Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 PARK WORKSHOP 04-04-88DATE: OLD BUSINESS 4-4-88 ' Inter- Com Mar'ch 29, 1988 J~'- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: William A. Huston, City Manager Community Services Department Follow Up to Park Workshop RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council BACKGROUND On February 29, 1988 City Council and staff conducted a very productive park needs workshop. At that time, staff presented a report which outlined several important items: · · $18 million in unfunded parks and recreation facility needs currently exists. The City Council has previously adopted the Recreation Element and the East Tustin Specific Plan, which carefully delineate the general concept plans for each of the parks and recreation facilities planned for Tustin's future. Several recommendations were presented in the report: 3a. Utilize a citizen's task force to assist staff, consultants and City Council in meeting the challenge of park financing. 3b. Earmark the New Construction Tax (net of one time vehicle and equipment cost) for park development, thus insuring $2.6 million for a portion of basic park improvement. 3c. Upon completion of the redevelopment agency financial analysis, investigate the possibility to fund the Columbus Tustin Phase II and/or TUSD administration site projects with redevelopment agency funds. 3d. Retain qualified financial counsel to recommend solut'ions to fund the remainder of needed improvements. 3e. Earmark Tustin Ranch revenues in excess of 15 percent over costs for Tustin Ranch park development. The Council was pleased with the concepts for all the Parks and Recreation facilities planned for Tustin's future. The detail of each one was presented in the report, as well as previously mentioned planning documents. Each document had extensive public review prior to its adoption by the City Council. DISCUSSION I. PARK TASK FORCES OR PARK ADVISORY COMMISSION During the Council discussion, Councilman Edgar voiced support for a Parks and Recreation Commission. Other Council members expressed support for some type of citizen input, but did not reach consensus regarding how best to accomplish this. Some Council members were in favor of site specific task forces which would be initiated when the design and construction phase for each park is included in the budget process. Since the initial planning has been done (general concept plans) for each park, some Council members felt that a Park Commission would be unnecessary. The decision to have a park commission or individual task forces is a policy matter and staff awaits Council direction. A park advisory commission would be a permanent commission with all attendant costs and benefits. Ad hoc advisory task forces on each particular park (at the time they are constructed) would be site specific; could ultimately involve more citizens than one commission; and would automatically sunset. II. FINANCING The park report included a recommendation that a financial consultant be retained for the purpose of focusing upon the question of how to finance park improvements Staff has requested funds in the 1988-89 budget for this purpose. The consultant would prepare a comprehensive cash flow analysis of the new development tax and revenue in excess of costs for the Tustin Ranch project (discussed in item IV of this memorandum). THe financial report will present the City Council with a detailed analysis of funds available for park construction and provide the basis upon which the City Council can determine the extent and phasing of park improvement projects. III. EL CAMINO REAL LOT "PARKETTE" Staff will present a report on this item at the April 18, 1988~ Council meeting. IV. OUESTION REGARDING 115 PERCENT SURPLUS IN TUSTIN RANCH Councilwoman Kennedy requested clarification about this approach. The fiscal impact analysis for the project indicated that at buildout, the project would generate at least 15 percent more revenue than costs to provide services to East Tustin. The City Council could choose to earmark all or a portion of revenue in excess of the 15 percent amount for park development. A cash flow analysis would have to be prepared (see II: "Financing") in order to proceed. Council also mentioned concern about an "assessment overload"; however, the report does not recommend use of assessment districts for park development. V. COLUMBUS TUSTIN PHASE II Councilman Edgar requested that staff check the amount of money which could be available for Columbus Tustin in certain funds. Staff reports that there is $35,000 from county revenue sharing and $59,000 in the park bond fund. He requested that this money be earmarked to go forward on Columbus Tustin Phase II planning. Staff replied that this planning has been completed at this time and the next appropriate step would be a drainage study. Once the drainage study is complete, staff would have a true estimation regarding cost of Phase II improvements. The Task Force does not recommend going forward with working drawings until: a.) the drainage study is complete, and b.) money is appropriated for construction. The recently convened Columbus Tustin Task Force also felt that it is not