REQUEi;,.)FOR CITY COUNCIL,NCTION
October 23, 1986
Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat
Prepared by: Melvin M. Bowman, Director, Community Service Subject: OPERATING -AGREEMENT FOR BOLSA CHICA STAT
Consistent with Council Policy? [ )1 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The State Department of Parks and Recreation has prepared a new agreement for city operation of a portion of the Bolsa Chica State Beach.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the new operating agreement with the State of California for operation of a portion of the Bolsa Chica State Beach to commence November 1, 1986. and authorize Mayor to execute same.
ANALYSIS
At its August 4, 1986 meeting, City Council approved the operating agreement with the State of California for city operation of that portion of the Bolsa Chica State Beach from the pier north to the westerly city limits. When the agreement went to the state for execution, a state representative felt that some items in the agreement should be more clearly defined, specifically, the can- cellation procedure if the city's development plans and specifications were not approved by the state, and the exact location of the parking lot and concession stand covered by the agreement.
FUNDING SOURCE
1/one.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Negotiate with state to acquire beach through fee simple title.
2. Do not enter into a long term lease agreement with the state.
ATTACHMENT
Operating Agreement for Bolsa Chica State Beach
MMB:cs
Date
PIO 4/84
le
idist-7‘04e`
etCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9 (9 se„.4,INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION hso,. 340,p
ors4e,"1-4:07e.ifia.1/4,
To Charles W. Thompson
City Administrator
Subject City Operation of Bolsa Chica
State Beach
ax Bowman
Director, Community Services
January 13, 1987
The operating agreement with the State Department of Parks and Recreation for a portion of the Bolsa Chica State Beach has been executed by the state. The city will be taking over operation of the beach from the pier north to the westerly city limits, approximately 2.3 miles, effective February 1, 1987.
1,1MB:cs
cc: Department Heads
V/s(REQUE-4)FOR CITY COUNCILACTION
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Charles W. Thompson, City Administra
Melvin M. Bowman, Director, Co:nmunity Servic
OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIF° NIA FOR
CIRCA STATE BEACH
Consistent with Council Policy? 1 Yes New Policy or Exception ere 4ii a/5Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
There is a need for the city to acquire control of the beachfront between the pier and the west city limits in order to further implement the goals and objec- tives of the downtown specific and main pier redevelopment plans.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the agreement with the State of California for operation of Bolsa Chica State Park to commence October 1, 1986; authorize Mayor to execute same; and allocate $47,200 from the unappropriated fund balance for personnel and operating expenses for FY86/87.
ANALYSIS
The State Parks and Recreation Department has submitted a proposed agreement for the care, maintenance and operation of state beach property north of the municipal pier to the west city limits. The agreement is for a period of twenty years with a twenty year option. The city would be given control of this property for recreational and park purposes. The city would pay for the development, maintenance and operation of the area and receive all direct revenue therefrom. Any development, construction or improvements to this property would be subject to prior written approval of the state.
Over the past several years, with the support of State Parks and Recreation and the assistance of the State Coastal Conservancy, the city has made great strides in the revitalization of this under developed and under utilized section of state beach. These improvements were part of the implementatiOn efforts of the city's downtown specific and main pier redevelopment plans. City jurisdic- tion and control of the beach north of the pier are critical to the further implementation of the goals and objectives of these adopted plans. Because of the city's logistical capabilities, this operational change could be accomplished quickly and cost effectively. Annual personnel and operating expenses are estimated to be $165,000 (recurrent personnel - $133,000; operating $32,000) , which would be offset by concession revenue, tax increments from the redevelopment agency and sales tax
A city operated beach between the pier and the west city limits would be bene- ficial to all parties. Most importantly, the safety of the public would be Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Prepared by:
Subject:
PIO 4184
On motion by MacAllister, second Kelly, Council adopted Resolution No. 5688 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES: None
ABSENT: Finley
APPROVED OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH
The City Clerk presented a communication from the Community Services Director transmitting an Operating Agreement between the City and State of California for the beachfront between the pier and the west city limits in order to fur- ther implement the goals and objectives of the Downtown Specific and Main Pier Redevelopment Plans. E2hibits•A-C on file in the City Clerk's Office. - Following discussion, a motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to approve and authorize e yecution of the agreement between the State and City for operation of Bolsa Chica State Park to commence October 1, 1986 and approve an allocation of 47,200 from the unappropriated fund balance for per- sonnel and operating e ypenses for FY 1986-87. The motion.carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote:.
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Green, Thomas
NOES: Mandic
ABSENT: Finley
ORDINANCE NO 2855 - CONTINUED TO 8/18/86 - OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING REGULA-
TIONS - COUNCILMAN THOMAS TO ASSIST STAFF IN DRAFTING ALTERNATE ORDINANCE The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2855 for Council consideration - "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNI- CIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 10.44.060 "OVERSIZED VEHICLE PARKING REGULA- TIONS!"
Discussion was held regarding state law as it pertains to mandating that over- wide or oversized vehicles parking on arterial highways during certain hours of the day.
Councilman Thomas stated he would not vote on Ordinance No 2855 because of a possible conflict of interest.
On motion by MacAllister, second Green, Council continued consideration of Ordinance No. 2855 to August 18, 1986 to allow staff time to draft an alter- nate ordinance for Council to compare with this proposed ordinance. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kelly, MacAllister, Mandic, Bailey, Green
NOES: None
NOT VOTING: Thomas
ABSENT: Finley
The foregoing instrument is a correct copyOf the original , on file . in this office. "- Attest
... ......luIr4A,m. • Pt/ENDA/ORM •
City Clerk and of ate
. CityCouncil of the City of i-lunlinglon Beach, Cal.
