HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Facilities - Dedication of Land or Payme tj
• CODE F NDMENT NO. 81-12
ORDINANCE NO. 2545
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE ,^,Q��
BY REPEALING ARTICLE 974; BY AMENDING SECTIONS ✓J
9961 . 1, 9961. 2, 9961 .4 THROUGH 9961 . 13 , AND v"
9961. 16; AND ADDING THERETO SECTION 9961 .2. 1
RELATIVE TO DEDICATION OF LAND OR PAYMENT OF FEES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain
as follows :
SECTION• 1. Article 974 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code
is hereby -repealed.
SECTION 2. The Huntington Beach Ordinance -Code is hereby
amended by amending sections 9961. 1 , 9961 . 2 , 9961. 4 through 996.1.13,
and 9961. 16 to read as follows :
9961.1 PURPOSE. This article is enacted pursuant to the
authority granted by feet-lene-l-1y19-and--1yi4&-of-414e-Bets}pees-and
� eess}eas-Gene-e -the-� a�e-ep-8a� er� aCalifornia Government
Code sections 66410 and 66477. The park and recreational facili-
ti.es for which dedication of- land and/or payment of fees is re-
quired by this article are in accordance with the veeveat-legal
eleFRent-e€-tie-MastepOpen Space and Conservation Element of the
General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach.
9961.2 . REQUIREMENTS. Prior to recordation of a final sub-
division map for residential purposes or issuance of a building
permit if the subdivision map had been approved without dedica-
tion and/or in lieu fees, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay
a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the city, for
park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the
standards and formula contained in this article, except as pro-
vided in section 9961 .2 .1 .
(a) When a proposed subdivision is a part of a major land
development project, and the owner of such land proposes to permit
development by several subdividers, provisions for park and rec-
reational facilities shall, be made by the major landowner through
the adoption of a comprehensive plan and not by the individual
developers. Where park and recreation facilities have been dedi-
cated in excess of the requirement, the major landowner shall be
given credit for excess on subsequent projects within the adopted
comprehensive plan.
ahb
�9/11/81 � 1.
��6/82
For the purpose of this article, a major land develop
ment shall be a land development project exceeding forty ( 40)
acres in size .
(b) A major land development may receive credit for pro-
viding open space pursuant to section 9961 . 11 or 9961 .12 but not
for both .
(bc) Where development is proposed for construction in in-
crements , a schedule for providing the park and recreation facili-
ties shall be submitted for approval by the city.
This article shall not apply to :
(i) Alterations or additions to an existing dwelling unit
unless such alterations or additions create an additional dwelling;
and
(ii) The replacement of a structure that has been demolished
or destroyed provided that such replacement structure is in a
classification similar to the structure demolished or destroyed.
9961.4 . STANDARDS AND FORMULA FOR DEDICATION OF LAND. Where
a park or recreational facility has been designated in the city' s
�4ae�en-E�ae-e�-�a��s,-(3�e�-S�aees;-Se�ee�s-a��-Ree�ea��er�a�
ae �}des;-ae-e�ex�ee -e€- �e-�4aseOpen Space and Conservation
Element of the General Plan ef-44ie-e-14-y;and is to be located in
whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the im-
mediate and future needs of the residents of the -subdivision, the
subdivider shall dedicate land for a park. The amount of land to
be dedicated shall 'be determined pursuant to the following stand-
ards and formula :
( a) A = 5. 0 (D.F. x No. D.U. )
1000
(b) Definitions of Terms :
(b) A - the area in acres required to be dedicated as
a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the-sub-
division.
( 2) D.F. - density factor obtained from section 9961 . 5
as applicable to proposed subdivision.
( 3) 5 . 0 - number of acres per one thousand persons .
( 4) No. D.U. - number of dwelling units proposed in
the subdivision.
*When a proposed subdivision contains dwelling units
2 .
with different density factors, the formula shall be used for
each such density factor and the results saall be totalled.
9961 .5 . POPULATION DENSITY. For the purpose of this article,
an annual review by the PlaiqR4:RgDepartment of Development Services
of the latest available population and housing data for the city
of Huntington Beach from federal, state or city records or files
shall be used in determining the density factor for the proposed
subdivision.
The density factor for a type of residential unit shall be
determined by dividing the number of persons residing in the city
of Huntington Beach in such units by the number of such units.
The number of dwelling units in a subdivision shall be the
number proposed for construction. When the actual number of
units to be constructed is unknown, it shall be assumed for the
purposes of this article that the maximum number permissible by
law will be )constructed.
The number of bedrooms in each unit of a proposed subdivi-
sion shall be determined from the building plans filed, and shall
include as bedrooms all rooms, however labeled on the plans ,
other than living rooms , dining rooms, kitchens , and bathrooms,
which are suitable for use as or are suitable for conversion to
bedrooms . The number of bedrooms attributable to a unit shall
include not only those areas so labeled on the plans, but may
include as well any area in a dwelling unit which, because of its
size, location, facilities , or relationship to other areas of
the dwelling unit , is deemed divisible so as to create one or more
additional bedrooms.
9961. 6. FORMULA FOR FEES IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION.
(a) General Formula. If there is no park or recreational
facility designated in the city' s
�paees;-,�eee�s;-a �-Ree�eaea�-Fas � ee0pen Space and Con-
servation Element of the General Plan, to be located in whole or
in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate
and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, or if the
proposed subdivision contains fifty (50) parcels or less , the sub-
divider shall , in lieu of dedicating land , pay a fee equal to the
value of the land prescribed for dedication in section 9961.4
hereof, in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions
of section 9961. 8 hereof, such fee to be used for a park which
will serve the residents of the area being subdivided.
(b) Use of Money. The money collected hereunder shall be
used for the purpose of providing park or recreational facili-
ties reasonably related to serving the subdivision by way of the
3.
purchase of necessary land, or if it is deemed by the city that
there is sufficient parkland available for the subdivision, for
improving of such land for parkland recreational purposes.
9961.7 . CRITERIA FOR REQUIRING BOTH DEDICATION AND FEE. In
subdivisions of over fifty lots , the subdivider shall both dedi-
cate land and pay a fee in lieu thereof in accordance with the
following formula:
(a) When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is
proposed on the city' s A4ase�-��ar�-a€- as;-9per�-�paees;- ekees
aiqd-Reefeatleiqal-FasllitlesOpen Space and Conservation Element
as the site for a park, such portion shall be dedicated for park
purposes and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of sec-
tion 9961.8 hereof shall be paid for any additional land that
would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to section
9961. 4 hereof .
(b) When a major part of the park or recreational site
has already been acquired by the city and only a small portion
of land is' needed from the subdivision to complete the site,
such remaining portion shall be dedicated and a fee computed
pursuant to the provisions of section 9961. 4 hereof, such fees
to be used for the improvement of the existing park and rec-
reational facility or for the improvement of other parks and
recreational facilities serving the subdivision.
9961 .8 . AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. (a) Where
a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, such fee
shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise ,
have been required to be dedicated by section 9961. 4 hereof,
which amount is the average fair market value per acre of the
land in all RZ -zoned neighborhood public parks within the city
if such _land were not used for or zoned for park or recreational
purpo"ses .
(b) Fair market value of the land in such neighborhood
pavkspark properties in the city sha_i_1_ be determined every two
years by a qualified real estate appraiser.4—y-peeledie-apppalsaI
e€- eg�ibe� ieed-pai��f-p�epenties-viitY3 �t-tine-ei$yT Such appraisal
shall exclude improvements .
9961.9 . SUBDIVISIONS NOT WITHIN MAS-TERGENERAL PLAN. Where
the proposed subdivision lies within an area not within the city' s
RastefGeneral Plan but scheduled to be so included, the subdi-
vider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both,
in accordance with adopted park and recreational principles and
standards of the city' s MastevGeneral Plan\ and in accordance with
the provisions of this article, and the Mastep GeneraZ Plan shall
be amended within 120 days following approval of the tentative
4.
tract map to include said subdivision and any previously unin-
cluded park for which subdivision there was a dedication of land
and/or a payment of fees .
9961.10. DETERMINATION OF LAND OR FEE . Whether the city
accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in
lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by
consideration of the following:
(a) Reepeatl=eeal_Open Space and Conservation Element of the
city' s MastePGeneraZ Plan;
( b) Topography, geology, access and location of land in the
subdivision available for dedication;
( c) Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for
dedication;
(d) The feasibility of dedication;
(e) Compatibility of dedication with the city' s Maatev-Plan
e�-Panl�a;-9�ee-��aees--�el�eel-e-aed-Ree�ea�ie�a�-Fasi�l=��esOpen
Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan; and
( f) Availability of previously acquired park property.
The determination of the Planning Commission as to whether
land shall be dedicated or whether a fee shall be charged, or a
combination thereof, shall be final, and conclusive.
9961.11. CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. W9Up to 50 percent
credit ekial-l_may be given for private open space within a subdi-
division provided the following conditions are met:
(a) That yard, court areas, setbacks and other open space
areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building regu-
lations shall not be included; and
(b) That the private ownership and maintenance of open
space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and
(c) That the use. of the private open space . is restricted
for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which
run with the Land in favor of the future owners of property
within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated with-
out the consent of the City Council; and
o
(d) That the proposed private open space is reasonably
adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into
consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology,
access and location of the private open space; and
(e) That facilities proposed for the open space are in
substantial accord with the provisions of the Open Space and
Conservation Element of the General Plan, and are approved by
the City Council .
9961.12. CREDIT FOR SPECIAL FACILITIES . When thea major
Land developer' s (forty (40) acres or more) master plan of de-
velopment allocates space for a golf course and/or navigable
channels (hereinafter called special facilities) designed to serve
both the residents of a subdivision and the general public , the
developer may be credited for supplying a portion of the require-
ments of this article not to exceed 50 percent credit on resi-
dential units that abut such special facility only. Said special
facility shall be restricted to its initial purpose and shall be
permanently devoted or dedicated to use by the general public
unless a satisfactory substitute is approved by the city.
The City Council shall_ adopt by resolution criteria which
shall set forth standards respecting the size, shape and location
of such special facilities before any credit may be given pursuant
to this section.
