Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 G.P. AMEND 84-4D 11-05-84 ~ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARIUG .... ~ .- ~i NO. 1 DATE: October 30, 1984 FROM: $ UBJ ECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Community and Administrative Services GENERAL PLAN -AMENOMENT 84-40 RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN RECOI~qENDATION: Adopt General Plan Amendment 84-40, Recreation Element of the Tustin General Plan. BACKGROUND: The Recreation Element of the General Plan was presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission during a joint study session on September 10, 1984. On September 24, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing regarding the Element'; reviewed and discussed i~; and has recommended adoption to the City Council. The RecreatiOn Element 'represents the dedicated efforts of a citizens committee which worked with staff and an expert consultant over a twelve-month period.to develop the philosophy and direction in the Element. The Element provides a long-range plan for the development of parks and recreation in the entire City of Tustin. Extensive meetings, research, and discussions have been held with the public, the Irvine Company, the Tustin Unified School District, and a variety of community organizations in order to incorporate input from all groups and members of the community. When considering the Recreation Element, it is'important to remembe~ several important factors: A. The document is a ~statement of philosophy intended to guide the City in ~ture development; it is not a specific plan --it is designed to give policy direction to specific plans. B. The Element reflects the needs and unique character of Tustin. We are not Irvine or Newport Beach. We do not require 5 acres of parkland dedication per 1,000 population; we can only require 3 acres per 1,000 population. The Element reflects this fact by scaling down the criteria used for community parks from 20 acres to 8 acres. In reality, what we term community' parks would be GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8~-4D RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN Page 2 October 30, 1984 designated large neighborhood parks in nearby communities. The Element reflects a desire of the community and staff to maintain the efficient use of the City's resources through the use of joint school park sites, creative financing, and the provision of 100% credit for qualified private park and recreation facilities. Extensive meetings have been held with the Irvine Company staff to discuss and finalize the format of the Element. Wherever possible, staff has attempted to maintain the original content and intent of the Recreation Element as developed by the Citizens Committee, consultant and City Staff. The Irvine Company obviously has a different point of view than the City; however, staff has attempted to mitigate the Company's concerns where feasible. The City is faced with the difficult'task of allowing profitable development, while insuring that the needs of its citizens will be met now and in the future. Staff feels that the Recreation Element incorporates both of these concerns and provides policy direction for a well-balanced, quality park and recreation system. In a letter dated October 10, 1984, to the City Council, the Irvine Company identified several revisions to the Element's goals and policies which it felt would improve the document's flexibility. Many of the requests for revisions contained in the letter have been discussed in the extensive meetings held with the Irvine Company staff and City Staff. A point-by-point analysis is provided below. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE IR¥INE COMPANY COFICENTS ON PROPOSED TUSTIN RECREATION ELEMENT: Page I - Goal A - Policy A-8 (page IV-2) Staff concurs with the Irvine Company's revision clarifying the goal's application to public parks and qualifying its application as a guideline encouragin9 its use. Page I - Goal C - Policy 5 (page IV-4) Staff concurs with the Irvine Company's requested revisions, since they coincide with those made to the Open Space and Conservation Element at Council meeting October 15, 1984. The entire Recreation Element will be updated to reflect any changes made in the Open Space and Conservation Element. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8~ 4D RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN Page 3 October 30, 1984 Page 2 - Standards- Park C)assification (pages IV-6, IV-7) The Recreation Element establishes minimum standards for private parks to receive full park dedication credit. The City Council retains its ability to award partial credit, up to 99.9%, to private parks meeting some of the criteria listed in the Recreation Element and Park Dedication Ordinance. The Recreation Element lists one criteria as a minimum size of 3 acres to receive full dedication credit. The Irvine Company is requesting that this standard be reduced to .5 acres. Staff feels that this revision will hinder the City Council's ability to award partial park dedication credit, based on the size and recreation opportunities a private park offers to residents of Tustin. While we agree that private parks are an important part of a balanced quality park and recreation system, we feel that the City Council should be allowed to judge the merit of each private park's ability to provide recreation and open space to the community. The Recreation Element attempts to provide guidelines and standards which will assist the City Council in determining the merit of individual projects as they are reviewed. In the past, residential housing stock was based on single-famly homes with substantial backyards. Homeowners provided their own private recreational improvements to their property in the form of swimming pools, swing sets, sand boxes and lawn areas. Public parks served as a supplement to each homeowner's backyard, providing substantial