By
R RTJ.FR
Deputy City Adkninis rtor
Administrative Servic epartment
RJF:AR:skd
2676j
Li
Li
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION •
To
Subiect
CRIRLES W. THOMPSON
City ciministrator
APPRO Z1 lATION FOR CITY
OPERATIONk OF BOLSA CH1CA
STATE PARK;F1S 86-34
From ROBERT J. FRANZ
Deputy .7 Administrator
Date JULY 2a, 1986
As requested under the euthorit of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Report has been prepared and submitted relative to the City's contemplated expense for maintaining and operating the Boise .Chica State Prk commencing/ 10/01/86. As anticipated by the requesting entity, an appropriation of $ 200 v:ould be adequate for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
An affirmative response by the City Coun would reduce the balance of the City's unaudited, unappropriated General Fund to $2,0s 748.
Li
22 24
25,
26,
27 ccon- PAPER
Sy•I re Or CA.1•00••••
:11 St • b
\7.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
OPERATING AGREEMENT
BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH
Paragraph Page
1. Term 2
2. Use of Premises 2
3. Concessions 3
4. Fees 4
5. Annual Reports 4
6. Beach Erosion Control 5
7. Construction of Improvements 7 . • • • • 6
8. Title 7
9. Eminent Domain 7
10. Hold Harmless 8
11. Assignment 9
12. Notices 9
13. Termination 10
14. Real Property Acquisition 12
15. Nondiscrimination 13
16. Limitation 13
17. Paragraph Titles 13
18. Contracts in Counterparts 13
Signatures 14
Exhibit(s)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 9
10 11
12 13
14;
15,
16;
17. 18:
Li
19. 20
21 0••
• 1/4%)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
To
Subject
CHARLES W. THOMPSON
City Administrator
APPROPRIATION FOR CITY
OPERATIONS OF 130LSA CHICA
STATE PARK, FIS 86-34
From ROBERT J. FRANZ
Deputy City Administrator
Date JULY 25, 1986
As requested under the authority of Resolution 4832, a Fiscal Impact Report has been prepared and submitted relative to the City's contemplated expense for maintaining and operating the Boise Chica State Park commencing 10/01/86. As anticipated by the requesting entity, an appropriation of $47,200 would be adequate for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
An affirmative response by the City Council would reduce the balance of the City's unaudited, unappropriated General Fund to $2,002,748.
1 1, 64140/pRe ; .RT J. FR' • Z
Depu1y City A. mistrator
Administrative Services Department
RJF:AR:skd
2676j
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION July 21, 1986
OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH enhanced by the continuity of lifeguard, maintenance and law enforcement services throughout this densely populated and active beachfront in the "heart of the city." The year-round lifeguard tower on the pier provides the highest level of lifeguard observational service to this area. City beach and land- scaping services could easily be expanded to include this beach area. The city is presently maintaining the "bluff top landscaped area." The city police department would also be very effective in patroling the area, reducing criminal activity by increased surveillance (24-hour patrol, communications center, and helicopters.) Control of the area would also allow the city to propose improve- ments and future developments equally on both sides of the pier. This approach will be more economical and help the city establish a strong visitor attracting mode in the downtown. The aerial photo (Exhibit "A") and redevelopment map (Exhibit "B") illustrate how vital this area is to the future planning of the city and present a clear picture of the operational relationship between the beach areas north and south of the pier. City and state park employees are in support of this agreement. No displacement of permanent state employees would occur. The city would also be amenable to working with the state to absorb any recurrent positions that would be affected by this agreement.
FUNDING SOURCE
Unappropriated General Fund Balance
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Negotiate with state to acquire beach area through fee simple title.
2. Negotiate with state for a longer term operating agreement.
3. Advise state that the city is not interested in operating this beach area.
ATTACHMENTS
Financial Impact Statement
Agreement
Aerial photo (Exhibit "A")
Redevelopment map (Exhibit "B")
MMB:cs
,.......7. ,7,..,...-7.5..,
"---' -4-444 ilfr\--'i c-., .,,, City of Huntington Beachi .. . __ _, .
.1:-.
1,1--"i
• I
4-,
•
., .1• 2000 MAIN STREET
........................ .. .. ~.................—......
CALIFORNIA 92648
—
e .
ki''),
OFFICE OF TILE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
January 9, 1987
Mr. Tom S. Miller
Superintendent Orange Coast District
State Department of Parks and Recreation
18331 Enterprise Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re: Operating Agreement for Bolsa Chica State Beach
It is the city's understanding that' the intent of the
language contained in subject agreement Section 13,
Termination, (lines 15, 16 and 17 of page 9) is that
the city would be reimbursed for the cost of facilities placed, created or developed by the city on the
premises with funds other than those realized through
income derived from the operation of said property.
This is the same concept as referred to in subject
agreement Section 9, Eminent Domain, (lines 22, 23,
24 and 25 of page 6).
CHARLES W. THOMPSON
City Administrator
CWT:cs
cc: Melvin M. Bowman, Dire:tor, Community Services
RECEIVED
JAN 1 2 1997
Economic itk . .if airs
Dept: of Pr erk% OP, Refrecticin
Telephone (714) 536-5202
Submitted to: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by:Charles W. Thompson, City Admin i rata
Melvin M. Bowman, Acting Director, Community Services----)12)61-40,04,------- CITY TAKEOVER OF HUNTINGTON AND BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACHESi i4.....
DiArott..
Thfslet) 574 — v nel er"te„F°04: ois sid4 losji,„
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The State Department of Parks and Recreation has proposed that the city assume total operational responsibility for Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches.
Prepared by:
Subject:
(ca./
(LREQUEST' FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION aidir
February 13, 1984Date
RECOMMENDATION
Direct City Administrator to negotiate with state for a final operating agree- ment for Huntington and Bolsa Chica State Beaches to become effective May 1, 1984, if feasible, and an alternate date of January I, 1985.