9961. 13. CREDIT FOR SITE IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT. When
dedication is required, it shall be accomplished in accordance
with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code
sections 66410 et seq.) . When fees are required the same shall
be deposited with the city PlanningDepartment ,of Development
Services prior to recordation of the final tract map. Open space
covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be
approved by the City Attorney and the P4!ann1ngDepartment of
Development Services prior to approval of the final tract map by
the City Council and shall be recorded simultaneously with the
final tract map.
9961.16. -INDT4&-RI-Afm-&f3RBl VISI9N8,EXEMPTIONS. The pro-
visions of this article shall not apply todas � a3 -sa�� ses
the following:
(a) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not
used for residential purposes; provided, however, that a condi-
tion may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a
building permit is requested for construction of a residential
structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four
yearn the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each
such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit .
(b) Industrial subdivisions .
6.
(c) Condominium projects or stock cooperatives which con-
sist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment
building which is more than five nears old when no new dwelling
units are added.
(d) Parcel maps for a subdivision containing less than five
parcels for a shopping center containing more than 300, 000 square
fee of gross leasable area and no residential development or uses.
(e) OnZy the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions
containing fifty (50) parcels or less.
SECTION 3. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby
amended by adding thereto section 9961. 2. 1 to read as follows :
9961.2 . 1 . OPTION TO DEFER FEES. A subdivider may request ,
prior to the recordation of a final tract map, that the payment
of in lieu fees be deferred until the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy or final inspection of the first unit of the first
phase, whichever comes first . Neither a certificate of occu-
pancy nor inspection of the first unit shall be granted until
the in lieu fees are paid.
Prior to approval of such request for deferral, the sub-
divider shall submit , in a form approved by the City Attorney and
acceptable to the City Council, surety in a sum equal to the
amount of in lieu fees due .
This section shall not apply to developments which do not
require a tract map.
SECTION 4. This provisions of this ordinance insofar as they
are substantially the same as existing provisions of the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code relating to the same subject matter shall be
construed as restatements and continuations and not as new enact-
ments .
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after
its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of 1982.
ATTEST :
Mayor
City Clerk
7.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Adminis rator City Attorney __&�
INITIATED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
erector of Development Community Service�sD i r�eo t o�
Services
f
t3 .
IN THE
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY CLERK PROOF OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
State of California )
County of Orange )�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC RECODARWG
A P R I L L. ELLIOTT PARK&RRECREEA DTIf�FA-ICILITIES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of ppublict hearing will f held by the City
Councio[the City of Huntington Bench,
the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I In the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen-
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; ter,Huntington Bench,at the hour of 7:30
that I am the principal clerk of the tinter of the P.M.,or as soon thereafter w possible on
P P P Monday,the 16th day of August,1982,for
the Purpose of ooneide Code Amend-
ment No.81-12 initiated the
HUNTINGTON BEACH I N D.. REV. Mont Semen Department nod the
Community Services Department,which
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of would amend the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code by repealing Article 974
HUNTINGTON BEACH Park and Recreational Facilities, ;A
which would amend Article 9W also
lknown as Park and Recreational Facili-
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the ties relative to dedication of land or pay-
mentdisemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- offees
g g The City Council,in conjumction,with ,
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had Code Amendment 81-12, will also con-
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, eider Resolatke Na 5871 — "A
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- RESOLUTION THE OF THE CITY GT N-
R P CII.OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a BEACH ESTABLISHING THE AVER- .
eriod exceedin that the notice, of which the AGE FAIR MARKET VALUEPOR'ALL
P g one year; R-I` ZONED' PUBLIC NEIGHBOR-
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular i HOOD PARKS FOR THE PURPOSE
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement OF'DETEERRMINING THE AMOUNT
thereof,on the following dates,to wit: LIEU DEDICATIONU OFPLAANAIDD
LAND,-
and Resslatloe Na 5072—"A RESOLU-
TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AUGUST 59 1982 ED NSSIITYY F ACTORRTTO BEPUSED TIO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF
LAND TO BE DEDICATED BY
DEVELOPERS FOR PARK PUR- `
POSES."
All_interested persona are invited to
attend said hearing and opress their
opinions for or against said Code Amend-
ment 81-12
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- Further information may be obtained
ing is true and correct. from the Office of the City Clerk,2000
GARDEN' GROVE Mein Street,Hun Beech.Cantor
nia 928g��8g,(714)63d-d227.
Dated at................................................ DATED:A 1982 i.
CITY OF GTON BEACH
By. ALICIA M.WEN'TWORTH, j
California,this . 6 t h day of .A U G. 19 2 City clerk fll
Pub.Aug.6,1982
Hunt.Beech Ind.Rev.#30328 '
��c�/•••............... —
Signature
g/� ! 1 roan No.CAF-81380
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date August 5, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
b : Charles W. Thom son Cit '
Submitted y P . . y Administtat
�o
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services and
Vince G. Moorhouse, Director, Community Services
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12, PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
ORDINANCE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: `
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council' s consideration is Code Amendment
No. 81-12, an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code re-
pealing Article 974, Park and Recreational Facilities, and amending
Article 996, also known as Park and Recreational Facilities, rela-
tive to dedication of land or payment of fees. Also included are
Resolutions 5071 and 5072, establishing new fair market values and
the new density factors for the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission, the Department of Development Services and
the Department of Community Services are recommending that the City
Council approve Code .Amendment No. 81-12 by the introduction of the
attached ordinance and the adoption. .of. Resolutions 5071 and 5072.
ANALYSIS:
APPLICANT: Initiated by the Department of Community Services in
conjunction with the Department of Development Services
LOCATION: City-wide
REQUEST: To repeal Article 974, Park and Recreational Facilities
and to amend Article 996 relative to dedication of land
or payment of fees for park and recreational purposes.
Major emphasis of this code amendment is to establish
a- .provision which will allow for up to 50% credit for
private open space within subdivisions where the open:
space exceeds the minimum requirements set forth by the
zoning ordinance. This ordinance would also allow for
postponement of fees until the certificate. of occupancy
or final inspection is required. Resolutions 5071 and
5072 establish new fair market value for Rl land and new
density factors for the City.
DISCUSSION:
Code Amendment No. 81-12 is an amendment to the Huntington Beach
Ordinance Code pertaining to Article 974 and 996, relative to dedi-
PIO 4/81
Code Amendment 81-12
August 5, 1982
Page 3
park and recreation fees are increased.
This amendment, by itself, will not increase the park and recreation
fees since the standards and formula for dedication of land has not
been altered by this amendment. However, the City Council is also
being presented with two resolutions, Resolution 5071 and 5072 which
establishes a new fair market value for determining the amount of
park and recreation fee and establishes a new density factor to be
used during the calculation of park and recreation fees.
Attached for the City Council' s review are a number of past trans-
mittals related to this code amendment and resolutions. These pre-
vious requests-for City Council action will_ihelp to provide a chrono-
logy of events related to this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Code Amendment 81-12 is categorically exempt from any environ-
mental assessment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may consider denying Code Amendment 81-12, which
would retain the existing Articles 974 and 996 in their present form.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Request for City Council Action of February 18, 1982
2. Request for City Council Action of July 9, 1982
3. Request for City Council Action of June 15, 1982
4 . Ordinance 2545
5. Resolution No, . 5071
6. Resolution No. 5072
JWP:SMB:jlm
,2
G
Code Amendment 81-12
August 5, 1982
Page 2
cation of land or payment of fees for park purposes. This code
amendment has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on several
occasions during the latter part of 1981 and was approved on
January 19, 1982. At the present time, there are two separate ar-
ticles in Division 9, Article 976 and Article 996, which pertain to
the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees for the purpose
of developing park and recreational facilities. Since Article 974
and Article 996 are similar in nature and in language, Code Amend-
ment 81-12 repeals all of Article 974 and revises Article 996 to
include some of the language presently found in Article 974. The
other major changes in Article 996 under Code Amendment 81-12 is the
revision which will allow up to 50% credit for park-land dedication
for projects which have more than the required private open space.
These provisions are contained within Sections 9961.2 (b) , 9961. 11
and 9961.12.
Also included in this amendment is a clean-up of language for Ar-
ticle 996. Phrases such as professional code of the State of
California have been changed to :the California Government Code,
master plan has been changed to open space and conservation element
of the General Plan and Planning Department has been changed to the
Department of Development Services.
As directed by the City Council pursuant to a request by the Mola
Development Corporation, an additional provision has been included
which would allow for the postponement of Park and Recreation fees
to just prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final
building inspection, whichever is the appropriate final action by
the City on a development. This provision requires that City Council
approve a specific security in the amount of the park and recreation
fees prior to the recordation of the final map in order to assure
the City that the park and recreation fees have been set aside by
the developer for later payment to the City.
This code amendment has been before the City Council on a number of
occasions since December 21, 1981. At the June 21, 1982,meeting,
the last meeting this item was before the Council, the Council re-
quested some additional information be provided. The Department of
Development Services has generated a dollar amount that would be
generated based on existing park and recreation fees for ultimate
development of the City. Based on figures obtained from the City's
General Plan, approximately 12,800 units can be developed on the
remaining vacant residential property in the City. Approximately
5,130 units will be single family dwellings, while the remaining
7,670 units will be multi-family residential. Using the existing
park and recreation fee of $1,171 per single family unit, a projected
$6,007,200 would be generated. Using the average of two-bedroom
units for the multi-family portion, a fee of $759 per unit was mul-
tiplied by 7, 670, the number of projected multi-family units, which
yields $5,821,500. The total amount of dollars generated under
'V today' s park and recreation fees for ultimate build-out of the City
is $11,828,700. This figure obviously would be increased if the
�G
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
J' P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato
PREPARED 4-
BY: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services a, o v
DATE: June 2, 1982
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM D=1b - CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ORDINANCE
During the agenda review held on Tuesday, June 1, it was determined
that additional information was necessary prior to Council ' s review of
the pending ordinance, as well as the adoption of the two resolutions
on fees and density factors . Staff therefore determined that the item
should be continued to allow additional input into these proposed
changes; however, the items could not be pulled from the agenda because
they had previously been continued from a prior public hearing to this
date.
Therefore, the staff is submitting a request .recommending that Council
continue the public hearing on Code Amendment 81-12 to the June 21,
1982 regular City Council meeting.
CWT:JWP:df
Richard A. Harlo�ro and °associates
pla mnn g and governmental relations
April 30 , 1982
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
RESOLUTIONS 5071 and 5072
ITEMS D-1C
City Council
Attention:, Mr. C-.W. Thompson
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Members of the City Council :
On behalf of Mola Development Corporation and Huntington
Beach Company, I' respectfully request the above referenced
code amendment be continued for approximately one month. .