open space and active recreation areas. Developers received no public park dedication credit for private backyards and still were required to dedicate 4 acres/I,000 population for public parks. The trend in today's housing market is toward multiple-family or single-family attached homes, (condominums, townhomes), and small single-family detached homes with zero-lot lines and common recreation areas. Developers are seeking to maximize the number of units per acre by replacing yards with small patios and decks. Development costs are further reduced by liberal use of park dedication credit for common recreation areas (pools, spas, recreation rooms, tennis courts), which are used as sales features to balance reduced lot sizes and back yards. At the same time, current state law has reduced the maximum amount of park land dedication required from 4 acres/I,000 population to 3 acres/i,000 population. These developments make it more important for standards to be used when awarding credit for private park and recreation areas. Homeowners must rely more heavily on public and private parks for their recreational needs. They no longer have yards in which their friends and family can enjoy a swim in a pool or play on a swing set. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8~--~D RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN' Page 4 October 30, 1984 Page 2 Standards-Proportions of Co~unity and Neighborhood Parks (page VI-B) The Recreation Element proposes that park dedication requirements be distributed on the basis of two acres of community parks to one acre of neighborhood parks. Community parks are defined as: Community Parks -- serving a minimum population of 10,000 and are generally eight (8) acres in size or more, excluding greenbelts and school grounds. Typical facilities include community centers, athletic facilities, large'multi-use swimming pools, picnic areas or cultural centers. Community parks are owned and maintained by the City and serve residents of the entire City. Public Neighborhood parks--serving a minimum population of 2,500 and are a minimum of (3) acres in size, excluding greenbelts and school grounds. Typical facilities include active and passive open space, playground equipment, sports fields and picnic areas. Public neighborhood parks are owned and maintained by the City. Staff proposes that the definition for community parks be changed to read: Community Parks -- serving a minimum population of 10,000 and are generally eight (8) acres in size or more, excluding greenbelts and school grounds. Typical facilities include community centers, athletic facilities, large multi-use swimming pools, picnic areas or cultural centers. Community parks are owned and maintained by the City and serve residents of several neighborhoods. The reworded definition more accurately reflects our belief that community parks are the major provider for the day to day recreation needs of the community. Community parks will enable the City to meet the physical fitness, social, cultural, educational and recreational needs of the community. Public neighborhood parks are also an important part of a balanced park and recreation system. Staff feels that more than adequate acreage will be devoted to neighborhood parks at the recommended ratio of two acres of community parks to one acre of neighborhood parks. The Recreation Element suggests that these parks be maximized by encouraging their location next to school sites wherever feasible. Joint school park sites allow for daytime use of the park play areas by children during school hours and use of the school grounds by the public during non-school hours, evenings and weekends. Joint school park sites also GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-~0 RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN Page 5 October 30, 1984 allow for more economical maintenance by both City and School District crews. The Irvine Company suggests that neighborhood parks serve the day to day recreation needs of the community and offer more frequent opportunities for open space relief. Staff questions whether they are suggesting that public neighborhood parks replace backyards provided by developers?...isn't this something that private neighborhood parks should provide? Page 3 - Plan of Action - Revisions to the City's Quimby Act Ordinance [pages ~v-lz, Staff is opposed to the Irvine Company's requested changes to the Revisions of the City's Quimby Act Ordinance. The wording as proposed by the Irvine Company weakens the proposed ordinance by allowing possible park dedication credit for greenbelts, setbacks, and yards. It inserts unclear language such as "which cannot serve a common recreation function." Most importantly, it estabTT~s a much lower standard at which private parks may receive full parkland dedication credit by allowing them to meet only one of the basic elements listed in the element and reducing their size to .5 acre. Staff feels strongly that because of the changes in the basic housing stock private park standards need to be higher. The standards contained in the Recreation Element and Quimby Act Ordinance are reasonable for developers and yet will provide facilities which meet the community's needs. Page 4 - Plan of Action - No. 7 (page IV-14) Staff has no objections to the proposed revisions to this section. Page 4 - East Tusttn Recreation Facility Priorities. Staff has no objections to the proposed revisions to this section. Page 4 - Organization-Maintenance of New Parks and Recreation Areas (page ~v-zg) Staff has no objections to the proposed revisions to this section. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8~-4D RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN Page 6 October 30, 1984 A copy of the Irvine Company letter of October 10, 1984 is attached as a reference. The Element is not attached, as Council received copies for the workshop September 10, 1984. One revision was made by Planning Commission, on page IV-14. The wording on Item #7 shall indicate-that the appraiser be a MAI appraiser. Jeff Kolin and I look forward to discussing the Recreation Element and Quimby Act Ordinance at your November 5, 1984 meeting. If you have any questions prior to that time please contact us. Royleen A. White, Director Community and Administrative Services RAW:JK:l s Attachment: Irvine Company Comments THE IRVINE COMPANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TUSTIN RECREATION ELEMENT The propose¢ element, represents in our view, a comprehensive analysis of the City of Tustin's park and recreation needs which will serve as an important planning tool in. articulating the City of Tustin's goals for park development. We believe the document's six-point strategy sets the proper framework for achieving a balanced program incorporating efficiencies in land use and park operations, governmental cooperation for effective use of public land for recreational opportunities, and sound environmental principles. While we have concerns with some of the proposed goals and policies in the Element, they represent, for the most part, sound,, innovative approaches to address park needs. We have analyzed, in particular those goals and policies that affect the East Tustin Specific Plan with the objective of ensuring a quality, balanced program for the residents of this area. We believe our perspective, in this regard, is quite similar to the components articulated in the Element Strategy (pp. II-6, 7). Our comments and suggested revisions for the following goals and policies are offered with those thoughts and the desire to insure proper flexibility to accomodate the ongoing East Tustin Specific Plan pro~ess. Goal A --Policy A-8 (p. IV-2) While we strongly support the joint-use concept and envision the majority of parks to be so designed in East Tustin, the policy, as stated, establishes this concept as a basic requirement which may not always be appropriate. This is particularly the case for private park facilities which, as we read the element, would be required by this policy to be located adjacent to schools. Instead of a requirement, we believe the policy should be a guideline and apply only to public parks. We recommend the following revision to Policy A-8 (additions are underscored and deletions shown by ellipsis). I~To encouraqe . . all future public neighborhood and community parks in'the City to be designed as joint-use facilities contiguous with public schools and sharing play fields, programs, and other amenities." Goal C - Policy 5 (p. IV-4) As proposed, we believe this policy is too broad in its affect and presents unnecessary constraints on subsequent land planning. A blanket policy which attempts to protect all existing resources is not flexible enough to accomodate other planning priorities and design constraints. To address these concerns and retain the poli'c~ direction intended, which we conceptually support, we recommend this revision: "To . . · utilize where feasible significant land~cape features and drainage corridors/flood control channels (e.g. Peters Canyon Wash) as potential multi-use trail rights-of-way and special use recreation sites." Standards - Park Classification (pp. IV-6, IV-7) We concur with the park classification system proposed and the definition of community and public neighborhood parks. However, we feel the proposed minimum size of a private neighborhood park at three (3) acres is i~appropriate. As envisioned in the classification system, private parks serve an important function in the City's total park program. Their function should not duplicate the function of a public neighborhood park but rather complement the entire park system. These parks typically provide recreational amenities responsive to the immediate subdivision it serves. Private parks are envisioned to be maintained by private associations which should not be burdened with the cost of maintaining larger land areas that are not actually needed to support desired recreational facilities. Thus, private park facilities can satisfy to a degree the recreational needs of Tustin residents without placing the entire operational and maintenance burden on the City. We urge that builders be encouraged to use private parks effectively to serve their subdivisions. An appropriate minimum size criteria is essential in this regard; otherwise, the developer will have no incentive to develop private park facilities. We recommend, therefore, that the minimum size of a private park be established at .5 acre. Standards - Proportions of Community and Neighborhood Parks (p. VI-8) The element proposed to distribute the park dedication requirement of three (3) acres per 1000 to two (2) acres for community parks and one (1) acre for neighborhood parks. We believe, however, that public neighborhood parks are the essential component of a well-balanced park program and should be given emphasis. Neighborhood parks serve the day-to-day recreation needs of the community and offer more frequent opportunities for open space relief. Community parks while important components of a total balanced park system serve, by definition, the entire city population. We believe, dedicated park land should primarily serve the subdivision that generates the population and secondarily contribute to a city-wide network of community parks. Hence, we recommend the following distribution standards: ~ype of Park Community Parks Neighborhood Parks Distribution Standard 1.O acres/lO00 population 2.0 acres/lO00 population -3- Plan of Action - Revisions to the City's quimby Act Ordinance (pp. IV-12, IV-13). As we commented'earlier in the section pertaining to the classification and definition of private parks, we believe the private park component complements the entire park~system and fulfills recreational needs of Tustin residents. To achieve a balanced park system and encourage a wider variety of park types and locations, we feel more