ANALYSIS
The City Council at its January 3, 1984 meeting adopted Resolution No. 5345 authorizing staff to enter into negotiations with the state for the operation and management of state beaches within the city limits. The advantages of city operation and management of state beaches fall into three categories:
Safety: City police department could be very effective in patrolling the beaches and reducing criminal activity by increased surveillance. (Twenty-four hour patrol, communication center and helicopters. ) There are remote areas along Bolsa Chica State Beach where crime continues to be a problem. The state has limited enforcement capa- bility, no jail and must rely on county sheriff for backup. The city has an existing police force, jail and the necessary backup to provide effective enforcement.
Water safety would also benefit from city management since the city has an established marine safety division which could be expanded to Include managing the state beach.
Maintenance: City beach maintenance division and parks, tree and landscaping division perform similar functions throughout the city.
Local maintenance management means a closer span of control and elimination of costly duplication. Using the city's landscape expertise translates to better utilization of species adapted to the local climate and environment, and more cost effective landscape maintenance proce- dures. The existing organizational capabilities could be easily expanded to manage the additional maintenance tasks.
N° 4181
r;•,..01
Request for City Council Action
Subj: CITY TAKEOVER OF HUNTINGTON AND
BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACHES
February 13, 1984
Page Two
Economics: Cost-cutting advantages are available by concise use of resources under a proven management system and elimination of costly overlap and duplication of service that exists with parallel systems.
The city already has an effective, experienced management structure.
Additional personnel can be accommodated without additional super- vision. This will result in a cost-effective operation.
The city has expertise in beach management, demonstrated by an extremely well-run and cost effective beach. This management structure can be expanded to include the state beaches which are presently operated at a deficit. It is the city's projection through cost saving management of reducing duplication of service that the state beaches will be self supporting.
Early this month, city staff met with state representatives and the following items were agreed upon by both parties:
- Operation of state beaches would be under an operating agreement, not a transfer of property or ownership;
- No state subsidy would be involved; however, the city would assume all facilities and improvements as constructed including Phase 11 development when completed;
- Pending lawsuits against the state which occurred before the effective date of the operating agreement would remain responsibility of state.
Expenses include allocation of funds to cover costs of liability insurance;
- Concession agreements would be transferred to city with city receiving rental revenue:
Operator on Bolsa Chica has 21 years remaining on 25 year agree- ment; operator on Huntington has four years left on a five year agreement.
- City would not be responsible for moving expenses of state employees affected by takeover;
- Thirty-foot right-of-way from Pacific Coast Highway to newly built block wall at Huntington State Beach will not be part of operating agreement; maintenance for that area will remain state's responsi- bility;
- Capital improvements by city on state beaches will require state approval;
- City has prerogative of charging reasonable fees for parking, special events, camping, etc.;
- State beach names must remain the same;
- Terms of operating agreement will be negotiated for no less than 25 years and no more than 50;
- City has right to establish operating hours and laws at its dis- cretion;
- Two year cancellation clause by either party.
Request for City Council Action
Subj: CITY TAKEOVER OF HUNTINGTON AND
BOLSA C/IICA STATE BEACHES
February 13, 1984
Page Three
We have estimated total expenditures for FY84/85 at $2,640,000 (Exhibit C).
Included in this expenditure is $87,000 for capital outlay equipment amor- tized from three to twenty years (Exhibit D). We would be adding twenty- three permanent employees with the takeover, twelve in public safety and eleven in maintenance and parking facility operations. In negotiations with the state, we advised we would consider transferring any state employ- ees who qualified for specific classifications.
Estimated income for FY84/85 is $2,595,000. First year estimated deficit would be $45,000. The remaining four years of the five-year project, FY86 through FY89, show a slight increase each year for an overall pro- jected program of $139,000 income over expenses (Exhibit A). A revenue breakdown is shown in Exhibit B.
FUNDING SOURCE
General Fund
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I) Negotiate with state for operation of only one beach, rather than both; 2) Renegotiate to include state subsidy for operation of beaches, guaran- teeing a cost effective program;
3) Discontinue negotiations and advise state that city is not interested in operating state beaches at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibits A through D.
MMB:cs
HUNTINGTON AND BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACHES
ESTIMATED EXPENSES AND REVENUES
JULY 1, 1984 - JUNE 30, 1989
EXPENSES
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 TOTAL
Personnel &
Operating . $2,553,000 $2,681,000 $2,814,000 $2,955,000 $3,103,000 $14,106,000 Capital Outlay 87,000 87,000 89,000 91,000 93,000 447,000 TOTAL $2,640,000 $2,768,000 2,903,000 3,046,000 3,196,000 $14,553,000 1984-85 1985-86
I N C 0_ M E
1987-88 1988-89 TOTAL1986-87
Parking &
Camping $2,370,000 $2,546,000 $2,723,000 $2,824,000 $3,098,000 $13,561,000 Oil & Gas Tax 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Concessions 25,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 131,000
TOTAL 2,595,000 2,771,000 2,949,000 3,051,000 3,326,000 14,692,000 Income Over
Expenses ($45,000) $3,000 $46,000 $5,000 $130,000 $139,000 EXHIBIT "A"
010E/ t) - 2/11./0„1F
HUNTINGTON AND BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACHES
Fiscal Year v-
REVENUE BREAKDOWN
1984-85 Day Use $3 year round $ 2,068,000
Camping $12 - 105 days (300 spaces) 302,000
$ 2,370,000
1985-86 Day Use $4 summer weekends
& holidays $ 816,000
Day Use $3 all other days 1,392,000
Camping $14 - 105 days (300 spaces) 338,000
$ 2,546,000
1986-87 Day Use $4 summer (105 days) $ 1,646,000
Day Use $3 all other days (260 days) 739,000
Camping $14 - 105 days (300 spaces) 338,000
$ 2,723,000
1987-88 Day Use $4 summer (105 days) $ 1,716,000
Day Use $3 all other days (260 days) 766,000
Camping $14 - 105 days (300 spaces) 342,000
$ 2,824,000
1988-89 Day Use $5 summer weekends
& holidays $ 960,000
Day Use $4 all other days 1,775,000
Camping $16 - 105 days (300 spaces) 363 000
$ 3 098 000
TOTAL $13,561,000
EXHIBIT "B"
0105E/8 - 2/13/84F
64.) LI
HUNTINGTON AND BOLSA CH1CA STATE BEACHES
JULY 1, 1984 - JUNE 30, 1985
EXPENSES
Personnel _
Beach
Police
Public Works
Operating
$1,205,000
419,000
80,000
Sub-total $1,704,000
$ 492,000
7,000
315,000
35,000
Beach
Police
Public Works
Liability Insurance
Sub-total $ 849,000
*Capital Outlay
Beach $ 70,000
Police 17,000
Public Works N/A
Sub-total $ 87,000
. TOTAL $2 640 000
* Amortized/itemized list attached.
