Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-19; Parks & Recreation Commission; 988-5; Pacific Rim Park DedicationPARK & RECREATION COMMISSION - AGENDA BILL AR« 988-5 MTG 9/19/88 OPPT P & R TITLE: PACIFIC RIM PARK DEDICATION DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY CITY MGR. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review staff reports, make recommendations as to the suitability of Pacific Rim's proposed Parkland Dedication. ITEM EXPLANATION: Zo Zo in ou Upon staff review of the Environmental Analysis Report on the 24.25 acre park site offered for dedication by Pacific Rim, it has been determined that 6.5 acres of the site is constrained in terms of park development. The 6.5 acres of sloping terrain represents a 27% undevelopable ratio and provides a total of 17.75 acres which can be developed for park use. Staff reports, and communication with Pacific Rim representatives clearly identify Parks and Recreation Commission "Conceptual Approval" of the proposed park site pending environmental review. In light of the information revealed in the Environmental Analysis, the Commission is requested to make a recommendation as to the suitability of the proposed park site to fulfill Pacific Rim's Park Dedication requirement. 1. Letter - Marty Orenyak to Larry Clemens (Pacific Rim) 2 . Memo - Phil Carter to Marty Orenyak 3 . Memo - David Bradstreet to Marty Orenyak 4 . Letter - Larry Clemens to Marty Orenyak 5. Letter - Phil Carter to Paul Klukas (Pacific Rim) 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE *>O/ JM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 WE&&M (619)438-1161 ^EU^. ,mt ~^f^^f Citp of Cartebab COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 1, 1988 Mr. Larry Clemens 7707 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92009 Attached for your review are memos sent to me in response to comments that were made in your letter of August 18, 1988 regarding the proposed Zone 19 Park Site. The comments and issues identified in your most recent correspondence are more than adequately addressed in these memos, and are a true reflection of what the City Manager, Planning Director and myself have understood the Park requirement is on your project. In my opinion, no useful purpose could be served by continuing efforts to resolve the basic disagreements between your firm and City staff as outlined in your letter of August 18, 1988. The basic differences of intent regarding the Parks requirement as a condition of your Master Plan approvals, clearly can only be resolved through intervention of the City's Policy makers. Therefore, I will be scheduling this item to go before the Parks and Recreation Commission at their earliest convenience, so that they may provide input and recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter or any information attached, please do not hesitate to contact me, the Parks and Recreation Director or the Assistant to the City Manager. Staff will be contacting you as soon as this item has been scheduled before the Parks and Recreation Commission. ORENYAK Community Development Director c: City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager Assistant to the City Manager Planning Director Parks and Recreation Director SEPTEMBER 1, 1988 TO: MARTY ORENYAK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO LARRY CLEMENS AUGUST 18, 1988 LETTER REGARDING THE PROPOSED ZONE 19 PARK SITE Per your request, I have reviewed Mr. Clemen's letter of August 18, 1988 concerning the proposed Park site in Zone 19. Attached for your information is the letter Mr. Clemens references which was sent to Paul Klukas on August 3, 1988. This letter detailed staff's review of the initial park planning which has been done in Zone 19. The August 3rd letter indicated that the City will not be accepting undevelopable park land as is proposed by Hillman Properties. The City has made it clear all along to Mr. Clemens, as well as a number of their consultants, that non-usable, non-developable land would not be accepted for park land dedication purposes. The dedication of the proposed 24.25 acres would include 6.5 acres or 27% of the total dedication which is unusable for active or passive recreational purposes. It is obvious from the City's park land dedication standards and from the Park performance standard contained in the Growth Management Program that the City will not accept park land which can not be developed for park purposes. This has been clarified over and over to Mr. Clemens and I am surprised at this late date that he is still debating this issue. It should also be clarified that park land dedication is not a specific requirement of the City's Growth Management Program. However, as part of the City's Master Plan requirement, developers must dedicate all park land with the approval of their first final map. Mr. Clemens has gone to great lengths to explain each of the park requirements contained in the Local Facilities Management Plans for those zones within the Southwest Quadrant or Park District 3; however, these conditions do not relate specifically to the issue of how park land is required to be dedicated. It also neglects to address the real issue, which is the need for developable park land. Therefore, the information derived from his analysis is not meaningful or accurate. It is also evident from the tone of Mr. Clemens' letter that we could continue to write letters back and forth, but this would not bring us any closer to resolving this very important issue. Therefore, it would be my recommendation that we schedule this item to go before the Parks and Recreation Commission so that they may provide their input and recommendations so a decision may be made by the City Council. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this item, please contact me. PHILIP 0. CARTER bjn c: Zone 19 File Brian Hunter August 26, 1988 TO: MARTY ORENYAK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: DAVID BRADSTREET, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR PACIFIC RIM PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT In response to the letter sent to you by Mr. Clemens of Pacific Rim regarding the acceptability of the proposed 24.25 acre park site in Zone 19, I have attached a number of memos (Exhibit Al- A5) in which staff has clearly outlined the dedication process. In addition, I have also included conditions pertaining to the Pacific Rim Master Plan, and staff's evaluation of the previous "conceptually approved" park site which has subsequently been determined to contain 6.5 acres of environmentally constrained land in terms of park development (Exhibit A6). It appears Pacific Rim representatives have misconceptions concerning the City's process and guidelines pertaining to the dedication of developable park land as outlined in Ordinance 9838 Exhibit B). The major emphasis of this ordinance is to insure the dedication of unconstrained, developable park land and that an environmental analysis be completed prior to final acceptance by the City. In addressing Mr. Clemen's August 18, 1988 letter (Exhibit C), I would like to respond to the five (5) points he has stated which constitute his belief that the City has "unanimously" accepted the park site as identified in the Master Plan. Point 1: While it is partially correct that the Park has been located in the same position within the Master Plan since 1985, the park boundaries have been modified by Pacific Rim and the total park acreage has been reduced due to density reductions within their development. Density projections in early 1986 indicated a park dedication requirement of approximately 30 acres and the initial park boundaries were identified (Exhibit D, Area 33). Further density reductions in 1987 reduced their park dedication requirement to 24.25 acres. This Marty orenyak August 26, 1988 Page 2 resulted in Pacific Rim modifying the park boundaries by eliminating 5.75 acres of developable park land (Exhibit E, Area 32b). Although the Master Plan was approved in December 1987 (based on preliminary environmental analysis) their required environmental report was not received nor reviewed by City staff prior to adoption. Subsequent review of this document revealed that in fact 6.5 acres of the proposed park site are constrained by slopes which are not acceptable nor conducive to functional park development. Of the initial 30 acre park site, 6.5 acres of constrained land represented a twenty-two (22%) percent undevelopable ratio. The reduced version of the 24.25 acre park site, with 6.5 acres of constrained land, represents a twenty-seven (27%) percent undevelopable ratio or a total of only 17.75 acres of developable park land (Exhibit F). The Growth Management Program as well as the Parks and Recreation Element guidelines state park land dedications are currently subject to more stringent conditions than were once allowed and that dedicated park land must be developable (Exhibit G1-G2). Points 2&3: The Parks and Recreation Director and the Commission Sub-Committee did tour the proposed park site on April 9, 1986. As a result of that tour the recommendation to the Commission was to accept the park land dedication (Area 32) "in concept" only. Memos to and from Pacific Rim (Exhibit HI & H2), clearly identify "conceptual approval" of the 30 acre park site pending analysis of the land for possible development constraints, prior to recommending to the City Council for final approval. Points 4&5: According to the Planning Director, the Planning Commission and the City Council did approve the Pacific Rim Master Plan. However, conditions to that approval clearly state that if the proposed park site had any environmental constraints, the City may reject area 32 and opt for a more suitable park site within the Master Plan (Exhibit J). Marty Orenyak August 26, 1988 Page 3 The last point I would like to clarify is the distinction between active and passive areas. Active is self explanatory, passive areas in our park design are zones that include quite game, picnic, rest and shade areas that can be used by people. They are not considered to be undevelopable land areas that fall under the open space category and will not be counted to meet our park standards. Summary There is no doubt that Pacific Rim representatives have been very cooperative in the dedication of this important park parcel. If you feel