flexibility in the application of your private park standards is desirable. As proposed, the suggested requirements which are more stringent than those for public parks, coupled with the proposed restriction of partial credit act as a disincentive to the creation of priYate parks. We believe it is in the City's best interest to provide a framework of policies and standards that encourage the creation of private parks as-suggested in your six-point strategy while retaining the full discretion to decide how much credit is granted. Accordingly, we recon~end the following revisions to Section 5 of the Plan of Action: "Provide that2~he developer of planned devellopments and real estate developments may, . . . at the discretion of the City Council receive . . . full credit for the land and improvements . · · of eriVate neighborhood parks and private active recreational open space .g., ball fields, tennis courts, etc.) which the developer chooses to include within the subdivision, provided such private open space is fully consistent with . . . the following standards: That private yards, . . . buildin9 setbacks, and other similar · . . areas which cannot serve a con,non creation function . shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; The p~ivate ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; Same d. Same Same That the open space for which credit is given is a minimum of one-half(.5)acres and provides . · · one or more of the park basic elements listed below, or · · · other recreation improve- ments that will meet the specific recreation needs of future residents of the area: (1) Recreational open spaces, which are generally defined as park areas for active recreation pursuits such as soccer, baseball, softball, and football and have . . · maintained turf with less than five (5%) percent slope. The final paragraph should be deleted to retain the full discretion by the City Council to decide what amount of park credit should be allowed for private parks. Plan of Action - No. 7 (p. IV-14) As worded, we believe the use of the 20% adjustment factor is' unclear. We concur that the valuation should assume buildable land with improvements installed. It is our understanding that the 20% factor is to be utilized when assessing unimproved land but in cases where full improvements exist would not be applied. To clarify this matter we suggest the following changes to the last sentence to paragraph 7: ',The fair market value shall be determined by an MAI appraiser acceptable to the City; and the determination shal-T-consider.the value of a buildable but raw and unimproved acre of land at the time the Final Tract Map is to be recorded, and assume that the land could be fully developed to the residential density . . ." East Tustin Recreational Facility Priorities This section of the Element identifies four'specialized land uses that are required to be included in the East Tustin Specific Plan. We believe that such a requirement is inappropriate in the Recreation Element. Their inclusion as specific land uses is premature and may present unwarranted conflicts with the land use planning process currently underway. While these facilities are perhaps desirable, it is premature to conclude that they should be included as specific land uses now. We concur that such uses may be considered in the context of the East Tustin Specific Plan but until other issues such as land use compatability, consistency with the park program, and implementation mechanisms are further analyzed these uses should not be stated as requirements. As an alternative, we suggest the first paragraph in this section be revised to read as follows: "The City will analyze the following recreational land uses in the East Tustin Specific Planning Process and may include them fn the adopted Specific Plan as appropriate." Organization - Maintenance of New Parks and Recreation Areas~(p. IV-29) This section requires the creation of private owners associations and special benefit districts for the purpose of maintaining private and public park facilities. We conceptually concur with this approach but wish to point out that depending upon the ultimate park program for East Tustin, particularly, the community park component and special recreation facilities, it is unclear that the area of benefit can be limited to the East Tustin area. If thus constrained, other financing methods may be warranted. Accordingly, we feel -5- the general plan should allow for such possibilities. We, therefore, suggest this revision to the first paragraph in this section: "As an integral part of the East Tustin Specific Plan process, the City w.ill consider the creation of:" THE IRVINE COMPANY COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TUSTIN ORDINANCE NO. 907 9370 Dedications - Elementary School Sites and Dedication Without Reimbursement While these sections reflect certain authorizations provided in state law, we want to clarify that they are limited in their application and do not represent the only available alternatives to address school faci$ity needs. We are meeting with the Tustin Unified School District to understand school facility needs and alternatives for financing. We view land 6edication in fee for- school facilities as an alternative but not the preferred approach. Other mechanisms, particularly the State Lease-Purchase Program are available which represen~more viable and equitable school financing programs that should be pursued. While we do not request modifications to this section of the ordinance, we want to clarify our understanding and intent on the matter. W~ will continue to work cooperatively with Tustin Unified to address the school facility needs of the East Tustin development. 