EXHIBIT "C"
0105E/2 - 2/13/84F
HUNTINGTON AND BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACHES
CAPITAL OUTLAY AMORTIZATION
Annual
Cost
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Number
Unit
Cost Total
Life
Span
- BEACH DIVISION
Beach Sanitizers 2 $41,000 $ 82,000 2.0 $ 5,465
Tractors 6 50,000 300,000 20 15,000
Beach Rakes 4 3,000 12,000 20 600
Tennant Sweeper 2 34,000 68,000 10 6,800
Sidekick Broom 1 9,500 9,500 •0 950
Dump Trucks 3 24,000 72,000 8 9,000
Pickup Trucks 8 11,000 88,000 8 11,000
Four Wheel Drive Pickup 2 12,500 25,000 8 3,125
Two Channel Radios 13 1,50) 19,500 10 1,950
Air Compressor 2 11,030 22,000 10 2,200
C-J 7 Jeeps 5 12,000 60,000 8 7,500
Jeep Cherokees 2 16,000 32,000 8 4,000
Speaker/Siren Units 7 400 2,800 10 280
Light Bars 7 700 4,900 10 490
Resuscitators 7 600 4,200 10 420
Spinal Injury Splints 7 250 1,750 15 115
Manikins 2 1,500 3,000 10 300
Ordinance Signs 12 200 2,400 5 480
Desks 4 475 1,900 20 95
Executive Chairs 4 275 1,100 10 110
Typewriters 2 750 • 1,500 10 150
Filing Cabinets 2 200 400. 20 20
$813,950 $70,050
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Four Wheel Drive 2 $15,000 $30,000 5 $6,000
Pack Set Radios 10 2,000 20,000 10 2,000.
ATC Units 12 2,135 25,600 3 8,530
$75,600
........_
$16,530
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
NONE.
EXHIBIT "D"
0105E/3 - 2/10/84
36 5-frb tec,ft
REQutL.
ST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
017,44n s
;Submitted by 3•W• Palm/Mary Lynn NirbYDepartment Planning & local Coastal Program Date Prepared January 4 , 19 79 Backup Material Attached Subject Huntington State Beach Development Plan
E3 Yes No
City Administrator's Comments
Approve as recommended.
e
rlD\ Res.-/i/x/
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
Statement of Issue:
City Staff from various departments have reviewed the Development Plan (July, 1978) which the California Department of Parks & Recreation has proposed for the further development of Huntington State Beach. A consensus statement defining suggestions by the City for improving the Plan has been sent directly to that State Agency.
Previous efforts to have City preferences and input considered by the State have been frustrated and largely ignored. The aim is to have the City input included in a comprehensive beach plan.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt the attached resolution supporting Staff efforts to effect coordinative planning for tne State Beach facilities within the jurisdiction of the City and establishing the LCP-CAC as development monitor.
Analysis:
Representatives from the Department of Public Works, Planning, Harbors and Beach, Recreation and Parks, Fire, Police and Administration heard a presentation on August 10, 1978 by the California Department of Parks and Recreation - Development Division. The 16602 Development Plan for Huntington State Beach, dated July, 1978, was explained and discussed.
Issues concerning capacities of beach and parking lots, facilities, parking, PCH, bike trail, transportation, pedestrian safety, recreational vehicles, signing, maintenance facilities and Least Tern habitat were discussed. Several coastal concerns were also expressed as input to the plan.
\PIO 31-18
RCA-LP
Jahuary 5, 1979
Information about the State Beach plans had been requested by the Local Coastal Program Staff early in 1978 in order to include necessary City interfaces in the Coastal Plan. This portion of the coastalplanning had to be deferred until the State Plan was developed. The Local Coastal Program has a task of coordinating plans for projects within the coastal zone consistent with Coastal Act policies.
Subsequent to the August 10 presentation, inter-department meetings were conducted to determine the City response to the plan features.
Iterative drafts produced the points of discussion in the November 6, 1978 letter to Mr. Russell Cahill, Director of the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
The input of the City Staff to a state Agency would be greatly enhanced by the Resolution of support of the City Council.
Continued efforts will no doubt be necessary to effect a final acceptable plan for this and also Bolsa Chica State Beach. The support of the Council behind these efforts will facilitate the input to the State of the City's design preferences. Also the Local Coastal Program will be aided in its progress toward a coastal plan.
The appointment of a monitor for this planning effort will serve to delegate the responsibility for keeping track of the continuing process of plan development. An associated responsibility will be the review of the EIR for this project. The Local Coastal Program- Citizen Advisory Committee is a logical group to assume this duty and it is willing to Go so."
Funding Source:
No funds are necessary.
Alternative Actions:
1) Support the City developing and/or operating the beach as a contractor to the State.
Respectfully submitted,
////
James W. Palmn
Acting Planning Director
JWP/MLN/dc
Attachment: Draft Resolution
cd
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648
;
L.)
41-11A le City of Huntington Beach
OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
November 6, 1978
Mr. Russell Cahill, Director
California Department of Parks & Recreation
Sacramento, CA.
