SiJwLIJ LLJ [:. -'-_La_ - :'':'•ice • -f VJ WLLI cc w N I z 1�♦ 11 `. W �- ,' R K•r hr��� �'O W —- -- - --�_ , r- 111111/IIIItt11tt111/1 i 1111111111/ IIttllitltt ttltt IItt1 tt111t1/71 IIIIt1111f1111tt11 1111 11/It111111ttIt 1 T' GARFIELD AVENUE V Neighborhood Park ;; ;' Open Space 111 t I n t Equestrian Trail OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS, TRAIL SYSTEMS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS EXHIBIT 8 18 ATTACHMENT 6 1 J.J"J& CITY OF HUNTINCTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION.,. '- HUNTINCTON BEACH 19� i TO: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner, Community Development FROM: Jim En eputy Director, Community Services DATE: June 1, 1995 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Per your request, the Fire Department, Administrative Services and Community Services are providing information regarding acquisition, oil concerns and development costs for Site "A" in the Ellis/Golden West quarter section. A summary of the costs is presented below. Attached are the backup reports. ACQUISITION The Real Estate Services Division of Administrative Services indicates that the parcels are selling between $15,000 and $18,000 per parcel. They are estimating acquisition at $20,000 per parcel for a total of$1,400,000. The cost for title litigation guarantees, appraisals, and escrow title will be $78,000. They also estimate legal costs at $250,000 to $300,000. The overall total for acquisition will be $1,728,000 to $1,778,000. It should be noted that to proceed with eminent domain requires that total estimated costs for the properties must legally be put into an account as part of the eminent domain proceedings. OIL/SOIL CONCERNS The Petrochem Division of the Fire Department indicates that the cost to reabandon the one abandoned well on the site is estimated to be between $20,000 and $40,000. The two active wells are not included in this abandonment estimate because the current plan is to continue operating those wells and the park has been designed around them to allow the 350 square feet per well, plus access, as specified in the Copeland lease. The cost to reabandon the well and to do soil remediation could fall within a range from $25,000 to $100,000. Mr. Greaves figures "a solid $50,000 as a representative amount to complete this phase of the project." PARK DEVELOPMENT Community Services estimates park development at $80,000 to $100,000 per acre. To develop five acres the cost would be $400,000 to $500,000. Architectural fees will be approximately ten percent (including Americans with Disabilities Act review and design) for an additional $40,000 to $50,000. Therefore, the overall estimated total for development of this site is $440,000 to $550,000. May 31, 1995 Page two NOTE: The issue of the proposed road through a section of the park still has to be evaluated to determine if the road will exist or if the road will cul-de-sac on the north and west sides of the park. I have asked Public Works Engineering Section to provide me with an estimated cost, and I will forward that number as soon as possible. JBE:as xc: Ron Hagan Attachment CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To: Jim Engle, Deputy Director-Beach, Recreation & Development From: Tim Greaves, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: May 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Costs involved in assuring Park Site A is safe for public use Jim: I contacted Merrill E. Wright, our registered geologist and petroleum engineering consultant, and requested an estimate for potential park site cleanup costs. He has visited the sites and been kind enough to provide the following review for Park Site A: 1. Aerial photo investigation for sumps and evidence of former tank farms $900 - 1,525 2. Detailed Phase I parcel investigation $2,500 - 3,000 3. Sampling over the well for combustible gas $400 4. Well Review (1) $250 5. Final Report $1,500 Total $5550 (low) Additional costs for parcel A, the interior park site with one well that needs re-abandonment,adds $20,000-40,000, or more, depending on whether or not there are any abondonment problems. In conclusion, the grand total for providing a clean parksite would be from about $25,000 to between $50,000 and $100,000. The low figure is a perfect abandonment with no hazardous materials found on site, and the high figure represents problem soils and a problem abandonment. I believe that we should figure on a solid $50,000 as a representative amount to complete this phase of the project. Tim ATTACHMENT 7 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission via Melanie Fallon, Director, Community Development FROM: Ron Hagan, Director, Community Servicesk_� r'- DATE: April 19,1995 1 9 1995 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST QUARTER SECTION NEIGHBORHOOD PARK On April 12, 1995, the Community Services Commission reviewed four potential sites for a neighborhood park within the Ellis/Golden West quarter section, and took the following ac- tion: RECOMMENDED ACTION: AFTER REVIEW OF THE FOUR POTENTIAL LOCA- TIONS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WITHIN THE ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST QUARTER SECTION, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOM- MENDS SITE "A," THE CENTRALLY LOCATED SITE, TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. The attached matrix gives an overview of the issues involved in the analysis including loca- tion, access, topography, oil well and acquisition concerns, neighborhood park suitability, and other comments on each of the four five-acre sites. The following is a general overview of the Community Services' staff analysis: SITE "A' Site "A" is located in the center of the quarter section. It has equal access for all residents by roads and trails. It is located diagonally across from Saddleback Lane and the proposed school site. This site was originally selected by City Council as part of an analysis of sites "A," "B" and "C." At the time of that analysis, no school was proposed for the quarter sec- tion. The majority of the site is relatively flat and provides a watershed to the northeast. It is five acres in size and would still exceed four acres if the proposed road were constructed and the two wells stay active. A neighborhood park varies from two to five acres, but City Coun- cil has directed that this park be a minimum of four acres. Per the Copeland lease, there has to be access to each of the two active wells as well as an area 350 square feet around each well; this is accommodated in the conceptual plan. Overall, it would be a better site without the negative factors of the road and wells, but the site has been designed to provide the traditional recreational amenities for a neighborhood park within the four acre sce- nario. April 19, 1995 Page two There are acquisition concerns relative to site "A." City Council originally took action to designate this as the park site on June 17, 1991. Since that time, the city has endeavored through "friendly acquisition" to acquire the sixty-one lots. To date, the city has been suc- cessful in acquiring only eight lots; there are two other lots that have been through litiga- tion and the city also has the option to purchase these lots. After the city began acquisi- tion, a developer became interested in purchasing this property and began acquiring the land for up to $18,000 per lot which is considerably in excess of the appraised value of $10,000. If the city is to be successful in acquisition of the entire site, eminent domain will probably be required. A decision also would have to be made on whether development should move forward while allowing the two wells to remain active (as is proposed for Or- ange County Linear Park) or to endeavor to purchase the rights to these wells so that they could be abandoned. When parks are developed, there are public hearings to determine what recreational amenities the public wants to have included. The majority of public response in the El- lis/Golden West quarter section regarding location of the park has been in favor of site "A." This was a significant factor when the Community Services Commission reviewed the sites. SITE "B" Site "B" is located on the perimeter of the quarter section on Golden West Street. It sits on a major arterial highway that is of concern when designing a park for a specific neighbor- hood. Arterial access is important for community or regional parks; however, a neighbor- hood park is developed to serve the residents within a specific quarter section. Being adja- cent to a major arterial can be more of a deficit due to safety issues. Also, this site does not have the advantage of being centrally located. It is a significant distance away for those residents near Edwards Street. Another disadvantage with site "B" is that additional prop- erty, above and beyond the actual site would have to be purchased in order to provide ac- cess from Saddleback Lane besides by trail. If the adjoining property to the west could not be purchased, residents would have a more difficult time accessing the park. This site also includes a large swale that bisects the entire park. At the most, two acres would be usable park space. This is especially significant when evaluating recreational amenities that would fit on the site, especially open turf area for pick up games and practice sports areas. There are oil wells on the site, but they are inactive and, therefore, do not become a signifi- cant problem as far as reducing the land available for park use. There are sixty-three oil lots, three of which are city-owned. The Specific Plan for the area indicates that this site must remain open space; the goal was to maintain ravines throughout the quarter section. For this reason, the city does not have to purchase this site in order to keep it as open space available to the general public. April 19, 1995 Page three Because of the ravine, this park does not provide as good a site as a flat park. It would be a good location for a natural park with passive open space. Not enough of the site is flat for the traditional recreational amenities designed into a neighborhood park. It should be noted that the developers would be in favor of this site as a neighborhood park because it is not developable for residential because of the conditions of the Specific Plan regarding ra- vines. SITE "C" Site "C" is located off Ellis Avenue on the north side of the quarter section. It is on the perimeter of the quarter section and, therefore, has the same disadvantages as site "B." It does not have street access, but does have trail access. There is a large swale that bisects the park and would limit the neighborhood park usage because only approximately two acres would be relatively flat. A large retaining wall could be built to divide the park into two areas, but again, would limit the recreational amenities possible on the site. Therefore, although it is not an ideal site for a neighborhood park, it is a good site for a natural park with passive open space. All the wells are inactive and there are sixty-two oil lots that make up site "C." The city owns fifteen full lots and twelve half lots. Like site "B," this area is a ravine and, per the Specific Plan, is designated to remain as open space. Therefore, the city does not have to purchase the site to maintain open space for public use. Also, because of the ravine, the site cannot be used for residential development. SITE "D" Site "D" is located on Garfield Avenue on the south side of the quarter section. It is imme- diately west of the proposed school site. It can be accessed via Garfield Avenue or across the school grounds (if the school is developed) to Saddleback Lane. It also has trail access. The entire site is flat. There are six inactive wells, only three are abandoned. The acquisi- tion concern on this site is that it is held in a trust with 200 members. This site could also be developed for residential purposes. Overall, this is a good site for a neighborhood park. It also provides an opportunity for the city and school district to share park and school land to maximize sports fields space. The disadvantage of this site would be the fact that it is not centrally located and the Real Property Division of Administrative Services indicates that the cost to purchase this land would be significantly greater than site "A." A current appraisal of the site and the oil lease and oil wells would have to be made to determine the exact cost of this site versus site "A." A developer did try to purchase this site several years ago. It is the city's understanding that the developer was not successful because the owners in the trust could not come to an agreement to sell the property. It is a valuable site for residential development. April 19, 1995 Page four The Fire Department has indicated that site "D" has been identified as a potential location for a fire station. This would require 1 1/2 acres of the five acre site, which would leave 3 1/2 acres for park purposes. City Council has indicated that a contiguous four acre mini- mum is desired for the neighborhood park in this quarter section. It should be noted that although there is not enough acreage for a neighborhood park, this site would be a valuable asset to the community in conjunction with the school open space for youth sports fields to serve the surrounding area. CONCLUSION Sites "B" and"C" would not meet the traditional neighborhood park criteria with the usual recreational amenities of picnic facilities, tot lots, basketball court, volleyball court and open turf area for pick up games and practice sports areas. These sites would provide ex- cellent natural park space with passive open space. This was the intent when the ravines were identified in the Specific Plan. Sites "A" and "D" provide the topography for a traditional neighborhood park. Site "D" has the advantage of being adjacent to a school site to maximize youth sports field space on the school and park. The disadvantages are that this site is not centrally located and would not be a minimum four acres in size (as directed by City Council) if the Fire Department ac- quires 1.5 acres for a fire station. Site "A" is centrally located and has the best accessibil- ity; but the proposed road and active wells are limitations, although the park would still be a minimum four acres. This is the site that the majority of the quarter section residents desires for a park. Staff and the Community Services Commission have reviewed the matrix regarding the four sites and recommend site "A" as the best overall location for the Ellis/Golden West quarter section neighborhood park. RH:JBE:as Attachment FUIS AVENUE I L t ,,,,11lIII,i111111111„ It1,111„ - ,rrl,1,1111111i„(tt, LJ W to O 11J = ' � Ii • • 1 (tt(,ttttttr r (tilt[ - n tt'ttttttt ,rtttftittttttitztrrZrt tttt,,,tt„t,,,,r, it ttr,tr,titt,ttt(„rlr ` _ T 1 t GIAPFELD AVENUE Open Space ttt(„t, Equestrian Trail Open Space Corridors and Trail System ":.eL 1G0 DEN:WEST:OUARTERSFOTIONPARK'SITE.ANALPSIS :::: :.:.:.::.::..:...::::... ...:.: . : ..:::....::.:.:... SITE5�4'..;;::;: <: ::SITE B .: ;:>:;:. SITE G:: ::.:. ::: SITED. .: LOCATION: Located in center of Located off Golden Located off Ellis Located off Garfield quartersection. West on east side of Avenue on north side Avenue on south side Possible road crossing quartersection. Fronts of quartersection. of quartersection. section of park. This a major highway. Located on perimeter Located adjacent to is the site previously Located on perimeter of quartersection. proposed school site. approved by the City of quartersection not Located on perimeter Council. centrally located to of quartersection. all residents. ACCESS: Equal distance to all Golden West Avenue Ellis Ave.provides Access can be from residents. Accessible provides only access only access. Trails do either Garfield or by roads and trails. unless additional connect all areas of Saddleback from Directly northeast of property is purchased quartersection to site. across the school. proposed school site. that would provide Has trail access on access from two sides. Saddleback Lane. Trail access is provided. TOPOGRAPHY: Majority flat. Water- Large swale bisects Large swale bisects Entire site is flat with shed will be to the entire site. Only two entire site. Only two no swales. northeast. Five acres acres are usable park acres are usable park without road or four space, space,unless a very acres with road,and large retaining wall is two active wells. built to make the park a two-level area. OIL WELL Three wells on site; All wells are inactive. All wells are inactive. All wells are inactive, CONCERNS: two active,and one however,three of the inactive. You can six wells on site are design around wells. not abandoned. Current lease allows 3500 of access around each site. AMQ Site contains 61 oil Site contains 63 oil Site contains 62 oil Site is owned by an CONCERNS: lots. City owns 8 lots. lots. City owns three lots. City owns 15 out-of-state trust A devcioper is trying lots. Specific Plan full lots and 12 one- with 200 members. to buy all lots for a states this area is to half lots. Specific Site will most likely project. City has no remain open space. Plan states this area is require eminent funds to proceed with City does not have to to remain open space. domain to acquire. acquisition. Acqui- purchase this site to City does not have to Site could be sition will most likely keep it as open space. purchase this site to developed residential. require eminent keep it as open space. domain. >_ E 5'G OL** WEST.QtIART ERSECTION'PAR .SITE ANALYSIS .. _....:>:.::_;:::. .::::....: i.... SITE B..:..: SITE SITE D PARK Good site for Not a good site for Not a good site for Good site for a SUITABILITY. neighborhood park. neighborhood park. neighborhood park. neighborhood park to Has location,access, Good site for a Good site for a maximize sports field and developable area natural park with natural park with space. Not centrally for picnic areas,tot passive open space. passive open space. located,but more lot,basketball court, Not enough flat area Not enough flat area easily accessible than volleyball court,and for neighborhood for neighborhood the other perimeter open-turf area for park amenities. park amenities. sites. sports field use. OTHER This is the site wanted Developers favor this Developers favor this Owners do not want COMMENTS: by the majority of site since it cannot be site since it cannot be to sell. Site is a homeowners in the used for residential used for residential valuable site for quartersection. This development. development. residential is also a desirable site development. HB for a residential School District favors development. this site to share facilities. Fire Dept. considering 1.5 acres of this five-acre site for a fire station. This would leave 3.5 acres for park. A neighborhood park must be a minimum of four acres. City could also acquire this site to add to school sports field space,in addition to another site for neighborhood park. 2 (g\11f\psa1) ATTACHMENT 8 Huntington Beach Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) LOCATION: The property is centrally located in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection, generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards and Golden West Streets, Ellis and Garfield Avenues. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 93-I/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis- Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a neighborhood park. The request was continued from the February 28, 1995, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to evaluate alternative locations for the proposed neighborhood park. The Community Services Department has prepared an analysis of the alternative park locations in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The report addresses location, access, topography, oil wells, acquisition concerns, and neighborhood park suitability. The report indicates a recommendation for Site "A," the centrally located site. Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendment for Site "A" or Site"D" because the designation of a neighborhood park on either of these sites will meet the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. In addition, the neighborhood park designation will meet the goals and policies of the Master Plan of Development for the Holly/Seacliffarea as established in General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 adopted January 8, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Code Amendment No. 93-1 for Site"A" or Site "D" based on findings as outlined in Attachment No. 1 and forward to the City Council." PROJECT PROPOSAL: The proposal was continued from the February 28, 1995, Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to analyze additional park locations. The code amendment will amend Section III, Community Theme (Page 14), by including a new category (No. 6) for Neighborhood Parks within the text of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. The new category will allow the establishment of a minimum four acre neighborhood park, include a legal description of the proposed site, and reference the Open Space exhibit (No. 8, Page 18). The ordinance, legal description, and open space exhibit will be modified depending upon a final recommendation by the Planning Commission. No park development is proposed at this time. ANALYSIS: At the February 28, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested further analysis of the alternative park sites within the Quartersection. The analysis focused on 4, five acre sites in the Quartersection (see Area Map/Attachment No. 2). The Community Services Department prepared an analysis of the locations and presented the analysis to the Community Services Commission on April 12, 1995. As part of the analysis, the Land Use and Recreation Element's goals and policies were used along with the minimum four acre size criteria established in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. All four sites are zoned Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan and would allow residential development. The Specific Plan does establish the exact location and size criteria for residential development. The Community Services Commission recommends Site "A," the centrally located site to the Planning Commission and City Council (see Attachment No. 7). The following is a brief planning analysis of the four sites: SITE"A" This five acre site is located in the center of the Quartersection and is recommended as the future park site by the Community Services Commission. The site has a relatively flat terrain with access from both the future Saddleback Lane (local street) and future equestrian trails. Even with the street bisecting the five acres, the park site would yield the minimum four acres for park purposes based upon an analysis by the Community Services Department. One concern expressed with the future street bisecting the park is safety to the residents. This concern should be mitigated by the provision of fenced trails on both sides of the street. This will separate the park from the street. The bisected park however does provide the opportunity to separate an equestrian amenity from the remainder of the park. This amenity has been proposed by some of the equestrian residents of the area for future consideration. One of the major constraints to the site is the existence of two, active oil wells. The Community Services Department has conceptually designed the park around the wells. The design will also provide access to the wells and provide protective fencing. The other constraint to this site is the acquisition of the land for park purposes. The site consists of numerous encyclopedia lots with fragmented ownership. The city will most likely have to condemn the properties to pursue ownership. This will be a costly and lengthy process. Staff Rcport-5/9/95 2 (pcsr135) SITES "B" AND "C' Both of these five acre sites are not recommended as possible park sites based upon the analysis presented in Attachment No. 7. Staff concurs with the recommendation. Even though both sites yield five acres, both are identified as open space corridors in the Ellis Golden West Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would not allow residential development due to topographical constraints, open space requirements and drainage concerns. The Specific Plan indicates that the corridors shall be limited to recreational trails and designated drainage areas for the Quartersection. The corridors are part of the existing swales which were part of the area before development occurred. The swales have topography constraints which limits useable park area. Both locations consists of numerous encyclopedia lots and are under fragmented ownership patterns. The city will have to condemn the properties to pursue ownership. This land acquisition process will be costly and lengthy. SITE "D" This relatively flat five acre site is located along Garfield Ave. and adjacent to the future Saddleback School site. The site was not originally analyzed in 1991 because of its location and future consideration for residential development. The potential for park purposes is considered now because of the location of the future school. The open space criteria in the Land Use Element (see Attachment No. 6) recommends the location of a park adjacent to a school whenever possible. Typically, a neighborhood park is not situated adjacent a major arterial highway such as Garfield Ave. The arterial highway location presents safety concerns. In addition, parking is not allowed along Garfield Ave. which would reduce access and safety concerns. Safety concerns can be addressed and mitigated through design. Access is provided from an interior local street and by a local street from Edwards Street. Trail access would also be provided. Another point of access could be through the school itself. This would allow additional access from the Quartersection. The location adjacent to the school would allow the park and school to share amenities and possibly expand their playing fields. The Fire Department has indicated a need for a future fire station to serve the area. A location under consideration is Site"D". The location is not identified in the existing Community Facilities Element of the General Plan nor has the location been formally recommended as part of any future Community Facilities Element. The location is only a consideration at this time. The Fire Department has indicated that a fire station would require a minimum of one and one-half acres of land. This would yield Site "D" only a three and one-half acre park site. This would not meet the minimum four acre size criteria established by the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. Without the fire station, the site would meet the minimum four acre size criteria. The site does have six inactive oil wells on site. Only three of the wells have been abandoned as of this date. Any future development for residential, park, or fire station purposes would require the abandonment of the three inactive wells. Staff Report-5/9/95 3 (pcsr135) This five acre site consists of one parcel of land where the other three sites (A, B, C) consist of numerous encyclopedia lots and fragmented ownership patterns. The parcel is owned by a trust consisting of approximately 200 members. Land acquisition would be costly and lengthy, but negotiations would be with only one entity (trust). SUMMARY: Staff believes both Site"A" and Site "D" have merit for future park purposes. Sites `B" and "C" should not be considered because of topographical constraints, drainage use, and open space corridor requirements. Staff believes that Site"A' and Site"D" are conducive for a neighborhood park from a land use analysis. This is based on their size, terrain, and location. Staff, in its final analysis of the proposed code amendment, believes that either site can accommodate a neighborhood park site. Both locations will serve the neighborhood and Quartersection and provide the amenities of a neighborhood park. The conclusion is based upon the following findings: • Either neighborhood park site meets the minimum size criteria. • Either location has relatively flat terrain necessary for a neighborhood park. • Either location will be accessed by a local public street. • The proposed code amendment will provide recreational needs for the immediate residents and the community. • The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may take one of the following alternative actions: A. Deny Code Amendment No. 93-1 as proposed; or B. Approve an alternative location with findings and forward to the City Council for their consideration. Staff Report-5/9/95 4 (pcsr135) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Area Map 3. Draft Ordinance 4. Legislative Draft 5. Draft Open Space Corridors, Trails System, and Neighborhood Park Exhibit No. 8 6. Criteria for Open Space-Land Use Element 7. Park Analysis Memo from Ron Hagan dated April 19, 1995 8. Fire Department Memo from Tim Greaves dated March 6, 1995 9. Letter from Barbara McCall dated March 2, 1995 10. Letter from Barbara and Akis Bountour dated March 7, 1995 11. Letter from Jim Hill dated March 14, 1995 12. Letter from Sandra and Michael Davis dated March 19, 1995 13. Letter from Michael H. Leifer dated April 4, 1995 14. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 28, 1995 HZ:HF:kjl Staff Report-5/9/95 5 (pcsr135) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan by proposing to designate Site"A" (or Site D) for a minimum four acre neighborhood park is consistent with the City's General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies regarding open space and conservation, recreation, circulation, land use, and community facilities. 2. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site"A" (or Site D) as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element by encouraging beautification of oil-producing areas and restoration of non-productive oil land, and maximizing the outdoor and environmental potential of the city by providing comprehensive , coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of the community. 3. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site"A" (or Site D) as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Recreation Element by providing an adequate neighborhood recreation facility that is a minimum four acres in size, centrally located within a neighborhood and will serve an area within a quarter mile radius. 4. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A' (or Site D) as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Circulation Element by providing adequate transportation improvements and access to a future neighborhood park by means of a future local (public) street. 5. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site "A" (or Site D) as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element by capitalizing on the outdoor and environmental potential of the city and by insuring that adequate open space is provided in all residential areas of the city. 6. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to designate Site"A' (or Site D) as a neighborhood park is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Community Facilities Element by coordinating park development with the provisions of community facilities. Attachment-5/9/95 (pcsr135-6) ELLIS - GOLDENWEST ��---` -'-- QUARTER SECTION DHBrr i R r IonT T• tt -. I � 1•IIrT 1 1 � I I I 1l• -'-1,IJl A IBt ��� 93r t• [r Ir•n t L LLL e-- I I rici 146 1 Lj�-- I MAL I � f I I + I nrr 041 l I 1 , 7 114 t ° •rT I I ' �� CT 1 4I_ I —a • � � � T•A�T N•1• I I r REVISIONS REFERENCES O 1 7}E __ PLANNING EXHIBIT FOR 4 KEMI ELLIS/GOLDENWEST 1/4 SEMON QOM1ICWTEG =_-" t-x-n •war N ORDINANCE NO. 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 DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT 93A WHEREAS, on July 5, 1989, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan; and The 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 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; 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. Neig,hborhood 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 i described as: 1 G:Ord:Code93-1\2/16/95 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 •o 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 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 map 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 day of 11995. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: a4=_=Zxsjll�� City Clerk Atr f,¢ z/i(./fr ato-��ss REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development 2 G:Ord:Code93-1\2,16,95 -ATTACHMENT NQ. 3. l SLATER AVE. Li PROJECT w LOCATION � TALBERT � AVE. m N w a a � ELLIS cD AVE. �O y GARFIE S� U) F-� o \ -- Q cn 0 0 YORKTOWN y� w ADAMS zo cF m 9LF z P � VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A N.T.S. ATTACHMENT No . 3. 2. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sheet 1 of 2 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 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 63 64 65 EXHIBIT A N.T.S. ATTACHMENT NQ. 3 . 3 Mi C CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sheet 2 Of 2 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. _ATTACHMENT NO. 3 .4 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIrm: PLAN LEGISLATIVE DRAFT The setback easement area shall be privately owned and maintained. ` All fencing within the landscaped setback area shall conform to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. C. Rights-of-Way for Internal Collector Streets. The internal collector streets shall include an area which can serve as a trail link for development projects which do not have direct access to the public Open Space Corridor and can also serve as an emergency parking area. d. Interim Barrier: An interim barrier shall be placed at the location depicted in Exhibit 6 subject to the requirements of the Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Development Departments. At such time as the internal collector street is fully improved, a determination to retain the barrier shall be made. All property owners within the 160 acre quarter section shall be notified in a timely manner prior to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 3. Private Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accordance with the conceptual design standards for residential streets depicted in Exhibit 7. All streets shall be curvilinear if feasible and shall contain a five (5) foot wide pedestrian easement adjacent to the curb. 4. General. Recreational circulation shall conform to the Orange County Master Plan for bikeways/trails. III. C. COMMUNITY THEME 1. Open Space Corridors Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit 8. Development within Open Space Corridors shall be limited to recreational trails with appropriate fencing and public works facilities and utilities. The open space corridors have been designated as primary components of the overall drainage system in the quartersection. The Open Space Corridors shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Corridors shall be held as common open space by homeowner associations. The open space corridors shall generally be delineated by those areas below the fifty (50) foot contour. The precise dimensions and location of the Open Space Corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Departments of Community Development and Public Works.The corridor shall include a minimum easement dedication of sixteen(16) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail. The equestrian/ recreational trail shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any habitable floor area. ATTACHMENT NQ. --4. o 2. Common Areas Common open space and private streets shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant running with the land describing the open space and its maintenance and improvement for the benefit of residents of the development. Prior to recordation the developer shall file with the Department of Community Development, with the final subdivision map, all legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights in common areas to the City. All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be completed by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. All lands to be conveyed to the homeowner's association and/or the City shall be subject to the right of the grantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and improvements of the common space and public trails easement. 3. Landscaping- Landscaping shall meet the following requirements: Landscaping shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. All setback areas fronting on or visible from a street shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. Such landscaping shall consist primarily of ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other living plants. Plant materials shall be drought resistant. b. Decorative design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculpture, planters and similar elements may be permitted provided such elements are incorporated as a part of the landscaping plan. C. Permanent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. d. On-site trees shall be provided as follows: one (1) thirty-six (36) inch box tree for each residential unit or the equivalent of thirty-six (36) inch box trees as provided herein. Seventy-five (75) percent of the total requirement shall be thirty-six (36) inch box trees and the remaining 25 percent of such requirement may be provided at a ratio of one(1) inch for one (1) inch through the use of twenty-four (24) inch box trees. Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well-balanced landscaped development. e. A distinctive landscape area shall be provided at the corners of arterials for enhanced landscape treatment subject to the requirements of the Design Guidelines. The area shall be greater than the general 25 foot perimeter setback and the perimeter fence shall have a 45 degree angle at the corner. ATTACHMENT NO. 4. l (0825D) 4. Fences, Walls and Hedges Fences and walls shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. Front yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms shall not exceed three and one-half(3-1/2) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback area provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. Fencing is not permitted within five (5) feet from back of curb. b. Side and Rear Yard Fences. The use of solid fencing including wood, poured concrete, concrete block, brick fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located on the required side or rear yard property lines. Wrought iron or other similar type of see-through fencing may be used in conjunction with swimming pool areas, subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development. C. Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the nearest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by measuring 25 feet from the intersection of the front and exterior side property lines. Trees trimmed free of branches or foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven (7) feet are exempt from the above prohibition. d. Height Measurement of Fence or Wall. The height of a fence shall be as defined in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. Equestrian Trails A minimum sixteen (16) feet in width public equestrian/recreation trail easement shall be dedicated to the City for a public equestrian/recreation trail. All developments must provide trail access to the open space corridor or primary equestrian/recreation trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development and shall be in conformance with Exhibit 8. Equestrian trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet. Trail tread area shall be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstructions from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. ATTACHMENT NQ.