This request is to permit us to meet .with City Staff
to discuss the proposed resolutions. We expect to accomplish
this during the one-month continuance period.
Thank you for your consideration ,in this matter. -
Z
t y ur ,
HARD A. HARLOW
cgt
333 West Yorktown Avenue• Huntington Beach,California 92648•(714)536-6464
IN THE
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange 13 I
,5
V"
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, PROOF OF PUBLICATION
CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT 81.12
Mate of California 1 PARK&RECREATIONALFACH.ITD*S
County of Orange 1 b1 NOTICE
beuEmg will be bald HEREBY GIVEN
by the City
Jeannie L. Thomas of the Cray of r of the Civic
Beech,
in the CoemeH Chamber or the Civic Cen-
ter,Huntington Beech,at the hour of 7:30
P.M.,or ae noon thereafter ae possible on
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of Monday,the3rddayo(Ma,1982,forthe
purpose of considering Code Amendment
`.,.e United States.over the age of twenty-one years,and that I o.81.12,initiated by the Development
am not it party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter; Services Department and the Community
Servka mend
that 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the Department,each Oh Ordinwouldance
erode
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code
by repeating Article 974 - Park and
Recreatioml Facilities,and which would
Huntington Beach Ind. Review amend Article 996 also known as Park
and Recreational Facilities relative to
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of dedication of lend or payment of few.
Said public hearing was opened on
March 1, 1982, at which time.Council
Huntington Beach directed a continuance of the matter.
The City Council,in conjunction with
l'uunty of Urange and which newspaper iv puhlished fnr the Code Amendment 81.12. will also con•
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- LUTIO OF THE CITY COUNCH,OF
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paving subscribers, ESTABLISHING r.THE AVERAGE
FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR ALL R•1
and which newspaper has been established, printed and put)- ZONE PUBLIC'FOR THE'NEIGHBORHOOD
lisped at regular intervals in the said County tit'Orange for a DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the FEE REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN LIEU
annexed is it printed copy,.has been published in the. regular OF DEDICATION.OF LAND;
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement
Resolution No. 6072 — "A RESOLU-
t hereof.on the following dates,to wit: TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ESTABLISHING THE POPULATION
April 22 , 1982 DENSITY FACTOR TO BE USED TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF
LAND TO' BE DEDICATED BY
DEVELOPERS FOR PARK PUR.
'POSES."
All interested persons are invited to
attend said hearing and mprese their
opinions for or against said Code Amend-
ment.
Further information may be obtained
from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000
1 certify for declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego- Main Street,Huntington Beach,Califor-
nia 92648—(714)5M-5227,
ing is true and correct. DATED April20 19EM
CITY OF HUNfiNGTON BEACH
Dated at...G.a r den..Q ro m a.............. By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH
City Clerk
Pub.Ala.22,1982
x "titrni ,this 2 3.r.d.day of r.l Hunt Ind.Rev.#1,1*72`;
e
Signature.
I "oon No.CAF-81380
y
REQUES i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date April 22, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat
o
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services , •
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12 - RESOLUTIONS ' 5071 AND 5072
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Code Amendment
No. 81-12, an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code re-
pealing Article 974 , Park and Recreational Facilities, and amending
Article 996, also known as Park and Recreational Facilities, relative
to the dedication of land or payment of fees. Also is Resolution
5071 establishing the average fair market value of all Rl public neigh-
borhood parks for the purpose of determining the amount of park and
recreation fee to be paid in lieu of dedication of land. Resolution
5072 establishing new density figures for the purpose of determina-
tion of the amoun of land to be dedicated or in lieu fees to be paid
by developers for park purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and Department of Development Services and
the Department of Community Services are recommending that the
Council approve Code Amendment 81-12 and adopt Ordinance 2545. In
addition, the Department of Development Services and the Department
of Community Development are recommending that the City Council
adopt Resolutions 5071 and 5072.
DISCUSSION:
On December 21, 1981, a public hearing was scheduled for the City
Council to review Code Amendment 81-12 . This item was continued in
order to allow the Planning Commission to take action on said ordin-
ance. At the same timer two resolutions were introduced to the' City
Council in order to establish a newly appraised land value for deter-
mining the amount of park and recreation fees and establishing a new
density factor for the purpose of determining the amount of land to
be dedicated by a developer for park purposes. These items were both
tabled .at the December 21, 1981 City Council meeting.
City Council directed that at the time Code Amendment 81-12 was
brought back for public hearing that resolutions pertaining to the
fees be 'included at that hearing. Code Amendment 81-12 has been
i
P10 4/81
CA 81=12
April 22, 1982
Page 2
readvertised for public hearing and both resolutions have been in-
cluded in that notification.
Attached for the City Council ' s review are the requests for City
Council actions prepared for the December 21, 1981 and March 2, 1982
City Council meetings.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request for City Council action dated Feb. 18 , 1982
2. Request for City Council action dated Dec. 10, 1981
3 . Request -for City Council action dated Dec. 21, 1981
JWP: SMB:df
REQUEST-FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date December 10 , 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrate
#1
James W. Palin, Director of Development Services ) 0
Prepared by: P �1
Subject: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NEWLY APPRAISED LAND VALUES FOR 5C f
DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PARK AND RECREATION FEES.
Statement of Issue; Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: 0�
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the Council ' s consideration is a resolution estab-
lishing the average fair market value of all R1 zoned public
neighborhood parks for the purpose of determining the amount of
park and recreation fee to be paid in lieu of dedication of land.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Development Services, the Department of Community
Services, and the Community Services Commission are recommending
that the City Council adopt this newly established average fair
market value for determining park and recreation fees .
ANALYSIS:
Applicant: Initiated by the Department of Community Services,
in conjunction with the Department of Development
Services.
Location: City-wide.
Request: To establish a new average fair market value
for all R1 zoned public neighborhood parks for
the purpose of determining the amount of park and
recreation fees required to be paid in lieu of
dedication of land.
Discussion:
The last appraisal of neighborhood parks was completed in July, 1976 .
The average land value of the 38 parks appraised was $65, 977 per
acre . The density factor for a single-family residence was 3 .55
persons per household, which reflected into a $1, 171 park fee per
single-family home.
In August of 1980 a new appraisal was completed by the firm of
Locke Land Associates. The new appraisal was conducted on 46 parks
and the average value is $344 ,409 per acre. A new density factor
of 3. 43 persons per household would reflect a $5, 907 park fee for
PI 0 4/81
RCA- . Park Fee
December 10, 1981
Page 2
single-family homes, based on the average of the appraisal . How-
ever, utilizing the appraised value of typical neighborhood parks
in R1 only and eliminating small specialty parks and beaches, such
as Huntington Harbour, this reduced the average value to $232, 721
per acre. Based on this figure, a single-family home would be
required to pay a park fee of $3, 991.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, the establishing of a new average fair market value for neigh-
borhood parks is categorically exempt from environmental assessment. .
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may consider not to adopt the attached resolution
and retain the fair market value established in 1976 .
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Memo from Norm Worthy, Superintendent of Park Acquisition and
Development, dated August 29, 1981
2. Resolution
JWP:SMB:df
/ �'
REQUES f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION .
Date February 18, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable . Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat //
Prepared by:
James W. Palin, Director of Development Services p
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Code Amendment
No. 81-12, an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code repeal-
ing Article 974 , Park and Recreational Facilities, and amending
Article 996, also known as Park and Recreational Facilities, relative
to dedication of lAnd or payment of fees.
RECOMEMNDATION:
The Planning Commission and the Department of Development Services
and the Department of Community Services are recommending that the
City Council approve Code Amendment No. 81-12 and adopt the attached
ordinance.
ANALYSIS :
Applicant: Initiated by the Department of
Community Services in conjunction
with the Department of Development
Services .
Location: City-wide.
Request: To repeal Article 974 , Park and Recreational
Facilities, and to amend Article 996, rela-
tive to the dedication of land or payment of
fees for park and recreational purposes .
Major emphasis of this code amendment is to
establish a provision which would allow for
up to 50 percent credit for private open space ,
within subdivisions where the open space exceeds
the minimum requirement set forth by the zoning
ordinance.
Planning Commission action on January 19, 1982 :
ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACHER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
WAS APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
PIO 4/81
Page 2
AYES: Bannister, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Paone, Kenefick, Mahaffey
ABSTAIN: None
DISCUSSION:
Code Amendment 81-12, is an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordin-
ance Code pertaining to Articles 974 and 996 , relative to dedication
of land or payment of fees .for park purposes. This code amendment
had been reviewed by the Planning Commission on several occasions
during the latter part of 1981 and was approved on January 19, 1982 .
At the present time, there are two separate articles in Division 9,
Article 974 and Article 996, which pertain to the dedication of land ,,.,.,,
,,--
or payment of in-lieu fees for the purpose of developing park and
recreational facilities. Since. Articles"974 and 996 are similar in
nature and in language, Code Amendment 81-12 repeals all of Article
974 and revises Article 996 to include some of the language presently
found in Article 974 . A major change in Article 996 under Code Amend-
ment 81-12 is a provision which i,,Till allow up to a 50 percent credit
for park land dedication for projects which have more than the required
private open space. Under the existing Article 996, a developer can
get a 50 percent credit towards dedication of park land if the proposed
development allocates space for a golf course and/or navigable channels
which are designed to serve both the residents of the subdivision and
the general public . Under the revision proposed as part of this code
amendment, developers would get 50 percent credit for private open
space which is in excess of the minimum requirements set forth under
the ordinance code. The .pro.visionsfor -the credit are contained within
Sections 9961 .2 (b) , 9961 .11, and 9961 .12 .
Also included in this amendment is clean-up language for Article 996 .
