Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan for Use of the Rodgers Seniors' Center Building, City C PLAN FOR USE OF THE RODGERS SENIORS ' CENTER BUILDING CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION APRIL 4 , 2016 s y As directed by CityCouncil on February 1 , 2016 , the Community Services Department , working with Public Works •- Department and the Police Department has a developed draft Plan to outline uses for the current Rodgerspotential Seniors ' Center building, use as a Veterans ' Memorial Hall. 'Y" SITE -11. R • 1911 - Property deeded to the City for park and ��,a ,' ,:.�..,..� - � recreation use nyl • in 1912 - Site developed middle of oil field includin g a ball field and Y�la round P • 1948 - old armybarrackss E moved to the site to serve as a recreation building and Fa offices for the Parks and Recreation Department �... SITE HISTORY CONTINUED �.'��" t �3""�',��,�.,�` ,8a��,sy ?5`'S'S� a�`',,1.,'���4�.�sr,'., �.s�o( 7�"�r�?o;�;,�; �,.•irk �.....�:,. ��� � " ' '11975 ----------- Building re-dedicated as a senior s recreation center 1983/84 -- a Building was renovated to ,1 #µ create an al PNx assembly hall HISTORY C�' ORTINUED ---------- • 1984 - With the expansion and the need for more parking, the ball field was eliminated • 1984 - Named after Michael E. Rodgers for his efforts in advocating for senior services in the City • 1992 - Outreach Center was added to the property to serve the homebound and frail senior population CURRENT BUILDING USES During regular daytime hours : • Recreation classes and programs to promote healthy aging • Outreach to frail, homebound seniors Meals to the Home • Care Management • Transportation * Project Self Sufficiency CURRENT BUILDING USES CONT. Evening hours and Weekends: * Instructional classes * Line dancing socials o Ballroom dance events o Meeting space for local non-profit groups • Huntington Beach Art League • American Legion Post 133 • Scouting ceremonies or events • Various church meet ings "IF V Res .,� a Z � �a ­1161.110 S ; Local non-profit group meetings )Human Services r mmin pogra g ( Veterans ' meetings and activities (i)Huntington Beach Search & Rescue (i)Police Activity League meetings c Su.mmer sub-station (i)Police Department meetin s and � trainings zi ' IALIVIAINTENANCE AiNTEN Custodial Maintenance costs for the operation of a community facility would need to be considered when developing the budget for the ongoing operation of the center. Currently, the City contracts with Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC, at a cost of $ 15 , 000 annually. BITILDING MAINTENANCE o Deferred where possible due to the construction of the new Senior Center o Facility condition assessment completed by EMG Corporation, who specialize in Facility Condition Assessments o The recommended repairs were divided into the two categories : BUILDING MAINTENANCE CONT, o First tier repairs - $290 , 000 • roof repairs to the main building • door and wall repairs • concrete repairs in access areas o Second tier repairs - $570 ,000 • electrical and lighting upgrades • fire alarm system upgrade • sewage and wastewater piping repairs • piping replacement, interior doors, walls, floors, ceiling and restroom repairs POTENTIAL COSTS/ REVENUE Revenues generated from rentals will cover the direct staff costs to operate the facility. * Large Veterans ' Memorial Hall-$50 per hr * Small Meeting/Classrooms-$20/$25 per hr EXAMPLE: • Two classrooms rented for two nights per week, costing $20 per hour per room would generate approximately $40 per hour. • Staff costs would be approximately $25 per hour for the same time period ANNUAL OPERK-rING COSTS After the building is upgraded to accommodate proposed community use, annual costs would be the following: o Custodial Maintenance Contract$ 15 , 000 Annually * Staffing Costs - $25 per hour (two part- time recreation staff) P" OTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES * The Search and Rescue program operates an independent 501 (c) (3) with access to potential funding o Police Activities League program will be receiving funding from the Huntington Beach Police and Community Foundation o Possible funding from various veterans' groups for building improvements to dedicated space for veterans ' activities SITE AS PUBLIC PARX * Building Demo: $50 - $70K (Depending on unanticipated structure mitigation) * Parking Lot Demo : $200 - $250K (Depending on soil mitigation) * Park Development : Passive uses $585K per acre, approximately $ 1 . 