6. Fees in Lieu of Dedication (.p. 4) As we commented in the Recreation Element, we are concerned that the 20% factor for off-site improvements not become duplicative. We, therefore, suggest a similar revision to the ordinance as we did in the Recreation Element: "The fair market value shall be determined by an MAI appraiser acceptable to the City and at the expense of the developer; and the determination shall consider the value of a buildable but raw and unimproved acre of land at the time the Final Tract MJp is to be recorded, and assume that the land could be fully developed to the residential density . " 8. Credit for Private Open Space (p. 5) As described earlier in the Recreation Element, we believe revisions are warranted regarding the minimum site size, the criteria to be met regarding park elements and the discretion of the City Council to grant part credit for private open space. We recommend, therefore, this revision of Section 8 in the ordinance: "Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision such areas may be credited against the requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes as set forth in Subsection (6) hereof at the discretion of the City Council -2- COMMENTS ON PROPOSED TUSTIN ORDINANCE NO. 907 (Cont.) and a. Ce that the following standards are met: That private yards, building setbacks and other similar areas which cannot serve a common recreation function shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; and That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; and That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded coveffants which run with the land in favor' or the future owners of property within the tract and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City Council; and That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, including provisions for bicyclists, and location of the private open space land; and That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance'with the provision of the recreational element of the General Plan, and are approved by the City Council; and That the open space for which credit is given is a minimum of (.5) acres and provides one or more of the park basic elements listed below, or a combination of such and other recreation improvements that will meet the specific recrea- tion needs of future residents of the area: Recreational open spaces, which are generally defined as park areas for active recreation pursuits such as soccer, baseball, softball, and football, and have . .,maintained turf with less than five (5%) percent slop-e. Court areas, which are generally defined as tennis courts, badminton courts, shuffleboard courts, or similar hard- surfaced areas especially desinged and exclusively used for court games. -3- COMMENTS QN PROPOSED TUSTIN O~DINANCE NO. 907 (Cont.) 3. Recreational swimming areas, wh$ch are defined generally as fenced areas devoted primarily to swimming, diving, or both. They must also include decks, lawned area, bath- houses, or other facilities developed and used exclusively for swimming and diving and consisting of no less than fifteen (15) square feet of water surface area for each three (3%) percent of the population of the subdivision with a minimum of eight hundred (800) square feet ~f water surface area per pool, together with an adjacent deck and/or lawn area twice that of the pool. 4. Recreation buildings and-facilities designed and primarily used for the recreational needs of residents of the development. The determination of the City Council as to whether credit shall be given and the amount of credit shall be final and conclusive. 9. Credit for Developed Public Park and Recreational Facilities (p. 6) As drafted, this section of the ordinance reads that the City Council mas. credit the value of improvements together with any equipment located thereon against the payment of fees or dedication of land. Our under- standing of state law on this matter (Section 66477) is that such improve- ments shall receive a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by the City ordinance. We believe the proposed ordinance should be revised accordingly to maintain consistency with state-authorizing legislation. THE IRVINE COMPANY 'COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TUSTIN CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Goal A - Policy No. 4 (p. 13) While we acknowledge~the appropriateness of preserving h~lltop ridgelines in some instances, we believe the policy, as proposed, is too specific for the General Plan requirements that all ridgelines be preserved. We suggest that all ridgelines-are not significant enough to warrant preservation. Further, we wish to point out that in some instances, hillsides are more~visually prominent than hilltops in the contribution .of visual landmarks and open space. We believe that further evaluation through the East Tustin planning process is required before concluding what open space areas should be preserved or otherwise treated because of their significance. To provide appropriate General Plan level direction while allowing such analysis to occur we suggest the following alternative wording for this policy: "Identify the important visual amenities for possible preservation as part of the East. Tustin Specific Plan." Goal D - Policy No. 3 (p. 16) As proposed, we believe this policy is inappropriate. In mandating the preservation of ridgelines in their natural state without regard to other planning priorities or to maintenance responsibilities and without the context of a comprehensive land plan, this policy as worded is premature. We suggest the following revision: "Identify, designate and preserve significant or unique topographic features." Goal D - Policy No. 5 We view agricultural land as interim land use. This policy proposes the utilization of a phasing program of agriculture to urban use which would artificially inhibit the transition of agricultural land. Such an approach may pose conflicts with the East Tustin Specific Plan. We recommend the following revision in lieu of the proposed policy: "Provide the opportunity to continue use of land for agricultural crops as an interim use prior to development."