Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PLAN (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approv r�iv Item to be presented by: Jeffrey Lambert August 27, 2002 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARITA OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PLAN DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt the Resolution to approve the Open Space Acquisition Plan. BACKGROUND In mid 2000 the City Council directed staff to create a plan designed to protect and preserve open space in the Santa Clarita Valley. The plan will continue the City's nearly fifteen year history of making open space acquisition and preservation a priority and a vital part of the City's sustainability. Copies of the plan were made available to the City Council on May 27, 2002. The Open Space Acquisition Plan will: 1. Provide a framework for the City to evaluate, acquire, and maintain the most beneficial parcels within and surrounding the City of Santa Clarita for preservation as open space. 2. Allow the City to maximize the expenditure of funds for acquisition and maintenance of open space by targeting those parcels that present the greatest economic, strategic, and natural resource value. 3. Create and enhance partnerships between the City of Santa Clarita and other government agencies in the Santa Clarita Valley including, but not limited to, the County of Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. 4. Assist in the creation of an urban "green belt" surrounding the City of Santa Clarita. Agenda Item: 5. Provide an objective, systematic format for evaluating property proposed for dedication by property owners and developers. 6. Assist in securing grant funds for open space acquisition and preservation. Public participation has been vigorous and 'ongoing. Staff conducted three public outreach meetings, in March and two more in August of 2000. The purpose of the meetings were to gain community feedback regarding open space and the plan development process. Much of the feedback received in these meetings has been incorporatedinto the plan document. In addition to the 'community meetings, an open space page has been added to the City of Santa Clarita website. This page provides an interactive questionnaire, complete minutes from each community outreach meeting, and up to date information about the plans development. The Open Space Acquisition Plan is consistent with the One -Valley -One -Vision project. In addition, the plan has conceptual buy -in from the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Department as well as the Santa ` Monica Mountains Conservancy, although no formal action has been taken by either organization. The plan was made available to the public for a period of thirty (30) days. In addition, copies of the plan were sent to various other agencies throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. Staff received comments from the Building Industry Association and the Sierra Club. Appropriate changes were made to the plan document in response, however these changes did not alter the fundamental structure and intent of the plan. Staff is currently developing an implementation plan for the document and will return to the City Council with a status report when complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT None by this action. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Comment letter from BIA Comment email from the Sierra Club Open Space Map A copy of the final draft document is available for review in the City Clerk's reading file. JJL:DGP:lep Pbs/davep/open space/agenda items/auguat 27 agenda.doc July 15, 2002 Mr. Jeff Lambert Director of Planning & Building Services City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 el C' 00 Cl O 5 A 1'1 Greater LA / Ventura Chapter Building Industry Association, of Southern California RE. Dralty o anta arlta pen pace equlslhon an 24005 Ventura Boulevard Calabasas, California 91302 Dear Jeff, 818.591.2001 in 818.591.0072 On behalf of the approximately 400 companies and 1200 individuals who make up the httpg/w .biasc.org Greater Los Angeles/Ventura Chapter of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, thank you for providing as with an opportunity to submit comments in regards to the city's draft Open Space Acquisition Plan. We would also like to thank you for your willingness to extend the comment period in order to allow us more time to gather feedback from our members before submitting this letter. Our association recognizes that the acquisition and maintenance of open space is a critical component in the protection of the character of Santa Clarita and will help to preserve the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens. While the BIA understands the city's objective, we would like to bring to your attention a number of concerns our organization has about some of the specifics of the plan as it now stands. 1. Accurate Reflection of Existine Open Space Conditions The city's park deficit is offered as one of the driving reasons behind the creation of this plan (282 acres after the completion of the listed parks), but this document is not a "Parks Open Space Acquisition Plan," but rather an open space acquisition plan, so the discussion should focus on an inventory of open space in all of its forms, especially when almost of a third of respondents in the One Valley One Vision survey did not even view parks as open space (Section 2 Page 7). However, there is no mention of whether or not the City is facing an open space deficit or surplus, only the park deficit is cited. Such a discussion seems appropriate. Also, if the city is to focus its efforts on acquiring land outside of the city limits then it also seems reasonable to include open space already in existence in the county portions of the Santa Clarita Valley in the city's inventory of open space, when making statements of need. With a total of 15,646 acres of state and county parkland in the Santa Clarita Valley, as well as the thousands of acres of the Angeles National Forest figured into assessments of open space needs, Santa Clarita's requirements for additional open space take on a very different light. Finally, we believe that the report needs to more accurately reflect the state of open space in the entire Valley. For example, there is no mention of Plum Canyon, Tesoro, North Lake, Fair Oaks, Stevenson Ranch, and Westridge and the future parks and open space that have already been designated to be created in these areas. A complete and accurate description of An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association BIA Letter on Open Space Plan July 15,2002 Page 2 of 3 the current open space resources in the Valley also needs to include the large amounts of land owned by Mountains Conservancy. By creating a more complete account of all open space resources in the Valley, it will allow the city to use this plan much more effectively as it attempts to determine its current and future open space needs and works to prioritize among various, competing uses of its resources. 