2M * Additional amenities , such as lighted sports courts, etc. as recommended in the Park Master Plan: TBD o The Park and Recreation Master Plan identifies nearly $35M in unfunded needs with $27M in new projects through 2020 * To meet current needs , the plan includes some passive areas , and the addition of lighted fields , courts and other high-use areas to existing parks o Projections for Park Fund balance for the next four years is approximately $ 17M COMMUNICATION RECEIVED REGARDING THE FOLLOWING STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM: Community Services staff will present an outline of potential uses for the current Michael E. Rodgers Seniors' Center and outreach center buildings, designating use as a Veterans Memorial Hall HB -27- Item 1. - 17 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user govoutreach com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 8 41 AM To: CITY COUNCIL, Agenda Alerts Subject: Surf City Pipeline Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#25579 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Agenda Alerts. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council -Agenda& Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Richardson Gray Description: Dear Mayor Katapodis, Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan, and Council Members Delgleize, Hardy, O'Connell, Peterson, and Posey, For an item on your April 4th meeting's agenda, I am writing you to urge the City to return the Rodgers Senior Center site to parkland. For almost ten years, I have owned my home in our Downtown neighborhood, and have worked to improve our residential quality of life here. As you probably know, the Rodgers site is one of the four original parks deeded to the City by the Huntington Beach Company, all roughly one hundred years ago. The other three are Triangle Park, Farquhar Park, and Lake Park As such, each of these four parks is almost as old as our City itself. In the deeds to the City, for both Triangle Park and Rodgers Park,the City agreed to keep both sites as parkland for all time. The Main Street Library, along with its setting on Triangle Park, in 2013 was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with the unanimous endorsement of our City Council. Last year, Farquhar Park and Lake Park were made local historic landmarks, again by the unanimous endorsement of our City Council. As well last year, these two parks were deemed to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, according to the City's updated Historic Context and Survey Report. As you can see from this evidence, Rodgers Park is one of an unrivaled, highly esteemed, and important historic group of our City's parks. Given that the new senior center on Central Park is using parkland for new development, it is only fair that the City return the Rodgers site to its original use as a park The equity of this approach is further bolstered by recent history: the taking of a portion of Central Park for the new senior center has been and still remains very controversial in our City. The leading example of this controversy is that, after an expensive campaign on both sides, the Measure C vote passed by a razor thin margin, which approved the new senior center site. I am convinced that City parks are a major component of improving our residential quality of life in Huntington Beach Far too often, however, our City leaders seem to have forgotten this nearly sacred truth In my ten years here, the City has taken part of Central Park for the new senior center, the City has threatened to develop the historic Triangle Park for commercial purposes, and now is attempting to avoid returning the historic Rodgers site to parkland. Item 1. - 18 HB-28- Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10 34 AM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW Michael E Rodgers' Community PARK AGENDA COMMENT From: Mike Rinehart@kiewit com [mailto Mike Rinehart@kiewit com] Sent:Tuesday, March 22, 2016 9:58 AM To:CITY COUNCIL Cc: Lesley Rinehart@kiewit com Subject: Michael E Rodgers' Community PARK HB City Council, I'm writing with regards to the city's attempt to convert the Rodger's Senior Center, located on 17th street in downtown, to either a "Veteran's Memorial Hall Community Center"or for new residential construction. My Wife and I strongly oppose the city's plans to develop this property for anything but what was promised in the 2006 Measure T, where"An added benefit [to building the new Central Park Senior Center) is returning the existing senior center to all downtown residents use." Regardless of