�22- (0825D) 1 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. Neighborhood 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 OF 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. .ATTACHMENT NO. 10825D) ELLIS AVENUE 1 L �ltllllt!!/Itttltitit ttUUltt tlltlll{IIIIt11tUlU� — tll iTiiif�tl 111111 list ui d) E U) UJ' �..• cc cn w cc- < �C LLJ ---- - --� r- /1111(IIIIlIttlltllltt w I tllllltlllt Itttltltttl 111�1 tt1I1 Illlll117( It11111tItItt111{1 11111111it11t1t11ltt ! _ T GARFIELD AVENUE Neighborhood Park O n Space i l t I I I t 1 Equestrian Trail DRAtummi OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS, TRAIL SYSTEMS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS EXHIBIT 8 13 ATTACHMENT NQ. 0 N CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH y LAND USE ELEMENT CRITERIA FOR OPEN SPACE USES PARKS CATEGORY SIZE POPULATION LOCATION FUNCTION TYPICAL SERVED FACILITIES mile Adjacent to el- Primarily Closely re- service ementary school children lated to radius; when possible. 5-14 yrs. elementary NEIGHBORHOOD 2 to avg. pop- Safe & conven- old; also school; 3' Acres ulation ient access to preschool contains 2,500 to neighborhood children & playground 3,500. residents; away family facilities. from arterial groups;dual streets; on - use with local street. school fac- ilities. Service Ideally adjacent Serves sev- May provide radius to high schools; eral neigh- both in- 1 mile to close to ath- borhoods; door & out- COMMUNITY 10-40 111 mile; letic field for provides for door facil- Acres 40-50 dual purpose. broader rec. ities. thousand needs than popula- neighborhood tion. park does. Popula- Where natural Serve inter- Land and/or tion ser- features & pop- City,County, water fac- ved varies; ulation demands & inter- ility REGIONAL 50 Acres service exist. County with scenic and radius needs. character; above 30/40 mi. ; regional 1 hour beach fac- drive. ilities. SPECIAL FACILITIES In community Multi-pur- Multi- parks & other pose func- purpose RECREATION 10,000 60,000 appropriate tions: Building. CENTERS Square areas. Meetings, Feet Barbecues, Dances Senior- Citizen, etc. TT'�. °• Figure 3-11 ATTACHMENT NO. -6.o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission via Melanie Fallon, Director, Community Development FROM: Ron Hagan, Director, Community ServicesA_ - DATE: April 19,1995 1 919 199� SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST QUARTER SECTION NEIGHBORHOOD PARK On April 12, 1995, the Community Services Commission reviewed four potential sites for a neighborhood park within the Ellis/Golden West quarter section, and took the following ac- tion: RECOMMENDED ACTION: AFTER REVIEW OF THE FOUR POTENTIAL LOCA- TIONS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WITHIN THE ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST QUARTER SECTION, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOM- MENDS SITE "A," THE CENTRALLY LOCATED SITE, TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. The attached matrix gives an overview of the issues involved in the analysis including loca- tion, access, topography, oil well and acquisition concerns, neighborhood park suitability, and other comments on each of the four five-acre sites. The following is a general overview of the Community Services' staff analysis: SITE "A' Site "A' is located in the center of the quarter section. It has equal access for all residents by roads and trails. It is located diagonally across from Saddleback Lane and the proposed school site. This site was originally selected by City Council as part of an analysis of sites "A," "B" and"C." At the time of that analysis, no school was proposed for the quarter sec- tion. The majority of the site is relatively flat and provides a watershed to the northeast. It is five acres in size and would still exceed four acres if the proposed road were constructed and the two wells stay active. A neighborhood park varies from two to five acres, but City Coun- cil has directed that this park be a minimum of four acres. Per the Copeland lease, there has to be access to each of the two active wells as well as an area 350 square feet around each well; this is accommodated in the conceptual plan. Overall, it would be a better site without the negative factors of the road and wells, but the site has been designed to provide the traditional recreational amenities for a neighborhood park within the four acre sce- nario. .ATTACHMENT NQ.�o April 19, 1995 Page two There are acquisition concerns relative to site "A." City Council originally took action to designate this as the park site on June 17, 1991. Since that time, the city has endeavored through "friendly acquisition" to acquire the sixty-one lots. To date, the city has been suc- cessful in acquiring only eight lots; there are two other lots that have been through litiga- tion and the city also has the option to purchase these lots. After the city began acquisi- tion, a developer became interested in purchasing this property and began acquiring the land for up to $18,000 per lot which is considerably in excess of the appraised value of $10,000. If the city is to be successful in acquisition of the entire site, eminent domain will probably be required. A decision also would have to be made on whether development should move forward while allowing the two wells to remain active (as is proposed for Or- ange County Linear Park) or to endeavor to purchase the rights to these wells so that they could be abandoned. When parks are developed, there are public hearings to determine what recreational amenities the public wants to have included. The majority of public response in the El- lis/Golden West quarter section regarding location of the park has been in favor of site "A." This was a significant factor when the Community Services Commission reviewed the sites. SITE "B" Site "B" is located on the perimeter of the quarter section on Golden West Street. It sits on a major arterial highway that is of concern when designing a park for a specific neighbor- hood. Arterial access is important for community or regional parks; however, a neighbor- hood park is developed to serve the residents within a specific quarter section. Being adja- cent to a major arterial can be more of a deficit due to safety issues. Also, this site does not have the advantage of being centrally located. It is a significant distance away for those residents near Edwards Street. Another disadvantage with site "B" is that additional prop- erty, above and beyond the actual site would have to be purchased in order to provide ac- cess from Saddleback Lane besides by trail. If the adjoining property to the west could not be purchased, residents would have a more difficult time accessing the park. This site also includes a large swale that bisects the entire park. At the most, two acres would be usable park space. This is especially significant when evaluating recreational amenities that would fit on the site, especially open turf area for pick up games and practice sports areas. There are oil wells on the site, but they are inactive and, therefore, do not become a signifi- cant problem as far as reducing the land available for park use. There are sixty-three oil lots, three of which are city-owned. The Specific Plan for the area indicates that this site must remain open space; the goal was to maintain ravines throughout the quarter section. For this reason, the city does not have to purchase this site in order to keep it as open space available to the general public. ATTACHMENT NQ. , i... April 19, 1995 Page three Because of the ravine, this park does not provide as good a site as a flat park. It would be a good location for a natural park with passive open space. Not enough of the site is flat for the traditional recreational amenities designed into a neighborhood park. It should be noted that the developers would be in favor of this site as a neighborhood park because it is not developable for residential because of the conditions of the Specific Plan regarding ra- vines. SITE "C" Site "C" is located off Ellis Avenue on the north side of the quarter section. It is on the perimeter of the quarter section and, therefore, has the same disadvantages as site "B." It does not have street access, but does have trail access. There is a large swale that bisects the park and would limit the neighborhood park usage because only approximately two acres would be relatively flat. A large retaining wall could be built to divide the park into two areas, but again, would limit the recreational amenities possible on the site. Therefore, although it is not an ideal site for a neighborhood park, it is a good site for a natural park with passive open space. All the wells are inactive and there are sixty-two oil lots that make up site "C." The city owns fifteen full lots and twelve half lots. Like site "B," this area is a ravine and, per the Specific Plan, is designated to remain as open space. Therefore, the city does not have to purchase the site to maintain open space for public use. Also, because of the ravine, the site cannot be used for residential development. SITE "D" Site "D" is located on Garfield Avenue on the south side of the quarter section. It is imme- diately west of the proposed school site. It can be accessed via Garfield Avenue or across the school grounds (if the school is developed) to Saddleback Lane. It also has trail access. The entire site is flat. There are six inactive wells, only three are abandoned. The acquisi- tion concern on this site is that it is held in a trust with 200 members. This site could also be developed for residential purposes. Overall, this is a good site for a neighborhood park. It also provides an opportunity for the city and school district to share park and school land to maximize sports fields space. The disadvantage of this site would be the fact that it is not centrally located and the Real Property Division of Administrative Services indicates that the cost to purchase this land would be significantly greater than site "A." A current appraisal of the site and the oil lease and oil wells would have to be made to determine the exact cost of this site versus site "A" A developer did try to purchase this site several years ago. It is the city's understanding that the developer was not successful because the owners in the trust could not come to an agreement to sell the property. It is a valuable site for residential development. ATTACHMENT Nq? April 19, 1995 Page four The Fire Department has indicated that site "D" has been identified as a potential location for a fire station. This would require 1 1/2 acres of the five acre site, which would leave 3 1/2 acres for park purposes. City Council has indicated that a contiguous four acre mini- mum is desired for the neighborhood park in this quarter section. It should be noted that although there is not enough acreage for a neighborhood park, this site would be a valuable asset to the community in conjunction with the school open space for youth sports fields to serve the surrounding area. CONCLUSION Sites "B" and "C" would not meet the traditional neighborhood park criteria with the usual recreational amenities of picnic facilities, tot lots, basketball court, volleyball court and open turf area for pick up games and practice sports areas. These sites would provide ex- cellent natural park space with passive open space. This was the intent when the ravines were identified in the Specific Plan. Sites "A" and "D" provide the topography for a traditional neighborhood park. Site "D" has the advantage of being adjacent to a school site to maximize youth sports field space on the school and park. The disadvantages are that this site is not centrally located and would not be a minimum four acres in size (as directed by City Council) if the Fire Department ac- quires 1.5 acres for a fire station. Site "A" is centrally located and has the best accessibil- ity; but the proposed road and active wells are limitations, although the park would still be a minimum four acres. This is the site that the majority of the quarter section residents desires for a park. Staff and the Community Services Commission have reviewed the matrix regarding the four sites and recommend site "A" as the best overall location for the Ellis/Golden West quarter section neighborhood park. RH:JBE:as Attachment ATTACHMENT NQ. ?. 3 FLUS AVENUE L ,�111lIIt11l111,1,11!! ,,,,,,,t, ltllllll,I,1111111i11- LIJ • I t i 111 11 i t , .- - � - ,Ill _ 1 .• �I t!„1 Illtltllll » 1 rr - - \ or R Uj vim, � ��-�,'`•.1•- " `�~� w •O cc LL1 ((I11tlIIItI II Ilttlt I I11•(llllfl tIl[11 RIII III[I[i[7[l R1I;f11I t,ll fillll/ ttilitlltlitllllif,tr�t I f GARFELD AVENUE Open Space •Itt,tl,l Equestrian Trail Open Space Corridors and Trail System ATTACHMENT NQ. 4� ; :. ELLISIGOLV EN WEST QUARTERSECTION PARK:SITE ANALYSIS ,:..:. 1TEA:;> :> SITE*8 .: . SITE C;:.:.: SITE D LOCATION: Located in center of Located off Golden Located off Ellis Located off Garfield quartersection. West on east side of Avenue on north side Avenue on south side Possible road crossing quartersection. Fronts of quartersection. of quartersection. section of park. This a major highway. Located on perimeter Located adjacent to is the site previously Located on perimeter of quartersection. proposed school site. approved by the City of quartersection not Located on perimeter Council. centrally located to of quartersection. all residents. ACCESS: Equal distance to all Golden West Avenue Ellis Ave. provides Access can be from residents. Accessible provides only access only access. Trails do either Garfield or by roads and trails. unless additional connect all areas of Saddleback from Directly northeast of property is purchased quartersection to site. across the school. proposed school site. that would provide Has trail access on access from two sides. Saddleback Lane. Trail access is provided. TOPOGRAPHY: Majority flat. Water- Large swale bisects Large swale bisects Entire site is flat with shed will be to the entire site. Only two entire site. Only two no swales. northeast. Five acres acres are usable park acres are usable park without road or four space. space,unless a very acres with road,and large retaining wall is two active wells. built to make the park a two-level area. OIL WELL Three wells on site; All wells are inactive. All wells are inactive. All wells are inactive, two active,and one however,three of the CONCERNS: inactive. You can six wells on site are design around wells. not abandoned. Current lease allows 350° of access around each site. AMQ Site contains 61 oil Site contains 63 oil Site contains 62 oil Site is owned by an CONCERNS. lots. City owns 8 lots. lots. City owns three lots. City owns 15 out-of-state trust A developer is trying lots. Specific Plan full lots and 12 one- with 200 members. to buy all lots for a states this area is to half lots. Specific Site will most likely project. City has no remain open space. Plan states this area is require eminent funds to proceed with City does not have to to remain open space. domain to acquire. acquisition. Acqui- purchase this site to City does not have to Site could be sition will most likely keep it as open space. purchase this site to developed residential. require eminent keep it as open space. domain. 1 ATTACHMENT NO. C'.= ELLISIGOLDEN:WEST QUARTERSECTlON.PARK SITE ANALYSIS,:- ...... ::> SITE A' <:: :. ..::::::SITE B: - SITE C SITED: PARK Good site for Not a good site for Not a good site for Good site for a SUITABILITY: neighborhood park. neighborhood park. neighborhood park. neighborhood park to Has location,access, Good site for a Good site for a maximize sports field and developable area natural park with natural park with space. Not centrally for picnic areas, tot passive open space. passive open space. located,but more lot,basketball court, Not enough flat area Not enough flat area easily accessible than volleyball court,and for neighborhood for neighborhood the other perimeter open-turf area for park amenities. park amenities. sites. sports field use. OTHER This is the site wanted Developers favor this Developers favor this Owners do not want by the majority of site since it cannot be site since it cannot be to sell. Site is a COMMENTS: homeowners in the used for residential used for residential valuable site for quartersection. This development. development. residential is also a desirable site development. 11B for a residential School District favors development. this site to share facilities. Fire Dept. considering 1.5 acres of this five-acre site for a fire station. This would leave 3.5 acres for park. A neighborhood park must be a minimum of four acres. City could also acquire this site to add to school sports field space,in addition to another site for neighborhood park. 2 (g\1if\1ua 1) ATTACHMENT NO. -7 (,o 1 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION To: Jim Engle, Deputy Director-Beach, Recreation & Development From: Tim Greaves, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: March 6, 1995 SUBJECT: PARK SITE ISSUES, GOLDEN WEST/GARFIELD QUARTER SECTION. OIL WELL QUESTIONS AND POTENTIAL CLEANUP COST ESTIMATES Jim: I hope the following questions and answers help with your project. 1. What was the production of the wells prior to the lease acquisition? The Brindle -Thomas Lease was finalized in early October, 1991. Huntington Beach and Department of Oil and Gas records indicate that Copeland #10 has met all Huntington Beach active well production criteria since January, 1990. Copeland 411 met quarterly criteria from January through September, 1990, then did not meet production criteria for the next four quarters, October, 1990, through September, 1991. Since October, 1991, Copeland #11 has met all production criteria. The Huntington Beach Oil Code, Section 15.32.035 Production Standards, states that any well which does not produce in any calendar quarter at least ninety (90) barrels of crude oil or other hydrocarbon substances, or at least one hundred thousand cubic feet of natural gas, shall be declared "nonproducing." If such wells fail to produce the required amounts for two (2) successive calendar quarters, it shall be declared "idle." 2. Was a permit granted to reactivate the wells? Although Copeland 411 failed to meet production requirements for an active well in Huntington Beach, I am unable to find records supporting satisfaction of Huntington Beach Oil Code Section 15.32.050 Idle Wells. The Huntington Beach Oil Code, Section 15.32.050 Idle Wells, states that when a well is determined to be idle, the Fire Department has an obligation to: (a) Notice shall be sent by the Fire Chief, by registered or certified mail, to the owner of the fee simple interest in the land on which the well is situated as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the owner of the mineral rights on which such well is situated as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the operator of such well as indicated on either the records of the State Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Conservation or the records of the Fire Department. Once the notice is sent, hb,eng1e2.doc _ATTACHMENT NO. -0.0 the well or wells specified therein may not be activated unless the requirements of Chapter 15.40 of the Huntington Beach Oil Code are adhered to and satisfied. 3. What are the costs involved in assuring the property is safe for its intended use (park site)? I contacted Merrill E. Wright, our registered geologist consultant, and requested an estimate for potential cleanup costs. I gave him the three (3) park site locations under consideration and his estimates are based on actual on-site visitation. 1. Aerial photo investigation for sumps and evidence of former tank farms $900-1,525 2. Detailed Phase I investigation of each parcel $2,500-3,000 (This is dependent on the number of samples taken) 3. Sampling over each well for combustible gas (10 wells total) $2,500-3,500 4. Well Reviews $1,500 5. Final Report $1,500 TOTAL $8,900-1,125 Additional costs for parcel A, the interior park site with two active wells: Abandonment of the wells $20,000-40,000 each Payment for estimated future production Unknown Study for payment of future production $800 per well Please find copies of all communications with Mr. Wright enclosed. i hb\engleldoc rA`jTACHMENT NQ. w�' MERRILL E. WRIGHT 16531 I3olsa Chia St. Suite 301 11tintin;ton Beacli CA 92649 (714) 377-9234 March 6, 1993 ,-City of Huntington: Beach ATTN: Mr. T. GreaVes-Deputy Fire Marshal. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Greaves: This is the estimate for the three City Park possibilities . You asked that I give you some Idea what it would cost to do a modified phase I; environmental survey. Following are those data: ( I have visited all three properties. ) The job will require an initial aerial photo investigation. It is important that each property be checked for sumps and evidence of former tank farms and the spills that were often associated with them. This part will cost an estimated $goo to $1 ,525 dollars depending on the detail needed in the investigation and jhe write up. ' r The next step woulO be a detailed Phase I characterization of each parcel . If. sump and tank farm locations were found each would have at, least one V boring hand augured into it. If the depth was greater that 51 the boring would continue on until the bottota or 25' was reached. Depending on the appearance and on field tests it may be necessary to take a sample each 51 in the borings. Only selected one of differing nature would be sent to the laboratory. The remainder would be. retained in cold storage and added, .if needed during the text two weeks. This portion will cost an estimated $2 , 500 tb $3 ,000 . An estimate here is heavily dependent on the njamber of samples that may be analyzed. Of course the number pf sumps and tanks is a controlling factor. Five foot ( 51 ) borings over some of the 10 abandoned oil well sites should be made. Each of these would sample the hole for an outgas�ing of combustible gas. This .information would be available' for future planning in any construction that may be done. This would require approximate 2 days and cost from $2 ,500 to $3,500 dollars. A well review of ail but one of the abandoned well should be ddne. It is import6ntito know the condition and the quality of. them. This is estimated at approximately $1, 500. Those data from this study would decide the wells that ATTACHMENT NQ. z TWO CITY PA X SITES required further boring or gas testing in the previous paragraph. The Center parcel, the Brindle-Thomas lease is the- only one with active wells.. They are two Copeland wells. one is presently producing and was active on March Gth. The other has a pulling unit. over it but was not being actively worked over a 10:00 AM of March 6th. The pumping unit on the latter well is very large and either indicates a large barrel producer or a deep; well. Probably the former. It is likely that the operators. will not only wish the city to pay for the abandonment of. the active wells, but will also expect some payment for the estimated future production. I f the study of these are requires a prediction of future income can be prepared for $500 per well. Their abandonment can be planned and all the form submitted to the D.O.G. for $300 per well.. A final report of the findings of the mod1fied Phase x findings Is estimated to Cost $1,500. The first thing that should be done is to review the Whittier College aerial photo set. This will dictate the direction that later planning and work can take. I can begin this step at your ponvenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Huntington Beach on its petroleum related projects.. Very truly yours, 1--e- 4�F— i M. B. WRIGHT Geological & Petroleum Consultant i ATTACHMENT N_9. , -6 3. MAR 08 195 11:07 DAVID GAUTSCHY MEL WRIGHT 7143770583 TO: 714 374 1551 P� March 8, 1095 City of Huntington Beach Attn: Capt. T. Greaves D.F.M. 2000 Main street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Capt. Greaves. Following are the short synopsis of each of the potential park sites involved in the environmental discussion. They progress from clear and easy to check surface to very cluttered and difficult. They have been deesignated: as A,B, & C and are described as follows: A-- - Is located approximately I/2 the distance from Edwards on the west and Golden West on the east. The property borders Schleicher Ave. on the north and extends to the south toward Garfield for 6601 . Its width is 3301 . It is approximately 5 acres in size. The plot is presently called the Copeland oil lease. The signs on the property name Brindle-Thomas as the operators of the oil wells. Two wells appear to be capable of production activity they are Copeland 10 and 1.1. Copeland 10 pumping unit was operating at approximately 10 strokes per minute during my visit. Number 11 is shut in and has a work over rig set up aver it. The appearance is that well work is being done, but it was not in progress during my. visit. The property in general has junk scattered all over it. There are pumping units, tubing, rods, unit gear boxes, Baker type tanks, and miscellaneous other oil field equipment randomly placed. Numerous planter Boxers of trees are scattered down the west side. The drainage for the area is across: the northwest corner of the property and it is presently very muddy in that area. No tank farm for the two wells- is ' apparent so they must be producing into a buried shipping line. There is one more well on the property. It has been abandoned and the conditions studied by the writer. It did not meet the abandonment requirements of the Division of Oil. � and Gas when it was reviewed in July of 1991. There is evidence of oil on the ground surface near each of AATAGHMENT #� . I 08 195 11:08 DAVID GAUTSCHY MEL WRIGHT 7143770583 TO: 714 374 1551 PO Aec I I PAGE TWO CITY PARK SITES the active wells. The area at the abandoned well i� under the mud. The extent of the spilled hydrocarbons could dot be determined in this limited investigation. The central portion of the plot is very cluttered and will be difficult to investigate adequately in a limited Phase I survey. B--- Is located on the northeast corner of Goldenwiest and Schleicher. The parcel runs east and west and is b;fi 0' by 3301 . This is approximately 5 acres . The northern ide and the northwest portion are bordered by an arroyo t , t due to the rains in march had running water in it. It was !t clear exactly how much of the arroyo was on the property Most of the frontal portion of the plot is occupied by a group of horse corrals and stable buildings. It is estimate id that these improvements occupy approximately the front ../2 of the parcel . Three former Chevron oil Co. wells have been abandoned on the property. They have not been reviewed. They should not have construction done over them or near them until they have been checked. A cursory check for ;combustible gas during the phase one survey is recommended. There should have been a production tank fans here some where ih the past to service the wells. This property, except for the horse stable appears generally clean. C----Is located near the northeast corner of Edward's and Garfield. It is the central 310t of the Chevron Jo es Community lease. It originally had g wells scatted over its surface. They are all abandoned. One well has beenj reviewed by the writer, #!1.9, it did not have the perforations cemented and therefore would not meet the requirements of t�e DOG. The remaining wells on the lease should have gone through review and have not. I believe that they have beery abandoned for some time. Some of the well have PVC vent pipets mounted in metal pipe rising from them. These can be checkjed for outgassing during the Phase ,I survey. If building construction is planned the other wells should also be tested. This property is graded and cleaned up it ' ppears to be the better of the three. It requires a check fo; a past tank farm location, but the Huntington Beach Co. zcay have already cleaned that up. ATTACHMENT NQ. �55 (Bo/sal • oy t 4 - r�z,�tsa s�,,� r f';%o@a l a?1 7 SA K Sl• • t2 •10 7S ; J C• .;V �^ / I c•:r.ru.^:d•r. N rf i,+vr�rA 5— s ••f 33 • �' JrXs✓Nwu9.op 7�� `�rMr[gIrlft.. • `a • a ! n.� +pt.cx ti t co ♦ • 16 :'r * ♦z ti •Z ' ♦j •t: rs,ww,k) ♦L •I i+ �if,r-J rJ w • nder endent 4xol.Co c`a" 1 r 411 • [ D (4ror�.f-SJ . N.S.x hLSXwVlrre ist.f.•,r•'Ar[}, ar.lk Kv�!!a 7G•A .♦4*40 / I...[Ms..p 34J.X°b+L•m•A1bc.taM^ •iPbC.4eeK.' ♦'MrM' 11 4A � � �j't • i • **` • MCerp • 5 1 ♦ z T t22-7a30 a D \ 13 7 r0 !I♦z e+cw + •7 2 r, Z ✓fN.I/+T.,q. G + ♦ 3 t� • tPconCe) r r (ra/hl; jt7 t^..�r'c.a.n JI Halef.ar.. --------- ? T5 !� i • 3z A 22 ♦ 1q i CASr`/yYll i 1 ans+�r a.0 s a»w * s • G $. } S3 •T (FW.(:• p , �' Teraco ASod cmgr/cc. ` l Ye...A+.v-a►a,u./ 39 n • y✓Nwgto++ BrocA Co , i I 2 ff' 5 tf m � 2L !lI �M.l�•-Kt'c.(•� �♦,� i � t=ti+w,,.�q.rat la..•- •-d t� �- '{ is 1` tM�°fioJrn f.vcA Cs + !. to ! • 7 1 • ' Zr -.—t) c �� ,�rarrr- K*I -t 33 ' (�W � ` �• � /ndep�ndtnt� • {^ } .oarrayw � 1 SS-A .w.+.yry a Mr..c✓' •2 • �fi.r/��? t C°.p tw1n., "PRO.Ir �\ _ �. •a2 S+ z•i ; X0 •m +4t 1 �N + ♦""'��♦2. {s i ♦ �4} Sc Hrrrow 35 sa • C c iron 6 • , t..... • ♦a n �• '/z A "ft + p- 30 f-L 4 scwc.. -jJ ••.'-` 1 ' • X,(JJ_Co. Y f X.A1A,$A; , A/ •5c '• A^'^t"P.r • >t(<.n.•? � j�1 S: • e.✓..w � •�\� •35 V1 •+2 !_ ♦is lC �dl "�' • i °� �4�. �1 /'� cost#121 s.. t• !3 Ln Y'. 'tt � �7 � 34 Ar..swy..p At z � !k%'• ti Ae�A:,al.t Rw..l�a �H.-a.r _•---"--',f_. ..`'I 181 Co!.2'ax/...` .Kr:r t •f t 10 .•±x•----- lrplj'J14+df'iL CK Z •; ' - It w 200 /{� ,rJ.a.r w.r`f01 Atlta fd1l rsM; nd d n!EX /t !'O.' . t I4 5e•; • • l 'nlu � ♦tl' �� } ' ...... - - �------t IK r • •, t , •tro .• �K• 4 ,•/ 2 7�; •a 1Q 1 (Je,_ t7 T +j F ! t /! ! ' [ • Yo/lfrf�t r T ", (`� .j (r...•.yX.rtf t. •f [ V 8 In �7` IAS \�• --it d- - - 3 , "`�"1't .,u 4v"f` Awrc• C. of(fftltlfirlStti!/1�r'F� • x `. r : l9 :' ISc : S O .,� 57Y.�.'. •�• tt : !4 3 / 1�Rsi� s tl ' - .. _ .._. .... .. , rA 3• t ( •y ��.. t3 1 hr rorT .. vh 'i : Chi on , -4!1•s4,.r:l�4'`7. 2 It ►i �X-y�, •07J `JOn e j Is n/r�lrf(/A � Dyl(" � �'/SrU/lrJrr9147[ B1 IK ' t >M.Jt,..y.0 ' • •t4L LS] � • `�[ �/`•� I % , � � �`n\Y4z i �t /f"w! iwl.w% 7. ..�t�3._ of •s 4 :r - ' YQ ia��f►'' \�42 . ; ��• !A r ` G AR F(E I_U ....... n...,a.+.•G;./C- a+.r cif i A t1TXr -rwn7w+A d +lw tr p• crr s o«A.:+rr u.nr'.* - ; >; 4-531.1 '•�C,� �>•i • OS �..-ta:a.t e.a:at.n.•d4,!- fl Z+4 bus •Ili • ! ur ! ,af / J • ¢ Kf • to* • mt, lU • ._ :'R4 ♦� .a�t[auw + Ift� N iJ $a t� its Ln lu• pus • t t ,� •:&a t • [^alr! 'w_w�c+clh.Ln r— .f"\ 121 • .�. till r� •$54 . T •• • 0p ;12 • )IW..t^.rS Xfanvrr . (hywar! „�,r !tti • ♦ 77 7� 2t.1 •ISt �f 1\�1 1Lt t ••Litt 44.503a 14 t41 \ 11f� Its w '�• �lS �Itd 7? 1l0� •''�.�f C�+10.1 - �?t,:-t N. HUNnNGTON BEACH ---> �G✓� fuv�w�^+{ 6781 Warner Avenue p Huntington Beach,CA 92647 r 4 K w A) Q.t t f. 714/648- M ,,.�,M b IU 23 AM '99 1 lRsTTEA RE.1EivEfl T 3 REAL ESTATE CITY ATTORNEY ' � ,,.- VED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAR 07 1995 J�IA,!'rrNf0F hlUN l Y DEVELOPMENT March 2, 1995 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach Acquisition of Neighborhood Park within Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Dear Members of the Planning Commission: After watching on television the Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1995, it has come to my attention that Site B is being considered for the proposed park in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Enclosed is a map of the area highlighting the property adjacent to this site which I have listed for sale. After reviewing this site, it would seem feasible to include this parcel in the park as it is the access required for ingress to the park. Also enclosed are the particulars on the lot I have for sale. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 848-8080 ext. 122 . Sin erely, Cne Barbara McCall First Team Real Estate 1 113 ATTACHMENT NO REAITOR8 2-MAR-1995 16 :41:59 __________________________________ #1 Lots/Land Book Form - Property Type 7 LL LP: $279, 900 SP: $ 0 ACTV BACK ON OR OFF MARKET TERMS 0 DAYS ON MARKET 00091 ADD: SADDLEBACK TG: 857H4 D#:15 L# :903367 CITY:HB STATE:CA CNTY:ORANGE ZONE: XST:S/ELLIS W/GLDNWST APX SF: 37828 ACRES: LT/TR:28 13439 GAS: APX LTZ:37828 APN:15941201 ELEC: LEGAL: FDT: WATER: CORNER: PAY: FNCD:CHAINLINK SUITABLE FOR: DREAM HM INT: % STS PVD: VIEW: NO DUE: ASM: SIDEWALK: TOPOGRAPHY:REMRKS TAXES: CURBS : PRESENT USE: SUBORD: ALLEY: EASEMENTS: TRM:CTNL,OMC,CONT,CASH SEWER: RESTRICTNS : BONDS : PERK TEST: OWNER PH: ASSMNTS: GHZ : FLZ : TRADE FOR: DIRECTIONS :GOLDENWEST TO ELLIS EAST OF SADDLEBACK,WALK APPX 150 FT SO OF POST SIGN ON SADDLEBACK LOT IS SURROUNDED BY A CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ RED FLAGS SHOWING APPX BOUNDRIES.THERE IS A STAKE SIGN ON LOT, INCREDIBLE PRICE FOR THIS HUGE OUST SIZED LOT APPX 38, 000 SQ FT LOCATED IN PRESTIGIOUS EDWARDS HILL & SURROUNDED BY BEAUTIFULL OUST HOMES,OMC,A STEAL AT THIS PRICE,MOTIVATED SELLER L/A:BARBARA MCCALL PH:714-722-7777 CSO:3 DVC:N XD: L/O:FIRST TEAM REALTY PH:714-848-8080 LTP: ER SHO:RMK I ATTACHMENT N0. Q ELLIS -AVENUE 111,11111 11,I- i11I11,11 0.t 111I111111 111,1 T 11111- . — _ 1 - -•4••� 1 11,/ll l ll - W LU- LIJ CC - - -- - q s�( �j � � ; 1j� N _I ' - `0 Lij 1 -• C -ti _, _ M _ 11ffrlltlll I T I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1rlf llln r ••1IIT11 rr 12111IIII111111II/111 f I f I 1 I I I I 1 rf 11 T l aA.RFC-LD AVENUi= Open Space •it111�„ Equestrian Trail. Open Space Corridors and Trail System l ATTAt-UXACKIT Kin Q _7 BARBARA McCALL N Over 130 Million,n Personal Sales — Orange County s Top Producer 1991 1992 1993 . 5 TIME HALL OF FAME AWARD WINNER KEITH COMPANIES r0 rLrrtlr.;Cr4 I TEAM* BEACH vECQ n0H N BROOKS I_ S 59Z( V/]' APAS5 DI.J STv?ED 'HUHTU CTCrt 2EACH CITY "t ETOPS- 4 On 0 6 ACC A3 E 1/4 COR OF SEC ' 34-5-11 PEA CITY CF rLr4rIIIG1CN �.-�� 6781 Warner Avenue 8E4CH r.CrJxEar &XI1 2 PACE 61 t Huntington Beach,California 92647 ' Business (714) B48-8080 Ext 112 Residence (714)722-7777 FAX (714)842-0871 LOT "1i" First Team The OIGc,al e I Selling Real Estate Company in Orange County r « �( "Gtl SYEIT T •'i // / ! c! r ©'1 < 141YA/LEVlt1C wolEe (D( /a LOT BOUNDRIES 25 // Q ,r i ,r'C6 ,l- 4C2 00 Iz0 a ARE MARKED BY z 16'31 Ca' a9 00 1zs I� CHAIN LINK FENCE 03124 C,5' 99 00 6 G. AND RED TIES , / b l OJ 3•y� / !! / <_ 23'3? 51' 29 CO 40 6' l/ / - - - - -�"r0 c+•_ - / O� / / 1� I J2'JS tu' 60 rA 3t 1. 6 114,Cd,35- 60 00 4 <t 7 73'10 00" 4 r 00 52 J! 79120 41- 41 CO 2S / rJ\� ��/% r q s 44.25.2T 41 Co 31 7( 50'25 32' (1 00 40 31 /9• / \ �t }-- .Pis J6.40'49' Cz 00 t / { / � : / ^� 27.66 s7' 14J 0O 6G 6' b - 4� (ij_ 279 000 ,y� / ^ <• " t� o _1 01.06 07' 6J0 03 12 2' T ■ h0 / �`�/ F� W �' ^ _t_1 06_34_(5'__S 444 M 64 JC �/ 7 /� x :+:+ 1 06':5 OL' :/54 00 66•D( / 23 / r// Q�1 b00�/r/ _ S.1_� •,_•j 1)ya'l° �I , \\ C) zc� n 11 '6•17 51'E 09.01 59' 444 00 70 CC It. 09,01 59- 564 CO 60 9. 06.54 15' 4(4 O) 69 OC 06'S—VI 5" 564 DO '7 6! 1 3 6 C !I h'47 LI-E / �`%/ ;lam 14 aS +� 37.54 23- 636 00 4?O /7 12 46.30122' 444 90 375 6S 4I CO 161 5, /(,e01'~ - 'O C1 - - _3'40'49' 60 C'0 36 (, 57- 49 00 46 9( by - j --• �'t/�- '/- - — E. 46'01'22- Sot Da JZZ ,< r r �° •• Z OQ00 /I _ - — - - - Si'15 33, 5;9 00 497 7 S 00 / Z - - _ � "` oZ-�40O • - _ 02,23 12' 636 111:2 20, 564 C'J 510 61 D __ / •_� i//_`'� _ _ 41.12 57' I 635 00 457 5t 621 00 501 6< 45 0052 E - - _ 1 �i 11 89•(0 26'E 1 1 41 _27.06 57' 1213 00 56 t< -T ttc 03'SB ?5' C36 00 3574 if 'G'SI'29 N 349Z '•�..!-_--_ - _ T ' - _., - i _ -fir 6 _ _ _ _ •) t9 ( 500 7 - 231 39 00 Co —j RECEIVED N— Huntington f!iY YL)F BARBARA & AXIS BOUNTOUR �;,fT1' ;,FHUNTIHGTr, ' �f.!i, c.,LIF. 6621 Trotter Drive upp Beach, CA 92648 MAR 13 1 51 i H '95 (714) 967-1900(714) 848-7745 (faxMarch 7, 1995 Mike Uberauga a: 4r R. City of Huntington Beach 1000 Main Street MAR 141995 Huntington Beach, CA RE: Park Site CGMt'� To whom it may concern: As the parents of two young daughters, we are troubled over the constant postponement of the above mentioned park. Not only has it been a time consuming issue, the expense for everyone involved has become unnecessary and excessive over the years. Furthermore, we were "guaranteed" this park by our real estate broker when we purchased our home two (2) years ago. We agree that Ellis poses a danger for young children crossing the street. Presently, park goers cross Ellis at Quarterhorse or Saddleback. There are no cross-walks, stop signs or traffic lights to slow traffic on Ellis between Goldenwest and Edwards. There have been several accidents off Ellis and Goldenwest and sites between Edwards and Goldenwest, some involving horses . Vehicles travel at 50mph or more. Once Ellis is widened beyond its present one lane (each way) , we doubt anyone will be able to safely cross Ellis. A neighborhood park sheltered within the quartersection would eliminate the need for •children to cross Ellis to get to a park. Park funds have been paid to the City for homes built in this quartersection - those funds should be utilized to develop.the park without further holdup at the location the homeowners and city selected in 1989 - site "A" . Siaykf l Akis Bountour cc: City Council Members Community Service Planning Commissioner .ATTACHMENT NO. i vo f',IA . 1? 281995 J l'?g � Go C) e�JF12 e a� J e v0 . � ATTACHMENT NO. t . o \r , MICHAEL A. DAVIS : 6711 SHIRE CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92W March 19, 1995 [JAR 2 8 1995 ` i Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members : `�"'I = rFr I As original homeowners in the Country View Estates properties, we strongly urge you to place the proposed park in the "Site A- Saddleback" location. We bought our property and built our home with the understanding that this was the park site, NOT near the "Ellis open area" . We believe that placement of such proposed park in the "Ellis" location would do much to devalue our property and directly affect the privacy we have come to enjoy. i It is our wish to state adamantly----THE ORIGINAL SITE A SHOULD BE THE ONLY LOCATION IN CONSIDERATION. It was planned for, agreed upon, and supported-- THEN and NOW! l i - Respectfully, F F F ' Sandra F. Davis 7-7 Michael A. Davis 6711 Shire Circle Homeowners } G F i • I ATTACHMENT NO. ►� 2. 0 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGE1,0 J.'P_ALMIERI' CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT -^ EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON' JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CA 9 2 713-9 712 ALAN H.WIENER' MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6228 ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J. VOTAW (714) 851-9400 JAMES E. WILHELM- NORMAN J. RODICH WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER' GARY C. WEISBERG DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J GREENE' MICHAEL H. LEIFER FRANK C. ROTHROCK' MICHELE D. MURPHY DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R. CARPENTER 8 51-7 2 9 4 DAVID D. PARR' RICHARD A. SALUS CHARLES H KANTER' DOUGLAS M. STEVENS - TELECOPIER (714) 851-1554 GEORGE J. WALL D.SUSAN WIENS , Ap Z , ,1 (714) 851-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE , �`�• .- PATRfC'K K`HE13NESSEIi""L'YNf}ilA$'PAVLSEN�a-..�..—_:--- (714)�757-1225 .� 714 8 I-2 51 DOri'FlSHER:'7.— `_- SEAFI'P:O'CONNOR''' _- -_ _ -, -.e + wnr+E•v...mi�•�w�r-hprn. ...Q..._._*_-._._.•�.•.,,..L__u�:*a�.,..,,..�.5: GREGORY N. WEILER^ SUSAN T. SAKURA i1 1� _1995_=� WARREN A. WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO '{ BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. II PRCFES$10NAL CO--RATIO„ 1619 3-013 VIA PAX AND MAIL Mr. Howard Zelefsky Planning Director -_ - City of Huntington_.Beach-. -..