2. Refusal of Land Dedications If the city's goal is truly to maximize the amount of open space preserved given limited resources, it seems counterproductive to establish a policy in which the city would potentially refuse the dedication of land parcels. Dedication, which has little or no acquisition costs, would seem to be one of the most desirable tools by which the city could obtain open space. However, the plan states that the city might elect to refuse offers of free land. While there are maintenance and liability costs that are associated with dedicated properties, it still seems unlikely that these costs would ever justify passing up a dedicated piece of property in lieu of using city resources to purchase a different parcel that has a supposed and subjectively determined, higher "value to the community. The concern also arises that the city will attempt to use its threat of refusal as a means of leveraging the dedication of different properties by landowners than the ones originally intended for dedication. Additionally, if the city decides to use developer fees as a means of funding open space acquisition, will it tend to refuse dedicated properties from developers on a regular basis, preferring instead to require them to pay fees in order to generate the funds for the purchase of a narrow list of properties that are at the top of its "wish list?" From our organization's position, it seems extremely problematic that the city would choose to refuse properties that it could acquire for little or nothing in favor of charging developers in order to purchase different parcels. 3. Avoidance of Combative Acauisition The document seems too focused on stopping pending development, rather than on acquiring and maintaining the maximum amount of open space given limited resources. For example, Section 4A Page 2 states that the highest priority should be given to acquiring properties with the entitlements pending. In most cases, properties where development plans have already been made and submitted will be some of the most difficult time-consuming, and costly to acquire because they will require convincing the owners to abandon their development plans and to forego the expected returns from such developments. Instead, it seems more logical for the city to attempt to find properties with willing sellers, who have no intention of developing the land and would like to see it maintained as open space, rather than attempting to block developments. This seems like a more efficient use of resources. The plan also allows for the possibility that the city will aggressively attempt to purchase land from non -willing sellers if it perceives "an overriding benefit to the public good." It seems that the costs of attempting to acquire such a property from someone who does not want to give it up, would cancel out any perceived "benefit to the public good," when contrasted against what the same resources could obtain when put to use acquiring property from willing sellers. BIA Letter on Open Space Plan July 15, 2002 Page 3 of 3 4. The Need for Equitable Fundin Although the One Valley One Vision survey found that residents of the Santa Clarita Valley believe that the loss of open space is the second largest threat to their quality of life (even greater than the quality of schools), this sentiment does not appear to translate into a strong enthusiasm for them to be willing to do much about it personally. Only 17.6% of those surveyed felt that an assessment on themselves was the preferred way to acquire open space and only 52% of those polled in a 1998 voter survey would be willing to assess themselves any amount of money. The same survey showed that a meager 35% of those responding would be willing to pay any more than a mere $30 a year. With this lack of enthusiasm among the community members to pay for any open space out of their own pockets, the pressure will obviously be placed on the city to use alternative acquisition options, including developer fees. While developer fees may seem like an easy solution that avoids citizens having to assess themselves, it seems inequitable to tax a small segment of the population, new homebuyers, through the increased cost of housing that fee increases on residential construction inevitably cause. Why should this segment of the population be required to endure these transferred costs, just because the majority of residents are not willing to pay even $30 a year? 5. Clarification of Maintenance Costs In Section 5 Page 6, it states that the City of Santa Clarita Parks Division estimates that the cost of maintaining open space is $800 per acre per year. This figure needs to be discussed in greater detail. A more in depth description of the components of this cost and how it was arrived at needs to be included, especially when the city is considering the formation of an Open Space Assessment District. Also, it would seem that there should be a differentiation in maintenance costs made between various types of open space because it seems unlikely that the costs associated with the upkeep of passive open space would be equivalent to that of baseball fields at a city park. Thank you once again for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the draft City of Santa Clarita Open Space Acquisition Plan. We hope that you will take our comments and concerns into consideration as the city moves forward with this process. We look forward to working with the city to achieve a final document that achieves a balance between the very real need of the city to plan for the preservation and expansion of its open space resources, while also avoiding significant increases to the cost of housing and housing construction in the Santa Clarita Valley, which would only exacerbate the housing crisis already being faced. Sincerely, Ray Pearl Executive Officer David Peterson - Re: Sierra Club Comm on Open Space Plan From: David Peterson To: Louise Schultz Date: 7/3/02 9:51 AM Subject: Re: Sierra Club Comments on Open Space Plan Ms. Schultz, An excellent comment. I'm reviewing that myself actually. Thanks for taking the time to review the document. It will go before Council for adoption on Aug. 27th. Dave Peterson City of Santa Clarita >>> Louise Schultz <Iouise50@pacbell.net> 07/03/02 09:53AM >>> Hi David - We're a little late (July 3) but I'd like to provide the Sierra Club's comments on the open space plan. The plan is quite good and comprehensive. We are in agreement with most of the details and will heartily support the plan as it stands .... with one serious exception. In section 2.5 (Parks deficit) it states that the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Master Plan identifies a desire for 4.0 acres per 1000 population. Going back to the earliest city general plan I have (dated 6/91), it states (page PR -18) that 5 acres per 1000 is the standard. Furthermore my September 1995 copy of the Parks, Recreation & Community Services Master Plan states on page 72 that "the standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 generates a need for 945 acres". We request that the 4 acres per 1000 in section 2.5 be corrected to read 5 acres per 1000 to coincide with the City's master plan. We request a response as we consider this a most serious error. Thanks for all the good work on behalf of the environment in the SCV. Sincerely, Henry Schultz Chair, SC Sierra Club 21827 Parvin Dr. Santa Clarita,CA 91350 (661)284-5613 lou ise50(ftacbel 1. net Prepared by: The City of Santa Clarito Office of the City Manager, Special Projects Division. Summer, 2002.