a legal loophole, I feel there is little room for creative interpretation of the intent of Measure T, that would allow selling this property to a private developer. Furthermore,the term "return" by definition means to put it back to the state it was in prior to it being a senior center, which was a public park— not a commercial- public use rental facility My wife and I recently purchased a new home on the 600 block of 17th street, and are looking to start a family and make Huntington Beach our permanent Home. We are happily paying our$14,000 per year property taxes to be where we are I can understand how the council would be salivating at the thought of the instant revenue injection from the sale of the land, further tax revenue over the years,or revenue through veteran group donations and event rental fees. The Council is clearly being presented with an ethical decision The path the council selects will define each of the sitting members' personal character Sacrificing integrity and reputation for short term gains is something that occurs too often today. I can't help but present the irony that the council is contemplating taking something it has promised from tax paying citizens, as a short term attempt to fund all of the other 'promises' (or what I like to call liabilities and entitlements)that the city has made I believe the council to be comprised of good people,with strong moral compases, looking out for the best interest of their community. Reverting Rodger's Senior Center back to a public park is unmistakably the right thing to do for the community, without even considering Measure T or the Chevron covenant. Adding these other details to the paradigm makes"the right decision" even more obvious I trust the council will listen to their community,consider the longterm implications of their decision, and not succumb to the "quick fix' from the fiscal temptation. To continue the metaphor, let's face it, the downtown residents already have their hands full with tweakers looking for their next fix We don't expect them to be our mayor and council members. Regards, Michael P Rinehart Lesley A Rinehart 61017th Street 1 HB -29- Item 1. - 19 (949)887-8082 PS If we're interested in Veteran donations, can't we call the public parka "HB Veteran's Park"that honors HB resident service men and women? Item 1. - 20 HB -30- Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 5 13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: FW E mail to City Council in re Former Senior Center Location Joan L. FLynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 714-536-5404 ,r f a Y Please consider the HB City Clerk's office for your passport needs From: Alexander S. Polsky, FCIArb, JAMS, Mediator/Arbitrator [mai Ito.alexpolskyCfpolskymediation.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:53 PM To: Flynn,Joan Subject: E mail to City Council in re: Former Senior Center Location Is it possible for you to forward this to the Council. I believe that the single major issue facing our city has to do with the influence of independent expenditure money from certain special interest has on our Council, and the Council member-appointed Planning Commissioners. This has influenced density, post approval changes to density, our crippling pension, overtime and budget obligations, and even,I believe, the Rogers site when it took a turn toward housing. Circumstances do change, and the need for revenue could mitigate in favor of housing,for example However, regardless of how one interprets the ballot statement (which was reasonably taken to be a representation by elected officials that if the voters approved the new center,the former location would become a neighborhood park), a Vet center is not a similar use as a senior center There are issues of addiction, criminal history, impact of PTSD and other factors that cause a Vet center to be a degradation to the quality is this neighborhood. Housing, consistent with the density in place,would be a better use though the residents deserve the park they were led to believe would be developed Our vets deserve much more support, but not at the expense of a residential community already impacted by dthb issues That's my view, both as a resident, and as a candidate for City Council Alexander S. Polsky, FCIArb/HKIACrb Mediator/Chartered Int'I Arbitrator JAMS/JAMS INTERNATIONAL HB -31- Item 1. - 21 Cell: 714-501-1321 Jamsadr.com/polsky Case Manager: Laura Aguilar 714-937-8256 lag uilambiamsadr.com Additional Affiliations: JAMS International, Hong Kong Int'I Arbitration Centre; ICC; ABA