cost effective to go into working drawings until money is appropriated for construction. The latest Task Force recommendations were adopted by Council in December 1987, and are attached for Council review. The drainage study will be proposed as part of the 1988/89 budget. VI. PEPPERTREE PARK WELL SITE UNACCEPTABILITY During the workshop, Richard Vining commented that in addition to the Tustin Area Senior Center deleting open space from the park, that the Redevelopment Agency amendment scoping meeting listed that a well site would be placed on Peppertree Park. He voiced his strong opposition to this. The City Manager assured the Council and Mr. Vining that this would not happen. The Council concurred that it was their direction that a well site not be placed on Peppertree Park. VII. COMMUNITY CENTER IMPROVEMENTS The City Council directed staff to prepare a plan for improving the community, center. The City Council principal concerns were the sound system and a stage for community event. The City's architect for the civic center expansion project is in the process of preparing a plan which responds to these concerns. Upon completion of a concept plan for community center improvements, it will be submitted to the City Council for its review and approval. It is anticipated that the concept plan will be completed within 60 days. Royleen A. White, Director Community and Administrative Services RAW: jg Attachment: Columbus Tustin Phase II Recommendations (As Adopted by Council December 1987] , DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1987 ~¥..,~,,,~, Inter- Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER DEC' FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: COLUMBUS TUSTIN TASK FORCE: PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS **AT ITS MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1987, COUNCIL APPROVED ALL RECOMMENDATIONS** TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS' 1. To include the solution of the acoustical and portable staging problems at Clifton C. Miller Community Center in the City Hall remodel. 2. To complete.the second stage of Columbus Tustin Park in two phases' a. The first phase is parking lot expansion and perimeter landscaping; however, drainage plans 'must be addressed prior. b. The second phase is the gymnasium, located as shown on the new site plan dated November 30, 1987, attached. 3. At such time when working drawings are done on Phase 2b, {the gymnasium), the Task Force will be reinstated and consulted as a part of design review. BACKGROUND: At Council.'s direction, the Columbus Tustin Task Force reconvened November 30, 1987. The Task ~.orce included both the original, members and new residents. At this meeting, staff gave a brief history of the Columbus Tustin Park Task Force and project, brought the Committee up-to-date on the proposed City Hall expansion (including renovation of the Clifton C. Miller Community Center), and related the plans for the Tustin Area Senior Center. Staff summarized the Council direction to the Task Force tl~at the site should be utilized for gymnasium, picnic area, and expanded parking: and that the Committee was to revise and review the location of the gymnasium on the site. In the process of doing that, the Committee did decide that now that the McCalla property is available, the .qymnasium should be relocated per the attached drawing. The Task Force reached consensus that this site plan is the one it supports. Regarding the issue of installing interim landscaping on the gymnasium site, it was the general consensus of the. Committee that this would not be cost-effective. Since grading, potential storm drains, and irrigation for any landscaping are required, the cost would be prohibitive. The Committee felt that it would be letter to put in a parking lot and some perimeter landscaping as the first phase, and then come in wi th a gymnasium later. December 16, 1987 Page Two Prior to any construction of either a parking lot or a gymnasium, the following work should be completed: 1. Develop a rough grading plan, topographical survey and aerial map. This must be done to show how adequate drainage can be achieved and the cost estimate is approximately $10,000. 2. City Engineering staff pro.iects that the proper drainage could be achieved in one of two ways. Precise grading and fill {raising the site) is the least expensive; however, by elevating this site it could create drainage problems and "dump water" on the intermediate school or the existing hall fields. The second alternative is to install extensive storm drains. Current drainage 'flows in a southeasterly direction, so arrangements would have to be made to connect the system through the School District property. Although Engineering staff members are hesitant to give a cost estimate without a proper study, the $100,000 range is probably fairly accurate. Ron Paige of Recreation Systems estimates that cost for construction of parking lot expansion and perimeter landscaping in Phase 2a will be $411,000 and construction of gymnasium in Phase 2b will be $1.1 million.' ~oyleen A. White, D~rector Community and Administrative Services Susan M. Jones Recreation Superintendent RAW:SMJ: jm