Re: Huntington State Beach Development Plan --No. 16602 - July, 1978 Dear Mr. Cahill:
Through this communication, I am confirming the oral communications made as feedback from the City Staff to your Development Division on the Huntington Beach Development Plan referenced above. We appreciate your Department's briefing of City Staff on the Plan on August 10 and receipt of informal conments on November 6.
The City particularly approves of the number of entrances provided for in this plan. We feel these are necessary to provide the public accessibility to the beach resource, to relieve the congestion at Beach Boulevard, and to allow greater use of the entire beach area. Entrances at these four locations have been requested previously by the City, and we appreciate the provision in the plan for two new entrances immediately and the third entrance and upgrade of Beach Boulevard in the Phase II.
Although the number and location of the beach entrances meet with the City's approval, the design should be improved to provide for better traffic and pedestrian flows. The Beach Boulevard entrance particularly needs coordination to effect improved circulation in conjunction with the City Beach entrance at that same location. A concept drawing depicting certain improvements recomm- ended by the City's engineers is enclosed with this letter.
There are several issues concerning the State Beach development which the City, through this letter, is requesting that you address. The final Plan which the State adopts should include resolution of these issues. In the past fifteen years, the City has requested that its concerns be considered for the State Beaches in our jurisdiction. Many of these concerns are reiterated again here.
Presently the City is preparing its Local Coastal Plan (LCP) which is mandated to consider all activity occurring or likely to occur in its coastal zone.
Coordinating the activities of the various agencies and individuals who are Telephone (714) 536-5201
: .Novemher 6, 1978
1/4.)
involved in the coastal area to assure the overall resulting effect is in compliance with Coastal Act policies is an LCP task. The items important for local coastal planning are included in this listing.
1. Hove the comfort stations hack into the sand area. They will he nearer the beach users there, will impede the traffic flow in the parking lot less, and will provide space for additional parking in the lot. Use the released areas for additional parking and for improved entrance arrangements.
A better balance then will be provided between beach capacity and parking.
2. Provide turn-around area at the entrances large enough for buses. These would be used for auto drop-offs and bus route connections. They would relieve Pacific Coast Highway of additional traffic flows because the traffic may return up the arterial reducing impact to Pacific Coast Highway.
The southbound highway drop-off (turnouts) as they are depicted in the plan are placed in a position where pedestrizIns'may be endangered. This condition at least could be corrected by moving these turnouts farther from the corner and across from the parking lot rather than the traffic squeeze behind the concession stand.
3. We understand this plan to be based on c 100-foot right-of-way for Pacific Coast Highway. This is not compatible with the present plans to increase the carriage capacity of Pal by a widening project requiring a 120-foot right-of-way for six lanes or traffic and two parking lanes.* The dedication of some In to 20 feet of the old Pacific Electric right-of-way for this state highway project is requested. i1e BeacL Plan needs to consider and be compatible with the highway grading level planned.
Of special concern is that the seaward-most lane of Pal be available for metered parking to serve the short-ten or transient visitors. The only acceptable alternative would be a metered area within the beach parking area which would provdc this same service 24 hours per day.
4. Include a metered parking area in the Huntington State Beach (and also Bolsa (hica State Park) to allow for early users. Iluntington Beach has found these metered lots to be very successful on our beach.
In lieu of the metered lots, the operation schedule of the beach could be modified to provide access for early users. These users arc fishermen, surfers, and beach walkers who prefer to use the beach at dawn and thereafter.
If the parking lots are closed and locked, these early users will be excluded.
It is proposed that the parking lots be unlocked at dawn and entry to the . beach be unimpeded. If no fees were required until 9:00 a.m., for example, the parking lot attendants would not be required at the early hour. The California Coastal Act or 1976 requires increased public access. The present planned development of the beach could actually decrease existing access especially for this specific user group, without a provision for early- hour usage.
-*Note: Huntington Beach comments to the MR of the previous plan indicated at that time (Sept. 7, 1977) that 120' right-of-way would be minimally required. ,
November 6, 1978
• Page 3. L.)
5. Provision needs to be made at some of the entrances for charter buses to-enter the parking areas.
6. A statement should he included in the E1R that Least Terns, although they nest in the Protected sand area, feed in the Santa Ana River and on the wetlands to the north across Pacific Coast Highway. (lievelopment on that property could —iiirect this endangered species.) ihus the alternative of acquisition of that property should be considered.
7. Before the construction begins, review the architectural layout of all buildings and review the planting schedules and landscape plans with City staff to insure compatibility with local design and landscaping standards and to secure advice on species compatible with the local beach ecology. lbe landscaping should be planned to inprove the visual effects of the parking areas as seen from Pacific Coast Hight:ay. The City's experience has shown that additional attention to proper planting methods and soil improvement Will be cost effective and prevent high plant loss.
8. Use no fencing along Pacific Coast Highway within the City limits except that which is in ihe form of railings to protect the public from extreme changes in elevation. A sense of freedom for the people who use the beach will he provided. Pencing within the park used to direct and control move- ment of people should be of a material that is esthetically pleasing, strong, and of low maintenance, such as the high quality anodized alumhuun fencing that the City has used. It doesn't burn and, therefore, does not end up in the fire rings. It does not require paint and, therefore, there is no maintenance.
There is an initial high cost of installation but considering the long-term use of the facility it is very cost effective.
9. Provide drainage of the parking areas graded toward the ocean or a storm drain system. ibis will prevent the flooding over of Pacific Coast Highway during heavy runoff periods.
M. Provide in your plan for connections of the beach bike trail with the Santa Ana River Trail and across the bridge toward Newport Beach. 'the City prefers II pedestrian/bike overpass to the inland side of POI. An underpass large enough for hicylists would be subject to tidal flows which would umkc it unusable part of each day. Since the bridge over the Santa Ana River is subject to removal (hiring widening of the Pacific Coast Highway, specifying the exact implementation of the connection ;my be premature. However, a mapped locational designation for future develepment would be appropriate.