House of Delegates; Adjunct at USC Law School. IF RELATED TO MY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THIS MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT AND PROTECTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS. Alexander Polsky and Polskymediation.com are part of the international ADR practice of JAMS/JAMS International, which provides dispute resolution services worldwide. Item 1. - 22 xB -32- Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 148 PM To: Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting Concerning Rodgers Park Attachments: 20150323- Ltr to HB re Rodgers Park pdf AGENDA COMMENT From:Jason Ebbens [mailto.lason@broedlowlewis.com] Sent:Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10.48 AM To: Katapodis,Jim Cc:Jeffrey Lewis, Fikes,Cathy, Gates, Michael, save rodgerspark@email com; anthonyclark carpio@latimes com Subject:April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting Concerning Rodgers Park Mr Katapodis, Attached please find letter of today's date, a copy of which has been sent via U S Mail. Thank you, Jason R.Ebbens Paralegal BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP 734 Silver Spur Road,Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estates,CA 190274 Tel (310)935-4001 1 Direct(310)945-2536 1 Fax (310)872-5389 Email Tason@BroedlowLewis com I Web www BroedlowLewis com This message may be covered by the attorney-client, attorney work product and/or other applicable legal privileges Unauthorized possession or use of this e-mail is prohibited If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,please contact the sender immediately. HB -33- Item 1. - 23 .�, . Juslf es_ - Ilv\i �11 Ic77tlOf7 � ��t�E'��c7tC.(�f"dCtltlO]e"� March 23, 2016 VIA E-MAIL (jim.katapodis(&,,surfcity-hb.org) and U.S. Mail Hon. Mayor Jim Katapodis City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting Concerning Rodgers Park Dear Mayor Katapodis, This law firm has been observing with interest the City of Huntington Beach's proceedings concerning the future of Rodgers Park The park was donated by Chevron to the City in 1917 with the restriction that the property be used "as a public park and for no other purpose" By way of background,I am a land use attorney in Palos Verdes Over the past two years,I have litigated against the City of Palos Verdes Estates regarding that city's sale of parkland to a private party for private use The property in question had a deed restriction from the 1940's that required the deed to be used as parkland "forever"That sale was struck down in May 2015 to be an illegal breach of the public trust and an ultra vines act. (See Cagensfor Enforcement of Parkland Covenants v Palos Verdes Estates,LASC Case No. BS BS142768) The Los Angeles Superior Court reversed the illegal sale and ordered the City to pay the prevailing parties over$200,000 in attorney's fees. With that background in mind, I write to you to urge you and the other members of the City Council to vote to use Rodgers Park's as park—consistent with the 1917 deed restrictions—rather than the use currently contemplated as either a residential development or a rental community hall Neither use would be consistent with the requirement that the property be used "as a public park and for no other purposes " I understand that your City Attorney has advised the City that the deed restrictions from the 1917 deed from Chevron have expired under the Marketable Title Act A similar argument was made unsuccessfully in litigation between the Palos Verdes Unified School District and the Palos Verdes Homes Association in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No BC431020. See the enclosed judgment In the enclosed judgment, the Los Angeles Superior Court found that the Marketable Title Act did not apply to deed restrictions requiring that donated property be used forever for restricted, public purposes The Palos Verdes Homes Association argued successfully that the deed restrictions were enforceable notwithstanding the Marketable Title Act as a matter of contract between the Association (grantor) and the School District p 310 935 4001 f 310 872 5389 734 Silver Shur Road Suite 300 1 Rolling Hills Estate CA 90274 Item 1. - 24 broe HB -342 I ha I �°O 7 yid _h_3 =01% ME (Grantee) The Homes Association also argued successfully that as an equitable servitude, the deed restriction survived the Marketable Title Act The Homes Association also argued successfully that the Marketable Title Act does not apply when a private party donates land to a