-. - 2000- Maim-Street•: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter section Dear Mr. Zelefsky: This firm represents John and Linda Thomas, and Ron and Ann Brindle (collectively "Brindle/Thomas") in regard to the City' s consideration of a park site in the above-referenced quarter section. The purpose of this letter is to request the City to keep this office up-dated on reports or events pertaining to the selection of a City park site within the Quarter Section. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call . Very truly yours, Michael ei er MHL:pjr cc: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Mr. and Mrs. Brindle Mr. Richard A. Harlow Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. F:\DOMAIN\888\16193013\C1TY4.LTR 04/04/95 ATTACHMENT NQ. - --------?- ------------------ ----------------------—--- -- -- . - -- -----_---.------------------- � Olivett SENT '8Y i FX 2000 6-10-93 ; 10:470 171,0409>]35-;"`- 7145361333�tt 4 R U TA N & TUCKER--------,.--y_ .--.-_ ATTORNKYS AT UAW A PARTNERSHIP INGLUOINO PRO/ESGIONAL CORPORATION! JAM[J A MOORCI WILLIAM M.WARTICONCNA TANK OF THE WEST. SWITt 1400 MICNAZL K.■LATTRRY PATRICK CL M.GALLA PAUL rACOCAIC.Ann JAMZO L MORBID DZOAA J.DUMN InCI{ARO[.NOW[Ll WILLIAM N.NI[L AMMR NRLJ OM LAN INAR 611 ANTON BOULEVARD DAVID M.Mae" A.PATf1U MUAOC .1C HA.0 A CU.NUTT WILLIAM L CAPLAN #Corr R.PIMROMZ ON &,-VAROUCC OTC[lO Lee...a A....P[L MIew.ZL 1.wORN.N COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 02626 ID78 MANN DMrtM INMM [LLCM 0.NAwcwe►T JONN N.NyNLN VT,.,A JAM1C9 L CCLOTII KATN1►OKOAM[O►AMAN) /RAN[W.NATTAiIR MICMA[L W.IONIC" 1.10.O.Pa.. DAVIO O.COOOROVC CARRIII L IMCLA. MIL/OAP W.IA.,In. JOCL D.II UPCNO[RO DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P. 0. BOX 10190 HANG VAN UOTCM M.RR A.TMOMPONM 1M[000A[I.wALL►C t. Ill.. OTCV[M A.MIC.OLS YARN CTT K.AOOO JAY[{O.war NONALO P.AANIMOTON TNOMAO O.OROCR.MOTON COSTA MCEA. CALIFORNIA 02429-1060 OT[PMNM A.OLL.O DCOOOAN L MURMMOAOMO RICI...a P.K1MA WILLIAM-W1NO[R JR//RCV WZMh.Z1MRR PAVL J.:1[VZRO MAR:MALL M.P[A.LMAN• CVRIN•NI WICA.1 DALLAO TEL_CPNONC (714) 641•6100 ROOZAT O,OW[N C.OAV.[L NAROOTTLC NON[RT C.OR.U.L.iJe Z't,.AAMOALL W RAOOUON- _ -.w..... .. y,-. a...,. .. _ _...�.o.�..-.wi•n,•.-.+ Av—Mnvol."NTn...s IAM.YA P.N.LROZM+z •OO CK A.OA.OLC• MART M.OACCN IS171 OZO•7SQO _JO►e RCT A OOLO►ARBa • IM.►[AIL[AMY COWARD A OTOOOMK'JA.T"-THIN/-.r.IAMCC�="'-_'<- `�'.'^'t'.,"?'*`f'-fir_-S.s x.:.••�s_}.-. .. - � SAMPOOR SMATZ�T'•-TI_-.. MCM.��M. TMOMAL L.CA LIHD[N1 THOMAO J.CRANC Tt LCCOPIER 17L61 548-9070 - /•KCVIN ONACIL DOUGLAS O.VAMORNPOOL OAVIO G.LA"[N• MAR[O.11AA I" LATNC N.M[LC[N .00[►M L.MAGA III CL1110ND Z.IRI[D[H .-IN T.A.00.U& L.ORI MAIIAIOOM JAMC W nOW[M MICH.[L 0.AUOIN M.MAT.C.IN[JCNOON DAM 0LAT[K JC►/A.10UMO A.W.RUTAN 11140.10111 CH J,PIONLRT! TIP LAW OOM NNc♦ IRA 0• v W. DU RC I. 0.M IOUI[T PAY Jt/IRRr M.00 CA MAM• PIG HARD O.40 NTM DCO JAMCO 0.TVCK[R,lA.IINNN•101 D1 JAMRS P.Reuse KRAIO C■1lOiR JO[[Pu O,CARRy}N LOnI OARhCN OMITM WILFORD W.DANL AP.PIN IN.RNN1 CAAOL L.ONMYLRR OGDTT A.OAMTAO A/A :TAN WOLCOTT* RRNCOT W.KLATTG III N.NODORR MOWCLL 110ON-116JI OT[WAOT PRCKLMUI NM COK DU/LOG■ :TAN 9.OOW[N CL12ANC-H L.HAMNA DAV.D J.AL[O NIRL RIM O.TMOMPNOM MAACIA A.►ONNTTN J.VNC TAILOR NACEO •A PROPfY.OWL C�WATON June 10 1993 DAOVIM►.OMALLZNNCROco DAVID L OARIN.LOI.III O CA,. PRL VIA FACSIMILE (714) 375-5087 __._.__ .._..___..- _-_.. _.__-_._._..._.._.. __ .:_._..__._-_.____.�.,_.�-. Ronald Hagan Director, Community Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: City of Huntington Beach Acquisition of Neighborhood Park within Ellis/Goldenwest (Southwest) Quarter Section Dear Ron: It was a pleasure meeting with you and Jim Engle at Huntington Beach city Hall on May 25, 1993 . Pursuant to our discussion at that meeting, I am writing to provide information regarding what the Thomas/Brindle interests believe would be the City's acquisi- tion costs if it were to acquire for neighborhood park purposes the approximately five acres within Tract 306 designated as "Site All by the City. Please understand that the acquisition cost estimates in this letter are preliminary only. Thomas/Brindle do not have a formal l» appraisal covering their property interests or the balance of the -^- property interests within the 66-lot area under consideration. If O the City were to move forward with acquisition, the actual acquisition costs could be significantly higher (or perhaps lower) 2 than the numbers used in this letter. Z Subject to the foregoing limitations, it is apparent to U_J Thomas/Brindle that the City is seriously underestimating the = magnitude of its probable acquisition coats. The property owners (,) estimate the City's acquisition costs (including fair market value Q for the land, buy-out of the oil wells, abandonment of the wells F— and removal of the oil equipment, and street construction costs) to Q EXHIBIT -"'L '& TuCKE_R.- u 0 !!1C78 AT LAW A WIIM-1p M{ 00-NAM,6u.1 too.OA.Tw" � Roi- Id.,Hagan .;:. Jun@�.101 1993 _ -age 2 - -- - be. approximately $5. 7 million, almost six times the $1 million cost estimate that you shared with us in our meeting. This cost estimate does n2t include appraisal costs, eminent domain attorney's fees, and similar administrative costs which would r- likely be significant for the- acquisition of 66_separate lots- from -'� "muliple property owners. Nor does our cost estimate assume any expense to the City for clean-up of toxic materials or other site preparation preliminary to development of the park (other than the street mentioned above) . The basis for the foregoing cost estimates is explained in greater detail below. In addition, before getting into the specific assumptions underlying our cost estimates, it must be emphasized that, by our calculations, the City would wind up with only : approximately . .- . 15- acres of net useable area out of a total acquisition of five acres. According to the information I have received, approximately 1.32 acres of Site A is located within the future right-of-way for the extension of Saddleback Lane, and an additional 0. 52 acres is a remnant parcel to the northwest of the street that would be cut off from the balance of the park site. Based upon the gross square footage of Site A (approximately 217, 714 square feet) and the acquisition cost estimates contained in this letter, the unusabil- ity of approximately 1.85 acres of the five-acre park site would increase the City's acquisition cost for the net useable area from $26. 05 per square foot to approximately $41.33 per square foot. Needless to say, that is a lot of money to pay for unimproved park land. It seems to Thomas/Brindle that it would be far less expensive to the City to consider acquiring a park site immediately to the west of the Huntington Beach City School District's school site on Garfield Avenue. There is no reason to believe that the land cost next to the school would be substantially higher than for Site A on a per-square-foot basis. (Indeed, as explained more fully below, since Site A is already subdivided into individual lots and Thomas/Brindle have already assembled most of these lots, it is arguable that the land values within Site A are significantly higher. ) Furthermore, the parcel to the west of the school site does not contain any active oil wells (a very expensive portion of the Thomas/Brindle acquisition as will be shown below) and does not require extension/construction of significant street improvements . All of the property adjacent to the school site is net useable land. Moreover, while I an not an expert in designing public parks, my understanding is that, by designing the park site in conjunction with the playground facilities on the adjacent school F8211121015587-0001UWD535. 06/10/93 ATTACHMENT N0. 3•� SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2000 6-10-33 ; 10:49AM 17145469035-+ 7145351333' RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW ♦►LWW9ft6w1.114ew«re Pserceete•A�cee.eca.,ew Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 3 site, the City could achieve its objectives with considerably less than five acres of land area. The School District supports this :..� �ippzoacfi:.� Firiall since the Cit would be 'dealing with- a..single. .y, - property owner, presumably they appraisal, legal, and other administrative expenses of acquisition also would be reduced. All of the foregoing factors would appear to significantly reduce the city's acquisition costs for the property adjacent to the school site when compared on a price-per-useable-square-foot basis with acquisition costs for Site A. With that somewhat lengthy introduction, I will proceed to providing the basis for Thomas/Brindle's preliminary estimates of the City's costs that would be incurred in acquiring the 66 lots within Site A: 1. Land Costs. For purposes of land cost estimates, we have used a number of $16. 53 per square foot. This is the land cost incurred by the School District for the Holly-Seacliff school site acquisition and is slightly legs than other comparable sales. This number is multiplied by the approximately 217, 714 square feet within Site A (65 lots at an estimated 3, 197 square feet per lot and Lot A at 9 , 909 square feet) to yield a total land cost of $3 , 598 , 812 . It is my understanding that the City has paid up to $60, 000 per lot for similarly-sized lots along Ellis Avenue and we are aware it recently offered more than $18 per square foot for properties fronting Goldenwest in the same vicinity, but having less favorable zoning. If so, our land cost figure may actually be as much as $2. 00 per square foot, or $435,280, less than the fair market value. Since our meeting approximately two weeks ago at City Hall, I have started to gather additional information regarding prices being paid for comparable properties in the area. I have been unable to complete that review in the limited time available, but will update you if need be. We are aware of the fact that individual, isolated lots have sold for lesser prices in the past. We believe there are two explanations for this occurrence which render those gales useless in establishing a value for the Thomas/Brindle interests. First of all, many of the individual lots had no street or utility access and the (former) lot owners lacked the resources or ATTACHMENTNO.*-X$.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SENT BY:' Olivetti FX 2000 5-10-93 ; 10:50AM 17 VI 71453612' RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNMYS AT LAW A..Y.tMG.3M1.IM GLYOIIIO I.OI40 /.l GO�►ORATIOII. Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 4 =-commitments to obtain -such access. Thomas/Brindle;_-- by--contrast, - -- have assembled a sufficient number of lots to obtain such access. -` Moreover, it is obvious that the sellers of individual lots have either been convinced that their lots were unbuildable or that the cost of fighting the City to establish their development rights would be prohibitive. The applicable General Plan and Specific Plan designations authorize single-family detached residential development with a minimum lot size of 8 , 000 square feet, with a requirement that a minimum of 20% of the lots be at least 15, 000 square feet in area. Individual lot owners could not hope to satisfy those requirements. By- assembling a substantial number of contiguous lots, Thomas/Brindle can. Finally, even if the City were to take the position that Thomas/Brindle could not develop their holdings under the applicable City development standards (and, hence, that the value of their parcels is reduced) , Thomas/Brindle are prepared to prove in court that each of their lots is a separate, legal, developable parcel. There is no question that the lots are legal and valid. (See Government Code § 66451. 10. ) The City cannot compel merger of any lots that it may have retroactively defined as "substandard. " (See Government Code § 66451 . 11(C) and (D) . ) The City's down- zoning of the Thomas/ Brindle properties (requiring ylarge lots and a minimum development plan of five acres) prior to acquisition of the property for public park and street purposes would be viewed as unlawful pre-condemnation activity that would entitle the property owners to value their parcels free of the zoning restrictions. (See, e.g. , Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App. 2d 454; People ex rel Department of Public Works y, Southern Pacific Transportation Company (1973) 33 Cal.App. 3d 960, 965. ) The property owners are entitled to have each of the 66 legal parcels treated separately for purposes of inverse condemnation analysis (and valuation in an eminent domain case) . (See, e.g. , TWain Harte Associates. Limited v. County of Tuolumne (199o) 217 Cal.App. 3d 71, 84-88 , and cases cited therein. ) While individual lot owners might have been willing to sell at "distressed" prices because it was not worth it to them to fight the City over their development rights given the small size of their parcel(s) , Thomas/Brindle are in a very different position. Thomas/Brindle cannot afford to stand by Z and allow the City to attempt to acquire their significant property holdings for millions of dollars less than their true value. U 2 . Oil Well Acggisition Costs. Thomas/Brindle own three oil U wells within Site A. Two of the three wells are operating on 20- Q year leases. Based upon the barrels per day (estimated at 25 total Q .SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2000 6-10-93 ; 10:51AM 17145469035'+ 7145361333;9 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A....weu O I.nue.r.►.e.a.I.w.i C....un.M Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 5 for both wells) , the price per barrel (estimated at $16. 00) , and a reasonable allocation of operating expenses, the annual net operat- come from the two currently=producing wells is estimated at approximately $72, 000. Assuming income and expenses remain stable over the balance of the 20-year lease term (a conservative assumption since prices should increase more rapidly given the largely fixed operating costs) , the total net operating income for the two wells over the 20-year period comes to $1, 440, 000. If one were to apply- a 5% discount rate to this income stream, the net present value of the two operating wells would be approximately $897,280. __ , , It should be pointed out that the productivity of the wells is _ actually increasing as Chevron shuts down its wells ih the area. The true value of the wells is probably significantly higher than the numbers used in this letter. The third well, while not currently functioning, also has considerable value. I am informed that, under the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, oil wells are a permitted use. The City would not be on solid ground if it were to attempt to prohibit the third well from being reactivated. For purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the third well has a value equal to 50% of the two operating wells, or approximately $224 ,320. The combined value of the three wells comes to $1, 121, 600. In addition, if the City were to acquire Site A, it would have to abandon the oil wells and remove the oil equipment. I have been given cost estimates for this type of work ranging from $30, 000- $50, 000 per well, assuming that nothing goes wrong. For purposes of this letter, we have assumed an abandonment/removal cost of $50, 000 per well (inclusive of any incidental clean-up that might be involved) . In our meeting, you indicated that the City might be prepared to develop the park site around the oil wells instead of acquiring them. This would not be physically possible with respect to one of the wells, which is located within the right-of-way for the extension of Saddleback Lane. Furthermore, we have serious questions as to whether the other two wells could be permitted to remain in place. The location of the wells would surely interfere with the intended use of Site A for park purposes. Substantial setbacks from the wells would be required in order to permit periodic access to the well owner for maintenance and repair purposes. It is hard to imagine how the heavy equipment needed to service the wells could obtain access without damaging the park ATTACHMENT NQ. 13-, H'ST111T1U15SN7•UW112USU535. OS/10/93 -- SENT BY: Olivetti FX 2000 6-10-93 ;10:51AM 17145469035i 7145361333:; RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNKYS AT LAW ♦MUKMww►IM.wur4046.[70.M&L G.....ATIDMZ Ronald Hagan --- - June 10, 1993 Page 6 improvements. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would seem to-Thomas/Brindle that oil operations are simply, incompatible with the primary intended use of the property for park purposes. The- -- ---- oil wells would be a constant attractive nuisance. The wells, the heavy equipment which periodically is needed for access to the wells, and the normal activities of an oil well operation would present significant public safety and liability concerns. 3 . street Construction. In our meeting, you and Jim Engle expressed some doubt as to whether or not the City would actually complete the extension of Saddleback Lane across Site A if that property were acquired for a park. Given the approved circulation pattern in the Specific Plan and the pattern of development that -has-already-occurredI it seems to us to be highly doubtful that the City could escape this responsibility. We have used a preliminary estimate of $800, 000 for the street and related utility improvements that would be required (approximately 800 feet of roadway and utilities at $1, 000 per linear foot) . 4 . Summary of Costs. The estimated City acquisition costs for Site A are summarized as follows: Land $31598, 812 Oil Well Acquisition $1, 121, 600 Well Abandonment/Removal $ 150, 000 Street Construction $ 800, 000 Appraisal, Legal, and Administrative Costs -0- Clean-up and Site Preparation Costs -0- TOTAL $5, 670, 412 Our conclusion is that the Cityfs cost of acquiring the properties within Site A would be substantially more expensive than what has been projected to date. Mr. Thomas informs me that there are very few willing sellers left within Site A. If the City is assuming that it will be able to budget a small amount of money over a period of several years to pick up individual lots on a i piocomeal basis at bargain-basement prices, we believe a 'reality check" is in order. In our estimation, the City is fast approach- ing the time when it will have to use its eminent domain powers to acquire additional parcels from unwilling sellers who have a vary different idea what the parcels are worth. Before the City has ATTACHMENT NQ. F521I121015587-000112050535. 06/10193 _ RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORN¢Y9 AT LAW Y s Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 _ Page T.- irrevocably committed itself to such a course of action, we implore you to take a fresh look at alternatives that make better economic and planning sense. - _ Thank you for your consideration of the 'information.. s for o' th- in this letter. If I can provide any further data that would be helpful to you, please let me know. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Jeffrey M. Oderman JMO:rk cc: John A. Thomas Ann Brindle Wayne S. Canterbury, Esq. Richard A. Harlow Marshall B. Krupp Gail C. Hutton I PS21112101S587-000112050335. 06l10193 ATTACHMENT NO. -►3•" AN,.:K1CAN LANDSCAPE SL. r-LY != 18651 GOLDEN WEST 579EET iUNTINGION BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 242.88 66 4 to JANUAR.Y ) 9, )5Q5 HU N TZNGTON BEACH PLAT\'NItIG COM.MI99ION JAN 19 2000 !h STREET I ts`3 HUNTINgTON BEACH, CALIrORN IA 92648 �EPa�,�l�,�;'� •� NUNlry 5:• • TO TIE PLA,'VNING COMMx5SI0N: T{ is IS- IN RtGARD TO CODE &4E?,DMEN'T 93--j CHANGING THE 5 IACREG _ AD40INTNO OUR NURSERY TO OPEN SPACE, AND A PARK DESIGNATION. '�,I$ OWN +Eri THg ;`A¢ORITX OF THIS; 5 ACRE PARCEL AND DO NOT WANT THIS DOWN ZONED TO A ARM SITE. d? IN mAX O1, j 993 :AIS SAa ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE VLANNZIvG CCMMISt;ION, 1•iCi^IEVF. , THERE WERE 3 ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS BEING REVIEWED. THERE wP.S cl.r THE •5 ACRE 91TIS JUST ACROI:S FROM CENTRAL PARR SOUTH OF RLLIS VACANT, TE,I RE t;AS THE 5 ACRE SITE NEXT TO TPE NEW SCHOOL SITE — VACANIT, AND } THERE WAS THE 5 ACRE SITE OFF GOLDBN WEST JUST NORTH OF THE NURSERY, 1'TI�CH '=�19TING HORSE STABLES. BUT, NCW TO SUDDENLY SAY !SHE 5 'ACRE 91TE ji•'�i. A 0,7ACEPT O OUR PROFXRTY WITH 3 OIL WELLS I5 THE PARK SITE IS WR01G. JUST BECAUSE IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED, 80, IF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IS •��� NEEDED: IN ANY AREA, FIND THE CENTRAL LOCATION AND DEMOLISH THE HOUSE I t�tj FOR A � W PARK SITE,: SAME EFFECT. I I !•�'jJ_ i}11S 5 ACRE PARCEL WAS AN OPnll DUMPING SITE UNTIL WE CLEAN41) IT a Up[ ANDI FENCED IT FOR SECURITY A14D SAFETY, WHEN WE PURCHASED THE COPELANL`' y OIL LEASE DATED DECEM33ER j , j 9) 9, i3HICH COVERS ALL OF OUR PRO.,PERTY. I '',E ARE ONE OF THE OLDEST PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS QUARTER SECTION, r,:, GI14CE ] 970, WE HAVE DEEN OPERATING OUR BUSINESS THERE, Bi lr ORF ANY ;-TOMES 1r_': WERE BUILT IN TRIS AREA. •'•'I'+ ARE OI)POSED TO DESIG14ATING THIS 5 ACRE PARCEL AS A P AX AND AS THE MA�oR PROPERTY &NER OF THIS SITE, WZ OPPOSE THIS ACTION WE URGE : '.IYOU TO; COJISIDgR T14E OTHER 3 •P"CELE; AS THE PARK SITE. FOR THE RF.COAD ENCLOSED ARE OUR LETTERS. FROM WHBN THIS MATTER AS BROUGHT UP -IN ] 993 i ANC THE LOCATIONS OF: THE OTHER SITES ARE MARXED, I` 1 AVPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. ' u i 41 ' RESPECTFULLY, t 110NALD I. BRINDLa EMILY ANN BRINDLE, OWNERS ►�' r AMDRICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY MAYOR VICTOR LEIPZIG AND CITY COUNCIL fjs4 a ,.. i�•, ______ _______ ______________-_____________________________-_______-;_._________:___: ATTACHMENT NO. Pau 1 Gook D i o k H a r , ow 7 3 a r5 a 6 1 6 a e P. n AMEMCAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY j 16851 GOLDEN WEST STREET. FIUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 926A6��,(714)842 686 ' MAY 'HUNTINGxO14 BEF?CH P_LANNING COMMISSIO, ?200Q MAIN STPZ UT 11�UNtINGTON BZACI1, tCALIIrORNIA 92648 iTO Ti:E PLANNINQ [OMNISSION: ; f -v } 4 f i IT HAS CONE TO OUR ATTLNTION THAT THE FIVE ACZLS TVAT, AV.)OXNS 1 1 r ,f IOUR,FIFTEEN ACRES ' IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR A PARK. WF ARE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO T:IIS. rIRST, WE IIAVE AN OIL LEASE THAT COVERS THIS GROSS 'TWENTY [ACRES OF LAND AND: THREE OIL WELLS ARE ON THE PROPERTY, THIS OIL } J1� i LEASE DATES SACX TO 1919 AND AS OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THIS LEASE �. ►`�r1 WE RAINTAIN ALL SURFACE RIGHTS. SECONDr WE 111 VE PURCHASED A GOODLY NUMBER OF THESE LOTS AND .` 'ARE'T115 MAJOR PROPERTY 0Sr'N.SR AND DO NOT WANT 61115 LAND A6 A PARK. 1 r , rn i TRIRD, THE CITY ALREADY HAS A LARG* 500 ACRE PLUS PARK ON ' E THE' NORTH NEST CORNEA OF GOLDEN WEST AND ELLIS, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN t ;j IMPROVED 01-Z USED tOR A PARK AND IS STANDING VACANT LAND. FOU12' 1, IF A• LOCAL PARK FQ,-i I;OMEOWNERS IS NEZOED, THF, REVEL- r 1 : GPER SHOULD StT ABIOZ FOR 7114 PARK, NOT TRY-TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FROM SOME OTBER SOURCE' AND ENCRCACH ON OUR BUSINESS. FIFTjt, THERt- ARE TWO ALTERNATIVE SITES TIIAT WERE CONSIDERED f I FOR;A MiX, THE FIVE ACRES, ON SCHLEICHER ROAD AND GOLDEN WEST ST. , ! AND'THE ,FIVE ACRES ON THE 5OUT3 SIDS OF ELLIS ACROSS FROM CENTRAL + fpp� Sxxvl, WE ARE PREPARED TO TAKn T11IS ;SSUE TO TtIE RICHEST COURT Y' IN TMZ LAND, AND �S A FARMER AND BUSINESS PEOPLE Wlfo' EN:PLOY MINORITIES } ' WE COMB 'UNDER A FEDERAL LAW. ff k. THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE JUST FUR STARTERS, .T!E ARE CONCERNED WITH , � +'' ! OTIiL°1i YR03LEM8, HowzvrR Wr, WhNT£D OUR 1:'ZELING5 ON RECORD. APPRECIATE XOUR R•EPT.,Y. i FZSPZiCTI'UljLY, RONALD I. BRINDLE i EMILY ANN BRINDLE, OWNERS f r AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY (:C HUNTIN.1 BEACIT CITY COUNCIL , WAYNE CANTIRBERRY, ATTOAt91;X 0p LAW ATTACHMENT NO. t3.9 DM 38 SECTiO Al DISTRICT MAP 34-5-11 crry OF r HUNTTINGTON - BEACH t; ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ;+~ U3E OF PROPERTY MAP , d r � l i 1 3•' � i��!7', I' lnti'o-n7. cLvraz ru r, � i ,,� I 1 iFT J I I I L.. --------- , r I IU>:UU uuuuqAl ' � / / I IIri7ro-(rn'd tTiTriTrrn�f, �`j l 1f'flhfll t111i1�1i i i�l- ATTACHMENT NO- ��. r LAW OFFICES 1 1 PAL�IIEr{I. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM Lk WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 24503 MAIN STREET ° ANGELO J. PALMIERI' CYNTHIA M. WOLC_'T EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 1971Z ROBERT F WALDRON' JOEL P. KEW IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9 2714-6 22 8 IRVINE. CA 9 2 713-9 71=', ALAN H. WIENER' MICHELLE M. FU--OTO - ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J. VOTAM (7141 851-9400 JAMES E.WILHELM' NORMAN J. ROD':- WRITERS DIRECT - DENNIS G. TYLER' GARY C. WEISBC=3 DIAL NU"CR MICHAEL J. GREENE' MICHAEL H. LEVT_: .- FRANK C. ROTHROCK' MICHELE D. NUR- 851-7294 DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R. CARPE,Li DAVID D. PARR' RICHARD A SALLS CHARLES H. KANTER' DOUGLAS M. STC%E-%S TELECOPICR (714) 651-1354 GEORGE J.WALL O. SUSAN WIENS 17141 651-3844 L RICHARD RAWLS BEVERLY A. CHIN January 24, 1995 (7141 757-1225 PATRICK A. HCNNESSEY RONALD M. COLE (714) 85I.2751 DON FISHER CYNTHIA S. PAUt'±:V GREGORY N. WEILER SEAN P. O'CONNCR WARREN A. WILLIAMS SUSAN T. SAKURA JOHN R. LISTER TIMOTHY S. GALLS-4 B RUCE w. DAN NEME7ER Krn REFER TO FILE NO.AN SAMINI 16193-009 ♦♦.OI CSS�OwAI COK PO.�iOw OF COUNSEL NON THOMAS J. UMBERG HCH.ER OF THE CALIFCRNIA ASSCH l Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section - - - Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Ron and Ann Brindle and John and Linda Thomas ("Brindle/Thomas") are writing you to provide important information concerning the above-referenced Code Amendment/ Negative Declaration. Brindle/Thomas own the oil lease covering all of the lots sought to be impacted. Brindle/Thomas owns the majority of the five acre site ("Site A") in fee. The Brindles own the easterly property occupied by the business American Landscape Supply (and oil production) . The Thomas ' own constructively contiguous acreage easterly across Goldenwest Street. Brindle/Thomas- submit its opposition to the above actions. The opposition includes, but is not limited to, the following: • THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A 3-5 ACRE PARK IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. Apparently, the proposed ordinance places a permitted use on Site A. The impact of the proposed ordinance is not clear to either Brindle/Thomas or the City Staff. In response to Brindle/Thomas inquiries, the City has given contradictory explanations as to the effect of the proposed amendment. i The Planning Staff has stated that the park designation would be the exclusive permitted use until such time a property ATTACHMENT NQ. EXHIBIT �. FAL.%IIERI. TYLER. WIENE:s .,HELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntinamon Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 2 owner submitted a development application for the property. According to Punning Staff, the City's intent is to require that at the time a development application would be submitted, the property owner would be required to have the park designation eliminated through another specific plan amendment. Therefore, park use would be essentially the only use to which the property could be put as a result of the proposed ordinance. At other t_mes, City staff has stated that the proposed park designation would be only one of the permitted uses for the site. Further, the Environmental Board determined that the proposed amendment/assessment form does not clearly state that the site is being changed for a residential use. This ambiguity renders the proposed ordinance void and unenforceable. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONTINUES TO EFFECTUATE A TARING OR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH BRINDLE/THOMAS IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. On April 22 , 1990, the Community Service Commission selected the subject site. In early 1993 the City initiated a zone change to rezone Site A to Recreation open Space (ROS) . On May 21, 1993 , Deputy City Attorney Paul D'Alessandro advised Assistant Planner Herb Fauland that if rezoned, the property would be removed from the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Deputy City Attorney D'Alessandro further advised that the Specific Plan be amended rather than rezoning the property. On March 1, 1993 , a letter was sent to the City Council to identify a portion of the Brindle/Thomas site (Site A) as a suitable location for an equestrian facility. This item was removed from the agenda. On May 10, 1993 , the Environmental Board determined that Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly state that the Brindle/Thc-as site is being changed from residential as a permitted use. This curre"t proposed amendment seeks to include a map to specifically identify Site A as the exclusive park site location in the quarter section. The City' s proposed ordinance must be assumed to preclude development. Therefore, the action is tantamount to a taking, requiring payment of just compensation. Previously, Staff had claimed that Brindle/Thomas cannot develop its holdings under the applicable City Development standards . Staff is wrong. Brindle/Thomas is prepared to prove ATTACHMENT NO.,t4�12 PAI34IERI. TYLER. WIENER. -HEI-M & WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 3 that their lots are developable. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66451. 10, the lots are legal and valid. As stated in Brindle/Thomas ' s letter to Ronald Hagan (June 10, 1993) at page four, the City cannot compel merger of any lots that- it may- have retroactively defined as "substandard. " (Government Code- Section 64451. 11 (c) and (d) . ) By this proposed action, the City is obviously seeking to acquire the Site A for a park. The City' s designation of Site A for park purposes constitutes unlawful precondemnation activity. Furthermore, the Brindle/Thomas site is part of a much larger parcel, which includes the oil lease, the Brindle property and the Thomas property (American Landscaping) . As previously made clear to City staff and demonstrated in other matters, Brindle/Thomas will not allow the City to attempt to acquire its property and business interests at less than fair market value. The fair market value of property taken is defined as the highest price of the property or property interests. (Code Civ. Proc. §1263 . 320. ) • THE DESIGNATION OF SITE A PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT IS A PRODUCT OF INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS Site A does not comply with the criteria for open space uses in the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Element. This is glaringly evident when compared with the site adjacent to Saddleback School. The City first identified Site A as a potential site prior to selecting the Saddleback School site. An approximately five acre vacant parcel of land lies right next to the future school site. The category of park proposed for Site A is a neighborhood park. Pursuant to the City' s Land Use Element criteria for open space uses, since the function of a neighborhood park is primarily for children from 5 - 14 years of age, along with preschool children and family groups, the neighborhood park should be situated for dual use with school facilities. These parks are closely related to elementary schools and contain playground facilities. The Land Use Element specifically provides that a neighborhood park should be "adjacent to elementary school when possible. " (City of Huntington Beach Land Use Element criteria for open space uses, p. 90. ) Here, dual use is possible but has been given short shrift. The site adjacent to Saddleback School site also provides safe and convenient access to the neighborhood residents. Access has been reserved for this parcel from the proposed Churchill _ATTACHMENT NO. ►3j1 PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER- V .HELM & WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 4 Street extension. Therefore, the park will be able to be accessed from a neighborhood collector street. (Please see Internal Collector Circulation Map attached hereto showing access points. ) Moreover, the Saddleback School site meets the size and population served criteria pursuant to the Land Use Element. In its report, Staff adds criteria which are not found in the Land Use Ele=ent. The Staff Report notes that the Saddleback School park site location is under the ownership of a trust. The Report fails to :mention the significance behind the distinction concerning property ownership. Brindle/Thomas can only conclude from this reference that the type of property ownership is important because of the City's ease of acquiring the property interests. We have already discussed the City's clear intent to acquire. Since ease of acquisition is an issue, for the City it is easier to file the eminent domain action to acquire clear title against owners of one parcel than it is to proceed against a number of owners of a number of parcels. Thus, the site adjacent to Saddleback School is also favorable in comparison to Site A. Staff also mentions that the site adjacent to the Saddleback School has been preplanned for residential development and is surrounded by approved residential development. These characteristics make the site adjacent to the Saddleback School more appropriate rather than less appropriate for a park site. In addition, Site A has also been preplanned for residential development, and is adjacent to residential development on one side. American Landscape Supply and Brindle/Thomas oil production is situated to the east of Site A. Staff also reports that the site adjacent to the Saddleback School has poor access for use by the residents of the quarter section. This assertion is confounded by the fact that access is to be provided to this site by the Churchill Street extension. (See attached Internal Collector Street Circulation plan. ) In short, the site adjacent to the Saddleback School conforms with all criteria for open space uses. In contrast, the Brindle/Thomas site is not only impacted by active oil production, it is bisected by a major collector street for the quarter section. i -ATTACHMENT NO. i-= PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. ' HEL.'�I & WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page!1 5:;.... • THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach "does not feel that the environmental issues have been analyzed adequately [concerning Environmental Assessment Form 92-39] and, therefore, recommends that a focused EIR be prepared for the project. Brindle/Thomas agree that an Environmental Impact Report is required for this project. Although bisected by a future major collector street (Saddleback Lane) , the Staff suggests that there will be no vehicle trips to the park or vehicle parking at the park. (See Staff Report 1/24/95, p. 6. ) Staff ' s suggestion is not justified but is convenient as apparently no traffic or parking study has been completed. Further examples of the failure to conduct the appropriate level of environmental review include but are not limited to: -- • Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly indicate the five acre parcel as being changed from residential. • A park bisected by through traffic is potentially unsafe, inefficient, and not cost effective. • Since the park will abut residences and create significant noise levels resulting from activities such as basketball and volleyball, a noise study should be completed. • The environmental impact of horses and equestrian uses must be studied, particularly when Saddleback Lane is connected to Garfield. In response to the Environmental Board' s insightful criticisms, Staff for the most part failed to respond. Staff's failure to respond confirms the inadequacy of the environmental compliance and shows that Staff has no answers, or at least no good ones. • THE CITY CONTINUES TO SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATE THE MAGNITUDE OF ITS PROBABLE ACQUISITION COSTS FOR SITE A. City Staff has informed Brindle/Thomas that it has no more than $200, 000 . 00 budgeted for the acquisition of this park site. The property owners have provided the City with a preliminary ATTACHMENT Na. 1 3.1 5 r PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER. HELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 6 estimate of the City's acquisition costs to be approximately $5. 7 Million (including fair market value for the land, buy out of the oil wells, abandonment of the wells, and removal of the oil equipment, and street construction. (See letter of June 10, 1993 to Ronald Hagan, Director, Community Services Department. ) This acquisition estimate does not include severance damages to the larger parcel composed of the Brindle and Thomas ownerships. This estimate also does not include the loss of business good will compensation or compensation for business relocation payments. The Brindle/Thomas ' estimate similarly does not include appraisal costs, eminent domain attorneys ' fees, and other similar administrative costs that would likely be significant for the acquisition of the 66 separate lots from multiple property owners, and the severance damage to Brindle and Thomas larger parcel. The cost estimate likewise does not include any soil remediation costs or site preparation preliminary to park development. In light of the lack of funds available and the fact that the City would wind up with only a little bit more than three acres of useable park area, the acquisition of this site makes no sense according to a cost benefit analysis. Based on the foregoing comments, Brindle/Thomas opposes the Commission' s approval of Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Code Amendment No. 93-1. Brindle/Thomas requests that the City take a new look at the circumstances and decide on an alternative that makes better planning and economic sense. Very truly yours, Michae L f MHL:pjr cc: John and Linda Thomas Ron and Ann Brindle Richard A. Harlow Paul D 'Alessandro, Esq. F:\DOMAIN\888\16193009\C:"7.LTR 01/24/95 ATTACHMENT NQ, � .1� r ELLIS AVENUE �' I L J w - — — cc In --- -- -- w r Z w O U C7 N I > U i GARFIELD AVENUE ,� T ACCESS POINTS M INTERIM BARRIER Internal access Internal Collector Street Circulation i Exhibit 6 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 13.11 Hunt�n ft�t Beach De : rlment tit C4mman� Dex�elt► rnent< p ...... ': ::.. `�` VREPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner DATE: February 28, 1995 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 24, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) LOCATION: The property is centrally located in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection, generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards St., Golden West St., Ellis Ave., and Garfield Ave. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 93-1 and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis- Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. The code amendment was continued from the January 24, 1995 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to re-evaluate the intent of the proposed ordinance and to revise the draft ordinance. The revised draft ordinance will amend Section III, Community Theme (Pages 14-19), of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan to include a new category (No. 6) for neighborhood parks and reference the Open Space exhibit (No. 8, Page 18) depicting the location of the neighborhood park. The proposed code amendment is to designate a site for the exclusive use as a neighborhood park. Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendment because the designation of a three to five acre neighborhood park that is centrally located in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection will meet the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. In addition, the neighborhood park designation will meet the goals and policies of the master plan of development for the Holly/Seacliffarea as established in General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 adopted January 8, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Code Amendment No. 93-1 based on findings as outlined in Attachment No. 1 and forward to the City Council." :ATTACHMENT NO. 14.1 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Various/See Attachment No. 11 (66 total lots, 65 encyclopedia lots) REQUEST: To amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. DATE ACCEPTED: January 6, 1995 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Vacant, Oil Production North and West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Single Family Residential East of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Commercial (American Landscape) South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Vacant (Approved SFR Subdivision) Staff Report-2/28/95 2 (pcsrl23) ('n k - -11"J ... ' 17M Al OGF w L / I s rZ GARFIELD AV E. CA93-01 / EA 92-39 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION �HLJNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT PROPOSAL: Code Amendment No. 93-1 and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis- Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend Section III, Community Theme (Page 14), by including a new category (No. 6) for Neighborhood Parks within the text of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. The new category will allow the establishment of a three to five acre neighborhood park and include a legal description of the proposed site and reference the Open Space exhibit (No. 8, Page 18) depicting the location of the neighborhood park. No park development is proposed at this time. Zonink Compliance The proposed code amendment complies with the requirements of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP). The three to five acre neighborhood park conforms to the minimum standards of the specific plan and as defined in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Any future development proposal will require a conditional use permit and public hearing before the Planning Commission. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Estate Residential land use designation of the Land Use Element, and the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Recreation Element of the General Plan includes a goal to provide adequate neighborhood recreation facilities for all areas of the city. To achieve that goal, the following general policy statements are included: a. Provide neighborhood parks that are generally 2.5 to 5 acres in size. b. Centrally locate parks within neighborhoods. c. Design neighborhood parks to serve the area within a one-quarter mile radius. d. When possible, locate neighborhood parks adjacent to schools so both facilities can provide more functional uses. e. Place a high priority on developing a neighborhood park to serve the Seacliff area. f. In new residential tracts, consideration should be given to providing and maintaining neighborhood recreation areas through a homeowner's maintenance association. The proposed code amendment complies with the size criteria, location, and the two area serving requirements (1/4 mile radius, Seacliff area) of the Recreation Element. Staff Report-2/28/95 3 (pcsr123) 1�.� The Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 89-1, adopted January 8, 1990) identified the need for four neighborhood parks within the 768 acre Master Plan area. The Master Plan identified one of the four neighborhood parks within the EGSP area. The land use map of the Land Use Element for the Master Plan has designated a minimum four acre park in the south central area of the EGSP (see Attachment No. 7). The Master Plan also included an Open Space Element map which identified the location of a minimum four acre neighborhood park (see Attachment No. 8). The location is generally identified at the intersection of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The proposed code amendment complies with the goal of providing one of the four neighborhood parks within the EGSP and with the Land Use and Open Space maps of the Master Plan. General Plan Advisory Committee The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and has established a committee to analyze and give direction to staff relative to the various elements of the General Plan. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has made recommendations on land use for the area and has recommended that the area remain designated single family residential with an equestrian/rural theme. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the committee. Environmental Status: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 for twenty-one (21) days and two written comments were received and a response to these comments has been included (see Attachment No 10). Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Since the determination was made, a period of approximately 20 months has passed. Staff believes that the environmental setting, conditions, and conclusions are the same and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 may be processed. Prior to any action on Code Amendment No. 93-1, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 92-39. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Desijen Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: Not applicable Staff Report-2/28/95 4 (pcsrl23) ty•5 Other Department Concerns: The Department of Public Works, Fire, Police, Community Services and Economic Development have responded on the proposed code amendment. No comments on the proposed code amendment was noted by Economic Development. One comment was received from Public Works (Park, Tree, and Landscape Division) regarding possible soil contamination because of the existing oil operations, cost of park maintenance, and access concerns. Staff believes that these concerns are valid, however, these concerns will be more appropriately addressed during the park development proposal (CUP). One comment was received from Fire regarding access and completion of the local street system. Again, staff believes that this concern will be addressed at the development proposal stage. Community Services noted their support of the request. The Police Department has no concerns. ANALYSIS: Study Session On February 14, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the proposed code amendment. At the study session, staff gave a presentation on the proposed code amendment and history of the site. This included the zoning and general plan of the quartersection, a future school site, current land ownership, land acquisition activities, current oil operations, applicability of oil leases and alternative park locations. Staff also gave an overview of the Recreation Element and the City Council's direction to proceed with an amendment to identify a neighborhood park in the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. Finally, staff answered general questions about the pending code amendment. One of the questions asked by the Planning Commission was regarding the oil lease (Copeland) and its possible hindrance on the location of the park site. Attached for your information is a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office which addresses the Planning Commission's concerns (see Attachment No. 12). History On May 21, 1984, the City Council adopted a Recreation Element to the City's General Plan. The Element identified goals and policies for providing recreational opportunities for the City of Huntington Beach. The Element identifies those quartersections which are not within the neighborhood park service radius. The Ellis-Golden West Quartersection is one of the areas not served by a neighborhood park. To address this deficiency, the Element identified the need for a neighborhood park by designating a neighborhood park in the Quartersection. The Element provides the specific goals and policies for the establishment of neighborhood parks. On July 5, 1989, the City Council adopted the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP) for the purpose of implementing the Estate Residential general plan land use designation within the Quartersection. The specific plan permits estate residential (single family detached residences) on large lots with sensitivity towards the existing topography and provide equestrian amenities. The specific plan also permits the establishment of a three to five acre neighborhood park subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. However, the plan does not identify the location for the neighborhood park. Staff Report-2/28/95 5 (pcsrl23) On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 89-1) which established a comprehensive land use plan for the 768 acres of primarily undeveloped land in central Huntington Beach. The plan included an Open Space Element which identified the need for neighborhood parks within the Master Plan area. The plan established four parks, minimum four acres, within the Master Plan area. One of the proposed parks is within the EGSP area. On June 17, 1991, the City Council received a report which analyzed and identified locations for a proposed park within the EGSP area. The report (see Attachment No. 9) analyzed three locations. The City Council directed staff to initiate the proper amendments to designate Alternative A, the centrally located site for park purposes. Code Amendment (REVISED) The proposed code amendment was continued from the January 24, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. The continuance allowed staff time to clarify the intent of the proposed amendment and to re-draft an ordinance which clearly identifies a site for the exclusive use as a neighborhood park. The proposed code amendment will amend the text (Community Theme, Page No. 14) of the EGSP to include a new category for neighborhood parks. The category will include a legal description of the site and reference an exhibit (Open Space and Corridor Trail System, Page No. 18) in the document which identifies the location of the site. Please see Attachment Nos. 3 & 4. The proposed location is in conformance with the direction given by the City Council. The proposed code amendment will only amend the EGSP and designate the park site; no development is proposed at this time. Any future development proposal for a neighborhood park will require Community Services Commission review and approval and a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. The location of the proposed park encompasses approximately five acres of encyclopedia lots. There are 65 such lots which measure approximately 25.4' X 125.88' in size (3,197.35 sq. ft.). There is also one lettered lot"A". This area is under numerous ownership and land consolidation for development is difficult (see Attachment No. 11). The specific plan requires any development proposal to be a minimum ten gross acres with any non-contiguous parcels to be no less than five acres in size. A future local public street (Saddleback Lane) is proposed within the area to complete the interior circulation system of the Quartersection. The local street will bisect the proposed park site linking with Quarterhorse Lane and ultimately connecting with Garfield Avenue to the south. The ultimate development of the neighborhood park will be coordinated with the future construction of the local street and future infrastructure of the Quartersection. Staff Report-2/28/95 6 (pcsr 123) The site currently is vacant of any development, but does have two oil producing sites within the proposed park area. Preliminary conceptual plans for the park site indicate that the park plan can accommodate the two oil producing sites by providing access for maintenance and fencing for safety protection (see Attachment No. 6). The conceptual plan provides open turf areas, park benches, meandering sidewalks, a basketball court, a sand volleyball court, and area lighting. The plan also identifies a 15 feet equestrian trail easement along the southerly side of the future local public street. At the development proposal stage (CUP), the park plan will be required to provide an additional 15 feet equestrian trail easement along the northerly side of the future street in conformance with the trail sections of the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan. These trails will then link with the overall trail system within the Quartersection. The neighborhood park plan will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses because of the passive nature of the future park. Noise generated by the park should be minimal because of the passive amenities and lighting impacts are reduced because of the provision of lighting only for security purposes along the sidewalk. In addition, the future park is not anticipated to generate additional vehicle trips within the area because the park is proposed to provide amenities which serve the neighborhood residents. The residents will walk, bike, or ride horses to the site. The park plan is provided for conceptual purposes only, as stated earlier, any future development of the site will require Community Services Commission review, a conditional use permit, and review by the Planning Commission. Saddleback School Site In July, 1991 the city approved a 50 acre master plan of estate residential development generally located along Garfield Avenue from Golden West Street to Edwards Avenue. As part of this development, the developer was required to dedicate an approximate ten gross acre area for a future school site. The need for a school site was identified in the general plan amendment for the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan. The future school site is located at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue at Saddleback Lane. In addition, an approximately five acre vacant parcel of land lies adjacent the future school site. Historically, park sites have been incorporated with schools through joint agreements, whenever possible, to develop an optimum school and park site. The potential joint use would be in conformance with one of the six general policies of the Recreation Element for adequate neighborhood recreation facilities. However, the vacant five acre parcel is under ownership of a trust, has been pre-planned for residential development, is surrounded by approved residential development, and has poor access for use by the residents of the Quartersection. Staff Report-2/28/95 7 (pcsr123) SUMMARY: Staff in its analysis of the proposed code amendment concurs with the recommendation and analysis made in the June 1991 report to the City Council based upon the following: The proposed three to five acre neighborhood park location is centrally located within the Quartersection. The location has the best overall terrain. The location will be accessed by a local public street. The proposed code amendment will provide recreational needs for the immediate residents and the community. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may take one of the following alternative actions: A. Deny Code Amendment No. 93-1 as proposed; or B. Direct staff to investigate other locations within the Ellis Golden West Quartersection for a three to five acre park. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance 3. Legislative Draft 4. Draft Open Space Corridors, Trails System, and Neighborhood Park Exhibit No. 8 5. Narrative dated March 25, 1993 6. Site Plan dated April 19, 1993 7. Holly/ Seacliff Master Plan-Land Use Element Map 8. Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan-Open Space Element Map 9. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated June 17, 1991 10. Negative Declaration No. 92-39 11. Land Ownership Map 12. Legal Opinion (Copeland Oil Lease) dated January 21, 1993 13. Letter of opposition dated January 19, 1995 (Brindle) 14. Letter of opposition dated January 23, 1995 (Brindle) 15. Letter of opposition dated January 24, 1995 (Thomas) 16. Letter of opposition dated January 24, 1995 (Attorney-Leifer) 17. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 24, 1995 SH:HF:kjl Staff Report-2/28/95 8 (pcsrl23) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan by proposing to designate a three to five acre neighborhood park is consistent with the City's General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies regarding open space and conservation, recreation, circulation, land use, and community facilities. 2. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element by encouraging beautification of oil-producing areas and restoration of non- productive oil land, and maximizing the outdoor and environmental potential of the city by providing comprehensive , coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of the community. 3. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Recreation Element by providing an adequate neighborhood recreation facility that is three to five acres in size, centrally located within a neighborhood and will serve an area within a quarter mile radius. 4. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Circulation Element by providing adequate transportation improvements and access to a future neighborhood park by means of a future local (public) street. 5. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element by capitalizing on the outdoor and environmental potential of the city and by insuring that adequate open space is provided in all residential areas of the city. 6. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Community Facilities Element by coordinating park development with the provisions of community facilities. Attachment-2/28/95 (pcsr123-9) 1� .14 -:;;;�0-V I k I�ktl ORDINANCE NO. 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 WHEREAS, on July 5, 1989, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan; and The 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 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; 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 ATTACHMENT NO. 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 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 map 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 day of 1995. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk for �¢ 57 ' Wa --P 5's REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development 2 G:Ord:Code93-1\2/16/95 ATTACHMENT NO. 1q• 1a SLATER AVE. PROJECT ` I LOCATION z � ALSERT AVE. n z Uj a J J- ELLIS (-D AVE. GARFIE LO o to -- �- cn \ < p YORKT01MN � ADAMS \� T z z P VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A �,.7_S. ATTACHMENT NO. CITY OF HUN T INGTON BEACH GEPARTr..E'\- C- PUBL,C NCRKS Sheet 1 of 2 LOT A 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 70 11 72 73 TRACT i 26 25 24 23 22 27 20 19 78 77 16 75 74 I 27 28 29 30 37 32 33 34 35 35 37 138 39 i I 52 57 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 47 40 N 0. 306 53 54 55 55 57 58 59 60 67 62 53 64 65 EXHIBIT A IN.T.S. ATTACHMENT NO. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CEPAR TEN i CF wPuc WORKS Sheet 2 of 2 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. ATTACHMENT NO. tti-+5 1 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIF-i.� PLAN LEGISLATIVE DRAFT The setback easement area shall be privately owned and maintained. All fencing within the landscaped setback area shall conform to the fencing provisions of this Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. C. Rights-of-_Way for Internal Collector Streets. The internal collector streets shall include an area which can serve as a trail link for development projects which do not have direct access to the public Open Space Corridor and can also serve as an emergency parking area. d. Interim Barrier: An interim barrier shall be placed at the location depicted in Exhibit 6 subject to the requirements of the Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Development Departments. At such time as the internal collector street is fully improved, a determination to retain the barrier shall be made. All property owners within the 160 acre quarter section shall be notified in a timely manner prior to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 3. Private Streets. Residential streets shall be privately owned and maintained. Said streets shall be improved in accordance with the conceptual design standards for residential streets depicted in Exhibit 7. All streets shall be curvilinear if feasible and shall contain a five (5) foot wide pedestrian easement adjacent to the curb. 4. General. Recreational circulation shall conform to the Orange County Master Plan for bikeways/trails. III. C. COMMUNITY THEME 1. Open Space Corridors Open Space Corridors shall be established as depicted in Exhibit 8. Development within Open Space Corridors shall be limited to recreational trails with appropriate fencing and public works facilities and utilities. The open space corridors have been designated as primary components of the overall drainage system in the quartersection. The Open Space Corridors shall follow to the greatest extent feasible the alignment of the existing natural drainage swales which traverse the area. The Open Space Corridors shall be held as common open space by homeowner associations. The open space corridors shall generally be delineated by those areas below the fifty (50) foot contour. The precise dimensions and location of the Open Space Corridor shall be subject to review and approval of the Departments of Community Development and Public Works.The corridor shall include a minimum easement dedication of sixteen(16) feet for a public equestrian/recreational trail. The equestrian/ recreational trail shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any habitable floor area. ATTACHMENT NO. iq._� 2. Common Areas Common open space and private streets shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant running with the land describing the open space and its maintenance and improvement for the benefit of residents of the development. Prior to recordation the developer shall file with the Department of Community Development, with the final subdivision map, all legal documents which will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designated purpose, as approved on the final development plan. The City may also require that the homeowner's association relinquish all development rights in common areas to the City. All common improvements including but not limited to trails, project fencing and common open space landscaping shall be completed by the developer prior to the sale of any lots and/or units. All lands to be conveyed to the homeowner's association and/or the City shall be subject to the right of the grantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and improvements of the common space and public trails easement. 3. Landscaping - Landscaping shall meet the following requirements: Landscaping shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. All setback areas fronting on or visible from a street shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. Such landscaping shall consist primarily of ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other living plants. Plant materials shall be drought resistant. b. Decorative design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculpture, planters and similar elements may be permitted provided such elements are incorporated as a part of the landscaping plan. C. Permanent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. d. On-site trees shall be provided as follows: one (1) thirty-six (36) inch box tree for each residential unit or the equivalent of thirty-six (36) inch box trees as provided herein. Seventy-five (75) percent of the total requirement shall be thirty-six (36) inch box trees and the remaining 25 percent of such requirement may be provided at a ratio of one (1) inch for one (1) inch through the use of twenty-four (24) inch box trees. Additional trees and shrubs shall also be planted to provide a well-balanced landscaped development. e. A distinctive landscape area shall be provided at the corners of arterials for enhanced landscape treatment subject to the requirements of the Design Guidelines. The area shall be greater than the general 25 foot perimeter setback and the perimeter fence shall have a 45 degree angle at the corner. ATTACHMENT NU. _; (0825D) 4. Fences. Walls and Hedges Fences and walls shall be in conformance with the Design Guidelines for the area. a. Front yard fences. Fences, hedges and berms shall not exceed three and one-half(3-1/2) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback area provided that the fence is a wood picket, wood rail, wrought-iron or other similar type. Fencing is not permitted within five (5) feet from back of curb. b. Side and Rear Yard Fences. The use of solid fencing including wood, poured concrete, concrete block, brick fences not exceeding six (6) feet in height may be located on the required side or rear yard property lines. Wrought iron or other similar type of see-through fencing may be used in conjunction with swimming pool areas, subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development. C. Street Intersection Visibility. On corner lots, no fence, hedge, wall, sign, structure, mound of earth, landscaping, or other visual obstruction between forty-two (42) inches and seven (7) feet in height above the nearest street curb elevation, shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow within the triangular area formed by measuring 25 feet from the intersection of the front and exterior side property lines. Trees trimmed free of branches or foliage so as to maintain visual clearance below seven (7) feet are exempt from the above prohibition. d. Height Measurement of Fence or Wall. The height of a fence shall be as defined in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 5. Equestrian Trails A minimum sixteen (16) feet in width public equestrian/recreation trail easement shall be dedicated to the City for a public equestrian/recreation trail. All developments must provide trail access to the open space corridor or primary equestrian/recreation trail subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development and shall be in conformance with Exhibit 8. Equestrian trails shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: a. Tread width shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet. Trail tread area shall be graded smooth, free of weeds, stumps, roots, debris and large rocks. Adequate drainage shall be provided when grading. b. The trail shall be clear of all obstructions from ground level to a height of ten (10) feet. ATTACHMENT NO. 1q.1' (0825D) 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. Neighborhood 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 OF 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. ATTACHMENT NO. (�'�.�r. (0825D) PLUS AVENUE I L �I111111111//t1111/11 lltlli,ll IIt/Illill/It1111111t- - Tc-ll - t//liltill ' - - - - - --•— Iti 11 .�1'� �IIIY11}.. II IIIII111 W F-1 U) L1_f iffyT W w I - Illtlltllll f111111t111 llllltililil ltlllllllt 1111111111111111 gill l 11 tt llt111,t,11111 I - _ T l GARFIELD AVENUE ' Open Space Neighborhood Park I� P 1 i 11 n l l Equestrian Trail DRAF OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS, TRAIL SYSTEMS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS EXHIBIT 8 12 ATTACHMENT NO. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner Community Development FROM: Jim B. Engle, Deputy Direct r Recreation, Beaches and DeveConent DATE: March 25, 1993 SUBJECT: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE CHANGE City Council directed staff to make a zone change of the 5 acre oil lots area centrally located in the quarter section southwest of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street. To prepare for this, Community Services had previously submitted the environmental assessment report. Community Development indicated that the environmental will not be processed until the consultant prepares the conceptual plan. The plan will be completed in two weeks (written park description is provided below) . Community Services requests that you move forward with the zone change to identify this site for park purposes . As you have indicated, this zone change is consiltant with Council direction as well as the Specific Plan and General Plan. PARK DESCRIPTION: The neighborhood park that is proposed for the southwest quarter section of Ellis Avenue and Golden West Street will have traditional neighborhood park facilities, including picnic tables, benches, open turf play area, one turf volleyball court, one basketball court and a tot lot with children' s play equipment. There would be a walkway through the park with security lighting. There is no sports lighting planned for the site. There are currently two active oil wells on site. It is feasible to design the park around these wells so they can remain in operation and allow access across the park to service the wells. This is in agreement with our interpretation of the Copeland lease. If these wells are abandoned, turf would then cover these areas. There is also a possibility that the street could intersect the park. It is my understanding that it is currently planned to be 42 ' in width. The attached plan shows the park site including the center line for the road. The northwest triangular section of the park would be a passive area with turf, walkway and benches . If the road does not go through the park property , then that area would have grass . ATTACHMENT NO. tq.a.\ Page two There has been some discussion among home owners about incorporating equestrian facilities on the park site. At this time, there is no plan to do so, although it could be a future consideration. The project being proposed herein is a traditional neighborhood park facility on 4 to 5 acres. JBE: am ATTACHMENT NO. ty-No ' P-P"lYn 1 n.siden4al D.vebprr�M i ,r Jj I -- __ �•---�'� Q Ki�---r� D �< 3 D WO Co.,tun A,.. '/ ' P.A Bomhos(TMKal J Pl—) �/ ' ' �� - `��- =<;'• Preliminary Conceptual Design.�• f.. r. ..�.. Conceyu� A,.,Eynrnp I rry a Plaus 1 '.•',.� Susd Vd»ybal Ceul 131(^'' °"°` City 9 of Huntington Beach California � d Community Services Department one 1.5 11 WO.Strom Uam Easement Project; Proposed Epuesl—1,yl •C Y Proposed S. , I e _ (p ro E CN wel W,Pml.cwl iw iry (U 0 1 :a G N\ ! 3 W z a open run Ai.a �. �. ` !- —Oil WO W!Prol.cw.renct'q : O E ( r U U ( 1 J.,1• OJT . / � �J°�`.•r „PKI*t,b»onsl.b(,yPasPI..r) Vicinity Map CNO.-PUY M.a DProppe.duu. Con dM. ' r Design; \. J �1: _.. ._e. Rxwr � Job No; raool ... _ � � � •® � - /1/, .I:;itS_ •I� j Description; i i ` •? 1 HUNT HG Preliminary ,J — ( � 8EA H / Conceptual Z - _ k y ... Design - - - - way!Lin. z Sheet � rw..n.s;a,>t.r D.vebprtwll �,o,',-E D �. �( • 19•q 3 of u ul m y to � a 4 v B4 w F �....�...�... oS f 40 AC { f mg 10 1 .�. � i B2 ! I-• --------'-Z s� ► E �. f 25Du,-Z 46 AC 1 1 I .o ov ` B A 2 ;!i i z6 `., � csc c I � OS \� - j ; E % 23 AC \ B1 r SaAC Il A3 E ss Ac _, %• D9 16 AC O S _' ;° d ,3 AC M1 aE I Dfi DS ! D6 ,a AC C M i MH e 2:5 NJ 7 AC 22 AC I t3 AC i .o Dui.0 el 23 AC �•� 14 AC p �� / l % CIO Y Aver-Z 7 D3 0� 63 AC I 370 DV f % 5 9 DLL'AC E /• i I ATTACHMENT NO. - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH {k'' L E G E N D ';.,�41'?i+�ll����., �v?�� I� _ �(••�•••�! CIAfS 1 RIR(If All .'a ��„ '.f4,l•.,�...). "i�•.t�^, ilia •�' l__� Cyr.,.• � �!• +�: ,�flc''�.,.f er'r114••t,;t�,�,,�'-.�.n•, Y. y �t� E`_;now- fr C1Af3 11 tN1 IRAy �: - - 11 IOV((IRIAN IYAII NGI ... �. v>.u..___.._- .r.... '.l ..w.. U. : I I- ;: !(f t[AIION A41A ••( IO SC(NIC CORRIDOR E 7At �£ I i TRANS/OR1A110 N, f leoc \ �, / \� I �M IRAI( COR NOOR 17 "',;'.: Y ••�.� tiitt MH ( N660- M PARK Hff A$I0IMI(1(O 1N j: R(Ct(AffON (S(N(Nf I 10 AC 7f AC N61 N62 ;,�c }r mo (Minimum 4 acres ear .<♦ E '0.Y.1. 1 I. ))'AC �• ,_•u.... 'I [//A w.. ten.<... .o... ,Q ACSN AC Y//1 M � 1 `` GOMNA�nw a AG I 11 C Ac M MII M 1 AC ♦; mrw; 7 ,{ If AC 72 AC Ac 13 AC 5 AC ;;1`," ,-k,>•. /, -��i;���`x^J`� Clo�`Avinve 7•.r Car A-- MD S)I AC N. 1 �� )ff ��, Ir - �'74,'%• •YOI!Own vertu• t CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH* OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (C l c Tr A v r n iJ flllllil'I I 1 ���u�� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION '-AC6,.ns Date T„n P 17 , 1 q 91 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T . Uberuaga , City Administra Prepared by: Ron Hagan , Director , Community Services Mike Adams , Director , Community Develop t Subject: ELLIS/GOLDEN WEST NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ZONING APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ) New Policy or Excep i 7 I9 Statement of issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternati a cti s, ttacnmeal STATEMENT_QF 1 SSLE There is a need to initiate the proper zoning to designate a park in the quartersection southwest of Ellis and Golden West . RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to initiate the proper zone change to designate a neighborhood park site in the quartersection southwest of Ellis and Golden West; said location to be Alternative A, the most centrally located site . ANALYSIS- At its January 8 , 1990 meeting , City Council adopted the Holly/Seacliff Master Plan which established four parks, minimum four acres each , within the 768 acre area . One park is within the quartersection ( 160 acres ) bounded by Ellis Avenue, Golden West Street, Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street, known as the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP ) area . The Community Development and Community Services Departments have evaluated three possible locations for the EGSP park. On April 22 , 1990, the Community Services Commission chose Alternative A because it is centrally located within the quartersection and has the best overall terrain for a neighborhood park. The commission recommended a four to five acre size park. The specific size and amenities would be determined during the design stage. On June 4 , 1990 , City Council directed Community Development , with input from Community Services, to reevaluate park locations in the Holly/Seacliff Master Plan area . Attached is the report . It reconfirms the original recommendation made by staff and the Community Services Commission that centrally located Alternative A is the best site for the neighborhood park in the Ellis /Golden West quartersection . ATTACHMFNT N0. -'.tq.�Jp REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Page two To move forward with the process , City Council direction is necessary for staff initiation of a zone change to put a recreation overlay designation on the property . The current zoning is "Ellis/Golden West Specific Plan . " The matter would then be referred to the Planning Commission and then back to City Council . The process will entail public hearings at both the Planning Commission and Council levels . The zone change is necessary to enable staff to begin acquiring the property for park purposes . FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable ALTERNATIVES 1 . Select another park location. 2 . Do not designate a park within subject quartersection. ATTACHMENTS Site plan Mike Adans ' s June 21, 1990 memo Re: Planned Parks in Holly/Seacliff area ATTArPNAFNT Nn 14.a-) FLLIS AVENUE L _tlil U i111111t1111t1 I,tlti/It ltlltiltilll(IIt1I111— t - - - tlllilttt/ Ill/titall L]J _ . p7 fLR — z l tt' �a r Uj CC CC G 'fir.; S . 0 Uj S ! 1t1ItIl11((IIIII[Itttt) — 11(111(llll [its Itt11,( 1it11)t11f1 [if[ifiF'ff •filtlittlff,lll[tl It[Ilttlitil!l1111tt1�t } I GARFtELD AVENUE Open Space -1111I1II Equestrian Trait Open Space Corridors and Trail System AT FA(`!JkhGNIT AIn 11 'T J. ` CITY OF HUNTINGTONI BEACH .J INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUK*nNCTON BEACH Michael T. Uberuaga From Mike Adams , Director To City Administr.ator Community Development Subject PLANNED. PARKS IN THE HOLLY- Date June 21, 1990 SEACLIFF AREA (STUDY SESSION) The following is a discussion of the neighborhood park sites adopted as part of the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment in January, 1990 . In addition, information is provided relative to sidewalks in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area . Holly-Seacliff Neighborhood Parks : The Recreation Element of the General Plan includes a goal to provide for adequate neighborhood recreation facilities for all areas of the City. To achieve that goal, the following general policy statements are included : a . Provide neighborhood parks that are generally 2 . 5 to 5 acres in size. b. Centrally locate parks within neighborhoods . c. Design neighborhood parks to serve the area within a one-quarter mile radius . d. When possible, locate neighborhood parks adjacent to schools so that both facilities can provide more functional uses . e. Place a high priority on developing a neighborhood park to serve the Seacliff area . f . In new residential tracts, consideration should be given to providing and maintaining neighborhood recreation areas through a homeowner ' s maintenance association. To implement this goal in the Holly-Seacliff area, four neighborhood parks were designated in four distinct areas (see Attachment No. 1) . The General Plan Amendment proposed four neighborhood parks totalling a minimum of 13 acres . The parks would vary in size from 2 . 5 to 5 acres in accord with the Recreational Element policies . Size of each park would be further identified at the specific plan review for each area based upon resident park need . At the Council meeting on January 8, 1990, a minimum neighborhood park size of 4 acres was established for a total of 16 acres . ATTArNM1rNT N0 ?�: Holly-Seacliff f ay Session Page Two The following matrix contains a breakdown of the planning sub-areas of the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment and park area calculations : PARK AREA (ACRES) SUB- ALLOWABLE HOLLY-SEACLIFF ADOPTED HOLLY- AREA UNITS POPULATION GPA PROPOSAL _ SEACLIFF GPA A 170 474 0 0 B 470 1537 3 4 C-1 310 1014 3 4 C-2 1225 2250 3 4 D 1450 2579 3 4 E 785 1570 0 0 TOTALS 4410 9424 12 16 Further analysis of population clusters in each quartersection indicates that the neighborhood park designated in sub-area C-1 would be better situated and serve a greater population density in sub-area E. In addition, a minimum park size before specific plans are developed may cause for disproportionate park sizes per population density. Thus , deleting reference to minimum park size in- the General Plan and evaluate park size and needs during the Specific Plan rezones would be recommended . If the City Council feels changes to the planned parks in the Holly-Seacliff area are warranted, it is recommended that staff be directed to initiate a. General Plan Amendment . Sidewalks: The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan does not require sidewalks to be constructed. The absence of sidewalks create an estate theme and rural atmosphere extablished by Country View Estates and Central Park Estates . Existing easements and provisions for private easements contained in the Specific Plan require that space be set aside for pedestrian use along the sides of the streets . The City Attorney has determined that the absence of paved sidewalks does not create a future liablility for the City. If sidewalks are desired in the future, there is adequate space for them. L},30 ATTLr.u�, ,,;FNT Nn. Holly-Seacliff E 'v Session Page Three Although sidewalks are not required throughout the quater section, one side of the internal collector street will include a sidewalk. The internal collector would then have a pedestrian orientation on one side and equestrian orientation on the other . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Holly-Seacliff Open Space Element Map. 2 . Sub-Area Map 3 . Existing and Proposed Recreation Facilities Map. MA: SH: kjl ( 6175d) wYTA f%( I Rf At'T` (,In I L E G E N D iJi<.'•F`�:'+.y iwtri>:�.ti � '� i 7I ••••• cuss I u[I uAn S, {( ,• • �` 1 fyill •••( •••••�• CIA3{11 II[l IIAn •�� � .1•, ...1'_ Vt J l� V( 111,A+•�•n\� lam-_ .•y r ::hi:. 1•••r.• .:T.:::'::::.:l.:�.. :..::.t �' ({�.C{fie foul ilea r, le.q -----1p��, jt I ! r' r- ! 1 T N 61 r i� nw•c' j� 1 ,e'r, &DnAl (I- t IICIIAll011 AIIA `:?�i� � Jf •�i �:i •.'I:1 /'��� .l L, I I fi sunk conlool ;AC 1![[ �•• 3- -�--�'-- ,t IIAN3101IA110N\ 1EAc •\ f'• %,•J I I nunc '.�-'— �� IUll COIuoO1 I• IiwAc •� 1 I' I �•,��•_�%, • i.� a IOIf N11Al 1CNOOl 111( { • / 60 •AIf A11 A3 110 IN . M I 1AllO lt[W a N ill 1 AC:;� i � 461 N62 r,AC ;i:i:'�' + 1�Iw•�c rr AG wt.nn ..� !! ®y ..�wr..w• S{pC I{AC I i 'i...._..._---------------------_ rr � z:t::Z c„::-n tt rrr:nrta:antz:::7:'�• i��I t8 �� �;.•r_rt �:s:! n�, . 11 AC N5914 AC 73 AC 13 AC r�w+c ^ .�, 1. �•{ M I:1 M mo /I ";• SJ AC /Ir / t } c 77t19 f � S�J1I �i1 f 1 111•AC { c d 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Q�IIIIIII I I I I 1CX�na1 HOLLY SEACLIrt GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ' CS +j Ali 3 IT .c i " .L I r M • Mini Parka �4y4 .♦�� bS �V N - Neighborhood Parks ` C - Community Parks ''•`� ♦,♦ • ��� :� ♦ r`' SO QC G - Golf Courses ----- Regional Facility i ♦,�i ��, ♦ Outside City Limits lb O ' �♦ t� L7 dt C� Qp• ch 1�` �� A � +� y0 x A T4 hA41 HUNTINGTON DOLSA CHICA DOLSA CHICA PROPOSED BLUFFTOP HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH ECOLOGICAL BOLSA CHICA STATINBEAC LANDSCAPED AREA PIER CITY BEACH STATE BEACH GTON NU4NNIN ON AR M,GwIIFORNIA PARK RESERVE LINEAR PARK PARK PUNNING pEPAR1MEN PARK Figure 2-13 EXISTING AND PROPOSED RECREATION FACILITIES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUSIIi LION BV.CH TO: Jim Engle Deputy Directo ecreation, Beaches and Development FROM: Herb Faulan Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO. 92-39 DATE: April 22 , 1993 Applicant : City of Huntington Community Services Request : A change of zone request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS} designation on a five (5) acre site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood park. Location: The property is generally located in the central portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area which is bounded by Edwards St . , Goldenwest St . , Ellis Ave . , and Garfield Ave. Background Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project . In view of this , a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a twenty-one (21) day public review period commencing April 29 , 1993 and ending May 19 , 1993 . If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received , you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 93-39 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment . HF: lp (6587d) ATTACHMENT NO. -". . `_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH s• INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Jim Engle Deputy Director e-creation, Beaches and Development FROM: Herb Fauland Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO. 92-39 DATE: April 22 , 1993 This is to inform you that the Planning Staff has completed an initial assessment of the potential environmental impacts of your project . The initial assessment (or Environmental Checklist) was reviewed by the Environmental Assessment Committee on Wednesday, April 21, 1993 . The committee determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts were anticipated to result from development of your proposed project . The committee therefore recommended that a Negative Declaration be prepared for your project . In view of this , draft Negative Declaration No . 92-39 has been prepared and will be published in the Huntington Beach Independent . for a twenty-one (21) day public review period . Also be aware, that if approved, we will require payment of an additional $25 . 00 to cover the County' s posting fee . The posting fee shall be submitted as one check for $25 . 00 payable to the County of Orange and should not be submitted before the public hearing has been advertised but within 3 days after the Planning Commission action. For your information I have attached a copy of the completed Environmental Checklist . If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 536-5271 . Attachment HF: lp ( 6588d) _ . .. .r► IT Alrl III _'AID ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 92-39 1. Name of Proponent: City of Huntington Beach Community Services Dept. Address: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone Number: 714-536-5490 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: December 4, 1992 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): Zone Change #93-1 4. Proiect Location: The property is generally located in the central portion of the Ellis—Golden West Specific Plan Area which is bounded by Edwards Street, Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue. (Please refer to Attachment 1) 5. Proiect Description: A change of zone request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) designation on a five (5) acre site within the Ellis—Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The proposed change of zone to allow the establishment of a neighborhood park will permit children's play areas, picnic tables, basketball courts, volleyball courts, open turf areas, and meandering sidewalks. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X _ Discussion: The project is anticipated to result in minor short—term disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of soils. The proposed change of zone to allow the establishment of a neighborhood park will permit children's play areas, picnic tables, basketball courts, volleyball courts, open turf areas, and meandering sidewalks. The inclusion of these activities will require minor grading activities and overcovering of the soils within the maximum two (2) feet of cut and two (2) feet of fill grading standards established in the Ellis—Golden West Specific Plan. The majority of the five (5) acre site will retain the natural topography of the area and therefore will not have a significant effect upon the environment. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring a grading plan and adherance to the maximum cut and fill standards, no significant environmental impact is anticipated. No further analysis is necessary. .. 1 1� Yes Maybe No c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ X Discussion: The project may result in minor changes in topography or ground surface relief features. The establishment of a neighborhood park and associated activities may require minor grading activities which may alter existing topographical features. The project will retain the natural state of the area by implementation of the maximum cut and fill grading standards of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring a grading plan and adherance to the maximum cut and fill standards, no significant environmental impact is anticipated. No further analysis is necessary. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ _ X Discussion: The project is anticipated to result in minor short-term wind erosion during grading and construction. However, the project is subject to standard conditions of approval requiring a desiltation plan to control water erosion and implementation of dust control measures; no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ — X Discussion: Minor short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality may occur during site preparation and construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. However, due to the minor amount of grading and the small scale of construction activities, construction related emissions are not considered significant and will be further reduced by implementation of standard conditions of approval which require dust control measures, restriction on construction activities during smog alerts and maintenance of equipment in proper time. No significant impact is anticipated. The zone change will allow for subsequent neighborhood park development on a presently vacant site. Although development of park facilities will increase use of the site, the park will be a "neighborhood" facility which by definition will be designed to serve residents within a 1/4 - 1/2 mile radius of the site. Park users typically walk, skate, bicycle, etc. to the site as no parking facilities will be provided. Furthermore, pollutant emissions associated with park use are projected to be lower than those associated with residential development of the site. No significant long-term air quality impacts are anticipated. b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ X C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X E^vironmental Checklist -2- (18760) Maybe b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ _ X C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ _ X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ X Discussion (a-c): The project site is proposed to be a five (5) acre neighborhood park. This includes open turf areas, planting of trees and landscaping. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval which require landscape plans, no significant environmental impact is anticipated. No further analysis is necessary. Plant and animal resources were evaluated as part of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan EIR's. The EIR's did not- identify any significant biological habitats, plants or animal species at the subject site or in the immediate project vicinity. Therefore, no significant biological resource impacts are anticipated. d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Discussion: See 4 above. Environmental Checklist -3- (1876D) . . , a Yu Maybe 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _ Discussion: The project site is currently a vacant five (5) acre area within the Ellis-Golden West quartersection. The proposal to change the vacant area into a neighborhood park may increase the existing noise levels. The surrounding area will be developed with estate residential land uses and an elementary school. The service area for a neighborhood park is generally the area within a quartersection. The park is intended to be utilized by the residents within this area. The types of uses proposed (open turf, childrens play areas, picnic tables and basketball and volleyball courts) are consistent with the uses proposed for a neighborhood park identified in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Park development activities will generate short-term construction noise impacts to adjacent residents. However, all tree removal/planting and park development activities will occur during hours when residents are typically out of the house. With implementation of standard conditions of approval which regulate hours of operations for construction activities, no significant adverse impact is anticipated. Use of the park will generate some noise impacts over the life of the park. However, the park facilities are small scale (Open turf areas, picnic tables, children play areas, basketball and volleyball courts) and more passive in nature. The development plan does not include any facilities such as picnic pavilions, community center, restroom facilities which encourage more intense public use. No significant adverse long-term noise impacts are anticipated. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ _ X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X _ Discussion: The project proposes to provide a minimum of eight (8) light standards for the neighborhood park. These lights are generally located along the meandering sidewalk and provide lighting for safety. The potential impacts resulting from the placement of these light standards are not considered significant and will be further reduced by implementation of standard conditions of approval which require a lighting plan to prevent "spillage" onto the adjacent residential properties. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Discussion: The project site has been designated to be developed as a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The proposal to change the zone on the site to permit the establishment of a neighborhood park is in conformance with the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan, the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment. No impact is anticipated. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X E-�vironmental Checklist -4- (1876D) YU Maybe N2 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ X _ Discussion: The project site is located within an area which is and previously has had oil related activities. The area currently has two (2) oil wells located on-site. The conceptual neighborhood park plan design has taken into account these wells. The project substantially conforms to the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan and EIR #88-2. EIR #88-2 and EIR #89-1 (Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment) identified these areas and recommended mitigation measures related to soils, oil wells and abandoned oil wells. The mitigation measures identified will be implemented. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ _ X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off-site parking? _ _ X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ _ X Discussion (a,b,d): The proposed zone change will allow subsequent neighborhood park development on a presently vacant site. Although development of park facilities will increase use of the site, the park will be a "neighborhood" facility which by definition will be designed to serve the immediate residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius. Park users typically walk, bicycle, skate, etc. to the site as no parking facilities will be provided. Also the site is intended to be bisected by the future right-of-way of Saddleback Lane which will complete the circulation pattern established by the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan. At this time it is not known if and when the remaining link to the circulation pattern is intended to be completed. However, the completion of Saddleback Lane as a private internal collector street and subsequent circulation impacts were analyzed in EIR #88-2. The completion of Saddleback Lane in accordance with the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan standards will not have a significant impact on the environment. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X E•,vironmental Checklist -5- (1876D) Kn Maybe tLQ C. Schools? — — X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ — X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ — X f. Other governmental services? — — X Discussion (a-f): The proposal is to establish a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The need for a park in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection was identified in the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Holly-Seacliff General Plan and meets the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Development of the proposed park plan will not require any additional police or fire manpower or equipment to service the site. The park plan will not effect any school facility or school operations and will not require any additional government services. The development of the park site will create a usable neighborhood park facility which will be owned, maintained and operated by the City of Huntington Beach. As such the proposed project will increase recreational opportunities in the area as well as maintenance responsibilities of the Public Works Department. However, the increase in maintenance operations will not require increases in manpower or equipment. No significant adverse service impacts are anticipated. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? — — X 15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communication systems? — — X C. Water? X Discussion: The proposal to change the zone for the establishment of a neighborhood park will require the use of water through the irrigation of the proposed park. The plan does propose the installation of irrigation lines to maintain trees and other plant materials. The amount of water (11,163 gal .) used per day is a standard approximation for a five (5) acre neighborhood park. No restrooms or water faucets are proposed for the park at this time and the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval which requires drought tolerant plants and irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. No futher analysis is necessary. d. Sewer or septic tanks? — — X e. Storm water drainage? — — X f. Solid waste and disposal? — _ X Environmental Checklist -6- (1876D) Yes Maybe No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? — — X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — — X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — — X Discussion: The proposal is to establish a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The need for a park in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection was identified in the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Holly-Seacliff General Plan and meets the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the General Plan. No impact is anticipated. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — — X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? — — X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of 'a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid- erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — _ X Environmental Checklist -7- (18760) DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there _ will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 2Z- Date Signature Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department LrIvironmanfal rharklic* -Q- 1Ll' •� '•^��^` a = a a yy � o �700 ^I" 0 eQs1 ---- — ---- .coos• a:r.� i VI s•Gutty: a 1 GwG11 I W.INIt / \ 1 ' 11.I1t •� , ..Ii17 I I I Jr al l.l:v •� I /alb.+lt TiL—Ic- VICINITY MAP HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION 1 1`71 M mTm m TM711-tl) I H 11111111111[11111�1111111 � 1 !1 tfiH -1HHti&'.tir,rm t,I AlII11111I11 111111111111 L_____ Avr 1. I I ' T s����•�•�::I� ::� l._`t�;� I 1 i1i!i�: 6dr_ca TV 1 =-� 1 1111111 .l.l I I i 1. .J. of o_ t '�� i 111i1 cn Ljj I ! li l � l � J CrQeFI�LI] AV E. �{ XW 181 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development , Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on June 1, 1993 for their consideration. The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for twenty-one (21) days commencing April 29 , 1993 . Draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the change of zone request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) designation on a five (5) acre site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The property is generally located in the central portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area which is bounded by Edwards Street , Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue and Garfield Avenue . A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California . Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . (6586d) ATTAr%uNhCf\1T nin s-ld_141 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA Wednesday, April 21, 1993 2 : 00 P.M. 3rd Floor Center Conference Room Members : Bruce Crosby, Paul D'Alessandro, Hal Simmons Staff : Julie Osugi , Herb Fauland, Jim Engle, Steve May Guests : Pat Hirsch of Heimberger Hirsch & Associates (Park Planning Consultant) I . Environmental Assessment No. 93-9 : Applicant : City of Huntington Beach Community Services Request : Development of a neighborhood park on an undeveloped 5 . 0 acre park site, the park site will be developed over two phases which include removal and replacement of unhealthy trees, installation of picnic tables, lawn and footpath areas , a play area and minor lighting and irrigation. The designated park site contains a natural eucalyptus grove which has a history of use as a winter roosting site for monarch butterflies . The proposed park development plan has been designed to maintain the roosting area . Location: Norma B. Gibbs Park (west side of Graham Street approximately 620 feet south of Heil) . Discussion: Staff made a brief presentation describing the project site and the proposed park development plan. Staff gave an overview of the major areas of concern (i .e. impacts to the monarch butterfly roosting site; noise impacts ; traffic impacts ; irrigation) and summarized proposed mitigation. The EAC discussed the compatibility of park uses with the roost site. Pat Hirsh, the City' s Park Planning Consultant, presented a revised plan. The revised plan deleted turf areas on the west half of the park site and eliminated barbecue units through out the site, as was recommended by their study prepared on the roost site. In addition, the footpath segment in the middle of the park would be realigned further south of its original location. ATTA(',NMFNT NO. -{q•qq The EAC questioned the compatibility of the play area in proximity to the roost area . The consultant indicated that play areas of this type, setback at this distance would be compatible with the roost site and was not a concern. Simmons inquired whether there would be any monitoring of the site after the park was in operation. The consultant indicated that the Monarch Program will be monitoring the site . Simmons suggested mitigation be incorporated to require annual monitoring of the site and redesign/relocation of park facilities if monitoring indicates that operation of the park is impacting the roost site. The EAC briefly Discussed noise and traffic impacts and determined that due to the nature and design of the park no significant adverse impact was anticipated . Motion: On a motion by Simmons and a second by Crosby, the EAC recommended processing of a Negative Declaration with suggested mitigation measures for the project: Ayes: three II . Environmental Assessment No . 92-39/Zone Change No . 93-1 : Applicant : City of Huntington Community Services Request : A change of zone request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) Designation on a five (5) acre site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood park. Location: The property is generally located in the central portion of the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area which is bounded by Edwards St. , Goldenwest St . , Ellis Ave. , and Garfield Ave. Discussion: Staff made a presentation giving a project description and summarizing the areas of concern. Staff indicated that the project site is located within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and would be subject. to all applicable conditions and mitigation measures of the Specific Plan (including but not limited to cut/fill constraints and oil related conditions) . nTTA(',HMFNT NO. A,1-0 The EAC discussed the impacts of Saddleback Lane to the park site and whether the park plan had been designed to incorporate the street should it be required in the future . Staff indicated that Saddleback had not been included in the plan but that the project only consisted of a zone change to allow for subsequent park development . The state of the development of Saddleback is speculative and would be subject to the conditions/ mitigation measures of the Specific Plan. Motion: On a motion by Simmons and a second by Crosby, the EAC recommended processing of a Negative Declaration for the project: Ayes: three (6672d) A-r-r n r U N A G NIT NO- '1'�_ / McCLURE &SCHWAB ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9250 S.W.ncARD AVENUE CHARLES).McCLURE nGARD,OREGON 97-M FAX(503)639-3447 JOHN E.SCHWAB TELEPHONE Cam)6394108 May 18 , 1993RECO 'ICV, MAY 21 1993 Planning Commission DEPARTN:ENT(N' City of Huntington Beach CO�,,E,!LNITYCE`�E!G?laENT P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Draft Neaative Declaration No. 92-39 Dear Commissioners : This office represents Norma D. Younger owner of Lots No. 44- 45 and 46 in Tract No. 306 within the area planned for down zoning to ROS for development of a neighborhood park. On behalf of my client I wish to protest the proposed down zoning. My client is a senior citizen on a fixed income. She has owned these lots for several years and plans to sell them in the near future as the area develops for single-family residential purposes. The Commission should develop alternative park sites that do not involve a taking of platted land served by utilities and ready to develop. Sincerely, McCLURE & SCHWAB JES/sw Jo n. E. Schwab I W:L.1 cc: Norma D. Young ' ATTACHMENT NO. IV;.) 1 %,"te Environmental Board 'T CITY OF HUNTINGTON EEACH ..:1V Pt t r„r:�e Box lEb H.. ., E_'..:' , G, _CTV May 10, 1993 C �Eo �� 93 MA� 2619 TO: Julie Osugi Assistant Planner DEFPRTp��E OPMi C�MUNITY FROM: City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above referenced project. This project consists of a request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) designation on a rive acre site within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood park. The Environmental Board concurs that the lviitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of Environmental review for this project. In addition to the areas of concern addressed, the Board feels that the following issues nerd to be addressed/further analyzed and/or clarified: • Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly indicate the five acre parcel as being changed from residential. This should be more clearly identified. • Members of a sub-committee have conducted an on-site evaluation and feel that the lack of parking for users of the park will create traffic problems. This lack will become more apparent when Saddleback Lane is connected through to Garfield Avenue. It appears inefficient and non-cost effective to create a park that will be bisected by through traffic. CP • The proposed park calls for a basketball court and indicates that this is a "passive" activity. The park will abut residences and will create significant noise levels. Therefore, 6A should be changed from maybe to yes. No. 19 "Recreation" should be changed from "no" to "maybe" as the proposal will result in an impact on the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities. • Members of the sub-committee also noted that there was no discussion concerning equestrian trails. Since this area is generally utilized that way, consideration should be given to the environmental impact of horses, especially when Saddleback Lane is connected to Garfield. ATTACHMENT NO. ��-�� Page Two The Environmental Board recommends approval of EIR No. 92-39, subject to resolution of the above issues. Due to the above issues the Environmental Board does not feel that the environmental concerns have been analyzed adequately and, therefore, recommends that a focused EIR be prepared for the proj ect. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our comments, please contact William G. Linehan, Chairperson of the Review Committee. cc: Norm Smith Carol Proctor Evelyn Adamo ATTACHMENT NO. k4 .5-3 Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 92-39 I. INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 92-39. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative Declaration as of Friday, May 21, 1993 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of Friday, May 21, 1993. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to the Negative Declaration is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. I't is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Negative Declaration. 1. An official twenty-one (21) day public review period for the Negative Declaration was established by the City. It began on Thursday, April 29, 1993 and ended on Thursday, May 20, 1993. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through Friday, May 21, 1993. ND 92-39 1 ATTACHMENT N0. I 2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on Thursday, April 29, 1993. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. 3. A copy of the cover letter and the distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of Friday, May 21, 1993 are contained in appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Negative Declaration No. 92-39 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of twenty-one days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established by the City commenced on Thursday, April 29, 1993. Copies of all documents received as of Friday, May 21, 1993 are contained in appendix A of this report. In addition, one comment was received five days late (May 26, 1993) from the Huntington beach Environmental Board. The comment has been included in the response to comment package for the decision makers information. A formal response has been made to the comment. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments to not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. ND92-39 2 ATTACHMENT NO. ��• ss Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 92-39 MS-1 Comment: This office represents Norma D. Young, owner of lots no. 44-46 in Tract No. 306 within the area planned for down zoning to ROS for development of a neighborhood park. Response: The comment does not address any environmental issues. No further written response is necessary. MS-2 Comment: On behalf of my client I wish to protest the proposed down zoning. My client is a senior citizen on a fixed income. She has owned these lots for several years and plans to sell them in the near future as the area develops for single family residential purposes. The commission should develop alternative park sites that do not involve a taking of platted land served by utilities and ready to develop. Response: The comment does not address any environmental issues. No further written response is necessary. HBEB-1: Comment: The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above referenced project. This project consists of a request to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) designation on a five acre site within the Ellis Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood park. Response: The comment consists of a description of the proposed code amendment for project identification purposes. No further written response is necessary. ND 92-39 3 ATTACHMENT NO. . 14.5� HBEB-2: Comment: The Environmental Board does not concur that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as written, is appropriate for this project. In addition to the areas of concern addressed in the ND, the Board feels that the following issues need to be addressed further and clarified: Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. HBEB-3: Comment: Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly indicate the five acre parcel as being changed from residential. This should be more clearly identified. Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. HBEB-4: Comment: Members of the sub-committee have conducted an on-site evaluation and feel that the lack of parking for users will create traffic problems. This lack will become more apparent when Saddleback Lane is connected through to Garfield Avenue. It appears inefficient and non-cost effective to create a park that will be bisected by through traffic. Response: The Code Amendment does not constitute any development. Should any subsequent development be proposed, the environmental impacts, including the traffic impacts associated with the project may be analyzed at that time. HBEB-5: Comment: The proposed park calls for a basketball court and indicates that this is a "passive" activity. The park will abut residences and will create significant noise levels. Therefor, No. 6 should be changed from maybe to yes. ND 92-39 4 ATTACHMENT NO. I`k-57 Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. HBEB-6: Comment• No. 19 "Recreation" should be changed from no to maybe as the proposal will result in an impact on the quality and quantity of existing recreational opportunities. Response• The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. HBEB-7: Comment: Members of the sub-committee also noted that there was no discussion concerning equestrian trails. Since the area is generally utilized that way, consideration should be given to the environmental impacts of horses, especially when Saddleback Lane is connected to Garfield. Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. HBEB-8: Comment: The Environmental Board recommends approval of EIR No. 92-39, subject to resolution of the above issues. Due to the above issues the Environmental Board does not feel that the environmental concerns have been adequately analyzed adequately and, therefor, recommends that a focused E I R be prepared for the project. Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed code amendment. ND 92-39 5 ATTACHMENT NO. ►.�•s8 V. ERRATA TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 The following changes to Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and the Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet doe not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Subsequent to the public review period, staff and the City Attorney's office have reviewed the request. Based upon the review of the request and application filed, it was determined that the zone change application is not the proper method and application to designate the site for park purposes. The proper method and application to designate the area within the specific plan is through a code amendment to the specific plan. Therefor, even though the application has changed from a zone change to a code amendment, the results are the same with regards to the processing of the environmental assessment. The analysis was based upon the site being used as a neighborhood park and the potential effects upon the environment based upon the proposed use, not the method of designation. The conclusions and recommendations identified in Draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 do not change and therefor do not require re-circulation for public review. ND 92-39 6 Ai IACH'iViEN T NO. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: Environmental Assessment No. 92-39 FROM: Herb Fauland)Ose Associate Planner SUBJECT: DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 DATE: May 24 , 1993 Draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the change of zone request (Zone Change No . 93-1) to place the Recreational Open Space (ROS) designation on a five (5) acre site within the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of establishing a five (5) acre neighborhood park. The Draft Negative Declaration was published in the local newspaper and was available for public review and comment from April 29 , 1993 to May 19, 1993 . Subsequent to the public review period, staff and the City Attorney' s office have reviewed the request . Based upon the review of the request and applications filed, it was determined that the zone change application is not the proper method and application to designate the site for park purposes . The proper method and application to designate the area within the Specific Plan is through a code amendment to the Specific Plan. Therefore, even though the application has changed from a zone change to a code amendment , the results are the same with regards to the processing of the environmental assessment . The analysis was based upon the site being used as a neighborhood park and the potential effects upon the environment based upon the proposed use, not the method of designation. The conclusions and recommendations identified in Draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 do not change and therefore do not require re-circulation for public review. Also, a letter in response to the Draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 was received by this Department on May 21, 1993 from John E. Schwab. The letter does not address any environmental issues identified in the Draft Negative Declaration No . 92-39 and therefore does not warrant a response. The letter will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. HF: lp (6836d) ATT/CMIENTNo. 14 ` 0 SEE SPECIAL PAc _ :' H.0-229. FOR SUB. N. //2, S,� 114,' -�5E I/4; 159 - 41 SADDLEBACK LN• 3 4' S 6 7 8 9 10 I I2 26 24 3 2 is f8 / [4— C��1 2 3 2 12 t 9 18 17 16 151 14 2 7 -8 59 O t ' 5 AC. 2 7 8 — Yr fgy0gs, Z4 f 52 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 2 15 14 13 '29 I I l Or CITY ( 8� ►6 4 5 56 157 58 59_,GU__6165 7 BRINDLE- 32 I9 +20 21 22 23 4 28 26 27 C THOMAS L • r C TRACT #306 ATTACHMENT NO. Pk ✓ rc .: � i J. 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AUG- 1 5 1993 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION M�+cror+sE4a+ �ANAGEMEbT TO: Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services FROM: Gail Hutton, City AttorW DATE: January 21, 1993 ;- SUBJECT: Copeland Oil Lease JA/�/ Asa RLS 92-865 , . 31 19gs w' ;n Sri/^/./ -. I• - BACKGROUND You have asked for an analysis of the oil lease between Union Oil Company of California and Louis A. Copeland, et al . , dated December 1, 1919 . The lessee rights have allegedly been assigned to the Brindle and Thomas families. Your interest in the lease apparently relates to the acquisition of the site for park purposes. ISSUE If the city acquires the "Lessor" interest in the property, can the city use the property for park purposes? CONCLUSION Yes. ANALYSIS The lease applies to the entire site, subject to the exceptions and reservations made therein. The Lessees were granted all mining and oil rights, rights of ingress and egress, and other such rights of way "as necessary in such drilling and/or operations" of the site. The lessees also enjoy the right to build such roads or other improvements as. necessary, convenient or desirable for drilling or operating the property:: However, no new wells may be drilled after the expiration of 20 years from the date of the lease. Further, all undrilled land, after the twenty year expiration date, is freed from the terms and conditions of the lease. (Section 12) So long as a well produces oil, the lease continues in effect for an area of 350 sq. ft . around the well, plus such pipelines, waterlines, etc. as necessary for the operation of the well . The rights to ingress and egress continue for the life of a producing well. (Lease, Section 12) ATTACHMENT NO. ty.�a- Ron Hagan January 21, 1993 Page 2 The Lessors have the right to put the land to any other purpose, provided it does not interfere with the oil operations. (Lease, Section 22) Therefore, -if the city purchases the "Lessor" interest, it can build a park or put the land to any other purpose, so long as the operation of the existing wells is not prohibited. Gail Hutton City Attorney ATTACHMENT NO. ��� 3 AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 1, (714) 842,8866 JANUARY ) 9 , ) 9 9._5 0. ! y a- HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COI.IMISSION JAN 1 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: '_HIS IS IN REGARD TO CODE AMENDMENT 93—) CHANGING THE 5 ACRES ADJOINING OUR NURSERY TO OPEN SPACE AND A PARK DESIGNATION. :.)E OWN THE MAJORITY OF THIS 5 ACRE PARCEL AND DO NOT WANT THIS DOWN ZONED TO A PARK SITE. IN MAY OF 1993 THIS SAME ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION , HOWEVER, THERE WERE 3 ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS BEING REVIEWED. THERE WAS THE 5 ACRE. SITE JUST ACROSS FRO.7 CENTRAL PARK SOUTH OF ELLIS — VACANT, THERE SFAS THE 5 ACRE SITE NEXT TO THE NEW SCHOOL SITE — VACANT, AND THERE WAS THE 5 ACRE SITE OFF GOLDEN WEST JUST NORTH OF THE NURSERY , WITH EXISTING HORSE STABLES. BUT, NOW TO SUDDENLY SAY THE 5 ACRE SITE ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY WITH 3 OIL SELLS IS THE PARK SITE IS WRONG. JUST BECAUSE IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED, SO, IF A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IS NEEDED IN ANY AREA, FIND THE CENTRAL LOCATION AND DEMOLISH THE HOUSE FOR A NEW PARK SITE , SAME EFFECT. THIS 5 ACRE PARCEL WAS AN OPFN DUIM-PING SITE UNTIL WE CLEANED IT UP AND FENCED IT FOR SECURITY AND SAFETY, :NIHEN WE PURCHASED THE COPELAND OIL LEASE DATED DECEMBER ) , 1919 , �dHICH COVERS ALL OF OUR PROPERTY. : E ARE ONE OF THE OLDEST PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS QUARTER SECTION, SINCE 1970, ''.7E HAVE BEEN OPERATING OUR BUSINESS THERE, BEFORE ANY HOMES WERE BUILT IN THIS AREA. :+lE ARE OPPOSED TO DESIGNATING THIS 5 ACRE PARCEL AS A PARK AND AS THE MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS SITE, ::E OPPOSE THIS ACTION. WE URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE OTHER 3 PARCELS AS THE PARK SITE. FOR THE RECORD ENCLOSED ARE OUR LETTERS FROM WHEN THIS MATTER AS BROUGHT UP IN ) 993 AND THE LOCATIONS OF THE OTHER SITES ARE MARKED. .APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER. RESPECTFULLY, a� RONALD I . BRINDLE & EMILY ANN BRINDLE, OWNERS AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY CC: MAYOR VICTOR LEIPZIG AND CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT NO. _' [4.