Phrases such as "Professional Code of the State of California" have
been changed to "The California Governmental Code, " "Master Plan" has
been changed to "Open Space and Conservation Element of the General
Plan, " and "Planning Department" has been changed to "the Department
of Development Services. "
This code amendment by itself will not increase the park and recreational
fees, since the standards and formula for dedication of land have not ,
been altered by this amendment. However, it should be noted that on
December 21, 1981, the City Council- was presented with a resolution
that would re-establish the average fair market value of park land in
the City. The revised valuation of park land was based on an appraisal
of park sites located in R1 Districts. This resolution was tabled by
the Council . Subsequent to the Council ' s action on Code Amendment
81-12, the Council may want to consider taking the resolution estab-
lishing new fees from the table and take action on it. The staff feels
that the 50 percent credit established under Code . Amendment 81-12 is
directly related to the re-established fees presented to the Council
on December 21, 1981 and, therefore, should be heard concurrently with
this code amendment.
Page 3
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1 . Planning Commission staff report dated January 19 , 1982
2 . Ordinance
JWP:SMB:df
4
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Code Amendment 81-12 is categorically exempt from any environ-
mental assessment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may consider denying Code Amendment 81-12 , which
would retain the existing Articles .974 and 996 in their present
form.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1 . Planning Commission staff report dated January 19, 1982
2. Ordinance
JWP: SMB:df
huntington beach development services department
Af
s
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Department of Development Services
DATE: January 19, 1982
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT N0.. 81-12
1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve Code Amendment No. 81-12 and recommend to the City Council
approval of said amendment and the .adoption of the appropriate
ordinances.
2. 0 ANALYSIS:
Code Amendment 81-12 is an amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordin-
ance Code pertaining to Articles 974 and 996 , relative to
dedication of land or payment of fees for park purposes. This
code amendment has been before the Planning Commission on several
occasions during the latter part of 1981. At the December 15, 1981
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that all of
the modifications which were suggested by staff to be incorporated
in the ordinance be included into an ordinance and submitted back
to the Commission for review and action. The attached ordinance has
been so modified, and includes all of the additional wording sug-
gested by staff in previous staff reports.
At the present time, there are two separate articles in Division 9,
Article 974 and Article 996 , which pertain to the dedication of
land or the payment of in lieu fees for the purposes of developing
park and recreational facilities. Since Article 974 and Article 996
are similar in nature and in language, Code Amendment 81-12 repeals
all of Article 974 and revises Article 996 to include some of the
language presently found in Article 974.
The other major change to Article 996 .under Code Amendment 81-12
is the provision which will allow up to a 50 percent credit towards
parkland dedication for projects which have more than the required
private open space. These provisions are contained within Sections
9961. 2 (b) , 9961. 11, and 9961. 12.
Also included in this amendment is a :clean-up of language for
Article 996 . Phrases such as "Professional Code of the State of
California" have been changed to the "California Governmental Code, "
"Master Plan" has been changed to "Open Space and Conservation
Element of the General Plan, " and , "Planning Department" has been
changes to "Department of Development Services. "
MAMA
A-F M-238
V
C.A. 81-13
January 19, 1982
Page 2
This code amendment, by itself, will not increase park and rec fees,
since the standards and formula for dedication of land have not been
altered by this amendment.
3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Code Amendment 81-12 is exempt from environmental review.
4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve Code
Amendment No. 81-12 -as presented and recommend to the .City Council
that Code Amendment 81-12• be approved and the appropriate ordinances
be adopted.
ATTACHMENT
1. Code Amendment No. 81-12
JWP• M :df
�1
DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
To 1"ark Arctciisition matt From Norm Worthy, Superintendent
Uwzlopmant t,omnitte:e lark Acquisition and Uevelupment.
Subject PARK ACQJIS1 TION. ANO Date August 10, 1981
Ur_VELURAEN T F UNO FEES
141STORY
The first land dedication requirement for park purposes in Huntington Beach
w7s imposed on new residential developments by the City Council .in 1961.
S.�vcn acre Greer Park was obtained through that first ordinance which required
a fee, of $50 per lot or one acre per one hundred homes. Since there was no
Stale enabling legislation to allow cities to impose. this fee, a contractor
sued the City and the Council adopted a. business license ordinance to replace
it and raised the fee to $100 per hone.
In 1965 at the urging of the California League .of Cities, the State
Legislature approved a California Government Code change to allow cities,
counties .end special districts to impose parkland dedication or in lieu
(equivalent $ value) fees on residential development within their
,jurisdictions ua. to five acres per one thousand new residents dependent upon
the goals adopted by .the jurisdictions and reflected within their general
plans. The laity of Huntington Beach adopted an ordinance which was based on
l. 5 acres per une thousand residents that same year (1965). Our city
determined tine best method of. keeping the fees equal to the land value of
dedications received was to occasionally have appraisals made of the raw land
value of city-owned neighoorh0od parks and use the average value as the basis
for setting the fee. Since .there were different types of residential
development occurring, a density factor per each type of housing was
determined by the Planning Department based on the latest county
demographics. These data were also plugged into the formula to determine a
fair fee.
Over the years, the ordinance was revised to require the developer to. dedicate .
five acres per one tnousarnd. people and the average value was changed to median
value.
tht' la,;t appra.isnl of neighborhood parks was completed in July, 1976. Tne
;cveroje land value of LhIr.ty-eight parks was $65,977 per acre. The density
f:i,;lur for a sinjlo fam,i ty residence was 3.55 persons per tnousehold which
reflected in a $1,171 park fee- per single family home.
the new appr;ai,:;nl was 'done oy the same firm that diJ the previous appraisals,
Locke Land A sooiate!j. They are traditionally on the low side in value. This
Is pin(! reason the: averAL)e value, was chcanjed to median value in the ordinance.
Tne new appraisal is of forty-six parks and the average value is $344,4U9 per
a hefty jum,., which .ref.lects recent real. est. ite value escalation in
i 111101-kit.can 13oach. the deny,i l.y factor dropped to 3.43 persons per nousehold
which wouldf ret'.lect in a $5,9U1 park fee per single fain I home.
.3
next pane, please
f)I:VELO?WN 1 FUND FLLS
Attached is a drrift fee schedule which indicates five alternatives to charging
.the straight average per acre fee.
Median fee: dy eliminating high value parks (14.986 acres valued. at $19 or
more per square foot) and low value parks (30.348 acres valued at $4 or less
per square foot) , we arrive at a median value .of:$265,000 per acre, which
re(fuces the single family home fee to $4,903.
80% Median fee: By cutting back city park and open space goals froin five
acres per one thousand residents to four acres per one thousand, we reduce the
single family home fea to $3,910.
50% Average fee: By cutting back city parK and open space goals from 5 acres
per one Lhousand residents to 2.5 acres per one thousand, we reduce the single
f ain.i ly noine fee to $2,954. In tnis case, 1, would reeom,nend that. large
dovolopments (40 acres or more) be required to provide, develop and maintain
their own neighborhood park and open space in addition to paying the fees.
5r7X Median fee: Same proposal as 50X Average fee except reduce the fees
further by comparing to median value park land ($2854000 .per acre) . A single
family home fee would cost. $2,444 under this plan.
51N Credit., Private Open Space: Utilizing the appraised value of typical
neighborhood parks in R-1 zones only, and eliminating small specialty parks
1 and beaches such as in Huntington Harbour, this reduces. the average value to
V32,721 per acre. Under this plan the goal of 5 acres per one thousand is
retained and up to 5U,b credit allowed for provision of private recreational
•open space over and aoove City code requirements. Major developers (40 acres
or larger) would be given the option of taking XX credit for golf courses,
waterways or private: recreational open space. A single family home fee would
cost $3,991 under this plan and a 3 bedroom condo could vary between $1,617
and $3,234, depending on open space provided.
11F..CUMMEr4l)ATION: Approve the 50% Credit for private open space alternative as
it. is the fairest of all alternative proposals: it will ()Oe reduce
.lrirxj-stanciihrj •c.ity goals of 5 acres per one thousand, it will encourage
dovelbpurs to provide, inure private recreational open space and .it will double
the current park fees to assist the department in dcWevinij capital goals..
At.Lachments
n1
ACRE TOTAL
R-1 PARKS ACRES AVE VAL. VALUE
Schroeder 2.48 $217,800 $ 540,144
Greer 6.49 261,360 1,696,226
Greer L. . 4.116 174,240 717,172
Irby 10.777 174,240 1,877,784
Wardlow 2.21 217,800 481,338
Lake 4.24 315,802 1,339,000
Farquhar 3.04 3159810 960,062 .
Hope V. 3.55 196,056 695,999
LeBard 3.005 217,804 6541501
Perry 1.89 2171725 4111500
Gisler 1.109 239,405 265,500
Eader 2.667 196,100 5220999
Wieder 2.13 5220535 1,113,000
Carr 10.61 174,364 1,850,002
College 2.177 261,369 569,000
Bushard 1.973 261,531 5161001
Seeley 3.372 261,269 880,999
Lark 2.43 261,317 635,000
Golden 2.399 261,359 627,000
Burke 2.503 261,286 653,999
Sowers 2.35 217,872 511,999
Hawes 2.50 2619200 653,000
Terry, 3.984 239,709 955,001
Lambert 3.475 174,245 605,501
Newland .689 261,248 1801000
Gibos 4.284 217,787 933,000
Moffett 2.383 217,793 519,001
Bolsa V. 2.703 261,288 706,000
Drew 2.26 2619504 590,999
Langenbeck 3.395 261,360 8871317
TOTAL 101.19 $232,721 $23,549,044
DRAFT
r
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CDM4UNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1
PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND FEES
ALTERNATES - 1981
TYPE OF UNIT 1973 *1976 1980 •*
MULTIPLE FAMILY D.F. FEE D.F. FEE D.F. FEE MEDIAN FEE 80% MFOIA,4 FEE 50A AVE FEE 50A MEDIAN FEE )OA CREDIT/P.O.S.