public entity for public purposes (See County v Handley (2007) 155 Cal App 4th 566, 571) The case of Roberts v. Caty of Palos Verdes Estates(1949) 93 Cal App.2d 545 ("Roberts") is also instructive. In Roberts, the Court of Appeal held that"where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts, at 547). Courts have guarded zealously the restrictive covenants in donations of property for public use as the foregoing cited decisions will reveal Such an effort on the part of a municipality if successful may be but the o ening wedge and, as stated in Kelly v. Town of Hayivard, supra, [ (1923� 192 Cal. 242, 219 P 749], `some future board might claim that under their discretion a corporation yard and rock- pile for the employment of prisoners, and other very useful adjuncts to the administration of the economic affairs of the town, might be located thereupon, until the entire space was fully so occupied. "What a city council or board of trustees would like to do under whatever guise it may be proposed is not the test as to the validity of the proposal. The terms of the deed alone are controlling. "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions "(1d, at p 548, 209 P 2d 7) These cases are not aberrations They are part of a larger,well-established body of law concerning donations of property for public purposes The lesson from these cases is simple. When a city accepts property restricted to public park purposes, the city is thereafter barred from using the property for a non-park purpose notwithstanding the Marketable Title Act It is against this backdrop that I respectfully urge the City Council to- 1. Get a second legal opinion of whether the Marketable Title Act applies and the 1917 Chevron deed restrictions are no longer enforceable in light of the authorities and arguments discussed above 2 Get a second legal opinion as to whether the City has the power to lawfully divert a donated park for a non-park purposes in light of the deed restrictions on the property 3 Vote to only use the property for park purposes HB -35- Item 1. - 25 Ivi.0, h -'3 - -1 -, LIM My firm will continue to monitor these proceedings with great interest Thank you for your service to the City of Huntington Beach. Very truly yours, BROEDLOW LEWIS LLP Jeffrey Leans cc Cathy Fikes (dkes@surfcity-hb org) Michael E Gates, Esq. ( ifichael.Gates(cDsurfcity-hb org) Catherine Johnson (saverodgerspark e,gmail com) Anthony Clark Carpio (anthonyclark c2Mio(cDlatimes com) End Item 1. - 26 HB -36- f 1 1 FILED SUPERIOR COURT OFCALIFORNIA , COUNTYOFLOSANGFUS 2 3 SEP 2 2 2011 John A. le,Exccu_twe OOicez/Cleft a RECEIVED By �� °c °Iy Lwd3 k Itm 5 AUG 2 L 2 0 11 6 DEPT. 95 s SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT ' 11 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED Case No. BC431020 12 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Assigned to the Honorable Richard Fruin, 13 Plaintiff, Department 15 14 v, 'PROPOSE-Hj-JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT PALOS VERDES 15 PALOS VERDES HOMES ASSOCIATION, HOMES ASSOCIATION FOR QUIET a California corporation; CITY OF PALOS TITLE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 16 VERDES ESTATES; and DOES I through 17 20, as Defendants. 19 20 This action was tried to the Court sitting without a jury on March 29 and 30 and April 21 1 and 4, 20I1, with argument on April 14, 2011 and supplemental argument on May 20, 22 2011 Jeffrey L. Parker of the law firm Robinson & Parker, LLP represented plaintiff Palos 23 Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (the "School District"). Andrew J. Haley and 24 JAndrew S. Pauly, of the law firm Greenwald, Pauly, Foster & Miller, A Professional 25 Corporation, represented defendant Palos Verdes Homes Association (the "Homes 26 Association"). Y 2r, Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented, the written and oral argument 2$�' of counsel, and having already filed a Statement of Decision ont�t 2011, and good 1 1289339 1 -21406 001 HB -37- 1PROPOSEDIJUDItem 1. - 27 ► cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that 2 judgment on the two causes of action in the School District's First Amended Complaint is 3 entered in favor of the Homes Association, and against the School District, as follows: 4 1 This Judgment affects that real property located in the City of Palos Verdes 5 Estates, County of Los Angeles, State of California commonly known as Lots C and D of 6 Tract 7331 (the"Property") and legally described as- 7 LOTS C AND D OF TRACT 7331, IN THE CITY OF PALOS 8 VERDES