11. Plan and provide for a variable message sign system which will inform the public of access conditions at each or the entrances, whether there is parking available, etc. It is preferred that this system include exit directing signs on the San Diego Freeway. However, signing on Plookhurst, Magnolia, New and Beach far enough from the approaches to the beach to permit the driver to change direction to use another entrance or to turn arcund would be in sufficient. An alternative is a radio information service similar to an airport approach station. • ,b......ai.461.41.0
I November 6, 1978
12. Based upon a State-wide growth in demand For recreational vehicle (RV) overnight stopping spots, provide hookuds for RV's and a dump station.
With effectively no stopping place for RV's between lktheny State Beach and Ventura County; a real need for this public service is evident. There is no evidence that this demand will lessen in the near future. The actual design could show the vans and smaller IW's nearest the beach next to tables and perhaps shelters which are provided. The areas to the center of the lot could be diagonally striped to accommodate large RV's, charter buses, and trailer vehicles.
An alternative to the provision in this urban beach of the IW services would be to increase the operation of the more remote Bolsa Chica State Beach to the north to include additional RV facilities. These IW facilities should be available not just in off-season, as there is a regional need for additional campsites during the summer season.* As a third alternative, both beaches could provide this service.
13. The plan depicts no fire rings. A minimum.of IS new fire rings should be included. To serve the evening users, rirc rings at least designate fire areas and discourage open, uncontained rircs. Grouping these fire rings into one or two areas will aid in maintenance. Daily cleanout or the fire rings will be necessary to maintain the quality of the surrounding sand areas.
14. Picnic tables (not just snack tables at concessions) should be provided to serve short-term visitors, travelers, etc. These tables should be somewhat separated and identifiable from the highway. A section of metered parking spaces within the lot would serve the users of these tables. Large groups of tables, as at Bolsa Chien Beach, have been found to be unused because of their lack of separation for private use and easy access from parking.
IS. Ilie plan should discuss why inland parking and bus trams to the beach arc not to be utilized.
16. This is a request that the State reconsider the City of Huntington Beach as a contract operator for the State beaches in the corporate limits or Huntington Beach. Maintenance would be included as a City responsibility. The City has a long history and knowledge of beach operation and maintenance. This arrangement would certainly relieve the State of its many prohlems .or maintaining two widely separated beaches. It would also provide for a more cost-effective operation.
17. An expanded 1:IR is needed to provide information necessary to the evaluation of this project; also a cost analysis which indicates the annual cost of operation and maintenance as proposed. The City of Huntington Beach has experi Mee with developing and operating beaches in a cost effective manner and can provide advice on design criteria based on maintenance and (=rational cost. campgrounds are filled to capacity over 80 nights each sumwr, fully reserved months in advance, and there is a lack of additional Park System land for new campgrounds." Dopt. or Parks 6 Recreation.
Li
." ,State Parks ti Recreation
• Noveacr 6, 1978 L)'Page S.
The plan needs to discuss the facilitation of access for the 20,000 more people for whom there is capacity, even if in a later phase, etc. A phased development plan would present such provisions.
18. This plan needs to be coordinated in its time phasing, design location and grading level with other plans within the City of Huntington Beach.
In particular, thc Orange County Sanitation District plans to place trunk sewer lines along the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway will require immediate coordination. The Orange County Flood Control District proposals for modifications at the mouth of the Santa Ana River adjacent to the Huntington State Beach and lern Sanctuary may have significant effects which will need to be considered in the Beach Development Plan.
The Pacific Coast Highway widening project though originally proposed and presently supported by the City may be led by the California Department of Transportation which should be consulted concerning rights-of-way, etc.
A repeat of the right-of-way problem at the Balsa Chica State Beach, where only 100' of right-of-way was left for the Pacific Coast Highway, should be avoided. In that area, now to widen the Pacific Coast Highway, area on the inland side of the Highway within the Bolsa Chica natural habitat area may have to be disturbed. With possible wetland areas immediately inland or Pacific Coast Highway across from the Huntington State Beach the potential for an identical difficulty with rights- of-way exists.
Concerning this undeveloped property directly opposite the Beach, coordination with State IkTartment of Fish and Game about State owner- ship potentials, and designation of this area within the Resource Protection zone of the State Beach is recommnded.
Finally, we appreciate the opportunity for our Staff to have this input in the planning process for the Huntington State Beach. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in planning decisions for the further development of the Bolsa Chica State Beach as well.
Floyd . Belsito
City Administrator
FGB/MLN/dc
DISTRIBUTION LIST k..
I lepartrrnt of Parks & Recreaticn
District 15
111 Patera Lane
roleta, CA. 93017
Attn: E.D. Wilson
Department of Parks & Recreation
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramnto, CA. 95811
Attn: Daniel Corfaim
Mr. Russell Cahill, Director
Calif. Dept. of Darks & Rec.
1416 Ninth Street
Sacnamento, CA. 95811
Senator Paul carpenter
37th District
1600 N. Broadway
Suite 550
Santa Ana, CA. 92706
Vince tborhouse, Director
Huntington Beach Harbors
and Beaches Departmmt
Palin, Acting Director
Planing Department
DeFartment of Parks & Recreation
1416 Ninth Street Governor Edmund Pariwn, Jr.
State CapitolSacrmnanto, CA. 95811 Sacramento, CA.Attn: Clark MhaldaVin 95814 Environmental Managerient Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA. 92702
Attn: Rithard Munson
D. .9nith
South Coast Req. Cbranission
9or. 145n
Long reach, CA.
R. Trart167, Planning Director
Orange County Transit District
41222 Acacia Parkway
Garden ralove, CA.
D. Reid, Project Planning
Orange County Sanitation Dist.
10344 Ellis Avenue
EtrInta.in Valley, CA.