(Lk AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648j- (714) 842.8866 MAY 17 , 1993 HUNTINGTO14 BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 2000 MAIN STREET IIUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE FIVE ACRES THAT ADJOINS OUR FIFTEEN ACRES IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR A PARK. WE ARE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO T3iIS _ FIRST, HAVE AN OIL LEASE T:iAT COVERS THIS GROSS TWENTY ACRES OF LAND AND T13REE OIL SWELLS ARE ON THE PROPERTY. THIS OIL LEAST, DATES BACK TO 1919 AND AS 0i4NE•R AND OPERATOR OF THIS LEASE NE MAINTAIN ALL SURFS CE RIG33TS . SECOND. WE HAVE PURCHASED A GOODLY NUMBER OF THESE LOTS AND ARE THE MAJOR PROPERTY OWNER AND DO NOT S•)ANT THIS LAND AS A PARK. TAIRD, THE CITY ALREADY BAS A LARGE 500 ACRE PLUS PARK ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF GOLDEN i•?EST AND ELLIS THAT I3AS NEVER BEEN IMPROVED OR USED FOR A PART. AND IS STANDING VACANT LAND _ FOURTH, IF A LOCAL PARK FOR 1301e,EOWNERS IS NEEDED, TI3E DEVEL— OPER SHOULD SET ASIDE FOR THE PARR, NOT TRY - TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FROM SOME OT13ER SOURCE AND ENCROACH ON OUR BUSINESS . FIFTH, THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVE SITES THAT WERE CONSIDERED FOR A PARK, THE FIVE ACRES. ON SCHLEICKER ROAD AND GOLDEN 1-?EST ST . , AND THE FIVE ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELLIS ACROSS FROM CENTRAL PARK. SIXTH, WE ARE PREPARED TO TAKE THIS ISSUE TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, AND AS A FARMER AND BUSINESS PEOPLE W130 EMPLOY MINORITIES WE COME UNDER A FEDERAL LAW_ THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE JUST FOR STARTERS. -WE ARE CONCERNED WITH OTHER PROBLEMS, HOWEVER WE WANTED OUR FEELINGS ON RECORD. WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR REPLY. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I . BRINDLE & EMILY ANN BRINDLE, OWNERS AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY CC: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL WAYNE CANTERBERRY, ATTORNEY OF LAW A17ACHMENT NO. . L(4 •Os PLUS -AVENUE I 1 .L • =::iTTj 1,11 Its tatmis l— 1111111// ��-1-a�-t-1-/ 14 1.1,1111„il„lrl,ll,r► LL1{ HSal or r 7 1 11 �1 � '1,�! Illrlllll N _ w CC 1lrliltllt , _ I — ' = I J ittrttt,tt, rrtt,tlir,r ttitt,tnt� •tttrtltrtrr„I,Ir„il,trrrrlli,ntl,rllrir - T G.AFFEID AVENUE - Open Space '11111i,r Equestrian Trail. Open Space Corridors and Trail System ATTACHMENT N.O. _ i u •�(o RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW .. ►•w1«Cn S«.► .«C IUD.«p ne 0•ESS.D«J.t_COw►pwn110«S _tf • rDe•L' r•\u.r•• •• +•co.cr. e^wK Of 1«C •••CST. SU17C 1400 r.C-.•L K.aura.. .•.•C.a _.C.". • . •tDt••C r..• J•r(f \.r0•••f Da•••J.OVrr ..:-•..°• recta• ••[l .••rC r[afOr ♦ r.r.• O11 . 10N eOVLC Y A.O e•r•e r rOL�r[• . •..C•ruLet ••t,`••D•• CV•rV•+ r•\l••r J C••ur `CO++ w r.rl Or[ arl.4 r.l OYL[ ••tl\[ +c.••D• r••••ta •••c"`aa + re'"•• COS1A MESA, CJ•Lw OPNIA 92026-19PO - , rD.a.•r•ta•.r•r. ..mar�. ". e[+ .c.r • w•aw+.J r.c[l cne++. ..a_.at.. .rr[a�- .�....a .Orr =•r.•D:.coso.e.c C....°•...•r v. _ -•.•o-o r o.rai Je[l?.w•c.•[•e OInCC1 wll «J.l 'O' P O. DO>< I050 "..i• r v-•lr r-.••er l DDe•[ . r •c c.J•' a crc ..r.[-els ra«w, oaf J•-cs o.. •C..ae• rc•er rer.f°.•.ec..re•or COST. •JCSA, CwL•r Op NIA 92626.1950 f•vr(r• n\•f oa•D••r\.rut rrtw[.s ..c...e.�f�•f r.t\..r.. r+rnL• • Jc...t. r[•.r[.r[• •.ua J.n[r(.f •a-•u r •[.•ar••' t•.«e...n.cwn e•ta•f TElCP1••O«C 1`I•i 6w1-S100 •o•[•+a erar f °.r.,a r •e+•tc •ee(•+C.••.ur rD•ll••.••e•Vir •D.r r.rOl.t.t `�.=• r•.e(r •oev..e•.ete• ".a►etc 12131 625-7566 +(•••t•.•eele•..• .a[.«Y +C...D° i.e[fr•.J•! •r.\..«.w..ree :.r•e.e fr.+t r[r...•.r.ere •-°-.a a s.a.rcc•• +rer.f J.c...c 7ELCCOPIE!! 141.1 5.6-9035 •cr•r•••[•t eevea.•■ •.v.rec••eet r •e C. ..••ar"• `nc. t••rc r «ca![. —'a •e t .•(ear w 7.••oc.Ya ♦ awl r....a er J.rc.•.wer[r r.c..t=v.r •." r w. ..(..rc J(raor . .. •Y+.r..nee.•+u ..r .\..(. Jc••e.•oure ..e • 'Y DY•[••.•-.raOY•1+ oaf w u[•tw.f• •ee•••p 01 •r(t•J .nwLw+f 1rOr•f Vrf Or•e•[• ••l•'•• ODa•r.r• ••C r.•D O,rOr•Lv.DCO a•O.p r,D•-1 f• . • Isw •OV•[ •• G.w.\O[w • �DS[•r D C•••Y•r l0.•a•wrt• fr.+r r •eDai(• -Octal.•rf•.•la�1 C 1 t D[rrl(• fGellO++ ..f.r+•O•+. S.w.�OaCO++• C••-ta+r •+l,•• f•[r•.1..tffr.r \.s.CO•C DV•\°G• C•v.D� .ta ar.•C w•r .O•••SO�" •••.C••..•O•a••r J •rC 1. a0• w.t L• .-.C••lffMV COS-O••.••Or June 10, 19013 o•cew.l. VIA FACSIMILE (714 ) 375-5087 Ronald Hagan Director, Community Services Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: City of Huntington Beach Acquisition of Neighborhood Park within Ellis/Goldenwest (Southwest) Quarter Section Dear Ron: It was a pleasure meeting with you and Jim Engle at Huntington Beach City Hall on May 25, 1993 . Pursuant to our discussion at that meeting, I an, writing to provide information regarding what the Thomas/Brindle interests believe would be the City's acquisi- tion costs if it were to acquire for neighborhood park purposes the approximately fiva acres within Tract 306 designated as "Site All by the City. Please understand that the acquisition cost estimates in this letter are preliminary only. Thomas/Brindle do not have a formal appraisal covering their property interests or the balance of the property interests within the 66-lot area under consideration. If the City were to move forward with acquisition, the actual acquisition costs could be significantly higher (or perhaps lower) than the numbers used in this letter. Subject to the foregoing limitations, it is apparent to Thomas/Brindle that the City is seriously underestimating the magnitude of its probable acquisition costs. The property owners estimate the City' s acquisition costs (including fair market value for the land, buy-out of the oil wells, abandonment of the wells and removal of the oil equipment, anr3. street construction costs) to F52U12\0155V-0001\2050535. 06/10.,93 ATTACHMENT N0. t` ,6-7 s RUTAN ba TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW . 1 1 Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 2 be approximately $5. 7 million, almost six times the $1 million cost estimate that you shared with us in our meeting. This cost estimate does not include appraisal costs, eminent domain attorney' s fees, and similar administrative costs which would likely be significant for the acquisition of 66 separate lots from multiple property owners . Nor does our cost estimate assume any expense to the City for clean-up of toxic materials or other site preparation preliminary to development of the park (other than the street mentioned above) . The basis for the foregoing cost estimates is explained in greater detail below. In addition, before getting into the specific assumptions underlying our cost estimates, it must be emphasized that, by our calculations, the City would wind up with only approximately 3 . 15 acres of net useable area out of a total acquisition of five acres. According to the information I have received, approximately 1. 32 acres of Site A is located within the future right-of-way for the extension of Saddleback Lane, and an additional 0 . 52 acres is a remnant parcel to the northwest of the street that would be cut off from the balance of the park site. Based upon the gross square footage of Site A (approximately 217 , 714 square feet) and the acquisition cost estimates contained in this letter, the unusabil- ity .of approximately 1. 85 acres of the five-acre park site would increase the City's acquisition cost for tie net useable area from $26.05 per square foot to approximately $41 . 33 per square foot. Needless to say, that is a lot of money to pay for unimproved park land. It seems to Thomas/Brindle that it would be far less expensive to the City to consider acquiring a park site immediately to the west of the Huntington Beach City School District' s school site on Garfield Avenue. There is no reason to believe that the land cost next to the school would be substantially higher than for Site A on a per-square-foot basis. (Indeed, as explained more fully below, since Site A is already subdivided into individual lots and Thomas/Brindle have already assembled most of these lots, it is arguable that the land values within Site A are significantly higher. ) Furthermore, the parcel to the west of the school site does not contain any active oil wells (a very expensive portion of the Thomas/Brindle acquisition as will be shown below) and does not require extension/construction of significant street improvements. All of the property adjacent to the school site is net useable land. Moreover, while I am not an expert in designing public parks, my understanding is that, by designing the park site in conjunction with the playground facilities on the adjacent school ATTACHMENT NO. rs211 1 2101 55 97-(1(K11U050S3S. (6110/93 _ ^ RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW .....-c•s •-c.vo•-e •e cs s.o- c ce-•o-•••e-• 1 , Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 3 site, the City could achieve its objectives with considerably less than five acres of land area . The School District supports this approach. Finally, since the City would be dealing with a single property owner, presumably the appraisal, legal , and other' administrative expenses of acquisition also would be reduced. All of the foregoing factors would appear to significantly reduce the City' s acquisition costs for the property adjacent to the school site when compared on a price-per-useable-square-foot basis with acquisition costs for Site A. With that somewhat lengthy introduction, I will proceed to providing the basis for Thomas/Brindle' s preliminary estimates of the City' s costs that Mould be incurred in acquiring the 66 lots within Site A: 1. Land Costs. For purposes of land cost estimates, we have used a number of $16 . 53 per square foot. This is the land cost incurred by the School District for the Holly-Seacliff school site acquisition and is slightly less than other comparable sales. This number is multiplied by the approximately 217 , 714 square feet within Site A (65 lots at an esti,ilated 3 , 197 square feet per lot and Lot A at 9 , 909 square feet) to yield a total land cost of $3 , 598 , 812 . It is my understanding that the City has paid up to $60, 000 per lot for similarly-sized lots along Ellis Avenue and we are aware it recently offered more than $18 per square foot for properties fronting Goldenwest in the same vicinity, but having less favorable zoning. If so, our land cost figure may actually be as much as $2 . 00 per square foot, or $435, 280, less than the fair market value. Since our meeting approximately two weeks ago at City Hall, I have started to gather additional information regarding prices being paid for comparable properties in the area. I have been unable to complete that review in the limited time available, but will update you if need be. We are aware of the fact that individual, isolated lots have sold for lesser prices in the past. We believe there are two explanations for this occurrence which render those sales useless in establishing a value for the Thomas/Brindle interests. First of all , many of the individual lots had no street or utility access and the (former) lot owners lacked the resources or ATTACHMENT NO. :rg•b1 i'S2\1 12\015567-CMI\2W535. 06i 1 n;93 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 4 commitments to obtain such access . Thomas/Brindle, by contrast, already have access across the adjacent Brindle property to the east (to Goldenwest) and have assembled a sufficient number of lots to obtain access from the extension of Saddleback Lane planned to run along the westerly boundary of Site A. Moreover, it is obvious that the sellers of individual lots have either been convinced that their lots were unbuildable or that the cost of fighting the City to establish their development rights would be prohibitive. The applica;3le General Plan and Specific Plan designations authorize single-family detached residential development with a minimum lot size of 8 , 000 square feet, with a requirement that a minimum of 200 of the lots be at least 15 , 000 square feet in area. Individual lot owners could not hope to satisfy those requirements . By assembling a substantial number of contiguous lots, Thomas/Brindle can. Finally, even if the City were to take the position that Thomas/Brindle could not develop their holdings under the applicable City development standards (and, hence, that the value of their parcels is reduced) , Thonas/Brindle are prepared to prove in court that each of their lot, is a separate, legal, developable parcel . There is no question that the lots are legal and valid . (See Government Code § 66451. 10. ) The City cannot compel merger of any lots that it may have retroactively defined as "substandard. " (See Government Code § 66451 . 11 (C) and ,(D) . ) The City's down- zoning of the Thomas/ Brindle properties (requiring large lots and a minimum development plan of five acres) prior to acquisition of the property for public park and street purposes would be viewed as unlawful pre-condemnation activity that would entitle the property owners to value their parcels free of. the zoning restrictions . (See, e.g. , Kissinger v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 161 Cal.App. 2d 454; People ex rel Department of Public Works v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company (1973) 33 Cal.App. 3d 960, 965. ) The property owners are entitled to have each of the 66 legal parcels treated separately for purposes of inverse condemnation analysis (and valuation in an eminent domain case) . (See, e.g. , Twain Harte Associates, Limited v. County of Tuolumne (1990) 217 Cal.App. 3d 71, 84-881, and cases cited therein. ) While individual lot owners might have been willing to sell at "distressed" prices because it was not worth it to them to fight the City over their development rights given the small size of their parcel (s) , Thomas/Brindle are in a very different position. Thomas/Brindle cannot afford to stand by and allow the City to attempt to acquire their significant property holdings for millions of dollars less than their true value. ATTACHMENT N0. ,E4.�D rs2%>>2%o3ss�7 c�i�msosss. a.:tay3 - — RUTAN S( TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW ...• .(.f.w.r( ..0+ r.0•(ff.O..f(O.rC...rC.f Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 5 2 . Oil Well Acquisition Costs. Thomas/Brindle own three oil wells within Site A. Two of the three wells are operating on 20- year leases. Based upon the barrels per day (estimated at 25 total for both wells) , the price per barrel (estimated at $16 . 00) , and a reasonable allocation of operating expenses, the annual net operat- ing income from the two currently-producing wells is estimated at approximately $72 , 000. Assuming income and expenses remain stable over the balance of the 20-year lease term (a conservative assumption since prices should increase more rapidly given the largely fixed operating costs) , the total net operating income for the two wells over the 20-year period comes to $1 , 440, 000. If one were to apply a 5% discount rate to this income stream, the net present value of the two operating wells would be approximately $897 , 200 . It should be pointed out that the productivity of the wells is actually increasing as Chevron shuts down its wells in the area . The true value of the wells is probably significantly higher than the numbers used in this letter. The third well, while not currently functioning, also has considerable value. I am infornmed that, under the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan , oil wells are a permitted use. The City would not be on solid ground if it were to attempt to prohibit the third well from being reactivated. For purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the third well has a value equal to 50% of the two operating wells, or approximately $224 , 320. The combined value of the three wells comes to $1 , 121 , 600 . In addition, if the City were to acquire Site A, it would have to abandon the oil wells and remove the oil equipment. I have been given cost estimates for this type of work ranging from $30, 000- $50, 000 per well, assuming that nothing goes wrong. For purposes of this letter, we have assumed an abandonment/removal cost of $50, 000 per well (inclusive of any incidental clean-up that might be involved) . In our meeting, you indicated that the City might be prepared to develop the park site around the oil wells instead of acquiring them. This would not be physically possible with respect to one of the wells, which is located within the right-of-way for the extension of Saddleback Lane. Furthermore, we have serious questions as to whether the other two wells could be permitted to remain in place. The location of the wells would surely interfere with the intended use of Site A for park purposes. Substantial setbacks from the wells would be required in order to permit PS2U12%0I55E7•(KY11\2MOS35. cK,114'93 _ATTACHMENT NO. - RUTAN & TUCKER ,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1'. Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 6 periodic access to the well owner for maintenance and repair purposes. It is hard to imagine how the heavy equipment needed to service the wells could obtain access without damaging the park improvements . Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would seem to Thomas/Brindle that oil operations are simply incompatible with the primary intended use of the property for park purposes. The oil wells would be a constant attractive nuisance. The wells, the heavy equipment, which periodically is needed for access to the wells, and the normal activities of an oil well operation would present significant public safety and liability concerns. 3 . Street Construction. In our meeting, you and Jim Engle expressed some doubt as to whether or not the City would actually complete the extension of Saddleback Lane across Site A if that property were acquired for a park. Given the approved circulation pattern in the Specific Plan and the pattern of development that has already occurred, it seems to us to be highly doubtful that the City could escape this responsibility. We have used a preliminary estimate of $800, 000 for the street and related utility improvements that would be required (approximately 800 feet of roadway and utilities at $1, 000 per linear foot) . 4 . Summary of Costs . The estimated City acquisition costs for Site A are summarized as follows: Land $3 , 598 , 812 Oil Well Acquisition $1, 121, 600 Well Abandonment/Removal $ 150, 000 Street Construction $ 800, 000 Appraisal, Legal, and Administrative Costs -0- Clean-up and Site Preparation Costs -0- TOTAL $5, 670,412 Our conclusion is that the City's cost of acquiring the properties within Site A would be substantially more expensive than what has been projected to date. Mr. Thomas informs me that there are very few willing sellers left within Site A. If the City is assuming that it will be able to budget a small amount of money over a period of several years to pick up individual lots on a piecemeal basis at bargain-basement prices, we believe a "reality check" is in order. In our estimation, the City is fast approach- M1101o3 ATTACHMENT NO. t4.Za 1 � , RUTAN & TUCKER ATTOPNEYS AT LAW 1 'II Ronald Hagan June 10, 1993 Page 7 ing the time when it will have to use its eminent domain powers to acquire additional parcels from unwilling sellers who have a very different idea what the parcels are worth. Before the City has irrevocably committed itself to such a course of action, we implore- you to take a fresh look at alternatives that make better economic and planning sense. Thank you for your consideration of the information set forth in this letter. If I can provide any further data that would be helpful to you, please let me know. Very truly yours, RUTY N & TUCKER �e ev �i. Oderman JMO: rk cc: John A. Thomas Ronald I . and Ann Brindle Wayne S . Canterbury, Esq. Richard A. Harlow Marshall B. Krupp Gail C. Hutton ATTACHMENT NO. AMERICAN LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 18851 GOLDEN WEST STREET - HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 - (714) 842-8866 JANUARY 23, 1995 RE c; ' f.�, r... k_ JAN 2 4 1995 HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION DEPA,'ir;y;�,,'; 2000 MAIN STREET CC� M(,IAIII C4E„F �tjvi HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION: THIS IS IN REGARD TO CODE A14ENDMETIT NO. 93-1, AMENDING THE ELLIS GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN ON FIVE ACRES ADJOINING OUR PROPERTY TO OPEN SPACE/RECREATION. AS A MAJORITY PROPERTY OWNER OF THIS FIVE ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, I PROTEST THIS DOWN ZONING OF MY LAND INTEREST, AND REQUEST THIS ITEM BE TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA. THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS IN THIS AREA THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR A PARK. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, RONALD I . BRINDLE aV- Ve"" 4�e z ATTACHMENT NO. t4` � . _ .•x'� ,st III11111t11111/tl IIIIIIt II 53 + zj 4-1 9* t,tT it111tI/1111911111— I I JTI 111 11 is 1111 t Co Co CO Q % rim 0 w It/lflttltl III[t Il/it Iltl(t(fi( •IIItItT/11t111(11t itItI1T{1111(itllltIriI 1 GARFIELD AVENUE Open Space •1t1t111r Equestrian Trail_ Open Space Corriac;rs and Trail System ;,1, i J A N 2 4 ATTACHMENT NO. jq.755 11�r+ U114CA17- / JAN 24 January 24 , 1995 Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 24, 1995 Location s Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter section Dear Planning Commissioners: I urge you not to adopt the Code Amendment or approve of the: Negative Declaration listed above. I am one of the owners of the lots sought to be impacted. I am also one of the owners of the oil lease which covers the entirety of the site. I believe that the City has grossly under estimated the acquisition costs to acquire the site. I believe the use of the area in question as a park site is a result of poor planning. The other park site alternatives more closely meet the City ' s criteria for open space uses. The other sites will also result in a significant cost savings for the City. ncerely, JOHN A. THOMAS _ATTACHMENT NO. LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNCRSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPO 2603 MAIN STREET F" f ._7 ANGELO J. PALMIERI' CYNTHIA M. WOLCOTT EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 Nj� .•� P. O. BOx 19712 ROBERT F WALDRON' JOEL P. KEW JAN q{^ IRVINE, CA 92713-9712 ALAN H. WIENER' MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6229 2 �T ROBERT C. IHRKE' ELINOR J.VOTAW I ^ ,I JAMES E.WILHELM* NORMAN J. RODICH r WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G.TYLER' GARY C. WEISBERG ' `•�r RF_I DIAL NUMBER rI-I nn MICHAEL J. GRCENE' MIC HAEL H. LEIiER +•i ��L�,t �, FRANK C. ROTHROCK' MICHELE D. MURPHY DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R. CARPENTER '""' 851-7294 DAVID D. PARR' RICHARD A SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER' DOUGLAS M. STEVENS TELECOPIER (714) 851-1554 GEORGE J.WALL D. SUSAN WIENS (714) 851-3 B44 L. RICHARD RAWLS BEVERLY A. CHIN January 24, 1995 (714) 757-1225 PATRICK A. HE NNE55 EY RONALD M. COLE DON FISHER CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN 1714) 85I-2351 GREGORY N. WEILER SCAN P. O'CONNOR WARREN A. WILLIAMS SUSAN T. SAKURA JOHN R. LISTER TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER KEYVAN SAMINI REFER TO FILE NO. 16193-009 •PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL NON. THOMAS J. UMBERG MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Ron and Ann Brindle and John and Linda Thomas ("Brindle/Thomas") are writing you to provide important information concerning the above-referenced Code Amendment/ Negative Declaration. Brindle/Thomas own the oil lease covering all of the lots sought to be impacted. Brindle/Thomas owns the majority of the five acre site ("Site A") in fee. The Brindles own the easterly property occupied by the business American Landscape Supply (and oil production) . The Thomas' own constructively contiguoinw- acreage easterly across Goldenwest Street. Brindle/Thomas submit its opposition to the above actic:,s. -Lha opposition includes, but is not limited to, the following: • THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A 3-5 ACRE PARR IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS. Apparently, the proposed ordinance places a permitted use on Site A. The impact of the proposed ordinance is not clear to either Brindle/Thomas or the City Staff. In response to Brindle/Thomas inquiries, the City has given contradictory explanations as to the effect of the proposed amendment. The Planning Staff has stated that the park designation would be the exclusive permitted use until such time a property ATTACHMENT NO. L1P'7 PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 2 owner submitted a development application for the property. According to Planning Staff, the City's intent is to require that at the time a development application would be submitted, the property owner would be required to have the park designation eliminated through another specific plan amendment. Therefore, park use would be essentially the only use to which the property could be put as a result of the proposed ordinance. At other times, City staff has stated that the proposed park designation would be only one of the permitted uses for the site. Further, the Environmental Board determined that the proposed amendment/assessment form does not clearly state that the site is being changed for a residential use. This ambiguity renders the proposed ordinance void and unenforceable. • THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONTINUES TO EFFECTUATE A TARING OR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH BRINDLE/THOMAS IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. On April 22 , 1990, the Community Service Commission selected the subject site. In early 1993 the City initiated a zone change to rezone Site A to Recreation Open Space (ROS) . On May 21, 1993 , Deputy City Attorney Paul D'Alessandro advised Assistant Planner Herb Fauland that if rezoned, the property would be removed from the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Deputy City Attorney D'Alessandro further advised that the Specific Plan be amended rather than rezoning the property. On March 1, 1993 , a letter was sent to the City Council to identify a portion of the Brindle/Thomas site (Site A) as a suitable location for an equestrian facility. This item was removed from the agenda. On May 10, 1993 , the Environmental Board determined that Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly state that the Brindle/Thomas site is being changed from residential as a permitted use. This current proposed amendment seeks to include a map to specifically identify Site A as the exclusive park site location in the quarter section. The City's proposed ordinance must be assumed to preclude development. Therefore, the action is tantamount to a taking, requiring payment of just compensation. Previously, Staff had claimed that Brindle/Thomas cannot develop its holdings under the applicable City Development standards. Staff is wrong. Brindle/Thomas is prepared to prove ATTACHMENT No. N,7? ( PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 3 that their lots are developable. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66451. 10, the lots are legal and valid. As stated in Brindle/Thomas ' s letter to Ronald Hagan (June 10, 1993) at page four, the City cannot compel merger of any lots that it may have retroactively defined as "substandard. " (Government Code Section 64451. 11 (c) and (d) . ) By this proposed action, the City is obviously seeking to acquire the Site A for a park. The City' s designation of Site A for park purposes constitutes unlawful precondemnation activity. Furthermore, the Brindle/Thomas site is part of a much larger parcel, which includes the oil lease, the Brindle property and the Thomas property (American Landscaping) . As previously made clear to City staff and demonstrated in other matters, Brindle/Thomas will not allow the City to attempt to acquire its property and business interests at less than fair market value. The fair market value of property taken is defined as the highest rice of the property or property interests. (Code Civ. Proc. §1263 . 320. ) • THE DESIGNATION OF SITE A PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT IS A PRODUCT OF INCOMPLETE ANALYSIS Site A does not comply with the criteria for open space uses in the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Element. This is glaringly evident when compared with the site adjacent to Saddleback School. The City first identified Site A as a potential site prior to selecting the Saddleback.-Sol site. An approximately five acre vacant parcel of land lies right next to the future school site. The category of park proposed for Site A is a neighborhood park. Pursuant to the City's Land Use Element criteria for open space uses, since the function of a neighborhood park is primarily for children from 5 - 14 years of age, along with preschool children and family groups, the neighborhood park should be situated for dual use with school facilities. These parks are closely related to elementary schools and contain playground facilities. The Land Use Element specifically provides that a neighborhood park should be "adjacent to elementary school when possible. " (City of Huntington Beach Land Use Element criteria for open space uses, p.90. ) Here, dual use is possible but has been given short shrift. The site adjacent to Saddleback School site also provides safe and convenient access to the neighborhood residents. Access has been reserved for this parcel from the proposed Churchill ATTACHMENT NO. [+l q PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 4 Street extension. Therefore, the park will be able to be accessed from a neighborhood collector street. (Please see Internal Collector Circulation Map attached hereto showing access points. ) Moreover, the Saddleback School site meets the size and population served criteria pursuant to the Land Use Element. In its report, Staff adds criteria which are not found in the Land Use Element. The Staff Report notes that the Saddleback School park site location is under the ownership of a trust. The Report fails to mention the significance behind the distinction concerning property ownership. Brindle/Thomas can only conclude from this reference that the type of property ownership is important because of the City' s ease of acquiring the property interests. We have already discussed the City' s clear intent to acquire. Since ease of acquisition is an issue, for the City it is easier to file the eminent domain action to acquire clear title against owners of one parcel than it is to proceed against a number of owners of a number of parcels. Thus, the site adjacent to Saddleback School is also favorable in comparison to Site A. Staff also mentions that the site adjacent to the Saddleback School has been preplanned for residential development and is surrounded by approved residential development. These characteristics make the site adjacent to the Saddleback School more appropriate rather than less appropriate for a park site. In addition, Site A has also been preplanned for residential development, and is adjacent to residential development on one side. American Landscape Supply and Brindle/Thomas oil production is situated to the east of Site A. Staff also reports that the site adjacent to the Saddleback School has poor access for use by the residents of the quarter section. This assertion is confounded by the fact that access is to be provided to this site by the Churchill Street extension. (See attached Internal Collector Street Circulation plan. ) In short, the site adjacent to the Saddleback School conforms with all criteria for open space uses. In contrast, the Brindle/Thomas site is not only impacted by active oil production, it is bisected by a major collector street for the quarter section. ATTACHMENT NO. 1,q•�o PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER,WILHELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24, 1995 Page 5 • THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Environmental Board of the City of Huntington Beach "does not feel that the environmental issues have been analyzed adequately [concerning Environmental Assessment Form 92-39) and, therefore, recommends that a focused EIR be prepared for the project. Brindle/Thomas agree that an Environmental Impact Report is required for this project. Although bisected by a future major collector street (Saddleback Lane) , the Staff suggests that there will be no vehicle trips to the park or vehicle parking at the park. (See Staff Report 1/24/95, p. 6. ) Staff's suggestion is not justified but is convenient as apparently no traffic or parking study has been completed. Further examples of the failure to conduct the appropriate level of environmental review include but are not limited to: • Environmental Assessment Form 92-39 does not clearly indicate the five acre parcel as being changed from residential. • A park bisected by through traffic is potentially unsafe, inefficient, and not cost effective. • Since the park will abut residences and create significant noise levels resulting from activities such as basketball and volleyball, a noise study should be completed. • The environmental impact of horses and equestrian uses must be studied, particularly when Saddleback Lane is connected to Garfield. In response to the Environmental Board's insightful criticisms, Staff for the most part failed to respond. Staff 's failure to respond confirms the inadequacy of the environmental compliance and shows that Staff has no answers, or at least no good ones. • THE CITY CONTINUES TO SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATE THE MAGNITUDE OF ITS PROBABLE ACQUISITION COSTS FOR SITE A. City Staff has informed Brindle/Thomas that it has no more than $200, 000. 00 budgeted for the acquisition of this park site. The property owners have provided the City with a preliminary ATTACHMENT N0. .(q. PALMIERI, TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 24 , 1995 Page 6 estimate of the City's acquisition costs to be approximately $5.7 Million (including fair market value for the land, buy out of the oil wells, abandonment of the wells, and removal of the oil equipment, and street construction. (See letter of June 10, 1993 to Ronald Hagan, Director, Community Services Department. ) This acquisition estimate does not include severance damages to the larger parcel composed of the Brindle and Thomas ownerships. This estimate also does not include the loss of business good will compensation or compensation for business relocation payments. The Brindle/Thomas ' estimate similarly does not include appraisal costs, eminent domain attorneys ' fees, and other similar administrative costs that would likely be significant for the acquisition of the 66 separate lots from multiple property owners, and the severance damage to Brindle and Thomas larger parcel. The cost estimate likewise does not include any soil remediation costs or site preparation preliminary to park development. In light of the lack of funds available and the fact that the City would wind up with only a little bit more than three acres of useable park area, the acquisition of this site makes no sense according to a cost benefit analysis. Based on the foregoing comments, Brindle/Thomas opposes the Commission's approval of Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Code Amendment No. 93-1. Brindle/Thomas requests that the City take a new look at the circumstances and decide on an alternative that makes better planning and economic sense. Very truly yours, 4MichaeeLo�f MHL:pjr cc: John and Linda Thomas Ron and Ann Brindle Richard A. Harlow Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. E:\pO14AIN\8a8\16193009\CITY.LTR 01/24/95 .,ATTACHMENT N0. K-P r ELLIS AVENUE t ILI - ---- - _- CC U) w z p w 0 W 3 O ^a i GARFIELD AVENUE IF ACCESS POINTS I� M INTERIM BARRIER Internal access Internal Collector Street Cfrculation Exhibit 6 13 -ATTACHMENT NO. t�.�3 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner DATE: January 24, 1995 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIEVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39 LOCATION: The property is centrally located in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection, generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards St., Golden West St., Ellis Ave., and Garfield Ave. ---------—---------- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 93-1 and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis- Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend the General Provisions , Permitted Uses text of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan to include a reference to the Open Space exhibit depicting the location of the neighborhood park. The Open Space exhibit (No. 8) will be amended to identify the neighborhood park location. Staff recommends approval of the proposed code amendment because the designation of a three to five acre neighborhood park that is centrally located in the Ellis-Golden West Quartersection will meet the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. In addition, the neighborhood park designation will meet the goals and policies of the master plan of development for the Holly/Seacliff area as established in General Plan Amendment No. 99-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 adopted January 8, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 92-39 and Code Amendment No. 93-1 based on findings as outlined in Attachment No. I and forward to the City Council." E5 , \ ATTACHMENT NO. : Y. Mli a ol i ! - Ll I . J GARFIELD AVE. S m z CA93-01 I EA 92-39 ��' HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: Various (66 total lots, 65 encyclopedia lots) REOUEST: To amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. DATE ACCEPTED: January 6, 1995 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Vacant, Oil Production North and West of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Single Family Residential East of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Commercial (American Landscape) South of Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate Residential <3un/gac ZONE: Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan LAND USE: Vacant (Approved SFR Subdivision) $(O ATTACHMENT NO. -' _ Staff Report- 1/24/95 2 (pcsr112) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Code Amendment No. 93-1 and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 is a request to amend the Ellis- Golden West Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a three to five acre neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend the General Provisions , Permitted Uses text of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan to include a reference to the Open Space exhibit depicting the location of the neighborhood park. The Open Space exhibit (No. 8)will be amended to identify the neighborhood park location. No park development is proposed at this time. Zoning Compliance The proposed code amendment complies with the requirements of the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP). The three to five acre neighborhood park conforms to the minimum standards of the specific plan and as defined in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. Any future park development proposal will require a conditional use permit and public hearing before the Planning Commission. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Estate Residential land use designation of the Land Use Element, and the goals and policies of the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The Recreation Element of the General Plan includes a goal to provide adequate neighborhood recreation facilities for all areas of the city. To achieve that goal, the following general policy statements are included: a. Provide neighborhood parks that are generally 2.5 to 5 acres in size. b. Centrally locate parks within neighborhoods. c. Design neighborhood parks to serve the area within a one-quarter mile radius. d. When possible, locate neighborhood parks adjacent to schools so both facilities can provide more functional uses. e. Place a high priority on developing a neighborhood park to serve the Seacliff area. f. In new residential tracts, consideration should be given to providing and maintaining neighborhood recreation areas through a homeowner's maintenance association. The proposed code amendment complies with the size criteria, location, and the two area serving requirements (1/4 mile radius, Seacliffarea) of the Recreation Element. ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report- 1/24/95 3 (pcsr112) The Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 89-1, adopted January 8, 1990) identified the need for four neighborhood parks within the 768 acre Master Plan area. The Master Plan identified one of the four neighborhood parks within the EGSP area. The land use map of the Land Use Element for the Master Plan has designated a minimum four acre park in the south central area of the EGSP (see Attachment No. 7). The Master Plan also included an Open Space Element map which identified the location of a minimum four acre neighborhood park (see Attachment No. 8). The location is generally identified at the intersection of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The proposed code amendment complies with the goal of providing one of the four neighborhood parks within the EGSP and with the Land Use and Open Space maps of the Master Plan. General Plan Advisory Committee The City is in the process of updating its General Plan and has established a committee to analyze and give direction to staff relative to the various elements of the Plan. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has made recommendations on land use designations for the area and has recommended that the area remain designated single family residential with an equestrian/rural theme. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the committee. Environmental Status: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 92-39 for twenty-one (21) days and two written comments were received and a response to these comments has been included (see Attachment No. 10). Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Since the determination was made, a period of approximately 20 months has passed. Staff believes that the environmental setting, conditions, and conclusions are the same and Negative Declaration No. 92-39 may be processed. Prior to any action on Code Amendment No. 93-1, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 92-39. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Police, Community Services and Economic Development have responded on the proposed code amendment. No comment on the proposed code amendment was noted by Economic Development. One comment was received from Public Works (Park, Tree, and Landscape Division) regarding possible soil contamination because of the IgAW ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report- 1/24/95 4 (pcsr112) existing oil operations, cost of park maintenance, and access concerns. Staff believes that these concerns are valid, however, these concerns will be more appropriately addressed during the park development proposal (CUP). One comment was received from Fire regarding access and completion of the local street system. Again, staff believes that this concern will be addressed at the development proposal stage. Community Services noted their support of the request. The Police Department has no concerns. ANALYSIS: History On July 5, 1989, the City Council adopted the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EGSP) for the purpose of implementing the Estate Residential general plan land use designation within the Quartersection. The specific plan permits estate residential (single family detached residences) on large lots with sensitivity towards the existing topography and provide equestrian amenities. The specific plan also permits the establishment of a three to five acre neighborhood park subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. However, the plan does not identify a location for the neighborhood park. On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 89-1) which established a comprehensive land use plan for the 768 acres of primarily undeveloped land in central Huntington Beach. The plan included an Open Space Element which identified the need for neighborhood parks within the Master Plan area. The plan established four parks, minimum four acres, within the Master Plan area. One of the proposed parks is within the EGSP area. On June 17, 1991, the City Council received a report which analyzed and identified locations for a proposed park within the EGSP area. The report (see Attachment No. 9) analyzed three locations. The City Council directed staff to initiate the proper amendments to designate Alternative A, the centrally located site for park purposes. Code Amendment The proposed code amendment will amend the text (Permitted Uses, Page No. 10) of the EGSP to include a legal description and reference an exhibit (Open Space and Corridor Trail System, Page No. 18) in the document which identifies the location of the site. Please see Attachment Nos. 3 & 4. The proposed location is in conformance with the direction given by the City Council. The proposed code amendment will only amend the EGSP and designate the park site; no development is proposed at this time. Any future development proposal for a neighborhood park will require Community Services Commission review and approval and a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. L4.g� ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report- 1/24/95 5 (pcsr112) The location of the proposed park encompasses approximately five acres of encyclopedia lots. There are 65 such lots which measure approximately 25.4' X 125.88' in size (3,197.35 sq. ft.). There is also one lettered lot "A'. This area is under numerous ownership and land consolidation for development is difficult. The specific plan requires any development proposal to be a minimum ten gross acres with any non-contiguous parcels to be no less than five acres in size. A future local public street (Saddleback Lane) is proposed within the area to complete the interior circulation system of the Quartersection. The local street will bisect the proposed park site linking with Quarterhorse Lane and ultimately connecting with Garfield Avenue to the south. The ultimate development of the neighborhood park will be coordinated with the future construction of the local street and future infrastructure of the Quartersection. The site currently is vacant of any development, but does have two oil producing sites within the proposed park area. Preliminary conceptual plans for the park site indicate that the park plan can accommodate the two oil producing sites by providing access for maintenance and fencing for safety protection (see Attachment No. 6). The conceptual plan provides open turf areas, park benches, meandering sidewalks, a basketball court, a sand volleyball court, and area lighting. The plan will also provide a 15 feet equestrian trail easement along the southerly side of the future local public street and link the overall trail system within the Quartersection. The neighborhood park plan will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses because of the passive nature of the future park. Noise generated by the park should be minimal because of the passive amenities and lighting impacts are reduced because of the provision of lighting only for security purposes along the sidewalk. In addition, the future park is not anticipated to generate additional vehicle trips within the area because the park is proposed to provide amenities which serve the neighborhood residents. The residents will walk, bike, or ride horses to the site. The park plan is provided for conceptual purposes only, as stated earlier, any future development of the site will require Community Services Commission review, a conditional use permit, and review by the Planning Commission. Saddleback School Site In July, 1991 the city approved a 50 acre master plan of estate residential development generally located along Garfield Avenue from Golden West Street to Edwards Avenue. As part of this development, the developer was required to dedicate an approximate ten gross acre area for a future school site. The need for a school site was identified in the general plan amendment for the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan. The future schbol site is located at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue at Saddleback Lane. In addition, an approximately five acre vacant parcel of land lies adjacent the future school site. Historically, park sites have been incorporated with schools through joint agreements, whenever possible, to develop an optimum school and park site. The potential joint use would be in conformance with one of the six general policies of the Recreation Element for adequate neighborhood recreation facilities. However, the vacant five acre parcel is under ownership of a trust, has been pre-planned for residential development, is surrounded by approved residential development, and has poor access for use by the residents of the Quartersection. tq.40 ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report- 1/24/95 6 (pcsr112) SUMMARY: Staff in its analysis of the proposed code amendment concurs with the recommendation and analysis made in the June 1991 report to the City Council based upon the following: • The proposed three to five acre neighborhood park location is centrally located within the Quartersection. • The location has the best overall terrain. • The location will be accessed by a local public street. • The proposed code amendment will provide recreational needs for the immediate residents and the community. • The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan. • The proposed code amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may take one of the following alternative actions: A. Deny Code Amendment No. 93-1 as proposed; or B. Direct staff to investigate other locations within the Ellis Golden West Quartersection for a three to five acre park. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Draft Ordinance 3. Legislative Draft 4. Draft Exhibit No. 8 5. .Narrative dated March 25, 1993 6. Site Plan dated April 19, 1993 7. Holly/Seacliff Master Plan-Land Use Element Map 8. Holly/SeacliffMaster Plan- Open Space Element Map 9. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated June 17, 1991 10. Negative Declaration No. 92-39 SH:HF:kjl I(AA) ATTACHMENT NO. Staff Report- 1/24/95 7 (pcsr112) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL- CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1: 1. Code Amendment No. 93-1 to amend the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan by proposing to designate a three to five acre neighborhood park is consistent with the City's General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies regarding open space and conservation, recreation, circulation, land use, and community facilities. 2. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Open Space and Conservation Element by encouraging beautification of oil-producing areas and restoration of non- productive oil land, and maximizing the outdoor and environmental potential of the city by providing comprehensive , coordinated recreation, parks and open space programs that fulfill the needs of the community. 3. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Recreation Element by providing an adequate neighborhood recreation facility that is three to five acres in size, centrally located within a neighborhood and will serve an area within a quarter mile radius. 4. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Circulation Element by providing adequate transportation improvements and access to a future neighborhood park by means of a future local (public) street. 5. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Land Use Element by capitalizing on the outdoor and environmental potential of the city and by insuring that adequate open space is provided in all residential areas of the city. 6. Code Amendment No. 93-1 is consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Community Facilities Element by coordinating park development with the provisions of community facilities. ATTACHMENT NO. , Attachment- 1/24/95 (pcsr112-8) RCA ROUTING INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOMENT SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 92-1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 1995 RCA .ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) - Cached.=.: Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits ���r4ched Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved as to form by City Attome =Attached::: Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) �'L' ttache A Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) ah `� Bonds (If applicable) -5,' Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk - EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Sipace For City Clerk's Use NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 19, 1995, at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 93-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-39: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department-To amend the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan for the purpose of designating a neighborhood park. The code amendment will amend Section I11, Community Theme(Pages 14-19), of the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan to include a new category(No. 6)for neighborhood parks and reference the Open Space exhibit(No. 8, Page 18)depicting the location of the neighborhood park. The proposed code amendment is to designate a site for the exclusive use as a neighborhood park. No Park development is proposed at this time. Location: The property is centrally located in the Ellis-Goldenwest Quartersection, generally at the terminus of Saddleback and Quarterhorse Lanes. The Quartersection is bounded by Edwards St., Goldenwest St., Ellis Ave., and Garfield Ave. Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item 4 1 would not have any significant environmental effect and that a negative declaration is warranted. The environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271. 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 the City Clerk's Office after June 15, 1995. 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 Planning Division at 536-5271 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 (cc1g06191) CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST'_ SUBJECT. �� 13— /!V 9Z"3 1 �:1�i5 (wad ba%j WV-.'r DEPARTMENT: e-409�-�j'�V• MEETING DATE: CONTACT: PHONE: N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) 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 appellant'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? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? L,M14�C� � C4 L 9o=*W L.Ar' , ( ) ( ) 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 2. Number of times to be published 3. Number of days between publications N A NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST April 3, 1995 GROUPS SUBJECTAREAS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. i. HB Chamber of Commerce X X X X X X X X X X X X 2. HB/FV Board of Realtors X X X X X X X X X X X X a 3. Amigos de Bolsa Chica X X 1 4. Friends of the Wetlands X X X X 1 5. Huntington Beach Tomorrow X X X X X 6. Building Industry Association X 7. SCAG X X X b 8. ETI: Corral 100 X X X X 9. Environmental Board X X X X X X X X 10. Huntington Harbor HOA I h IL Pacific Coast Homes X X X X X X X X X X X 12. Seacliff Partners X X X X X X X X X X X X 13. Historical Society X X X X X e 14. Historical Resources Board X X X X X e 15. Council on Aging C 16. Seacliff HOA 17. Mobile Homeowners League X X X X X X X X X 18. Pacific Coast Archeological Society k 19. OC Environmental Management A (3) X X b 20. City of Costa Mesa X b/d 21. City of Fountain Valle X b/d 22. City of Westminster X b/d 23. City of Seal Beach X b/d 24. CA Coastal Commission X X 25. Caltrans X X b 26. OC Solid Waste Enf. Agency f 27. 1 HB Post Office X i gaabels/chart GROUPS SUBJECT AREAS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 28. FV Elementary School District X X X 29. BB City Elementary School District X X X 30. Ocean View Elementary School District X X X 31. Westminster School District X X X 32. HB Union High School District X X X 96 33. CSA X X X 34. Goldenwest College 35. OC County Harbors,Beaches&Parks X X b/h 36, Huntington Beach Mall 1 37. Country View Estates HOA(2) m 38. Meadowlark Area(2) 1 39. Koll Company X X X X X 1 *KEY TO SUBJECT AREAS: 1. Zone Changes 13. Other, please list: 2. Code Amendments a. Housing policies 3. General Plan Amendments b. Any regionally significant project 4. Tentative Tract Maps c. Senior Housing Projects 5. Coastal Issues d. Projects close to City boundaries 6. Projects within Redevelopment Areas e. Historical issues 7. Wetland Issues f. Projects near/on closed landfill sites 8. Parking Issues g. Seacliff area projects 9. Height Issues h. Huntington Harbor Developments 10. Conditional Use Permits i. Multi-tenant industrial, residential, commercial projects 11. Conditional Exceptions (Planning Commission) j. Any residential project 12. Mobilehome Park Conversion k. Projects in archaeological areas 1. Any project which may have an impact to, and/or projects within the vicinity of, the group's project area m. Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area and vicinity g:labels/chart PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS - 4/3/95 President 1 Huntingt Harbor OA 10 Edna Littlebury 17 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O. B9<� Golden St. Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. 2210 Main Street,Suite 200 Sunset742 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Garden Grove,CA 92642 Judy Legan 2 Bill Lilly 10 Pacific Co t Archaeological 18 H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors HHHOA C Society,Inc. 8101 Slater Ave. 16835 Alg in St. #119 P.O. Box 10 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntingt ch,CA 92649 Costa M ,CA 627 Attn: ne Gothold PresiXB8 3 William D. Holman 11 County of range EMA 19 AmiChica Pacific Coast Homes Michael M. e,Dir. P. O 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 P.O. Box 4 Hunh,CA 92605 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Santa a,CA 9 702-4048 Charles Grant 4 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Planning epaOfnent 19 Friends of the HB Wetlands Seacliff Partners Orange C EMA 21902 Kiowa Lane 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P. O. Bo 8 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA Sant Z.CA 2702-4048 President 5 Pres.,H.B. Hist. Society 13 County o Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow C/O Newland House Museum Thomas s 411 6th St. 19820 Beach Blvd. P. O. Bo 8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa i6a,CA 2702-4048 Julie Va>a92<714- 6 Chairperson 14 Coun f Ora e/EMA 19 BIA-OC Historical Resources Bd. Bob Fishe ir. 9 Execu #100 Comm. Services Dept. P.O. Bo 8 Irvin 734 2000 Main St. Santa Ana,C 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Richak Spicer 7 Counci on Agi 15 Plannin Dir. 20 SCAG 1706 Or ve. City of C t Mesa 818 W�e , 12th Floor Huntingt ach,CA 92648 P. O. Box 0Loseles, 90017 Costa esa, 92628-1200 E.T.I. Corral 100 8 Domin>Ho ma' o 16 Plannin Dir. 21 Mary Bell Seaclif ners Assoc. City of F n in Valley 20292 Eastwood Cir. 6812 S Lane 10200 Sla ve. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 HuntiBeac ,CA 92648 Fountai alle ,CA 92708 Catherine Stipe,Environmental 9 Seach HOA 16 Planning Direct r 22 Board Chairman Jeff Met 1 City of We ster 16391 Fairway Lane 19391 Sha <BeCA or Circle 8200 West ster Blvd. Huntin n 92648 Westmin r, 92683 g:lables\phnlbls PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST"B" MAILING LABELS - 4/3/95 I Planning Direc r 23 James Jones 30 OC Coun Harbors,Beach 35 City of B ach Ocean Vie Ele entary and Parks 21 1 EiZt . School distric P. O. Box Seal BCA 90740 17200 PEE ane Santa A a,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach CA 92647 CA Coastal Commission 24 Ron Frazi r 31 Cheryle Br;nin 36 The en Westminst chool District Meado ark ea 245 W. Br dway,Ste 380 14121 Ce ood Avenue 16771 Ro evelt Lane Long Bc ,CA 0802 Westmin er C 92683 Huntin n ch,CA 92649 California Coastal Commission 24 Gary Burgner 32 Sally Graham 36 South Dis is ffice HB Uni H(Bh, hool Disrict Mead o rk a 245 W. Br dway No. 380 10251 Yo Avenue 5161 Gel g Circle Long B , 92802-4458 Huntingt CA 92646 Hunting n beach,CA 92649 Robert Joseph 25 David Hagen 32 Caltra Dist ct 12 HB Uni Hig chool district Koll Company 37 2501 Pu n St. 10251 Yo t wn 2213 Main Street,Suite 32 Santa An , A 92705 Huntingto ach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Director 26 Huntington Beach Mall 33 Local Solid Was Enf.Agy. Attn: Pat Rogers- aude °��''��-���" ��� O.C. alth C e Agency 7777 Ed' er e. #300 ���e�� �'tw"NE"���'a� P.O. Box 5 Huntington ach CA 92647 �(ao3 Msst►-' S' Santa A , 92702 F-A'ST Te e, SvrE 13vo New Growth Coordinator 27 CSA 33 Hunt' ton B ach Post Office 730 El XaoWay#200 6771 re. Tustin, Huntingt ach,CA 92647 Marc Ecker 28 Goldenwest College 34 Fountai Vall Attn: ed Owens ElementPVa'lleyA hool District 15744 1 nwest St. 172100 Huntin each CA 92647 Founta 92708 Dr. Nane Dishno 29 Country View Estates HOA 35 HB Ci entary School Dist. Carrie Thomas PO Box 6642 Trotter Drive Huntin?ton B ch,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Jerry Buchana 29 Country View Estates HOA 35 HB City em ntary School Dist. Gerry Chapman 20451 Crai Lane 6742 Shire Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 g:1ab1es\phn1b1s CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1-0 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk *e/ FROM: Herb Fauland, Associate Planner DATE: June 1, 1995 SUBJECT: Mailing labels/Code Amendment No. 93-1 (Ellis-Golden West Park Site) This is to inform you that the mailing labels provided to you by this office for the June 19, 1995, public hearing on the Ellis-Golden West park site are courtesy labels. The Community Services and Community Development Departments have been working with the homeowners in the Quartersection on the issue of designating a neighborhood park. The staffs have promised the homeowners that we would provide courtesy notification of all the property owners in the Quartersection. Community Services staff generated the courtesy labels from the Tax Assessor Rolls available on the third floor. The courtesy notification is above and beyond the requirement pursuant to Government Code Section 65090. The required notification for the code amendment was adhered to. xc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director Ron Hagan, Community Services Director Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director (hAblscone) 110-210-01 110-210-02 110-210-03 William Landis David Dahl Michael W. Niccole 1901 Avenue of The Stars 505 Park Ave . 400 3rd St . Los Angeles CA 90067 Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-210-04 110-210-i16 110-210-07 David Dahl John R. Schuesler Spelts Elizabeth Adm of 505 Park Ave . 4832 Curtis Cir 471 Walnut St . Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Bh CA 92649 Costa Mesa CA 92627 110-210-08 110-210-09 110-210-10 Huntington Beach Cc Huntington Beach Company Michael Wayne Niccole P.O. Box 7611 P.O. Box 7611 400 3rd St. San Francisco CA 94120 San Francisco CA 94120 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-210-11 110-211-01 110-211-02 Ruth L. Gordon Yousef Ghodooshim Ronald P. Borghetti 2219 Greenleaf St . 320 Crown Dr. 10208 Disney Cir Santa Ana CA 92706 Los Angeles CA 90049 Huntington Bh CA 92646 110-211-03 110-211-04 110-211-05 Milton H. Marow Yousef Ghodooshim Yousef Ghodooshim 864 N. Bundy Dr. 320 Crown Dr. 320 Crown Dr. Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angeles CA 90049 110-211-06 110-211-07 110-211-08 Weir Oil Co Weir Oil Co Weir Oil Co 401 20Th St . No. A 401 20Th St . No. A 401 20Th St . No. A Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-211-09 110-211-10 110-211-11 Peter E. Howell Ignacio F. Estrada Miguel Vargas Perez 3025 E. Cannon Dr. 715 Alabama St . P.O. Box 1645 Phoenix AZ 85028 Huntington Bh CA. 92648 Costa Mesa CA 92628 110-211-12 110-211-13 110-211-14 Miguel Vargas Perez Dena Jeanne Zepeda Wood Miguel Vargas Perez P.O. Box 1645 1310 W. Palm Lane P.O. Box 1645 Costa Mesa CA 92628 Phoenix AZ 85007 Costa Mesa CA 92628 0-212-01 110-212-02 110-212-03 An tte C. Buskirk Cecil J. Folmar Cecil J. Folmar 745 Cal' �s Amigos 230 Hospital Cir 230 Hospital Cir Barbara CA 9�3 rr Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 110-212-04 -110-212-05 110-212-06 Cecil J. Folmar Cecil J. Folmar Ronald I . Brindle 230 Hospital Cir 230 Hospital Cir 18851 Goldenwest St . Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-212-07 110-212-08 110-212-09 Weir Oil Co Weir Oil Co Weir Oil Co 401 20Th St . 401 20Th St. 401 20Th St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-212-10 110-212-11 110-212-12 Yousef Ghodooshim Yousef Ghodooshim Milton H. Marow 320 Crown Dr. 320 Crown Dr. 864 N. Bundy Dr. Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angeles CA 90049 110-212-14 110-212-15 110-212-16 Cecil J. Folmar Cecil J. Folmar Ronald I . Brindle 230 Hospital Cir 230 Hospital Cir 18851 Goldenwest St . Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-212-17 110-212-18 110-212-19 Milton H. Marow Judy Amark Cecil J. Folmar 864 N. Bundy Dr. 675 Chestnut St . 230 Hospital Cir Los Angeles CA 90049 Ashland OR 97520 Westminster CA 92683 110-212-20 110-212-21 110-212-22 Cecil J. Folmar Cecil J. Folmar Judy Amark 230 Hospital Cir 230 Hospital Cir 675 Chestnut St . Westminster CA 92683 Westminster CA 92683 Ashland OR 97520 110-213-01 110-213-02 110-213-03 Milton H. Marow Loren S. Bates Kenneth V. Beer 864 N. Bundy Dr. 18761 Capense St . 2207 E. 3020 S Los Angeles CA 90049 Fountain Vly CA 92708 Salt Lake Cty UT 84109 110-213-04 110-213-05 110-213-06 Delbert Franklin Catron Jann V. Parks Jann V. Parks 14732 Van Buren St . 2679 San Miguel Cir 2679 San Miguel Cir Midway City CA 92655 Thousand Oaks CA 91360 Thousand Oaks CA 91360 110-213-07 110-213-08 110-213-09 Erik Wallbank Erik Wallbank Erik Wallbank 2300 Black Oak Way 2300 Black Oak Way 2300 Black Oak Way Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 110-213-10 110-213-11 110-213-12 Erik Wallbank Milton H. Marow Ronald P. Borghetti 2300 Black Oak Way 864 N. Bundy Dr. 10208 Disney Cir Ashland OR 97520 Los Angeles CA 90049 Huntington Bh CA 92646 110-220-02 110-220-03 110-220-04 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Golden West St . 18851 Golden West St. 18851 Golden West St . Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-220-05 110-221-01 110-221-02 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Golden West St . 18851 Golden West St. 18851 Goldenwest St . Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-221-03 110-221-04 110-221-05 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle City / Huntington Beach 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 2000 Main St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-221-06 110-221-07 110-221-08 Title Insurance & Trust Ronald I . & Emily A. Brin Dorothy J. Walker P.O. Box 92990 18851 Golden West St. 559 Sawmill Gardens Dr. Chicago IL 60690 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Cottonwood AZ 86326 110-221-09 110-221-10 110-221-11 Mark M. Deneau Ronald I . & Emily A. Brin Katherine R. Baliga 4062 Bayberry Dr. 19782 Scenic Bay Lane P.O. Box 693 Chino Hills CA 91709 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Corona Dl Mar CA 92625 110-221-12 110-221-13 110-221-14 Ronald I . Brindle Dorothy J. Walker Melvin F. Keller 18851 Goldenwest St . 559 Sawmill Gardens Dr. 4534 Sw Hewett Blvd. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Cottonwood AZ 86326 Portland OR 97221 110-221-15 110-221-16 110-221-17 Ronald I . Brindle City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach 18851 Goldenwest St . P.O. Box 190 2000 Main St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-221-18 110-221-19 110-221-20 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . & Emily A. Bri 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St. 18851 Golden West St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-221-21 110-221-22 110-221-23 Ronald I . Brindle Emma F. Scouller Ronald I . Brindle 18851 Goldenwest St . 8302 Indianapolis Ave. 1885 Golden West St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9264 110-221-24 110-221-25 110-221-26 Dorothy J. Walker City of Huntington Beach Ronald I . Brindle 559 Sawmill Gardens Dr. 2000 Main St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Cottonwood AZ 86326 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-222-01 110-222-02 110-222-03 Ronald I . Bringle Ronald I . Brindle City of Huntington Beach 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-222-04 110-222-05 110-222-06 Ronald I . Brindle Kenneth Harrald Hubbs Leland C. Fuller 18851 Goldenwest St . 10651 Knott Ave. 1001 Daffodil Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Cypress CA 90630 Lebanon PA 17042 110-222-07 110-222-08 110-222-09 Ronald I . Brindle Yousef Ghodooshim Yousef Ghodooshim 18851 Goldenwest St . 320 Crown Dr. 320 Crown Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90049 Los Angeles CA 90049 110-222-10 110-222-11 110-222-13 Ronald I . Brindle Norma Dorothy Young Harold C. Morton 18851 Golden West St . 9500 Sw Greenburg Rd. No. P.O. Box 1097 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Tigard OR 97223 Carlsbad CA 92018 2-14 110-222-15 110-222-16 Spelts Va ,:Adm of Es City of Huntington Beach Ronald I . Brindle 471 Wa P.O. Box 190 18851 Goldenwest St . C a Mesa Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-222-17 110-222-18 110-222-19 City of Huntington Beach Nellie A. Townley Raymond P. Smith P.O. Box 190 RR 1 Box 23 22775 Carancho Rd. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Montague CA 96064 Temecula CA 92590 110-222-20 110-222-21 110-222-22 James C. J. Tsai Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle P.O. Box 9947 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . Fountain Vly CA 92728 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 110-222-23 110-222-24 110-222-26 Ronald I . Brindle Ronald I . Brindle Ronald P. Borghetti 18851 Goldenwest St . 18851 Goldenwest St . 10208 Disney Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92646 110-222-27 110-222-28 110-222-29 Ronald P. Borghetti Ronald P. Borghetti Daniel F. Sailer 10208 Disney Cir 10208 Disney Cir P.O. Box 2224 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Oceanside CA 92051 110-222-30 110-229-01 159-351-01 Daniel F. Sailer Gladys C. Bealo Western Homex Corp P.O. Box 2224 475 N. Midway Dr. No. 142 P.O. Box 1188 Oceanside CA 92051 Escondido CA 92027 Sunset Beach CA 90742 159-351-02 159-351-03 159-351-04 Western Homex Corp A J Faas & Sons Samuel M. O. Tsang P.O. Box 1188 6522 Trotter Dr. 6541 Trotter Dr. Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-05 159-351-06 159-351-07 Werner Nolff Raymond John Orlando Dale A. Wendland 6561 Trotter Dr. 6571 Trotter Dr. 6591 Trotter Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-08 159-351-09 159-351-10 Rachelle C. Coombs Lazaros A. Bountour James Warren Thomas 6601 Trotter Dr. 6621 Trotter Dr. 6642 Trotter Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-11 159-351-12 159-351-13 Charles W. Walker Peter T. O'Neill Peter M. Whittington 6622 Trotter Dr. 6602 Trotter Dr. 6592 Trotter Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-14 159-351-15 159-351-16 Gene A. Busche Byron C. Chilleme Andy J. Goetz 6572 Trotter Dr. 6562 Trotter Dr. 6542 Trotter Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-17 159-351-18 159-351-19 Alfred E. Faas Western Homex Corp Edwards-Lindborg-Dah 6522 Trotter Dr. P.O. Box 1188 30110 Crown Valley PKY Huntington Bh CA 92648 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 159-351-20 159-351-21 159-351-22 Country View Homeowners As Thomas R. Adams Richard Sena Flores 17205 Pacific Coast HWY 6531 Polo Cir 6551 Polo Cir Sunset Beach CA 90742 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-23 159-351-24 159-351-25 Gregory Lind Strayer William D. Brigham Craig V. Towers 6571 Polo Cir 6581 Polo Cir 6601 Polo Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-26 159-351-27 159-351-28 Pundari K. Chemitiganti Kendall Bern Andersen Govindbhai M. Patel 6621 Polo Cir 6622 Polo Cir 8791 Garden Grove Blvd. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Garden Grove CA 92644 159-351-29 159-351-30 159-351-31 Curtis J. Chivers Ron E. Lucero Laurence Kutinsky 6582 Polo Cir 6572 Polo Cir 6552 Polo Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-351-32 159-351-33 159-351-34 Samuel F. Shon Park #15 Central Park #15 Central 10602 Humbolt St . 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . Los Alamitos CA 90720 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-351-35 159-351-36 159-351-37 Park #15 Central Park #15 Central Edwards-Central Park Hom 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-352-01 159-352-02 159-352-03 Steven L. Gale John A. Boivin Salvator W. Cracchiolo 6651 Shire Cir 6671 Shire Cir 6691 Shire Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-04 159-352-05 159-352-06 Michael A. Davis Courtney Dunbar Gerald L. Chapman - 6711 Shire Cir 6741 Shire Cir 6742 Shire Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-07 159-352-08 159-352-09 Gordon M. Watson John D. MacKey Vincent Chee Kei Eng 6732 Shire Cir 6712 Shire Cir 6692 Shire Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-10 159-352-11 159-352-12 James R. Mowrey Noll N. Gurwell Sandra R. Duncan 6672 Shire Cir 6652 Shire Cir 6661 Shetland Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-13 159-352-14 159-352-15 Nolan D. Raboy Philip N. Gatton Donald B. Jankowiak 6671 Shetland Cir 6691 Shetland Cir 6711 Shetland Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-16 159-352-17 159-352-20 Jack C. Collins Robert P. Mandic Glenn P. Plunkett 6731 Shetland Cir 1112 Main St . 6672 Shetland Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-352-21 159-352-22 -352-23 Western Homex Corp Country View Homeowners A David P.O. Box 1188 17205 Pacific Coast HWY 505 c Ave. Sunset Beach CA 90742 Sunset Beach CA 90742 wport Beach CA 92 159-352-24 159-352-25 159-352-26 Edwards-Lindborg-Dah Country View Homeowners A David D. Dahl 30110 Crown Valley PKY 17205 Pacific Coast HWY 505 Park Ave. Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Sunset Beach CA 90742 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-352-28 159-352-29 159-371-01 Gene N. Hill John T. Fisher Duane Keller 6722 Shetland Cir 6692 Shetland Cir 6861 Hitching Post Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-371-02 159-371-03 159-371-04 Sang Chung Young Rae Park Philip D. Layton 6851 Hitching Post Cir 6841 Hitching Post Cir 6821 Hitching Post Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-371-05 159-371-06 159-371-07 Alexander M. Gilderman Su-Chunn Yu Jerome Irwin Stillman 6822 Hitching Post Cir 6842 Hitching Post Cir 6852 Hitching Post Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-371-08 159-371-09 159-371-10 Warren E. Holthaus Hirobumi Senga Gregory G. Hirn 6862 Hitching Post Cir 6861 Corral Cir 6851 Corral Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-371-11 159-371-12 159-371-13 Czeslaw Wrzesinski Richard Fifield Michael R. Cully 6841 Corral Cir 6821 Corral Cir 6826 Corral Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-371-14 159-371-15 159-371-16 Randall C. Gall Ronald I . Brindle Ellis Central Park Homeo 6846 Corral Cir 18851 Golden West St . 505 Park Ave . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-371-17 159-371-18 159-371-19 Ellis Central Park Homeown Ellis Central Park Homeow Ellis Central Park Homeo 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-371-20 159-371-21 159-381-01 Ellis Central Park Homeown Ellis Central Park Homeow Chris Leicht 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave. 6811 Hitching Post Cir Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-381-02 159-381-03 159-381-04 Aaron Pai Jeffrey V. Davis Wally A. Al-Aseer 6781 Hitching Post Cir 6761 Hitching Post Cir 6762 Hitching Post Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-381-05 159-381-06 159-381-07 Wayne M. Smith Lorraine A. Reider Robert R. MacHado 6772 Hitching Post Cir 6792 Hitching Post Cir 6812 Hitching Post Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-381-08 159-381-09 159-381-10 Lawrence John Geisse Sung Mo Hong Thomas Mark Bacon 6811 Corral Cir 6791 Corral Cir 6771 Corral Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-381-11 159-381-12 159-381-13 Alex Kutas Timothy J. Ryan Alberto A. Mones 6761 Corral Cir 6762 Corral Cir 6772 Corral Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-381-14 159-381-15 159-381-16 Alan A. Ankerstar Paul L. Kollar Ellis Central Park Homeo 6792 Corral Cir 6812 Corral Cir 505 Park Ave. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-381-17 159-381-18 159-381-19 Ellis Central Park Homeown Ellis Central Park Homeow Ellis Central Park Homeo 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-381-20 159-391-05 159-391-06 Ellis Central Park Homeown Park #8 Central Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-391-07 159-391-08 159-391-09 Thomas C. Peterson James Peter Fabozzi Edward D. Laurance 6621 Silverspur Dr. 6601 Silverspur Dr. 6581 Silverspur Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-10 159-391-11 159-391-12 Robert K. Mc Closkey Michael Martin Dennis F. D'Ambra 6571 Silverspur Dr. 6551 Silverspur Dr. 6541 Silverspur Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-13 159-391-14 159-391-15 Nicholas J. Singer Oscar Matthews Edwards-Central Park Hom 6531 Silverspur Dr . 6525 Silverspur Dr. 505 Park Ave . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-391-21 -391-22 159-391-28 Park #8 Central Edwar entra ark Home Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave . 505 �Park 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 NeCA 62 Newport Beach CA 92662 �391-29 159-391-30 159-391-31 Park Tw tral Gregory L. Salsbury Mordehai Zadik 505 P 6621 Horshoe Lane 6601 Horseshoe Dr. ort Beach C Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-32 159-391-33 159-391-34 Martin Menichiello Gerard Roccanova Stephen P. Israel 6591 Horseshoe Dr. 6571 Horseshoe Dr. 6561 Horseshoe Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-35 159-391-36 159-391-37 Edwards-Central Park Homeo Ronald Irving Brindle Park One Two Central 505 Park Ave. 6521 Silverspur Dr. 505 Park Ave. Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-391-38 159-391-39 - 159-391-40 David G. McCullough Edwards-Central Park Home Riley Stoops 6515 Silverspur Dr. 505 Park Ave. 6511 Silverspur Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-41 159-391-42 159-391-43 John Staples Cory Meredith Daniel A. Agajanian 2542 Horseshoe Lane 6552 Horseshoe Dr. 6572 Horseshoe Dr. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-44 159-391-45 159-391-46 Park One Two Central James D. Leo Howard Rosen 505 Park Ave . 6592 Horseshoe Dr. 6622 Horseshoe Dr. Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-47 - 91-48 159-391-49 Park One Two Central 7Ne rk C ral Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave. 5 P A 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 ort Beach 2 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-391-50 155-391-51 159-391-52 Park One Two Central Park One Two Central Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-391-53 159-391-54 159-391-55 Paul Mora M. Michael Mandad Walter John Hekimian 6562 Silverspur Dr. 6572 Silverspur Dr. 6592 Silverspur Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-391-56 159-391-57 159-392-01 Anita Pieratt John M. Lown Daniel Liao 6612 Silverspur Dr. 6622 Silverspur Dr. 18622 Quarterhorse Lane Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-392-02 11-392-03 159-392-04 Decatur Diday — Arthur S. Gome Chu Hui Pak 18612 Quarterhorse Lane 18602 Quarterhorse Lane 6652 Carriage Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-392-05 159-392-06 159-392-07 Ronald M. Mittermeier Carl R. Stevens Gopal Reddy Yeturu 6662 Carriage Cir 6672 Carriage Cir 6682 Carriage Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-392-08 159-392-09 159-392-10 Talmadge Ray Rachels Allen Redman; Gunter Wetzel 6692 Carriage Cir 6681 Carriage Cir 6671 Carriage Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-392-11 159-392-12 159-392-13 Stephen K. Liu Dean A. Barlow Huntington Beach Estates 6661 Carriage Cir 6651 Carriage Cir 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Hawthorne CA 90250 159-392-14 392-15 159-392-16 Huntington Beach Estates H Hunt ch Estates Huntington Beach Estates 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave . 4431 osecra ve. 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave . Hawthorne CA 90250 orne CA 90250 Hawthorne CA 90250 159-393-01 _ 159-393-02 159-393-03 Pacific Amer Oil Co Corp FJAERAN Randi Fred W. Gooding 30110 Crown Valley PKY P.O. Box 1097 P.O. Box 5255 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Carlsbad CA 92018 Chula Vista CA 91912 159-393-04 159-393-05 159-393-06 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St . 2000 Main St . 2000 Main St . Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-07 159-393-08 159-393-09 Orrin R. Phillips City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach 10211 Kaimu Dr. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-10 159-393-11 159-393-12 Orrin R. Phillips City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach 10211 Kaimu Dr. P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-13 159-393-14 159-393-15 Charles P. Mc Kenzie H. A. Est Lang Harold C. Morton P.O. Box 477 P.O. Box 5255 P.O. Box 1097 Sun City CA 92586 Chula Vista CA 91912 Carlsbad CA 92018 159-393-16 159-393-17 159-393-18 Milton H. Marow Heber T. Hanks Daniel Liao 864 N. Bundy Dr. 825 Wiladonda Dr. 18622 Quarterhorse Lane Los Angeles CA 90049 La Canada CA 91011 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-19 159-393-20 159-393-21 Margaret Lindesy City of Huntington Beach FJAERAN Randi 10081 Beverly Dr. P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 1097 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Carlsbad CA 92018 159-393-2= 159-393-23 159-393-24 Duane V. Woolpert Don Martinson City of Huntington Beach 2399 E. Pacific Coast HWY 73860 Shadow Lake Dr. P.O. Box 190 Long Beach CA 90804 Palm Desert CA 92260 Huntington Bh CA 92648 -393-25 159-393-26 159-393-27 Ted e) ver City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach P.O. x P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190 to Ana CA 927 '2�� Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-28 159-393-29 >N. 0 Christopher V. Quine Hugo J. Enenbach G rie P.O. Box 482 P.O. Box 713 ci Y Trlr Avila Beach CA 93424 Lava Hot $pgs ID 83246 OR 97426 159-393-31 159-393-32 159-393-33 Michael Lee Taylor City of Huntington Beach George M. Tr Tr Carmicha 615 12Th St . P.O. Box 190 1571 Ramillo Ave. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Long Beach CA 90815 159-393-34 159-393-35 159-393-36 Thelma G. Swartz City of Huntington Beach Milton H. Marow 2231 Magnolia Ave. P.O. Box 190 864 N. Bundy Dr. Long Beach CA 90806 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90049 159=393-37 159-393-38 159-393-39 City of Huntington Beach Kenneth S. Adler City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 12941 8th St. P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Garden Grove CA 92640 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-40 159-393-41 159-393-42 John W. Saunders Richard W. Meyer City of Huntington Beach 9100 Clay Canyon Dr. 1750 E. Ocean Blvd. Unit P.O. Box 190 Corona CA 91719 Long Beach CA 90802 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-43 159-393-44 159-393-45 City of Huntington Beach Milton H. Marow Michael Davis P.O. Box 190 864 N. Bundy Dr. 6711 Shire Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Los Angeles CA 90049 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-46 159-393-47 159-393-48 Michael Davis William J. Bouska Harold C. Morton 6711 Shire Cir 270 N. Malena Dr. P.O. Box 1097 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Orange CA 92669 Carlsbad CA 92018 159-393-49 159-393-50 159-393-51 City of Huntington Beach Harold C. Morton City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 1097 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Carlsbad CA 92018 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-393-52 159-393-53 159-393-54 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 -401-01 �_� 159-401-02 159-402-01 Diversi d os Can Par Huntington Shores Communi Trung Ngoc Pham 99200 Ka ve . No. 17641 Derian Ave. No. 175 6756 Pimlico Cir ne CA 92715 Irvine CA 92714 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-402-02 159-402-03 159-402-04 David A. Heath Sankaraiyer Gopalakrishna Glenn C. Morrow 6766 Pimlico Cir 6712 Pimlico Cir 6702 Pimlico Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-402-05 159-402-06 159-402-07 Cuong Viet Tran Daniel A. Turk David T. Mai 6701 Pimlico Cir 6711 Pimlico Cir 6721 Pimlico Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-402-12 402-13 159-402-14 Henry N. Bui !17641 nti �t� res Communi Huntington Shores Commun 6771 Pimlico Cir ian Ave . 175 17641 Derian Ave. No. 17 Huntington Bh CA 92648 'ne CA, 92714 Irvine CA 92714 159-402-15 159-402-16 159-402-17 Huntington Shores Communit Michael D. Burdge Can Partners 17641 Derian Ave. No. 175 6731 Pimlico Cir 6741 Pimlico Cir Irvine CA 92714 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-402-18 159-402-19 159-403-01 John C. Nguyen Anthony H. Beard Joe Ovaknine 6751 Pimlico Cir 6761 Pimlico Cir 6721 Alamitos Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-02 159-403-03 159-403-04 Robert P. Pappoff Terry D. Nelson William E. Tarver 6711 Alamitos Cir 6701 Alamitos Cir 6691 Alamitos Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-05 159-403-06 159-403-07 Mai Tuyet Nguyen Horace P. Jen James A. Bent 6671 Alamitos Cir 6672 Churchill Dr. 6652 Churchill Dr. Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-08 159-403-09 159-403-10 William Kunio Ito Naga Hamamoto Ranjit S. Ahluwalia 6661 Alamitos Cir 6662 Alamitos Cir 6672 Alamitos Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-11 159-403-12 159-403-13 -hikau Rick Fujii Laurence O. Karsh Pacita Pinero 5692 Alamitos Cir 6702 Alamitos Cir 6712 Alamitos Cir 4untington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-14 159-403-15 159-403-16 John A. Hatherley Paul C. Byrne Michael L. Amaro 6722 Alamitos Cir 6732 Alamitos Cir 6742 Alamitos Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 159-403-17 159-403-18 159-403-19 Mike Miser Huntington Shores Communi Huntington Shores Commun 6752 Alamitos Cir 17641 Derian Ave . No. 175 17641 Derian Ave. No. 17 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Irvine CA 92714 Irvine CA 92714 159-403-20 159-403-21 159-403-22 Huntington Shores Communit Huntington Shores Communi Huntington Shores Commun 17641 Derian Ave . No. 175 17641 Derian Ave . No. 175 17641 Derian Ave . No. 17 Irvine CA 92714 Irvine CA 92714 Irvine CA 92714 159-411-01 159-411-02 159-411-03 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Vewport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-04 159-411-05 159-411-06 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-07 a-59-411-08 159-411-09 Park #9 Central Barton u a DDS Inc Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 10951 C tnu 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 is CA 90702 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-10 159-411-11 159-411-12 Park #9 Central Jay B. Davis Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 279 Santa Ana Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Long Beach CA 90803 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-13 159-411-14 159-411-15 Park #9 Central Mora Trust Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 6562 Silverspur Dr. 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-16 159-411-17 159-411-18 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central Brett A. Austin 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 15 San Sebastian Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92660 159-411-19 159-411-20 159-411-21 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave. Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-22 159-411-23 159-411-24 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-25 159-411-26 159-411-27 Dark #9 Central Park #9 Central Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-28 159-411-29 159-411-30 Central PK #9 H. / . O. As Central PK #9 H. /. O. As Central PK #9 H. /. O. A 123 Agate Ave . No. B 123 Agate Ave. No. B 123 Agate Ave . No. B Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-411-31 159-411-32 159-412-01 Central PK #9 H. /. O. As Central PK #9 H. /. O. As Park #9 Central 123 Agate Ave. No. B 123 Agate Ave. No. B 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 159-412-02 159-412-03 159-431-01 Park #9 Central Park #9 Central HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY 505 Park Ave. 505 Park Ave . %CHEVRON CORPORATION Newport Beach CA 92662 Newport Beach CA 92662 PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT P 0 BOX 285 HOUSTON, TX 77001 159-431-02 159-431-03 159-431-04 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO GARFIELD PARTNERS SEACLIFF PARTNERS %CHEVRON CORPORATION 520 BROADWAY SUITE 100 %URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 520 BROADWAY SUITE 100 P 0 BOX 285 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 HOUSTON, TX 77001 159-431-05 159-431-06 159-431-07 JESSUP, IRENE P SEACLIFF PARTNERS BLASGEN, MICHAEL W %SEACLIFF PARTNERS %URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 108 PINTA COURT %URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES 520 BROADWAY SUITE 100 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 520 BROADWAY SUITE 100 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 159-431-08 159-432-01 159-432-02 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO PACIFIC COAST HOMES HUNTINGTON BEACH CO %CHEVRON CORPORATION %CHEVRON CORPORATION %CHEVRON CORPORATION PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT P O BOX 285 P O BOX 285 P O BOX 285 HOUSTON, TX 77001 HOUSTON, TX 77001 HOUSTON, -TX 77001 159-432-03 159-432-04 PACIFIC COAST HOMES HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 110-212-01 %CHEVRON CORPORATION %CHEVRON CORPORATION Antoinette C . Van Buskirk PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 90854 P 0 BOX 285 P 0 BOX 285 Santa Barbara, CA 93190 HOUSTON, TX 77001 HOUSTON, TX 77001 Spelts, Elizabeth 150-352-23 Admin. of Estate of Louis Spelts David D. Dahl 4614 E. La Fayette 505 Park Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85018 Balboa , CA 92662 159-391-22 159-391-29 150-391-48 Edwards-Central Park Home Park One Two Central Park #12 Central 505 Park Avenue 505 Park Avenue 505 Park Avenue Balboa , Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island, CA 92662 159-392-15 159-393-25 159-393-30 Huntington Beach Estates Robert W. Duff Laura A. Guthrie 4431 W. Rosecrans Ave . P.O. Box 1242 400 N. Pacific Hwy. #40 Suite 800 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Creswell , OR 97426 Hawthorne, CA 90250 159-401-01 159-402-13 159-411-08 Stellrecht , Daniel Huntington Shores Comm Central Park #9 5500 Bolsa Ave. Ste. 100 c/o Total Properties Mgmt . 505 Park Avenue Huntington Beach , CA 92649 18011 Sky Park Circle Balboa Island, CA 92662 Irvine , CA 92714 u'v y,City Clerk 4, Connie Brockway, C City of Huntington Beach P 2L E;S T im 9 95 Office of the City Clerk P.O.BOX 190 i 8a@ U L f"iw:?l7 CALM' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-411 07 Central Park #9 05 park Ave- CA 92662 i&AING 'Lost IV. F°puN T1 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 1111111 list Miss till I it j 159-391-49 ING Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave . Reaehl CA 92662, 17. 1 j LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Iloilo 11141411,111111111111 UITY OT mununYLUF1 DIVOUT I Office of the City Clerk C �5 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 f'i to L h .4 159-411-10 Park 1#9 Central 505 Park Ave . e 3r CA *92662 ING L4 WON C-3 0 C07 '0 t4, re ko 0 All FpOUNTY Cad\ � I -� LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Z;Af 1^59-371-16 El-lis central Park He TING 505 Park Ave. ld� Newport Beach CA 9266 %tonTFO is Connie Brockway,City Clerk •�'-.. z.. . ..._xx.:�.r�....�, .�<, City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk � P.O. Box 190 ,,. „t, , „ „ JJN 9 95 r , Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-411-24 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . INGtpy .� , .rTo ,r,�,-��e_so CA 92662 ,CORPORATFO C-3 7� \ C� F�puNTv LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 4 L59-391-44 ?ark One Two Central -05 Park Ave . -4 r^�-t ^t, CA 92662 NTINGT f O���NCORPORq,Fp��/.9 I tv�y f0Rw4RD1 1V c 9 - �oQ ORDER EXp 0 EppN TY cam LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING If liltstitjts11lu �wnu�� ,v,� ✓GGiMI 1, v^acal�V e .r c }! [.f a e.c�t•.w 29 a;-. , �� / _ / Y C� l _ 159-391-47 159-391-50 155-391-51 Park One Two Central s 505 Park Ave . NTINGTpy fI �()/1 �jJ✓` get= $ CA 92662 Q� =NGOR POR4 Z gas cFcppNTY CPS\ c�9„� '-�' , LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � � �4 159-411-17 ��,�, Park #9 Central n � ��' �i 505 Park Ave. - N J J f ,r-am e&e44 CA 92662 INGTpy / _.r- - B $1 =NC0R POR4Tf� Connie Brockway,City Clerk .. .. ---�•- R �.-�.s .�..._ .r... \��tOPJ Sv:> City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P c c J 0 R,T P.O. Box 190 JUP� 9 95 �,. =t s^"q sq.v �• n v f i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ° A"� f'"'f € 159-391-06 Park #8 Central 505 Park Ave. (�pMINGTpy CA 9266w2 \HOORFOR4 rp 49A� nQ j�y a 1909•�� �CpUN TY CPS\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING T 14",it� ' 159-411-01 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . Newport Beach CA 92662 `���1T 1 NGTp�, /►GO9POR4 O ,^ C '4, o �pUNTv LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 its 9 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-411-03 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . AI I NGTO A Newp©rz-t---Be alit i A 9 2 6 6 2 f Q \NCOX PORq TF CTi� k... - C' Q �Q ell t cpUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING F� � 159-411-04 Park 49 Central 505 Park Ave. _ti`��NT piYe ade Pe �CA 92662 .f f Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach j Office of the City Clerk P I S 0 T P.O. Box 190 .-„� ^'W Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r t ilt ti) o 159-391-29 `= Park One Two Central dJ 505 Park Avenue - Balboa Island, CA 92662 �ANTIN6 Y O� =NCORPOgq Tf 9y =__-P-- oQ RwARp�N _ VLF fFQ t7, 19R9•N� \ pOUNTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PURUP,HE.IGg L•�- ,��,�., 159-391-37 Park One Two Central 505 Park Ave_ CA 92662 NTINGT ... 1O—\N�ORPOgq TFO F9� - tc F se �C�• fe t, 1909•N� �\`O R`yaRp�Nc LEGAL NOTICE - PUB.�JCH_EA81NG�_ °ROE • �L�•�•:.. i_s—'•�—? �—•-r �{!1!i!!It f!II!f!I�s!!i�t�i!!���� Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach w� .�t�G'GJV 5 v� Office of the City Clerk j;E S a f,-,#T h -= P.O. Box 190 r c Huntington Beach,CA 92648 {`;1 ,) 1 ti L A,'),,) 159-411-23 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . PDR4 , CA 92662 cp�NTY CP`\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING il�f�„�1�1�11��911,9..1�19��IIII���I�Paa�l,l9„119���1�191�i 159-412-03 Park #9 Central pNTINGTp 505 Park Ave. EA Newport Beach CA 92662 Q =NCORPOR4IFO FA C� 77, cOGNTY cap LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 11,i„9,19t,tt,99t1,till III kt�p� ' III„t►99,9t�t1 159-411-05 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . ��pNTINGTp�,� 4�_ i == CA 92662 Q \,0RP0R41,0 F VIP FcpUNTy CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 159-411.-15 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . pNTINGTpy CA 92662 , hO�-`N ORPOR4IF� 1 Connie Brockway, City Clerk a City of Huntington Beach , y � c:y ©F Office of the City Clerk 4%&.S O T x 0 P.O. Box 190 J N 9 �5 ,� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-411-20 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . 1 TING CA 92662 JO =MOOR PORq TFO �FA p°U NTY P �F�' LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � 111„ 1,I,1111,,, 111, �Irtl11I,I11,II11I„gill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach - Office of the City Clerk �;``ui�o P.O. Box 190 G=`... Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-351-34 Park #15 Central 505 Park Ave . �VNTING jp� CA 92662 O� =MOOR PORq rFO �C' A Cn °pNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 11 fit,,II,II III 1111111AII„IIII111.11 159-411-19 Q &Uo�I Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave. ���NTINGjp�,� Newport Beach CA 92662 a / C� ���^/y��J/{�//�_. jJ Connie Brockway,City Clerk - �t�li 1 Cqv 6 V•:fJ = City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ¢► •. i r ;:_= P.O. Box 190 1 Huntington Beach, CA92648 ��� �— U L.4 3 i 159-411-25 } Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . INGTQ,y�Q -.�ewport Beach CA 92662 Q�—`,GORPORATEO 9 ` •f r �QQQNTY LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING �`��' 159-411-02 i Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . IN G TQy 4je vow-`- �-CA 92662 Q°UNTV LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING II,II,I,IIII ,,l,�,,,� 4fa�;,,l „tl,,,,l,►, • .V. VVJ� 1.71J +4 dP�n • C �. - r. � ..IJ. �.� � ����. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 k `6 4 & L. $,rt 159-411-09 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . ���HTINGTpy� -Newport Beach CA 92662 W1w Q ,,CORPORA A .PIP % 9 l7 1909. O � cF°OUNry LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING .y�;,, •� � II Alto 11161{II 1111111111 II It1IIII91SIKI I/II/1/IIII11 15y-351-.fib Park #15 Central 505 Park Ave . ��NZINGTQy CA 92662 Q� =,COR PORq TEO �CA 4q4 " Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach $ - (- M�4 YaF�Office of the City Clerk _ r� R �TP.O. Box 190 , s _ 9 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l a L t4,;i!) 64`S ti^Iv \ 159-351-3S Park #15 Central 505 Park Ave. INGTp�,p/� "T *—R - CA 92662 O_`HOOP PORAfFQ "FA� to S �O G cQUNTY P� O LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING F� IIII,,,,1,1,l1,,,l1,fill,I,,,IIII, 4 159-391-21 Park #8 Central ��NtIMGTp�, 505 Park Ave. �O`� `NCORPOR4�FO eF CA 92662 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Office of the City Clerk C_E+%J$ P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 r 4 b 6 L A 43;:o 159-391-05 Park #8 Central tINGT 505 Park Ave- `AWN Q�l' Rewport.-.Be�aeh-.CA 92662 O� 'HOUR POR47FO �((A 9yC�. k9 p ° �pUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 159-391-35 Edwards-Central Park Homeo ���NTINGTpy D O S Park Ave. iO `N(,URPUR4f�0 �FA - C 662 City Connie Brockway y Clerk ��� City of Huntington Beach :' .� z• 95 ==' . � .. r JUN 9 s .. Office of the City Clerk � °.p • P.O.Box190 i fatZ3 6Lk::s Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i 159-411-Central Park #9 505 Park Ave . CA 92662 f 1LkD'a,� 7FB l7,1909•�� pNUNTY �a LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING -- -rarx- #9 Central 505 Park Ave. �%NT I N 6Tp�, #�B CA 9 2 6 6 2 �� =MOOR POR47F� �C' 0 c� 1909. cppNTY Ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 4 UR T P.O. Box 190 „R r JUv 9 95 s R Huntington Beach,CA 92648 S $ ( ;,; r ; 159-411-13 Park #9 Central D05 Park Ave . �MNTINGTp ',`,^'"'- o - CA 92662 Q� =%ORPOR47F0 \�. cpUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING , 159-411-26 Park #9 Central �%XNTIN6Th 505 Park Ave . p� NOORPOR47F0 BF CA 92662 s �� V Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 'r 4A 0 P.O.Box 190 C4 L�1 h,CA 92648 Huntington Beac aF 159-41 127 Park #9 Central 505 park Ave * _CA 92662 ING NSF Fo ",OR PO A 1104, A? f Ir 7.190%.V� RING LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEA 159-412-01 C Park #9 Central 5o5 ING Park Ave CA 92662 \,V;RP0R4 Cj ".0 VS �puNTY LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING '.6 -1 LIM I, ny uiem FIF fl� e; P.O. Box 190 'N 0, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 41 j, 9 5 A� IS9-391-28 Park #8 Central TING 505 Park Ave. \,,COR POR 92662 ILI Fcpp NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 159-411-12 Park #9 Central pNTINGTp 505 Park Ave . -Newpox±—BeartT-CA 92662 \%LORPOR4t Connie Brockway,City Clerk C, City of Huntington Beach E S'0 R JUN 9 95 Office of the City Clerk s Q _A1 P.O.Box 190 L Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159-411-22 Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave - CA 92662 (-��NSINGTpN 0 Zp 49 01 NTI LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 159-3Sl-33 Park #15 Central 505 Park Ave. �pNTINGTpN CA 92662 \*0 R PDRA NT LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING lill is 111 611111111141111 Ai 111111111116 ISHII ills till III City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk JA 9 05 P.O.Box 190 PS Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159 park #9 central 505 Park Ave,- 662 CA 92 ING O rtRPDRA) 7. 1 FCpUN I LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING Park #9 Central 505 Park Ave . CA 92662 00 1 NGTpN Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach """"" "' ^-• �._� CJ Office of the City Clerk p p r P.O. Box 190 " tis - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r 6 itb�' � �.►1,�c�a�a Difo i�'+':e�, �' (( � 159-381-17 Ellis Central Park Homeown �XATINGTp 505 Park Ave . �� =NLORPOR4lFp �i� CA 92662 c °F cppNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING °�°F� / 4 159-381-16 Ellis Central Park Homeo 505 Park Ave . �NTINGTp - � A 92662 C FFe-l71909.l�y (OQ �ip01 FCp�NTY % F� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r.v. o�x I av Huntington Beach,CA 92648 F f 61 I U.r.%s.l a A. 159-371-18 Ellis Central Park Homeoi 505 Park Ave . CA 92662 INGTp�,�F 2V FFB!I, 1909.P� \t� 01 4 Fp�UNTY CPS LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING °�� L fill I11,Il1diI sill its IIII,I,II11,I, t°,y�,1� ..11....1l1�1�1� 159-371-19 Ellis Central Park Homeo 505 Park Ave . CA 92662 Oki I NGTp Q =MCOR POR�lEO �/. Connie Brockway,City Clerk : _.�•�-•- �,��-.._.v..� _w _ City of Huntington Beach �� (7 , �� -`�r+ip T Office of the City Clerk ��•� V ateP.O. Box 190 , ., _ - N 9 95 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 F f bg II lu L h 1")a 0!=' � ( 159-371-21 Ellis Central Park Homeow INGTp 505 Park Ave. A�92662 ,O �NCO0.PORg7Fe __ � Connie Brockway,City Clerk y_ City of Hi fntinn on Beach (J" Office of theP RIE S 0 1�0 •.- aM 9 9 tin 648 Hungton Beach,CA 92 a 1 b L A 4? ``�„ r'A L If 159-381-19 { Ellis Central Park Homeo O���NTINGTp 505 Park Ave . ORPOR,7FO �F ath�CA 9 2 6 6 2 �GF `FB 7z 19o9•°"O ��� �C ��O � q LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING [ ffi cy f •.d6C•d t�. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 --•� _-• .,_,.. ., �ram'!% :;-• � 159-381-20 Ellis Central Park Homeown 505 Park Ave . I N GTp wee — 9 2 6 6 2 O ,,OR POR47f� �OUNTy ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 159-381-18 Ellis Central Park Homeow NIINGM 505 Park Ave.O� • \` \NC00.POR47FO`4:�',9� CA 9 2 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk PRES �� �� r tier PRESORT T c 4� S P.O. Box 190 2 JUN 9 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °` "° " 159-351-37 Edw G�I�� / 505 Park Ave . Park Hol a` 505 Park Ave . ��NT I NGTp P,e.. . � n •:�.-='_'* -n���-'�_CA 92662 O =NOOR PORq TFO lTi� 3 C• �•� ---1-.- y ©� - . PI•1909. '. ��� C•// NTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARINGS �¢ 1S9-352-26 David D. Dahl RAL5o5 .�.J ©4� Park Ave. A 92662 �pNT I NGTp�y �ouNTy c LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING s 159-371-17 3 Ellis Central Park 111omeown 505 Park Ave . -ivc.ti,��-=-.-tea¢-i. r,>_ _•-- -- Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach _ g�• c Office of the City Clerky� P.O._Box 190 ., n �z JUi4 9 95 ' Huntington eac 92648 °'° / _J 159-371-20 Ellis Central Park Homeown 505 Park Ave . A 92662 �• ,�� I AlNGTpy �70 Qij City Clerk Connie Brockway, 4 p R. 9 95 City of Huntington Beach JUN Office of the City Clerk 4p 1 P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 V-PIRED ORD-'k LXPIRED 159-403-21 Huntington Shores Communi Irvine CA 92714 I N 6 rq 0:2 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 JUN 9 9 PRE S 0 R T 92648 '�3 err I;''! (Z" 5 Huntington Beach,CA 92 ORDEFr EXP,,,TED lqg-403-20 Huntington Shores Communit okl I N 6 Irvine CA 92714 "tORPOR 77 ISO% FCUUNTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Huntington Beach, UA 92648 ; L r 159-403-22 Huntington Shores COmmun q7'714 Connie Brockway, City Clerk ..1 ON City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 rJ1JN 9 95'� - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 CAL 1F 7 --A ORDLE.1i z 159-403-19 Huntington Shores Commun Iq 0,zlil 1,N 0 Irvine CA 92714 Connie Brockway, City Clerk T 0 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk st 4 0 R T JJN 9 95 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 LA *).3 m Ash CA L�11 110-210-02 David Dahl ING SOS Park Ave . ,,OR POR4 reo CA 92662 C=1 e 0 0 0 410 0 17 er 19011, 4 wo 1%� �pUNTX cP LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 'Oe'P6 111146111111111#1111$111 111111111 still 1111 1 S11111111 159-3 1--20 Vi'Country-- iev-11omeowners As I -17205 Pacific Coast HWY ING suniet -t-'e' ach, CA 90742 77.1 % cFpOUNTYLEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING JU14 9 95 159-403-18 Huntington Shores 4: ommuni—l-', 464-+ BeBeria- Irvine CA 92714 C-2 Cpp N LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Iloilo 02 Huntington Shores communi ' o ���NTINGTpy Irvine CA92�714 1 Connie Brockway,City Clerk i City of Huntington Beach �° �r� Oir a ! Office of the City Clerk 0 !7(1 P.O. Box 190 „� r JUN 9 95 = Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �41 F � , i j 110-210-04 David Dahl 505 Park Ave . `�pNT I NGTp � h-CA 9 2 6 6 2 `HCORPONgTfO �L OQ � rc0'p CpUNTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ;p - � O 159-391-22 Edwards-Central Park Home ' TING p 505 Park Avenue uN j�jin Balboa, Island, CA 92662 Q� \,CORP21 Ogq i �' Cps ��, ��_ •�, , LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ` - - IIIInIl !lull,u�1 !„ Il11+ l1 ���� N9„�I, r � S Fr ,/ h&v _ 159-393-17 ylf .k Heber T. Hans 1 � 1V TINGM 825 Wiladonda Dr. O`� =HCORPOggTfO d�9 La Canada CA 91011 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach V Office of the City Clerk x ( P.O. Box 190 W• N - J P; 9 95 t Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-391-15 Edwards-Central Park Hom ' 505 Park Ave . �pNT -H I NGTp?, e-w�ext� eea---CA 9 2 6 6 2 (O� \HCO.1 Rq TF� �Fq ._ . he City Clerk Ci w� ; s Box 190 _ JtifJ 9 95 -�;4` leach,CA92648 , ,. 150-391-48 Park #12 Central 505 Park Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 INGTpy RPOR4rLZ F� �(A ^ •�„r _ = c L ITY � LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING tl t, IIIIIIII, II,,,,I III 1111111.� 11114*it,. .I at 11 at, I 150-352-23 David D. Dahl 505 Park Avenue iNGTp�y Balboa, CA 92662 IPORq FFO F TY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING .-� lilt lot 11II,II,IIII'll ...it...it. II1„ fill,Iflail JJ 159-411-08 Central Park #9 505 Park Avenue INGT/1., Balboa Island, CA 92662 may,City Clerk tington Beach l erk ~ TCit 9 y � 4 x CA92648 �...`',.`rfJ:.'-ct;i,l=.�✓; •�-� ach,y � 159-391-39 - Edwards-Central Park Home 505 Park Ave. YGTp�y Newport Beach CA 92662 �! 'o 0441F0 C- _ 1909.E LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING / n Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach .m_-._• l _ e of the City +; ; a J,.,, Clerk , pp a Fr t.s.-us P.O. Box 190 \ 5Huntin ton Beach,CA 92648 JUN 8 ry 1 :D � \\C.4 Charles Gran 4 Friends of the B Wetlands 2190�\ Iowa L e Huntingdon Beac CA 92646 INGTpy \ • ., �O =HLOBPOR47F� �F 9 GANT9 926461008 1394 06/10/95 ' o� Q F RWARDING TIME EXPIRED GANT'C RLES 8436 L R••tVIERA DR VLF `FB 17.190g' �t�OQ SACRAME O 'C 95826-1721 cOpNTy CPS R TUR�11 TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING r r C LA� 0CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lo" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor Leipzig and Members of the City Council /— �11 FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: June 19, 1995 RECEIVED FROM (0g, / SUBJECT: Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Amendment AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORDAT Agenda Item D-2 THE COUNCIL MEETING OF �„�S OFFICE OF THE CITYLE CRK City Council Meeting of June 19, 995 CONNIE BRO&WAY,CITY CLERK 1. Background. We have received correspondence from the attorneys for John Thomas and Ron Brindle regarding the proposed designation of a park in the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area. (copies attached.) Thomas/Brindle own several lots in the area labeled Site"A." Their attorneys have argued two basic legal points: 1)that the proposed code amendment will give rise to an inverse condemnation lawsuit by Thomas/Brindle; and 2)the proposed code amendment is being considered only to lower the value of the property in anticipation of acquisition by the city. This memo is our preliminary response to these legal issues. 2. Regulatory takingt heory. Normally, damages for inverse will not be found merely because the City applies a particular zoning designation to a piece of property. This type of inverse is called a"regulatory taking." The usual context is that the City adopts a zoning regulation that limits the uses allowed on the property. If the regulation denies the owner all economically viable use of his land, a taking has occurred. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council(1992) 120 L.Ed. 2d 798.) In the well known"Whitehole" matter in the city, we have previously determined that the proposed zoning did not work a regulatory taking because some private, economically viable uses were theoretically available to the property owner. The current facts are different from that situation, because the area is not being zoned "coastal conservation" or some other designations such as hiking, nature study, aqua culture and oil production. Here, the City Council wants to designate a site for a public park in the middle of property zoned estate residential. Depending on the site, this designation appears to exclude all other private uses. Thus, no matter which site is designated, an inverse condemnation lawsuit may arise. As to the proposed site"A," the current oil production will have to be treated as a prior non-conforming use. The current park design for Site"A" shows that the existing oil production use will be allowed to continue even after the site is acquired and the park is built. This fact is helpful to the city because it demonstrates that some economic use has been reserved to the particular property owner of the oil producing lots. GAThompazk\6/19/95 Mayor and Council Members June 19, 1995 Page 2 3. Down-zoning prior to acquisition. The property owners' other argument is that the city is intentionally down-zoning the site to lower its value in anticipation of acquiring it. Such down-zoning is an impermissible use of the police power. However, we are informed that the city has no present intent to acquire any site due to lack of funds; and that it would probably be several years at minimum before sufficient funds are accumulated. This lack of present intent to acquire the property shows that the city is not designating the park site merely to lower its fair market value. We cannot guarantee, however, that the park designation will be the controlling zoning designation for purposes of valuation, should the issue ever come to trial. It could be determined at that time that it should be valued as estate residential. 4. Emerging area of law. This is an area of law with new cases being decided almost weekly. We have tried to adequately address these important issues in this preliminary reponse. We would appreciate the opportunity to provide a definitive legal opinion, if the City Council so desires. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney c: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development Ron Hagan, Director of Community Services G:4:Thompazk\6/19/95 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO J. PALMIERI• CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT y,jUN I t EA!J S.CWFiR d3yUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDROW JOEL P. KEW IRVINE. CA 92713-9712 ALAN H. WIENER* MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO _ IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714622E ROBERT C. IHRKE* ELINOR J. VOTAW �- _,. .�..r l l DAMES E. WILH ELMS NORMAN J. RODICH �51-9400, j� '� WRITERS DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER' GARY C.WEISBERG y ,I-F DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J. GREENE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER E _ FRANK C. ROTHROCK* MICHELE D. MURPHY DENNIS W. GHAN' SCOTT R. CARPENTER 851-7294 DAVID D. PARR` RICHARD A. SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER• DOUGLAS M. STEVENS TELECOPIER (714) 651-1554 GEORGE J.WALL D. SUSAN WIENS June 8, 1995 (714) 8S1-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE 1714) 757-1225 PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN DON FISHER SEAN P. O'CONNOR 1714) 851-2351 GREGORY N. WEILER SUSAN T. SAKURA WARREN A. WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO BRUCE W. OANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1619 3-013 VIA FAX (714) 374-1590 AND MAIL Gail Hutton, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Dear Ms. Hutton: This firm represents John and Linda Thomas, and Ron and Ann Brindle (collectively "Brindle/Thomas") . In addition, this firm represents the Defendants in the City of Huntington Beach v. Patte Main, etc. , et al. , Orange County Superior Court Case No. 72 01 62. Brindle/Thomas owns the oil lease covering all of the lots sought to be impacted by Park Site A. Brindle/Thomas also own the majority of the five acre site ("Site A") in fee. The Brindle's own the easterly property occupied by the business American Landscape Supply, which is also occupied by oil production. The Thomas's own constructively continuous acreage easterly across Goldenwest Street. City Staff has informed Brindle/Thomas that it has no more than $200,000.00 budgeted for the acquisition of this park site. The property owners have provided the City with a preliminary estimate of the City's acquisition costs to be several million dollars. City Staff has also indicated that the City has no foreseeable ability to fund the acquisition of the property. The City has sought to impose the park zoning to prevent development PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON Gail Hutton, Esq. June 8, 1995 Page 2 and use of the Brindle/Thomas Site A property. Further, there has been several years of precondemnation activity which has included the City's study of this site and the exploration of means to acquire this property. The present ordinance's open space zoning district changing the density from residential dwellings is only for the purpose of reducing the acquisition price in a subsequent City acquisition or condemnation proceeding. Therefore, to avoid liability for inverse condemnation, the City must agree that for the City's valuation purposes, the property must be valued based upon the zoning and planning standards in place before adoption of the present ordinance. On a related issue, Brindle/Thomas is concerned that the City has not made clear that the City undertakes all responsibility and agrees to indemnify Brindle/Thomas for any claim brought against Brindle/Thomas based upon its operations of oil production on the Site A neighborhood park. Very t my yours, Michael ei er MHL:pjr cc: Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Mr. and Mrs. Brindle Mr. Dick Harlow F:\DOMAIN\888\16193013\CITY6.LTR 06/08/95 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS STREET LU ii; ANGELO J. PALMIERI' CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT .�i EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F. WALDRON* JOEL A KEW �^ IRVINE, CA 92713-9712 ALAN H.WIENER* MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO rt. !_IR'(6rP BCAUFCRNIA 92714-6226 ROBERT C. IHRKE* ELINOR J. VOTAW JAMES E.WILHELM* NORMAN J. RODICH �L-. WRITERS DIRECT DENNIS G. TYLER* GARY C.WEISBERG . n r DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J. GREENE* MICHAEL H. LEIFER FRANK C. ROTHROCK* MICHELE D. MURPHY DENNIS W. GHAN* SCOTT R. CARPENTER 851-7294 DAVID D. PARR' RICHARD A. SALUS CHARLES H. KANTER* DOUGLAS M. STEVENS TELECOPIER (714) 851-1554 GEORGE J. WALL D.SUSAN WIENS (714) 851-3844 L. RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE April 18, 1995 (714) 757-1225 PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CYNTHIA S. PAULSEN (714) 851-2351 DON FISHER SEAN P. O'CONNOR GREGORY N.WEILER SUSAN T.SAKURA WARREN A.WILLIAMS TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA JOHN R. LISTER ROBYN DIMINO BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER REFER TO FILE NO. 'A PROFE55IONAL CORPORATION 1619 3-013 Paul D'Alessandro, Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 93-1/Negative Declaration No. 92-39 Date January 29, 1995 Location Ellis-Goldenwest Quarter Section Dear Mr. D'Alessandro: This is to confirm that at my request you researched whether Mr. Hagan had obtained and read from a written opinion letter from the City--Attorney's office regarding the park site selection matter. Pursuant to your investigation, Mr. Hagan was not reading a letter written by the City Attorney's office concerning the matter. Very truly yours, 'Michael H6 Leifer MHL:pjr F:\DOMAIN\888\16193005\DIALESSI.LTR 04/18/95