ESTATES AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 102 9 PAGE(S) 46 TO 50 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF 10 THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY ► ► AKA APN 7542-002-900 AND 7542-002-901 12 2. As of the filing of the Complaint on February 1, 2010, the School District held 13 and continues to hold its interest in the Property as a fee simple owner pursuant to that 14 certain Grant Deed, dated December 7, 1938, from the Homes Association to the School 15 District, recorded January 31, 1939 in Book 16374 Page 140 in the Official Records of Los 16 Angeles County (the "1938 Grant Deed"), which Property was originally granted in fee 17 simple to the Homes Association by Grant Deed, dated June 29, 1925 from Bank of 18 America, as trustee, recorded .tune 30, 1925 in Book 4459 Page 123 in the Official Records 19 of Los Angeles County (the"1925 Grant Deed"). 20 3 The Property remains subject to the restrictions set forth in the 1925 Grant 21 Deed (the "1925 Restrictions"), which 1925 Restrictions are valid and enforceable equitable 22 servitudes against the Property enforceable by injunction by the dominant tenements of the 23 1925 Restrictions The dominant tenements of the 1925, Restrictions are the residents of 24 Tract 4400 (the City of Palos Verdes Estates) and Tract 6881 (the Miraleste district of 25 Rancho Palos Verdes). 26 4 The Property also remains subject to the restrictions set forth in the 1938 Grant Deed (the "1938 Restrictions"), including that the Property may not be used for any purpose 28 other than for the establishment and maintenance of public schools, parks, playgrounds 2 Item 1. - 28' HB -38- IPROPOSEDI JUDGMENT I land/or recreation areas. The 1938 Restrictions are valid and enforceable equitable servitudes 2 against the Property enforceable by injunction by the dominant tenements of the 1938 3 Restrictions. The dominant tenements of the 1938 Restrictions are the residents of Tract 4 4400 (the City of Palos Verdes Estates) and Tract 6881 (the Miraleste district of Rancho 5 Palos Verdes). 6 5. The 1938 Grant Deed created a binding contract between the School District 7 and the Homes Association, which contract restricted the use that the School District can 8 make of the Property to only public schools, parks, playgrounds and/or recreation areas This 9 contract (including the use restrictions set forth therein) continues to remain valid and io enforceable and a violation of the restrictions set forth in such contract would cause 11 irreparable harm to the development plan for Tract 7331 — Lunada Bay — Palos Verdes Estate 12 that can be judicially enjoined. . 13 6. The Marketable Record Title Act, Civil Code §§ 880.020, et seq., (the 1 4 "MRTA") does not apply to the 1925 Restrictions or the 1938 Restrictions. 15 7 The Property also remains subject to all other conditions, covenants, 16 restrictions and reservations of record, including, but not limited to, that certain Declaration 17 No. I — Declaration of Establishment of Basic Protective Restrictions, Conditions, Covenants 18 Reservations, Liens and Charges for Palos Verdes Estates, recorded July 5, 1923 in Book 19 2360, Page 231 of the Official Records of Los Angeles County (including all amendments 20 thereto of record) ("Declaration No. I") and that certain Declaration No. 21 of Establishment 21 of Local Protective Restrictions, Conditions, Covenants, Reservations, Liens and Charges for 22 Tract 7331 — Lunada Bay — Palos Verdes Estates, recorded September 29, 1924 in Book 23 3434 Page 165 of the Official Records of Los Angeles County (including all amendments 24 thereto of record) ("Declaration No. 21"). 25 8. Notwithstanding the School District's ownership of the Property, the Property 26 remains subject to the same policies and procedures that the Homes Association applies to 27". other properties in that area of the City of Palos Verdes as established under Declaration No 28.= 1 and Declaration No 21, including the Art Jury 3 IPROPOSEDI JUD1- 1289339 1-21406 001 HB -39- Item 1. - 29 1 2 she!! rtin with !he Prepe" 3 10 The School District shall take nothing on Its First Amended Complaint. a 11 The l olnes Association is the prevailing party. The Court awards costs of fits 5 in favor of the Hoines Association and against the School District G pursuant to a timely filed and served Memorandum of Costs. 8 feyep of ihe Remes Asseeiatieft ef id againgt the Seheel Distriet purquent to a timely filed and 9 10 ° II t 12 13 4�,t4ft", 14 DATED. 