NO CREDIT
Single/3acnelor 1.35 $223 1.18 $389 1.17 $2,015 1,667 1,334 1,008 834 681 - 1,362
1 3edroom 1.81 299 1.49 492 1.57 2,704 2,237 1,790 1,352 1,119 313 - 1,826
2 Bedrooms 2.73 451 2.30 759 2.38 4,098 3,392 2,713 2,049 1,696 1,385 - 2,770
3 3edrooms 3.19 526 3.20 1,056 2.76 4,787 3,962 3,169 2,394 1,961 1,617 - �,234
�r
Single Family 4.04 668 3.55 1,171 3.43 5,907 4,888 3,910 2,954 2,444 3,991
Mobile Home 1.90 314 1.80 594 1.69 2,910 2,406 1,927 1,455 1,204 983 - 1,966
i
Acres per 1000 5 5 5 5 4 2.5 2.5 5
Value per acre 33,076 65,977 344,409 285,000 285,000 344,409 285,000 23z,721
Current Fees
"*Recommended Fees
I1crr.k Ac giiisitioi and August 27, 1981
1)evAloIxnent Committee page 2. —
MOTION: Mr. Moss teller moved, Mrs. Vander .Moles seconded, the.C:ommittee
recommend to the Community Services Commission that the strip of land (40.82' x
341.521) adjacent to well island "L" and within the.60' roadway easement not he acquired
frorn the Huntington Beach Company to'allow the Huntington Beach Community Park to
contain 6.821 net acres (the amount of land owed to the City by the Huntington Beach
Company from their development of Seacliff I, II and Beachwalk) which will be
combined with the Huntington, Beach High School 5 acres in a joint development project
slated for 1982-83. MOTION CARRIED.
HELMS PARK
Mr. Worthy referred to the letter to Commission from Dr. Robert Ford, regarding the five
objections he *and the Huntington Viewpoint Homeowners Association brought to the
attention of the Commission on August 12 and to staff's response to the questions.
Mr.Worthy indicated that he had met with Dr. Ford in the office the day following thi
commission meeting on the same subject. Mr.Worthy stated that Dr.Ford had attended
the citizens" meeting in December, of 1979, at the Faith Lutheran Church when the
schernatic design plan was presented by Alan Ribera; however, fir. Ford indicated he
missed seeing the softball backstop on the original plan as. it was shown in a tree area.
Mr.%Northy indicated that once the master plan of Helme Park was approved by the City
Council, Cardoza-DiLallo upgraded the small, portable backstop to a $5,000 arch backstop
in the working drawings. These are the plans shown to Dr.Ford when he recently come to
the office.
Following a. discussion on each point of disagreement, Mr.Worthy stated fir. Ford
acquiesced on all points with the exception-of the backstop. Upon further discussion with
Mr. Moorhouse, staff's recornmendation was to eliminate the backstop from the plans. If
it was determined, after a period of park use by the neighborhood, that a backstop would
be welcome, then we could consider adding a portable backstop at that date. Debate and
deliberation occurred and the following motion was made:
MOTION: Mrs. Vander Molen moved, Mr. Mossteller seconded, the Committee
recommend to the Community Services Commission that a small portable backstop be
substituted for the arch backstop in Cardoza-DiLallo's final plans and specifications for
I-lelme Park. MOTION CARRIED.
PARK DEDICATION AND F17-F ORE)INANCE
referrea to Me August 70.memo o the Canmi ttee which gave they history and
five alternatives .explored toward modification of tlxi park fer, ordinance. Mr. Folger,
I)elx)ty City Attorney, indicated that he. and Mr. Jirn Palin, Director of Development
Services, have been wotkintl closely with Mr. Worthy in the creation of the fifth
olternntive in that staff 'felt the fourth alternative was not ncce.ptnble even though it had
he;en opproved by both the Community Services and Planning Commissions.
1 �
Park Acquisition and August 27, 1981
Development Committee Page 3
Mr. Worthy explained the fifth alternative, "50 Percent Credit, Private Open Space" as
follows: By utilizing the appraised value of typical neighborhood parks in R-I zones only,
and eliminating small specialty parks and beaches such as in Huntington Harbour, this
reduces the average value to $232,721 per acre. Under this plan the goal of 5 acres per
one thousand is retained and up to 50 percent credit allowed for provision of private
recreational open space over and above City Code requirements. Major developers (40
acres or larger) would be given the option of taking 50 percent credit for golf courses,
waterways or private recreational open space. 'A single family home fee would cost
$3,991 under this plan and a 3 bedroom condo could vary between $1,617 and $3,234,
depending on open space provided.
Staff recommends approval of the 1150 Percent Credit for Private Open Space" alternative.
cis it is the fairest of -all alternative proposals: It will not reduce long-standinq City goals
of 5 acres, per one thousand, it will encourage developers to provide more private
recreational open space and it will double the current park fees to assist the department
in achieving capital goals.
Discussion ensued regarding giving credit for private open space within a condominium
which was a new proposal. Mr.Worthy explained that credit for units abutting golf
courses or waterways had been in the ordinance for years, but staff felt an additional
credit alternative should he offered. This one encourages less density and, if followed,
would reduce fees to a reasonable level. Mrs. Vander Molen indicated she could not
support giving credit to a developer for creating and maintaining their private
neighborhood park as it would not be open to the public. Both Dr.Cooper and
Mr. Mossteller favored giving credit within the confines of a private development as it
would reduce acquisition, development and maintenance costs of the park to the City.
MOTION: Mr. Mossteller moved, Dr. Cooper seconded, the Committee recommend to
t e�?ommunity Services Commission that they approve the "draft" ordinance prepared
by the Deputy City Attorney which repeals Article 974 and amends Article 996 relative
to dedication of land or payment of park fees, in that the new ordinance encornrx-isses
the "50 Percent Credit for Private Open Space" alternative plan. In addition, that the
Commission request that an updated appraisal of the R-I neighborhood parks every two
years or earlier he included in the new ordinance as the basis for keeping fees current.
MOTION CARRIEr).
spectfully submi led,
on orthy
Acting SecrOciry
t4w:cw
cc: Community Services Commission
.Art Folger, Deputy City Attorney
REQUEO FOR CITY COUNC_ ) ACTION
Date July 9 , 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by:
James W. Palin, Director of Development Services �. y
�J
Subject: REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT - PARK AND RECREATION FEES
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attacllmenti:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Request contained in the Mola Development Corporation letter
dated July 7, 1982 , attached herewith requesting postponement
in the payment of the County Sanitation District fees and the
recreation and park fees for Final Tract Map No. 10853 .
RECOMMENDATIONS :
Staff recommends that_ the Council approve the postponement of
the County Sanitation District fees and park and recreation fees
as requested subject to sufficient guarantee for the park and
recreation fees as may be required by the City Administrator .
ANALYSIS :
On July 28 , 1982 , the City Council concurred with a request sub-
mitted on the postponement of the County Sanitation fees and
park and recreation fees and instructed staff to prepare the
appropriate ordinances to implement same. Ordinance No. 2564
was. approved by the Council at its July 6 meeting which would
afford postponement of the sewer fee until the issuance of
building permits. Ordinance No. 2545 relating to an amendment
postponing park and recreation fees has not been submitted back
for Council approval as of this date as additional information
needs to be provided on the overall building cost of the total
park system within the City. Staff is anticipating that. th.is
ordinance will be back for approval at the August 2 meeting.
Mr . Mola had stated previously in his January 14 letter, which was
submitted as supplemental information on June 28 (at which time
the Council instructed staff to make the aforementioned amendments) ,
F
P10 4/81
ANALYSIS (Con ' t. )
that approximately $319, 000 would be carrying costs for his
project - F,inal Tract Map No. 10853 . The County Sanitation
fee and the City ' s park and recreation fee were in the total
costs involved. They amounted to over $5,00 , 000 in fees required
for this project and. certainly were the lions share of the interest
money required to carry a project for the two (2) years as outlined
in Mr. Mola ' s letter of January 14 , 1982 .
Based upon this increase per unit, ranging from $500 to $1 , 000
per unit, staff unanimously recommended to the Council that
provisions be structured into the Code to allow this postponement.
Mola Development Corporation was originally hoping to have Final
Tract Map No. 10853 on your 19th Agenda for acceptance, however ,
additional information is required in order to process the final
tract map itself . The final tract map will not be submitted for
. Council review and acceptance until the August 2 meeting . Mr.
Mola has asked that the request for postponement appear on your
19 Agenda for .review and action.
FUN ING SOURCE:
None, other than the loss of interest that may occur to the ,
park and recreation funds by postponement.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
No action on the request for postponement until such time as the
ordinances become effective which could create one of the follow-
ing
a. Increase the cost per unit to a future buyer.
b. Delayed construction of the project could possibly
increase construction costs.
CWT:JWP: js
Attachment:
1 . Mola Development Corporation letter dated July 7 , 1982 .
j
REQUES' i FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date June 15, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared b James W. Palin, Director of Development Services and
P y Vincent G. Moorhouse, Director of Community Services f
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12 - PARK AND RECREATION
FACILITIES ORDINA CE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code establishing new
Article 996 after repealing the existing Articles 974 and 996. The
proposed .code amendment would regulate park and recreation facilities
relating to dedication of land and/or payment of fees and, through
Resolutions 5071 and 5072, establish new fair market values and new
density factors pursuant to an appraisal conducted for the City and
census information, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommend at the City Council take no on the
pending Ordinance No. 2545 and Resolutions 5071 and 507 , and instruct
staff to:
1 . Amend Ordinance No. 2545 to afford a postponement in the
collection of park and rec fees until issuance of a certi-
ficate of occupancy or until final inspection, whichever
is appropriate for that type of development;
2. To amend Chapter 14 . 40 of the Municipal Code to afford a
postponement in the payment of the County sanitation fee
until issuance of building permits;
3 . To explore and develop information on a new method of
assessing future fee structure which would relate to
total cost of building out remaining park system based
on anticipated residential development within the City; and
4 . Bring a revised ordinance and resolutions back for public
hearing for review and approval by the Council at some
later date.
ANALYSIS:
The City Council has had Ordinance 2545 and Resolutions 5071 and
5072 pending before it at a number of public hearings beginning on
i
P10 4/81
t
C.A. 81-12
June 15, 1982
Page 2
December 21, 1981, up to the present date. During this time, a
letter was submitted on behalf of Mola Development Corporation re-
questing that the City analyze a postponement in the collection of
certain fees required for new development (letter attached) . A
number of meetings have been held on this- subject- involving property
owners and developers as well as City staff consisting of the City
Administrator and the Directors of Development Services, Public
Works, and Community Services. The possibility of postponing fees
pursuant to Mola ' s request was discussed at these meetings, culmin-
ating in the consensus that the staff could recommend to the Council
the postponement of collection of the park and rec fees and a portion
of the sewer fees.
It was agreed that the park and rec fees could be deferred subject
to _a security being filed and approved by the City Council concur-
rently with the acceptance of a final map; these fees would then
become due upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy on those
projects for which the Department of Development Services would be
responsible for issuing such document and upon final inspection on
projects not requiring a certificate of occupancy.