Tan Miller
Calif. Parks & Recreation
18090 Beach Blvd. #3
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Assemblyman Mangers
73rd District
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Mary Lynn Norby
Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
Ibnn Tiorthy, Director
Huntington Beach Recreation
and Parks Departmant
Ibpartrrnnt of Parks & Recreation Ralph Levya
1416 Ninth Street Traffic Division
Suite 1405 Huntington Beach Public Works
Sacramento, CA. 95814 Department
Attn: Bruce Kennedy
F,41e •• T. • •-ef
41-11~ .). romMoh...b ..4f
.. ...,..1"...____=......................---=1.---.... _ , S . r ..0,..... •Ii,....r'91' ..—.-IP up-i I• .4 "A" • • 7mf—
*at
r •C 4.14. U.& di,• VIAL Ural.
3 t - . . - • .• • .
3 L' : ' i :Y .
.
+ ' I V 4........ Ii .„..t.
\ 40. -:
\
‘. ..a.:
dr' le
1,-..*
..10"... a. •514saillbk-
-A.
4,_,J I . 1 ,54.1 I t : ' A ie/........
1.--... IAINC to 4WD.
1C41.1
&t aTTI I -.
-- '.
- .
.--...—........_
mill.
_
CD .0
1 ...lb -a'CasITSCT
C°I.-44 t,01111 ..
t •
• -_
Coaltal..-..... 5-71.-t . ema I. I=Ilr.-.. —
ME C.
• •
A
-_••
ri I f
RH iNt
!1
1 I
4e- 41,44101..a."M I Csinfa 0
1$11
••••.............. 1
- .
.
--.----
rlikawrichipl...
431°1‘tc
1 1 ..
Le44.406, Tty.01. I 1 I I 1 411' 44.1rS
. -------
•
.
' •.. .4.. .. •
. .,
1 :'It •
.
•
* 41aeg"*"4%
-r 'i-
v,' II
• IA. ••••
I .
.4.
= •-
t....a ...wt..
.""-• n• •n —.•-i.- wor.r.
----- ...-
=....- ,,_.A.,..-- - .
le It.'417
-...............-....„-.--
6:6444M.I.cl..
DeliF1.. ....
, .. _.... • ..
D.....*. ..,
golporwardko.3 Swig. fer.._.*
..
04 TeR N4 Te
— - ' — - — - . . .--;-----— - . . .
.
cwita..a..ic 1Ni ;+
Laan.fi.eci. I1 601+;........6.1
-: se. •••
. . .. - . . I
ji
NI
L34 TA:wk.:L.
NI-
11 0.•
-----,-
REVISIONS
_
.
REFERENCES I
Arreo
Mil EEO MINII
MEM
•••-r,
Nowa•
IM=M•
•••••
C42.41'..7PAC 1C
. .
Jo-, P.0 •sar
••
dr ..—.. ...........„.„-
1..•.... -1. : ...orh. so.a.0-. ....- . 44 , A 9 "l''
— ... _.. — I
a ... ............, ....-..... ....... ,p — ..-a
—.
a •••• Ip' Pb .....r..• ........ + . • .06 ••••••• • i")
,r 1 1 ..• ...Err •••-n r. ....•• - - ......... rt ., ,•i
i 4 A. Vail g..... ...•-• .
......G...er, „...."'"717.7-• • • N. ..,
lei,' - .Kr i-. -.
.1..;
.-,..--
.....) 1 1
n 1 I
• i
[fa
- — --is: c:p e-
/.....,„... . •-
•
i
?
1 I 1 ,I . . ....z.......„..,.........„.„....:.,:.
1,1
A
••n•••
C• 7.•
9m1=1111M10••••••=11•11,1010
%kept •-
-. 9 •
— —
...,n4,..", -;! s ri —7- 7 .- S1 17.
..a
';i
ir
t!
i J
'.
,.— .1149,
: ; I
•r;
1:n. -
:4•In. • ..g
\,I sc.-- .1,0,.;-• ,...EL______:..*,r, oil tirri-4L---- L'-- -. .... %..... -. t ;... ......-- .... la -.... .....mroac,„...... .-- .. .
%fret% AP 441114 .I %Aid,
____-/-:-"-
,„...• . • 99.40 4 • ".: A
•••": ..
•nn•n •n••••n•n • . ,•n•n • w.
, . .• ..
.1. • • • 2
. ; 7. n L • % .••••
-
DRAWN lir S -I
,: a 461 -
.74
-
DATE
/ IV re,e s EC 7/ cA/ 4 AY O 4 / r
S TA re 5 e 4 Chi
PAC/i/G ei:',47" HW Y - 6 4A. C.A 1 01 LI P M AeZeb itle ST . • i
i
, I A/76•
PreLCO•••C•Df 0 •
•11111.1,40_ ... r 66107. 7.- :in
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACHVrPARTMENT OF PVEi IC WORKS t".. !f.-..„..t.r, , •••••••••• .
,4LTERNATe
• 11A.9.411: .4 WO 9.1.0.
• ;We. Jr!•:1
. •' \
• . -•••#
v r • 24‘..1
Sincerely,
(
r 1. ,,r. L ,y_
A /,i6 1 I. ar it- fd 4W-Herbert-L. Hanie .; 'Regional,yi Southern Region
Li
LA•1 CALIFORNIA-4HE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. CROWN JR, Cn. !row•- • --• •--•----•-• ------------ -___•-_-_-- - • - --•_ • --• • ___ •• _•-__ -----.--• •- •-• •-•• •_ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 429.6-4534
Southern
Congress Street 5)4S1 CA
34v
thern ReAion Headquarters
San Diego, California 92110 5
February 26, 1981
Mr, Nike Adams
Assistant Planner
Department of Development Services
City of Huntington Beach
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Mr. Adams:
Please assure the Huntington Beach City Council that the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, will Endeavor to maintain the public access facilities constructed on Bolsa Chica State Beach between 9th Avenue and Coldenwest.
We look forward to being involved in the csign review and final approval of construction plan:;. It is our intent to operate ad maintain the facilities Li to the highest level possible within our funded capabilities.