15 HONORA8 LE-RICHARD FRUIN IG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 17 Respectfully submitted by: 18 DATED: August 22, 2011 19 GREENWALD, PAULY, FOSTER& MILLER, A Professional Corporation 20 ANDREW S, PAULY (SBN 90145) ANDREW J HALEY (SBN 202900) 21 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 400 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 22 Telephone. (310) 451-8001 23 SIDNEY F. CROFT, ESQ 3858 Carson Street, Suite 127 24 Torrance, CA 90503-6705 Tel (310) 316-8090 25 26 By- ' 27` D W J. H EY "IA torn ys for Defendant zs� PALOS VE HOMES ASSOCIATION � M 4 Item 1. - 30 i HB -40- IPROPOSEDI JUDGMENT I Greenwald.-Pauly, 1 Foster B Miller A Professional Corporation PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; business address is 1299 Ocean Avenue, a Suite 400, Santa Monica, California 90401-1Omy 5 On August 22, 2011, I served the foregoing document(s) described as 1PROPOSEDI JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT PALOS VERDES HOMES ASSOCIATION FOR QUIET 6 TITLE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to the addressee(s) as follows: 7 PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 8 Q BY MAIL. 1 caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Santa Monica, 9 California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily familiar with the firms practice of collection and processing correspondence for 10 mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. 11 ❑ BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope by hand to the 12 offices of the addressee. ❑ BY FEDEX: The FedEx package tracking number for this envelo a is ate . 13 , and the envelope was sent [mode) for receipt on fday], 1a ❑ BY ELECTRONIC MEANS: A courtesy copy of the above-referenced document 15 was transmitted by O facsimile and/or 0 e-mail transmission; said transmission was reported as complete and without error. 16 D Executed on August 22, 2011, at Santa Monica, California. 17 X (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 18 California that the above is true and correct. 19 ❑ (Federal) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Krt at whose direction the service was zo made. 21 22 LL 6,-0, 23 I�Anfy M. BARONE 24 25 26 27 28F 1289350 1 -•21406 001 HB -41- Item 1. - 31 Greenwald,Pauly. Foster&Miller A Professlonal Corporation SERVICE LIST 1 Palos Verdes Peninsula U►lifred School District v. Palos Verdes Honres Association, et al. 2 Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC431020 3 Jeffrey L. Parker, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff Robinson& Parker LLP PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED 4 21535 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 210 SCHOOL DISTRICT Torrance, CA 90503 Fax: (310) 792-2201 5 E-Mail: jeff@robinsonparker.com 6 Sidney F. Croft, Esq Co-Counsel for Defendant 7 3858 Carson Street, Suite 127 PALOS VERDES HOMES ASSOCIATION Torrance, CA 90503-6705 Fax: (310) 540-4364 8 E-Mail' sfcroftlaw@aol corn 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 r�. M Item 1. - 32 ooi HB -42- l 1 2 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA a FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE--I hereby certify that I delivered a true copy of the STATEMENT OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT ALOS VERDES HOMES s ASSOCIATION FOR QUIET TITLE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF to counsel named below s by placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below in such manner as to 10 cause it to be deposited with postage prepaid in the U. S. Mail on the date shown below in the 11 ordinary course . 12 13 DATED. September 22, 2011 JOHN A CLARKE, Executive Officer/Clerk la By: 15 L KLEIN, DEPUTY CLERK 16 DEPARTMENT 15 17 18 1s ROBINSON & PARKER JEFFREY L. PARKER 20 21 21535 HAWTHORNE BLVD SUITE 210 zz TORRANCE, CA 90503 23 24 GREENWALD, PAULY, FOSTER, & MILLER 25 ANDREW J. HALEY 26 1299 OCEAN AVE SUITE 400 27 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-9889 za �,- ti FROOF OF SERVICE H13 -43- Item 1. - 33 Esparza, Patty From: Dombo, Johanna Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 2 38 PM To Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject: FW Rodger's Senior Center AGENDA COMMENT From:Janice Hopkins [mailto hopkinsa@uci edu] Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 11 31 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rodger's Senior Center As a resident for over 20 years in downtown Huntington Beach I would like to express my desire, along with many of my neighbors to revert the site to