that we are placing an unreasonable demand on Hillman that should be reconsidered, then we need to discuss this issue further. However, if you have determined after reading this report that part of the park parcel being offered for dedication is unusable, and that the City has implemented policies that prohibit developers from dedicating undevelopable land, such as Stagecoach, Calavera Hills, Larwin and Alta Mira, then we must support Mr. Carter's, August 3, 1988 memo that states the City is not willing to accept the undevelopable constrained land for park purposes. DB:pa Exhibits: c: Frank Mannen, Assistant City Manager Mike Holzmiller, Planning Director Phil Carter, Assistant to the City Manager Lloyd Hubbs, city Engineer Jim Elliott, Finance Director THE PACIFIC KIM (. OI.INTKY CI.IIH AND KP.SOKT August 18, 1988 Mr. Marty Orenyak Director of Community Planning City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Subject: The Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Zone 19 Park Site Dear Marty: I have recently received Phil Carter's letter dated August 3, 1988 regarding the proposed Zone 19 Park Site. To my dismay, Mr. Carter is questioning the acceptability of the City Council approved Zone 19 Park Site within the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort. It is particuarly surprising that Hillman's park dedication is now subject to question and suggested change when considering: (1) The Park Site has been located in the same position within the Master Plan since 1985; (2) The Director of Parks and members of the Park Commission visited the site (with survey stakes in place indicating boundaries) and subsequently approved the site; (3) City staff recommended the Park Site for approval; (4) The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Master Plan including the Park Site; and (5) The City Council unanimously approved the Master Plan including the Park Site. As you know, considerable time was spent by staff discussing the Park Site, Zone 19 growth management provisions relative to parks, and conditions of the Master Plan. Contrary to Mr. Carter's statement that it was staff's understanding "that Planning Area 32 (PAS2) contained 24.25 acres of developable land...", all preliminary analysis and final approvals acknowledged slopes on the north and west boundaries. In fact, pages 193-194 of the Master Plan identify the slopes within the approved park with a special note "to be preserved." 7707 El. CAMINO KFAI. • (.'ARLSHAP. CAI.IPOKNIA O200<> • I tl.ECOIMHR 6|O..|.V>-f,8.v> • 6l°-li6-CM07 Mr. Marty Orenyak August 18, 1988 Page two It was always intended by both staff and property owners, that the park usage would be both active and passive, and would only disregard those areas that were subsequently determined not developable as either active or passive, as a result of: soils conditions, environmental, or toxic findings. The Master Plan condition No. 31 (page 24c) stipulates that the property owner must conduct biological, soils, toxic waste, archaeological, and any other environmental reports necessary, to identify if any environmental or prohibiting circumstances are present (which were unknown at the time that the City Council approved the site), which would preclude its developing as a park. All of the above mentioned studies have been completed and NO new circumstances were introduced that would preclude the park from being developed. The park acreage, shown and approved on the Master Plan, can be developed exactly as studied by staff and approved by City Council. The slopes shown in the park acreage are not new information recently discovered. The slopes were clearly identified on the approved Master Plan, the development plan graphic, and in all discussions regarding the park. The slopes were known and acknowledged by Planning, Engineering, and Parks Department prior to the City Council approval. It was always contemplated that the 4.1 acre of slopes (17% of the park site) would be designed for passive use (i.e., trails, picnic areas, scenic views). The area compliments the active areas with commanding ocean and backcountry views. Hillman believes that an extraordinary passive plan can be developed for this area. It should also be noted and remembered that Hillman Properties is dedicating all acreage for maximum potential buildout of the entire Local Facilities Management Zone 19 (including neighboring properties). No other zone, to date, has been required to do this. Even though buildout of the zone may be 25 or more years in the future, the City receives the entire acreage up-front. Also, the City required Hillman to reserve 5.75 acres of property adjoining the park for seven years in case the City should desire to purchase additional park acreage, and to fund improvement of fifteen acres at a cost of 1.725 million. Nearly the entire burden of parkland dedication for Park District 3 has been placed upon Zone 19 (Hillman). Please examine the following park requirement by zone: ZONE 19 . 24.25 Acres Dedication ZONE 19 5.75 Acres Reserve Zone 9 10.0 Acres Dedication Zone 20 5.0 Acres Dedication Zone 22 5.0 Acres Dedication Zone 3 0 Acres No Dedication Zone 6 0 Acres No Dedication I I IK PACIFIC RIM COUNTRY CI.UH AND KESOKT Mr. Marty Orenyak August 18, 1988 Page three Hillman Properities feels strongly that we have properly met the intent of the imposed condition of the Master Plan and Local Facilities Management Plan (Zone 19); that the identified slopes within the approved park ares were known, studied, and approved by staff and Council as potential passive components of the 24.25 acre park site; and that the required additional tests of the park site (to verify that no unknown circumstances would prevent the approved sites use) were performed and the site as approved was found acceptable (documentation has been submitted to your staff). A schematic layout of the park site has been submitted to the City for approval which includes: 2 Baseball /Soccer Fields 1 Little League Baseball Field 10 Tennis Courts 3 Basketball Courts Recreation Building Shuffleboard/ Horseshoe areas Shade Structures Tot Lots Picnic Areas Oceanview Lookouts Parking (225 spaces) The additional plan information requested in Mr. Carter's letter will be sent immediately. Marty, as you know, Pacific Rim has gone the "extra mile" with everything we have done and have always acted in good faith with the City. The City must also act fairly and acknowledge the Master Plan and therefore the park site, as approved. The provision for additional park land purchase was agreed to while conditioning the Master Plan, but it is not available as an additional exaction after the fact, simply because a staff member changed his mind. Mr. Marty Orenyak August 18, 1988 Page four I feel certain that if you and your staff will spend time with me and my professional consultants we can work together to develop a superior park site with the approved park acreage. At your earliest convenience, I would enjoy meeting with you to solve this issue. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, D.L. Clemens Vice President/General Manager DLC/lad cc: Ray Patchett Phil Carter Dave Bradstreet Ted Hoover Michael Chase Jack Hartung Chris Neils "H I-M |||c KIM (.( 'I in IK i (I UK ANM 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE E^WjM TELEPHONE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4869 WQL^V (619)438-1161 ^Otttg 0f PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 3, 1988 Mr. Paul Klukas Hillman Properties 7707 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92008 RE: CONCEPTUAL PROPOSED ZONE 19 PARK SITE Dear Paul: City staff (Parks, Planning, Growth Management, and Engineering) have completed an in-house review of your Conceptual Park Plan and Environmental Analysis for the proposed Zone 19 park site. Overall, we feel that your preliminary conceptual park plan is well designed, incorporating a number of desirable park amenities that are consistent with Carlsbad's development standards for community parks. However, the City is not willing to accept that portion of Planning Area 32 (6.5 acres of environmentally constrained undevelopable acreage) for park purposes. It is important to understand that in accordance with the provisions of Growth Management, environmentally constrained acreage must be maintained as open space and may not even be counted for passive park use. More specifically, as discussed within the Master Plan (page 24c), "If it is found that the proposed park has major environmental constraints or cannot physically accommodate park use needed by the City, then the city may reject Planning Area 32 and opt for a more suitable site within the Master Plan Area." With regard to this Master Plan provision, staff recommends that the Conceptual Park Plan submitted for the developable portion of Planning Area 32 (17.75 usable acres) be expanded to incorporate the 5.75 acre Park Reserve (Planning Area 32a) . As you recall, the 5.75 acre park reserve had originally been set aside to be used if needed in the future. Although this provision had been established with the understanding that Planning Area 32 contained 24.25 acres of developable land. In order for you to provide additional park acreage necessary to meet your parks requirement, the usable area of Planning Area 32a will need to be Page 2 included within your Conceptual Park Plan. Planning Area 32a could be used to develop a separate, full-sized soccer field, thereby fulfilling an identified Southwest Quadrant community recreation demand. The addition of this 5.75 acre park reserve would also allow for active and passive park uses to be more comfortably spaced throughout the park site, while ensuring that environmentally constrained lands are maintained in open space per the provisions of Master Plan 177 and the Growth Management Ordinance. Other staff comments regarding the Conceptual Park Plan include the following: (1) Please show grading contours on site plan. (2) Identify facility/use dimensions and acreages on site plan. If you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the Conceptual Park Plan for Zone 19, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, PHILIP CARTER Assistant to the City Manager cc: Ray Patchett Marty Orenyak Michael Holzmiller Charles Grimm Chris DeCerbo Larry Clemens David Bradstreet Mark Steyaert Gary Kellison CDD:dm