Approve as Recommende
eRe,s-kig55
, 6 4,Lt7ifecoit..-REQUEth") FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION -
Submitted by James W. Palin Department Development Service Date Prepared December 23, , 19 8 ° Backup Material Attached Subject HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City Administrator's Comments
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
The State Department of Parks and Recreation's Redevelopment Plans for _ Huntington State Beach will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission on January 7, 1981. The Department of Parks and Recreation is requesting that the City sign an "approval in concept" form, which can be submitted to the Coastal Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the adoption of a resolution for the redevelopment of Huntington State Beach (attachment I) and authorize the Department of Development Services Director to sign the "approval in concept" form as conditioned (Attachment II).
ANALYSIS:
Since thethe early 1960's, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been planning for improvements to Huntington State Beach.
In 1974, the Department began work on plans for the redevelopment of Huntington State Beach. The department reviewed the plan with the City and citizens' groups and received a favorable response. The 1975-76 State budget appropriated $1,250,000 for the first phase of development; however, these funds were later used to purchase the old Pacific Electric Right-of-Way adjacent to the park.
. 7.
Page Two
The additional land acquisition required the Department to revise the development plan. The revised plan was presented to the City in July, 1975. The City raised numerous objections and Council opposed the plan as presented. City and State staff worked together in the development of a new plan,which was presented to the State Parks and Recreation Commission in January, 1976.
The State Commission felt that the additional parking would pave too much of the sand area and encourage more cars rather than public transportation.
A compromise plan was prepared in August 1978. After careful review by the City, 18 points of contention were expressed in a letter to the State, dated November 6, 1978. On January 17, 1979, the State responded to these comments agreeing with many, however, identifying a number which need further discussion and a few that they could not agree to.
On December 4, 1980 the State met with City staff to review the 18 point letter. The meeting concluded with the City and State in basic agreement on the issues (Attachment UI meeting minutes). Two additional concerns were raised at this meeting.
1. The State should be responsible for the cost of curb, gutters, sidewalks, and street lighting adjacent to the park boundaries.
2. The design, materials and maintenance of the State Beach landscaping should be compatible with the City beach; and the City will have an opportunity to review the final_design.
These items should be added as conditions to the "approval in concept" form required by the Coastal Commission.
The revised plan has been approved by the State Parks and Recreation Commission with $500,000 budgeted for the Development of working drawings. The State will request $7,000,000 in development funds from the legislature early in 1981.
'Respectfully submitted,
James W. Palin, Director
Department of Development Services
JWP:MA:gc
7 111 1111,1/ -
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA-46
To Honorable Mayor and From City Administrator
City Council Members
Subject HUNTINGTON STATE BEACH Date July 7 1 1975
Over the past year the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been preparing a development plan for Huntington State Beach.
Numerous meetings have been held with the State and City Staff as well as the State Beach Design Committee which was appointed in December 1973.
The City has been commenting on the plan during each stage of its development. However, only minimal considerations have been given to City recommendations. Input has ranged from general comments on the State's approach to planning the facility to specific details of the proposed project.
In February, 1975 the State Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing in Santa Barbara, California on the plan. At that meeting City Staff requested a continuance of the hearing to the July 11, 1975 meeting of the Commission.
During the time since that meeting City Staff and the State Beach Design Committee have met with State Park and Recreation Department staff members and reiterated previous concerns. These meetings resulted in a revised draft which was sent to us for comment in May, 1975. Sub- sequently, on June 26, 1975, a revised document for the general develop- ment plan was released by the State.
This revised document is now scheduled for public hearing on July 11, 1975 in the Huntington Beach City Council Chambers. After a year of work with the State Park and Recreation Department Staff the plan is still not acceptable to City Staff.
The plan deficiencies can be grouped in two categories: the general philosophy of the plan and specific design proposals.
The general philosophy of the plan document is unacceptable to City Staff - as it lacks an overall plan for Huntington State Beach as it will ultimately be with the recommended land acquisitions. Also it is questionable as to whether there is a justifiable cost-benefit ratio for the proposed improvements which increase accessibility by only 100 cars. The document assumes and plans for a much lesser intensity of use than the City Beach realizes on peak periods and thus does not provide for the increasing demand for beaches in Southern California.
Lastly, the plan philosophy does not provide for design compatibility of Huntington State Beach with our City Beach.
The plan is also unacceptable in some of its design proposals. It does not indicate the design treatment to be given to comfort stations, lifeguard control tower, and concession buildings. Rather than some 49-
CA-46Page 2
standard plan, buildings that are compatible with the structures on the City Beach would be preferable. The plan does not provide for• acceptable traffic circulation, particularly the nebulous statement regarding the possibility of a main entrance at Magnolia Street.While the proposed landscaping plan is imaginative, City Staff feels that it is impractical with our climatic conditions. The document provides for the removal of the chain link fence but does not specify what will replace it. Previous proposals were for a modified low fence which City Staff opposed. Finally,the plan makes no provisions for improvements to Pacific Coast Highway which are necessary for aesthetic and safety reasons.
For these reasons the Departments of Planning, Public Works, and Harbors and Beaches recommend that the City Council go on record opposing adoption of the proposed plan and that City Staff be authorized to present this position to the State Parks and Recreation Commission on July 11, 1974: Furthermore, it is recommended that the City request the State Department of Parks and Recreation to work with the City Staff in developing a phased comprehensive development plan for the entire shoreline of Huntington Beach which includes the three State Beaches and the City Beach. It is felt that in this way these beaches can be developed to their optimum potential and improve the aesthetic quality of the Huntington Beach shoreline.
It must be pointed out that taking this position may have the dis- advantage of holding up improvements on the State Beach from Fiscal Year 76-77 to Fiscal Year 77-78. City Staff, however, feels that obtaining a design plan that provides for a beach that is harmonious and compatible with Huntington Beach is worth a possible year's delay.
Respectfully itt d,
er0„..40Le.......David D. Rowlands
City Administrator