Public Works concurred with a postponement of that portion of the
sewer hookup fee relating to the County Sanitation- District until
issuance of building permits, which would require that Section 14 . 40 .020
of the Municipal Code be amended to implement this recommendation.
This change would also require .'that Development Services then collect
that fee at the time of issuance of building permits rather than the
fee being deposited with the Department of Public Works at the time
the Council accepts a final map for recordation, which is the present
procedure.
Vince Moorhouse and I also met as late as Monday, June 14, to discuss
with Mr. Richard Harlow the provisions for credit for private open
space as proposed by the pending Ordinance No. 2545, as well as the
proposed new fair market value as set forth in the pending Resolution
5071. It was resolved that there should be an analysis conducted
by the City to determine the ultimate cost of finishing up the park
system, as depicted by the Conservation and Open Space Element, as to
dedication, acquisition, and development. With this total cost
figure in hand, it may be possible for the City to develop a new
method of assessing the park and rec fees similar to the approach
currently used by the Department of Public Works in establishing a
per-acre fee for drainage; i.e. , the fees are to cover the full cost
within an area for dedication, acquisition, and development of the
drainage system. At this time, it would be impossible for the staff
to assure the Council that the proposed method of arriving at a park
fee would result in a figure less than that proposed by the existing
ordinance and resolutions pending before you. However, the figure
may very well fall somewhere between the existing fee per unit and
that which is being proposed in those amendments .
C.A. 81-12
June 15, 1982
Page 3
It should be noted that the Planning Commission, when it acted
upon the Code Amendment, did not have before it the request for
postponement of the time of collection of the park and rec fee,
nor did they have the recent staff recommendation on a new method
of assessing the total cost for buildout of the park system at
ultimate development.
FUNDING SOURCE:
None required.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The City Council may choose to take any one of the following alterna-
tive actions:
1. Hold the public hearing on the existing proposals (Ordinance 2545,
Resolution 5071, and Resolution 5072) and approve.
2. Decline to act and leave in existence the present ordinances in
effect at this time.
3. Direct staff to analyze and possibly reduce the acres of park prop-
erty per thousand residents needed at ultimate buildout of the City.
4 . Instruct staff to explore any combination of the possible alterna-
tives contained herein.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 2545
2. Resolution 5071
3 . Resolution 5072
4 . Letter from Mola Development dated January 14 , 1982
CWT:JWP:VGM:df
MOLA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/808 ADAMS AVE,HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIF 92648/(714) 536-2547
6994 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 211,CARLSBAD,CA 92008/(714)438-1157
January 14 , 1982
Honorable Mayor & City Council
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach , CA 92648
Dear Honorable Mayor & City Council :
I would like to thank you for your recent decision to post-
pone action on irrcreasing several of the development relat-
ed fees, because they appeared to be too high. I would al-
so like to .suggest another way you can help the building in-
dustry to lower unnecessary costs .
Presently, a developer is required to post performance bonds
to .guarantee completion of improvements and to pay fee for
various services to be performed. In most cases , the bond
and fees must be paid prior to the City Council ' s approval
of a final tract map.
The bonds are intended to guarantee satisfactory completion
of certain city requirements such as public improvements .
The fees are to cover costs that relate to services per-
formed during construction of a project (i.e . inspection
fees) o.r. to services that are provided after completion of
a project (i. e. park fees) .
Unfortunately, the present method of requiring bonds and
fees to be paid even before the City Council ' s approval of
a final map does not relate to the time the service is per-
formed.
When both interest rates . and fees were low, the City ' s
requirement for such an early payment did not significantly
impact a developer' s financing or the price of housing.
However, in times of high interest rates and increasing
fees, these costs have a major impact on the final price of
a house.
D
JAN 1982
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
.I I it 1 i;a('11.P l2 FNSt 7�' Ii
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Honorable Mayor & City Council
January 14, 1982
.Page two
For instance, the fees on our Bolsa Chica Project are :
PUBLIC WORKS
Sewer (City) $ 34 , 560
Water.. 8 , 640
Drainage 81, 289
*Engineering & Inspection 52 , 000
*Construction Water 1, 728
Sewer (O.C. S .D. ) 360, 000
Sunset Height #3 Sewer 3 , 301
$ 541, 518
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Park & Recreation $ 167 , 583
*Building" Permits &
Plan Check 42 , 000
$ 209, 583
TOTAL $ 751,101
Several of these fees such as those shown with an asterisk
(*) should be paid when the service begins. The other fees
more closely relate to the. completed project and should be
collected at that time.
The cost of these fees is further compounded- when you consider
that on large projects, there could. be as much as two years
from the' time the map is submitted to the City until the units
are occupied. With interest rates on construction loans
at twenty percent (200) compounded monthly, the cost of just
those fees relating to a completed project ($655 , 373) can be
increased from $143 , 765 for one year 's carrying costs to
$319, 111 for two year' s carrying costs. This means an
additional $500 to $1, 000 will be added to the price of a
unit just to cover the cost of the interest payment through
construction on non-construction related fees . This increase
is not only a burden to the. developer, who must carry these
costs during construction, but it also severely affects the
future homeowner who eventually pays through higher prices.
I would like to propose a change in the present City policy.
A reasonable alternative to .the present policy is to permit
payment of fees just prior to the time the service is to be
performed.
O
Honorable Mayor & City Council
January 14 , 1982
Page three
For instance, inspection fees, plan check fees , and con-
struction water could 'be paid when permits are issued.
The remaining fees could be paid prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy or final building inspection.
I am _sure the building community would pay any administrative
costs that may be associated with such a policy.
Thank you for consideration of this request. I will be
available at your convenience to discuss this proposal in
more detail.
Respe tfully submitted,
MOL ' bEV PMENT CORPORATION
l
Fr n J. Mola,
Pres ' dent
cc: Paul Cook
Charles Thompson
James Palin
FJM/lk
I - Co h M 3COL)
Publish 2/18/82
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT 81-12
PARK & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 1st day of March , 19 82 .
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No. 81-12, initiated by the
Development Services Department and the Community Services Department, which
would amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by repealing Article 974
Park and Recreational Facilities, and which would amend Article 996 also known as
Park and Recreational F&cilities relative to dedication of land or payment of
fees.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment No. 81-12
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED 2/12/82 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUU'BLIC HEARING
ITEM P� c � e �"- /2—
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE:
FROM:
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
DAY OF = 19v
AP's are attached
AP's will follow
X No AP's
Initiated by:
Planning Commission nn _ ,-,y•..-� ;������ QQ
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to Planning Department - Extension #
for additional information.
* If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
May 6, 1982
Richard A. Harlow & Associates
333 W. Yorktown Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting
held Monday, May 3, 1982 continued the public hearing on proposed Code
Amendment 81-12 and Resolution Nos. 5071 and 5072 to the June 7, 1982
Council meeting.
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
AMW:CB:cd
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - DATE:
FROM:
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
VV--DAY OF 19 „
AP's are attached
AP's will follow
) No AP's
Initiated by:
Planning Commission "o C',4°a
pianning
Petition
* Appeal
Other
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to Planning Department - Extension #
for additional information.
* If appeal, please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
I
li
i
2-
l - CohM 3tAL)
Publish 2/18/82
i
I -
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE-AMENDMENT 81-12
PARK & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 .P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 34 day of -goweir/yf , 19 82 .
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No. 81-12, initiated by the
Development Services Department and the Community Services Department, which
would amend the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by repealing Article 974
Park and Recreational Facilities, and which would amend Article 996 also known as
Park and Recreational ,Fdcilities relative to dedication of land or payment of,
/,
fees. S� pblic heap, wW% 04MWS-b oN MltRc, I, I M �''WhIC44 74✓01e raw/jc/ dr er.¢�t/+q
co 1 iN0 o-P- mu.{f211,
�� l r
ex
?es o��1-�oN tvo ,
71
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment No. 81-12
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
Page #3 - Council Minutes - 3/l/82
relative to dedication of land or payment of fees.
The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for, posting and publication
had been met, and that she had received no communication or written protests to
the matter.
Following discussion, a motion was made by Patt-inson, seconded by Kelly, to
continue consideration of Code Amendment No. 81 -12 for at least thirty days.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly
NOES: Thomas, Finley
ABSENT: None
A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to remove from the table l
Resolution No. 5071 , relative to establishing the fair market value for
all R-1 zoned public neighborhood parks to determine the amount of fee
required to be paid in lieu of dedication of land, this resolution to be
heard concurrently with Code Amendment No. 81 -12 and Ordinance No. 2545.
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly
NOES: Thomas, Finley
ABSENT: None
/ PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dean Albright spoke regarding Housing and Community Development Block Grant
Funds relative to the Legal Aid Society; the use of asbestos cement for water
mains ; and the proposed traffic signal modifications at Bolsa Avenue and
Graham Street.
Robert Cohen stated-that he represented the Legal Aid Society and was pre-
sent to answer technical questions relative to granting Housing and Community
Develop me t, funds to their organization. He stated that the office was
schedul Ito close in September 1982.
Mayor Finley asked whether they rented their facilities from the City.
Mr. Cohen stated that they paid $200 per month rent to the City for their
building.
Jerry MIller, President, Board of Directors , Huntington Cove Homeowners
Association , related problems concerning the installation of cable televi-
sion in their complex.
Jim Knowles stated that mobilehome park zoning would be the best buffer the
City could have on Pacific Coast Highway.
Warren Hall spoke regarding the Office of the City Attorney relative to the
General Municipal Election.
George Lindegren, Fountain Valley, requested that Council hold in abeyance
a call for bids for the construction of housing, chlorination and fluorida-
13 gz
IN THE
Superior Court
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH +
CITY CLERK PROOF OF BLICATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC NOTICE n
State of California ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARING
CODE AMENDMENT 81.12
County of Orange )ss. ! PARR&RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a
Jeannie L. Thomas public hearing will be held by.the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen-
ter,Huntington Beech,at the hour of 7:30
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of P.M.,or as soon thereafter as possible on
the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I 4 Monday the lat day of March,1982,for
am not a art to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; the purpose 1 considering Code Amend-
am y went No.81-12,initiated by the Develop-
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the ment Services Department and,the'Com-
munity Services Department, which
would amend the Huntington- Beach 1
Huntington Beach Ind . Review Ordinance Code by repealing Article 974
Park and Recreational Facilities, and
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of I which would amend Article 996 also
known'as Park and Recreational Facili-
tiesrelative to dedication of land or pay-
went.of fees.