a park The preference is not to turn the site into a hall which can be rented out or for residential housing We are very much in need of more open space downtown to keep up the quality of life for the residents Janice Hopkins 415 9'h Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUPPLEMENTAL EMENTAL. COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: (� Agenda Item No. 1 Esparza, Patty From Dombo, Johanna Sent Thursday, March 31, 2016 10 47 AM To- Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject FW Roger Senior Center AGENDA COMMENT -----Original Message----- From: Chris Varga [mailto.christopher.l.varga(@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:44 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Roger Senior Center There has been many thoughts and ideas about the future use of the ld Roger's Senior Center. I am in favor of returning the land to its original intent of a park for the downtown community. One point I would like bring up is the need for some parkland in this area. As you well know the downtown area is very densely populated. Probably near the highest in the city. The vast ma]ority of the new housing in downtown HB is built from curb to alley with no green space in these 3 story houses. If ever there was a need for a green park it is in downtown. Please consider the lack of green space in downtown HB when determining the future of this people of the city owned public land. We need a park, Sincerely, Chris Varga 508 18th St HB, CA 92648 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: LI& Agenda Item No. y V i Esparza, Patty From: Fikes, Cathy Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3 30 PM To- Agenda Comment Cc: Fikes, Cathy, CITY COUNCIL Subject. FW Rogers Senior Center AGENDA COMMENT From: Elaine/Bill Parker [mailto•macleod4(abearthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10.24 AM To: Katapodis, Jim Cc: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Rogers Senior Center Mayor J Katapodis Mayor Pro Tem D Sullivan City Council Members SUPPLEMENTAL Ms J Hardy COMMUNICATION Mr B O'Connell feting Date; v— Mr EPeterson nda Item No.� Ms B Delglize Mr M Posey This is written in response to an item on the April 4th agenda. Unfortunately, we cannot be there to speak so this letter will present our views In 2006, the city council made a promise to the people of Huntington Beach that if we backed and voted for the new Senior Center in Huntington Beach Central Park, that in turn the city council would make sure that the Rogers Senior Center would revert back to downtown residents' use. This was the argument and the rationale used to get voters to vote for the new Senior Center and was included in the ballot measure booklet Now the city is saying sorry that promise was not binding. and we refuse to honor it Since when does a promise become non-binding? An oral contract between the city and the citizens is a contract Why would the city council go back on its word to the people? If you can answer that, please do We, the citizens, have become so tired of politicians promising one thing and then going back on their word For Huntington Beach, this needs to stop and keeping the promise of returning the center to the citizens is a first step i Then again, the city's slogan is "Parks Make Life Better" Well, why not make lives better and return the Rogers Center into a park The downtown area is so built-up that a park would be a respite and a place for families and children to enjoy a small part of the outdoors The idea of a Veteran's Hall is an interesting one but what would it be used for? Do veteran's needed this? Would the city rent out the space to other than veteran's affairs? If so, then why call it a Veteran's Hall if the majority of the time, and I believe it would be, would not be used for veterans Both of us are veterans—USAF and USN and are acutely aware of veteran's needs but we both agree that the city does not need a veteran's hall Place a plaque in the park commemorating all veterans of all wars would be a fitting tribute Although we do not live downtown, we can have empathy for the folks that do live there The resulting traffic, congestion would be worse than it is now The citizens of downtown definitely do not deserve any further traffic congestion that they already have We certainly hope that you do the right thing and keep your promise, not only to the downtown residents, but also to all Huntington Beach residents REMEMBER "PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER" Sincerely, Bill and Elaine Parker, z