All interested persons are invited to
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the attend said farina and e to d-
Cod A
opinions for or against said Code Amend-�
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- ment No.81-12.
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had Further information may be obtained
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, from the Office of the City Clerk, 20o0
P P Y g Mein Street,Huntington Beach,Celifor-
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- nia 92648-(714)536.5227.
1982.
lished at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a DATED February N TON
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the CITY ICIAM. ENTW REACH
By:ALICIA M.WENTWORTH
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular City Clerk
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement Hunt.Beach Ind.Rev.N10957
thereof,on the following dates,to wit:
February 181 1982
I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct.
Dated at... a r.d.a r)..Q.r c).v.Q........................
orn' ,this 19.t•h.da90f. e. .82...
+�!4.!�A........ .. .. ..........
Signature
1 Form No.CAF-81380
IN THE
Superior Court —a� � Ac `
t✓ OF THE ;�J�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY CLERK
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
HEARING 81-12
,a
State of California
County of Orange
• DBE OAS DMENT81-12vG
NOTICE IS.FIEREBY GIVEN thsf a !
Rita J. Richter ppnbli hearing(will be held by the City
Courie Ofdhe City of Huntington Beach,
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of in the Council Chamber of the Civic Cen-
the United States;over the age of twenty-one ears,and that I ter,Hun tington.Beach,at the hour of 7:30
g Y Y 'P.M.;or as soon thereafter as possible on
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter; Monday,the 21st day of December,1981,
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the fbr .the purpose�of considering Code
Amendment 81-12 which would amend e.
the'Huntington Beach Ordinance Code
byre Article 974 Park and Recrea-
HUNTINGTON BEACH IND. REVIEW tin na�ac`-ties,and which would amend
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of Article ona also known as park and '
g P Y Recreational Facilities relative to dedica-
tion of land or ant of fees.
All interested.persons are invited to
Huntington Beach attend said:hearing and,express.their
opinions for or against said Code Amend-
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the menr8l-12. -
disemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- Further information may be obtained
fro6a er at all times herein mentioned had St Office of the City Clerk 2000
ter, and which news N18ifi S
newspaper Maio Street,Huntington Beach,Califor-
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, nia 92648=(714)536-5227..
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- -DATED December 8,1981.
lished at regular intervals in the said Count of Orange for a CITY.OF HUNTINGTON BEACH.
g Y g By:'ALICIA M.WENTWORTH
period exceeding one year; that the notice, of which the City Clerk
annexed is a printed co has been published in the regular Pub:Dec 10,1981
P copy, P g Hunt.Beach Ind.Rev.#11053
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement -
thereof,on the following dates,to wit:
December 109 1981
I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct.
Dated at....................Rardem.Gt. Y.e..........
Californig,this . t .day
l
Signature
I worm No.CAF-81380
REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL" ACTION
Date December 21, 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: . Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services o
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
04
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: .
Transmitted for the City Council ' s consideration is Code Amend-
ment No. 81-12, an amendment to the -Huntington Beach Ordinance
Code by repealing Article 974; Park and .Recreational-:_Facilities._%
and amending Article 996, also. known as Park and. Recreational
Facilities, relative to the dedication of land or payment of fees.
. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission has reviewed this code amendment at three
earlier meetings; however, as of the preparation of this transmit-
tal, it has not taken specific action on this code amendment.
The staff is anticipating that the Planning Commission will act
on Code Amendment No.. 81-'12 at the Tuesday, December 15 meeting.
This action will. be transmitted to the City Council prior to the
December 21, 1981 City Council meeting. The staff has recommended
to the Planning Commission that this ordinance be approved with
minor modifications.
ANALYSIS: 1
APPLICANT: Initiated by the Department of Community Services
in conjunction with the Department of Development
Services.
LOCATION: City-wide
REQUEST: To repeal Article 974, Park and Recreational Fa=
cilities,. and to amend. Article 996, relative to the
dedication of land or payment of fees for park and
recreational purposes. Major emphasis of this code
amendment is establishing a provision which would
allow for up to 50% credit for private open space
within subdivisions where the open space exceeds the
minimum requirements set forth by the building and
zoning ordinances.
Pio 4/81
rU' ,
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-12
December 21, 1981
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Code Amendment No. 81-12 has. been to the Planning Commission for
review on September 15, 1981, October 20, 1981, and November 17,
1981. This code amendment has been continued each of the three
previous meetings in order for additional information to be sub-
mitted to the Commission for its decision. Formal action of this
code amendment would be taken at the December 15, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION•
Code Amendment No. 81-12 deals with the repealing. of Article 974,
Park and Recreational Facilities, which includes, Standards and
Formulas for Dedication of Land, Requirements for Said Dedication,
and the Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedications.
Code Amendment No. 81-12 also includes an amendment to Article .,
996, which is also referred to as Park and Recreational Facilities.
The amendments in this article include a combining of certain
provisions which were previously established under Article 974
into the new revised Article 996, a clarification of terms, and
revised. provisions for establishing the dollar amount of parklands.
This amendment also includes a provision which will allow up to
a 50% credit for recreational open space within subdivisions that
provide more open space than is required by the building and/or
zoning ordinances.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Code Amendment No. 81-12 is categorically exempt from any
environmental assessment.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may consider denying Code Amendment No. 81-12,
which would retain the existing articles, 974 and 996, in their
present form.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 15, 1981 .
2. Ordinance
JWP:SMB:jlm
"UN nNc TON et A(1, _ DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
`-- To FC-lrk. 11rtluisition ind From � Norm Worthy , Superintendent.
Development Committee Flfirk Acquisition and Development.
Subject PMK ACQJISHION AND Date August 20, 1981
DEVELORAEN I FUND FEES
HISTORY
.The first land dedication requirement for park purposes in Huntington Beacn
was imposed on new residential d(�veloprnents by the City lbuncil in 1961.
5_,ven acre Greer Park was obtained through that first ordinance which required
a fee of $50 per .lot or one acre per one hundred homes. Since there was no
State enabling .legislation to allow cities to impose this fee, a contractor
sued the City and the Council adopted a business license ordinance to replace
it and raised the fee to $100 per home.
In 1965 at the urging of the California League .of Cities, the State
legislature approved a California Government Code change to allow cities,
counties. and special districts to impose park- land dedication or in lieu
(equivalent $ value) fees on residential development within their
jurisdictions up to five acres per one thousand new residents dependent upon
the goals adopted oy the jurisdictions and reflected within their general
Flans. The City of �luntirigton Beach adopted an ordinance which was based on
2. 5 acres per one thousand residents that same year (1965) . . Our city
determined the best method of keeping the fees equal to the land value of
dedications received was to occasionally have appraisals .made of the raw land
value of city-owned neighoorhOod parks and use the average value as the basis
for setting the fee. Since there were different types of residential
development occurring, a density factor per each type of housing was
determined by. the Planning Department based on the latest county
tfeinographics. These data were also plugged into the formula to determine a
Vair fee.
Dver the years, the ort)iriance was revised to require the developer to dedicate
five acres per one thousand people and the average value was changed to median
value.
mt, least appraisal. or neighborhood parks was completed in July, 1976. The
.iverage Llr d value of th.i.rty-eight parks was $65,977 per acre. The density
for a sinjle family residence was 3.55 persons per household which
reflected in a $1, 171 park fee per single family home.
1t. e new was done ny the same firm that diJ the previous appraisals,
Locke Land A Scn iatt:s.. They are traditionally on the low side in value. This
is one reason the average value, was changed to median value in the ordinance.
me new appraisal .is of fort.y-six parks and the average value is $344,409 per
a hefty jinn,.) which reflects recent real est.ite value escalation in
rft'Nr kn►t.i lt�n r3 h. Me tiens.i ty faCtur dropped to 3.43 persons pur nousehold
which w0old reflect in a $.1),901 park fee per single family home.
next pane, please .
PARK Ai'(,MI51 i MN AN[) t-;r -2- � August 20, 1981 '
UEVr L0i'MEN t .FUND FEES
AttachPd is 'a' rJr;)ft fee schedule which indicates five alternatives to charging
the straight. average per acre fee.
Median fern: By eliminating high value parks (14.986 acres valued at $19 or
more per square foot) and low value parks (30.348 acres valued at $4 or less
per square foot) , we arrive at a median value of $285,000 per acre which
reduces the single family home fee to $4,903.
80% Median fee: Oy cutting back city park and open space goals from five
acres per one thousand residents to four acres per one thousand, we reduce the
single family home fee to $3,910.
5EI% Average fee: By cutting back city parK and open space goals from 5 acres
per one thousand residents Lo 2.5 acres per one thousand, we reduce the single
fi)in.i.ly home fee to .$2,954. In tnis case, 1. would recommend that large
dl.2v(�lopments (40 acres or more) be required to provide, develop and maintain
their own neighborhood park and open space in addition to paying the fees.
50% Median fee: Same proposal as 50Y6 Average fee except reduce the fees
further by comparing to median value park land ($285.,000 per acre) . A single
family home fee would cost $2,444 under this plan.
5Oi6 Cred.it, )Private Open Space: Utilizing the appraised value of typical
neighoorhood parks in R-1 zones only, and eliminating small specialty parks
and beaches such as in Huntington Harbour, this reduces the average value to
$232,721 per acre. Under tnis plan the goal of 5 acres per one thousand is
retained and up to 5 WO' credit allowed for provision of private recreational
open space over and above City. code requirements. Major developers (40 acres
or larger) would be given the option of taking 50Y6 credit for golf courses,
waterways or private recreational open space. A single family home fee would
bust $3;991 under this plan and a 3 bedroom condo could vary between $1,617
and $3,234, depending on open space provided. .
RI:CO(A'IENDATION: Apprcive the 50% Credit for private open space alternative as
il. is the fairest of all alternative proposals: it will nue reduce
Imig-st,andir-q .cit:y goals of 5 acres per one thousand, it will encourage
developers to provide inure private recreational open space and it will double
the currant park fees to assist the department in achievirkj capital goals.
At.Lacli ments
I
ACRE 7UY11L
it-1 PWS i' s AVE VAL. VIILUE
`�chroeder 2. 48 $2171800 $ 540,144
k,reer 6.49 261,360 1,696,226
i;reer. L. 4.116 1741240 717,172
Irby 10. 777 174,240 1,877,784
Wardlow 2.21 217,800 4.81,338
I e 4.24 315,802 1,339,000
Farquhar 3.04 3151810 960,062
Hope V. 3.55 1961056 695,999
Le8a rd 3.005 217,804 654,501
Perry 1.89 2171725 411,500
- Gisler 1.109 239,405 265,500
Evader 2.667 196,100 522,999
Wieder 1.13 522,535 1,IB.,000
Carr 10.61 174,364 1,850,002
College 2.177 261,369 569,000
Oushard 1.973 261,531 516,001
Seeley. 3.372 261,269 880,999
Lark 2.43 261,317 635,000
"�4.• Golden 2.399 261,359 627,000
Burke 2.503 261,286 653,999
Sowers 2.35 117,872 511,999
Hawes 2.50 2611200 653,000
lorry 3.984 239,709 955,OU1
Lambert 3.475 1741245 605,501
-- Newland .089 261 ,248 180,000
Gihns 4.284 217,787 933,000
moff"ett 2.383 2171793 519,001
Chlsa V. 2.703 261,288 706,000
1)r w 261,504 590,999
I J!iL)cni)o,ck .5.395 261,360 887, 317
1 U 1 AI'_ 101. .1:+ $2.32, 721 $2.3,549.,044
DRAFT
Cl i Y 0r nJNTiii]TJ,4 '_EACH
;3;41UV1TY SERVICES JEFART,cNT
PA:X ACCJI51TION AND 3EVELCP;•L4T FJi:O FEES
1973 •1976 1980
J.F. FCc J.F. FEL J.F. FEE id_Jiti4 FEE 80: -FEE 3N AVE FEE 501; :a; FEE
5: 1.35 $223 1.18 $389 1.17 $2,JI5 1,667 1,:34 2,608 =34 -31. - 3;�
1 ie rJ]1 1.81 299 1.49 452 1.57 2,704 2,237 . 1,790 1,351 ,,119 913 - 1,8Lo
2 4.73 451 2.30 759 2.38 4,098 3,392 2,713 049 1,696 1,335 - Y,770
3.19 528 3.20 1,u56 2.78 4,7d7 3,962 3,169 L,3y4 :,;,dl 1,617
5_ngle Fanlly 4.04 668 3.55 1,171 3.43 5,907 4,888 3,510 2,954 2,444 3,ir1
1.90 314 1.80 594 1.69 2,910 2,406 1,927 1,455 l,L M 3c3 - :,906
5 5 5 5 4 2.5 2.5 5
v'o1Je re: aC:2 - 33,076 65,977 344,409 �d ,0J0 235,JJ0 3ac,4U9 [o:,vJJ 741
• C :.-ent Fees
..3_coaa.-n_ez F=es
Pork Acquisition and August 27, 1981
Development Committee Page 2 —
N -
MOTION: Mr. Mossteller moved, Mrs. Vander .Molen seconded, the.Committee
recommend to the Cemmimity Services Commission that the strip of land (40.82' x
341.529 adjacent to well island "L" and within the 60' roadway easement not he acquired
from the Huntington Beach Company to allow the Huntington Beach Community Park to
contain 6.821. net acres (the amount of land owed to the City by the Huntington Beach
Company from their development of Seacliff I, II and Beachwalk) which will be
combined with the Huntington Beach High School 5 acres in a joint development project
slated for 1982-83. MOTION CARRIED.
HELME PARK
Mr. Worthy referred to the letter to Commission from Dr. Robert Ford, regarding the five
objections he and the Huntington Viewpoint Homeowners Association brought to the
attention of the Commission on August 12 and to staff's response to the questions.
Mr. Worthy indicated that he had met. with Dr. Ford in the office the day following the
.,ommission meeting on the some subject. Mr.Worthy stated that. Dr. Ford had attended
the citizens' meeting in December of 1979, at the Faith Lutheran Church when the
schernatic design plan was presented by Alan Ribero; however, Dr. Ford indicated he
missed seeing the softball backstop on the original plan as it was shown in a tree area.
Mr. Worthy indicated that once the master plan of Helme Park was approved by the City
Council, Cardoza-DiLallo upgraded the small, portable backstop to a $5,000 arch backstop
in.the working drawings. These are the plans shown to Dr. Ford when he recently cage to
the office.
Following a discussion on each point of disagreement, Mr.Worthy stated fir. Ford
acquiesced on all points with the exception-of the backstop. Upon further discussion. with
Mr. Moorhouse, staff's recornmendation was to eliminate the backstop from the plans. If
it was determined, after a period of park use by the neighborhood, that a backstop would
be welcome, then we could consider adding a portable backstop at that date. Debate and
deliberation occurred and the following motion was made:
MOTION: Mrs. Vander Molen moved, Mr. Mossteller seconded, the Committee
recommend to the Community Services Commission that a small portable backstop be
substituted for the arch backstop in Cardoza-DiLallo's final plans and specifications for
Helme Park. MOTION CARRIED.
PARK DEDICATION AN[-.) FFI ORDINANCE
worthy referred o the August Mmemo o the Committee which gave the history and
fiver alternatives explored toward modification of tlx, parl< fee' ordinance. Mr. Folger,
Oel"iy City Attorney, indicated that he and Mr. Jirn Palin, Director of Development
Services, have, been woikinq closely with Mr. 'Northy in the creation of the fifth
oltenintive in that staff fell the fourth alternative was not ncceptnhle even though it had
been approved by both the ('ommunity"Services and Planning Commissions.
Park Acquisition and August 27, 1981.
'.Development Committee Page 3
Mr. Worthy explained the fifth alternative, "SO Percent Credit, Private Open Space" as V
follows: By utilizing the appraised value of typical neighborhood parks in R-1 zones only,
and eliminating small specialty parks and beaches such as in Huntington Harbour, this
reduces the average value to $232,721 per acre. Under this plan the goal of 5 acres per
one thousand is retained and up to 50 percent credit allowed for provision of private
recreational open space over and above City Code requirements. Major developers (40
acres or larger) would be given the option of taking 50 percent credit for golf courses,
.waterways or private recreational open space. A. single family home fee would cost
$3,991 under this plan and a 3 bedroom condo could vary between $I,617 and 53,234,
depending on open space provided.
Staff recommends approval of the "50 Percent Credit for Private Open Space" alternative
os it is the fairest of all alternative proposals: It will not reduce long-standinq City goals
of 5 acres per one thousand, it will encourage developers to provide more private
recreational open space and it will double the current park Fees .to assist the department
in achieving capital goals.
Discussion ensued regarding giving credit for private open space within a.condominium
which was a new proposal. Mr. Worthy explained that credit for units abutting golf
courses or waterways had.been in the ordinance for years, but staff felt an additional
credit alternative should be offered. This one encourages less density and, if followed,
would reduce fees to a. reasonable level. Mrs. Vander Molen indicated she could not
support giving credit to a developer . for creating and maintaining their private ,
neighborhood park as it would not be open to the public. Roth Dr. Cooper and
Mr. Mosst.eller favored giving credit within the confines of a private development as it .:.r
would reduce acquisition, development and maintenance costs of the park to the City.
MOTION: Mr. Mossteller moved, Dr. Cooper seconded, the Committee recommend to
the C. mmunity Services Commission that they approve the "draft" ordinance prepared
by the Deputy City Attorney which repeals Article 974 and amends Article .996 relative
to dedication of land or payment of park fees, in that the new ordinance encornyxisses
the "50 Percent Credit for Private Open Space" alternative plan. In addition, that the
Commission request that an updated appraisal of the R-1 neighborhood parks every two
years or earlier be included in the new ordinance as the basis for keeping fees current.
MOTION CARRIED.
spectfully submi .fed,
Jor:n ortliy
Acting Secretoi y
NW:cw
cc: Community Services Commission
^ Art Folger, Deputy City Attorney /�"�q
Publish 12/10/81
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT 81-12
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P X or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 21st day of .December 19 81.
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment 81-12 which would amend the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code by repealing.Article 974 Park and Recreational. Facilities, and .
which would amend Article 996 also known as Park and Recreational Facilities relative
to dedication of land or payment of fees.
4
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment 81-12
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227 Y
DATED 12-8-81 C.ITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk n
Publish 12/10/81
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COU AMENDMENT 81-12
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a. public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
.Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7.30 P A , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 21st day of December 19 81. ,
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment 81-12 which would amend the Huntington
Beach Ordinance Code by repealing Article 974 Park, and Recreational Facilities, and
which would amend Article 996 also known as Park and Recreational Facilities relative
to dedication of land or payment of fees.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment 81-12
Further .info,rmation may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, .2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED 12-8-81 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M.: Wentworth
City Clerk
t
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM �a•�+� 1t ► "'°
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE:
F ROM: t� IV4C�4 JCL
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
21 1L DAY OF _ 1961.
AP's are attached
AP's will follow
No AP's
Initiated by:
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
Appeal
Other cr
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to Planning Department - Extension #
for additional information.
* If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
Publish 8/5/82
NOTICE. OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT 81-]2
PARK & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NOTICE. IS. HEREBY: GIVEN,.that. a .publ.i c hearing will be held by the City Council of the
City of. Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach,
at the hour of 7.:30.:P,M. , or as soon thereafter as possible on Monday, the 16th of August,
1982, for the.purpose: of considering Code Amendment No. 81-12, initiated by the Development
Services Department. and the Community Services Department, which would amend the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by repealing, Article 974, Park and Recreational Facilities,
and which would amend Article 996 also known as Park and Recreational Facilities relative
to dedication of. land or. payment of fees.
A pene on March 1 , 1d—cYos�d-on�rirre- 1282.
The City Council., in conjunction with .Code Amendment 81-1.2, will also consider Resolution
No. 5071 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING
THE AVERAGE FAIR.MARKET. VALUE FOR ALL R-1 ZONED PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINING.THE AMOUNT OF FEE REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN LIEU OF DEDICATION OF LAND."
and Resolution No. 5072 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI
ESTABLISHING THE POPULATION DENSITY FACTOR TO BE USED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF LAND
TO BE DEDICATED BY' DEVELOPERS FOR PARK PURPOSES."
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their opinions
for or against said Code Amendment 81-1.2.
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227.
DATED 8/2/82
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
BY: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk