HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-69 - Adopting General Plan Amendment GP-80-2CRESOLUTION NO. 80-69
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT GP -80-2C, AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA.
WHEREAS, the General Plan 1990, as amended, was adopted by the
City Council of the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution Number 71-27 on
April 5, 1971; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Management System: Conservation, Open
Space, and Scenic Highway Elements of the General Plan was adopted by
the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution Number 73-84
on August 6, 1973; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -80-2C, a plan to amend the Envi-
ronmental Management System to allow the consolidation of Park Districts
within the City of Costa Mesa into a City-wide zone has been recommended
for adoption by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Com-
mission is Option III, to consolidate the six existing Park Districts
into one City-wide Park District; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held in accordance with Section
65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons
having been given the opportunity to be heard, both for and against
said Amendment GP -80-2C to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the
City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Costa Mesa that the Environmental Management System: Conservation,
Open Space, and Scenic Highway Elements of the General' Plan is hereby
amended by the adoption of Option III of General Plan Amendment GP -80-2C,
as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of July, 1980.
Clt 'I'D "_ k- � - A �
Mayor of the Cit of Cost Mesa
ATTEST:
6 (,:�) 4
City Clerk of the City of Cos Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I. EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 80-69 was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by said City Council at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the
8th day of July, 1980.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal
of the City of Costa Mesa this 9th day of July, 1980.
City Clerk and ex -officio Clerko he
City Council of the City of Cost esa
GP -80-2C
I. I1.7R0DU rI7:
Genera. Plan Amerxirnent GP -80-2C was initiated by the Costa Mesa City Council
to review alternative means to collect anti dispense in -lieu park anri recrea-
tion fees throughout the oermunity. Specific amendments to the Environmental
Msna3e7►ent Syster� (Open Space, Conservation, and Scenic Hiqhways Elements of
the General Plan) and Section 12-4 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code are pro-
posed to allow the consolidation of the City's six existing Park Districts or
Zones (!Kap 8). Zhis report will present and analyze alternative consolidation
sche--es and provide a reccrr%ended course of action for implenentation of the
most appropriate alternative.
II. BACEC-2RDI":^
Local governments are authorized to require the dedication of land or the
payment of in lieu fees to provide additional park and recreational land frau
residential developers by Section 66477 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
Followirrl the enactment of this enablinq legislation (the Quimby Act) in 1965,
the City Council adopted the first park and recreational dedication ordinance
in September 1966. Since then the dedication requirements have been amended
in 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1980. These requirements are contained in Sections
13-39- to 13-409 and in Sections 14-484 to 13-494 of the Municipal Code.
One of the prerequisites which must be fulfilled prior to the acceptance of
parkla-0 dedication or the collection of in -lieu fees by a local government
is the adoption of a Master Plan of Parks. The first Master Plan Was adopted
by the City Council in 1966 creating a total of 57 Park Areas. Division of
the City into this number of planning areas became cumbersome and unworkable.
Subsequently, the number of aures or districts Were reduced to 16 in 1970 and
to 6 in 1972. With the exception of new annexations, the six districts
established in 1972 have remained unchanged as established by Ordinance 72-46
(codified as Section 12-4 of the Municipal Code).
The six park districts or ares have served as major subunits of the City for
a number of planning studies. Because of the generally similar land use
patterns and socio-economic characteristics within each zone, these subunits
have served as intermediate neighborhood planning areas to bridge the gap
between census tracts and the City at large. GP -80-2C is of immediate interest
due to the use of these zones in the Environmental Management System (EMS),
adopted as the Open Space, Oxtiservation, and Scenic Highway Elements of the
General Plan in 1974. Much of the data analyses and presentations were based
on these geographic subunits. As such, efforts to consolidate or otherwise
alter these boundaries or the number of districts must involve organizational
amendments to the EKS.
III. EWIAO POITAL REVIEW
An initial Study of Environmental Impacts was conducted for the proposed
wroerd-ent. The Study rotes that the amendment would not impact the total
number or acreage of parks in the City, but, instead, may allow fees collected
in one part of the co mamity where there are adequate facilities to be used
for the purchase of park lard in older parts of the City where park facilities
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 1
EXISTING PARK DISTRICTS
MAP 8
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 2
may be more limited. It Was determined that this potential redistribution
of open space Would not result in significant environ^ental impacts. Thr--
initial
heInitial Study concludes that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
can be adopted.
IV. MORAL PLA, 4ONF1OR"".ITY
The requested amendment has been examined in respect to the various elements
a.-0 subele-gents of the General Plan currently being prepared. Althoua!� the
General Plan has not been adopted, the proposed amendment has been ccrpare4-
to those applicable components which will be included in the General Plan.
Of the eight sections in the Environmental Resources/Management Element, the
impact on the Open Space Subelement appears to be the only significant concern.
As was the case in the EMS, the Open Space subelement uses the existing six Park
Districts as a basic geographic unit of analysis. Also, as noted previously,
these units are also referred to as Planning Areas and are used as a basis for
analysis in subsequent subelements of the entire General Plan. Oonsolidation
or amendments to the existing Districts may create inconsistencies between
these segments of the General Plan. However, these can be resolved by deleting
references to "Park Districts' in the Open Space Subelenent and by referring
to the geographic subunits as "Planning Areas" as done in other ecxntxonents of
the General Plan.
V. At 0010r, ANALYS I S
The requirements for residential developers to dedicate land for the develop-
ment of new parks or the payment of in lieu fees to purchase new parkland was
based on the City's adopted standard to provide a minimum of 2.5 acres of
public park land for every 1,000 persons. The fee and dedication standards
are established by calculating the valuation of park land in the City, the
nurser of persons expected to reside in a given dwelling unit and the type of
dwelling unit being constructed. The current fee/dedication schedule is noted
in the following table.
PAM FEE,/LAM DEDICATION REQUIREMER S
(Effective January 3, 1979)
Fee*
Sirle Family
Land Dedication*+
2 -Bedrooms or Less
; 661.76
237.40
sq.
ft.
3-Bedrocris
1,205.67
332.14
sq.
ft.
4 -Bedrooms
1,545.62
425.79
sq.
ft.
5 -Bedrooms +
10810.50
498.76
sq.
ft.
Multiple Family
Bachelor or Studio
; 474.37
130.68
sq.
ft.
1-Bedroo^
573.18
157.90
sq.
ft.
2 -Bedrooms
681.51
242.84
sq.
ft.
3 --Bedrooms
1,229.38
338.67
sq.
ft.
* Per Unit
+ At City's discretion,
lard dedication may be required
rather than
payment
of fees.
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 3
Current, uncar-itted funI balances for all six of the City's existing Pari:
Districts total approximately $1.3 pillion. The distribution of funds in
each of the disticts is note(3 in the following table.
LN1-_aI!-U7 En PATU, AOND Rl'-REkTIO1: FEE WCA1.2E
(April 198 )
Par': District Uncarr-itte! Fun! Balan7�-
1
S 233,9(,` .4E
2
22,384.65
3
363,254.65
4
321,221.34
5
243,418.27
6
$ 188,883.8(-,
Zb;.a1
1,373,123.49
Using the adopted standard of "adequate" park land and 1979 population esti-
mates, it can be seen that the City's inventory of parkland (204.74 acres)
proti,ides the City's 80,000 inha.5itants with sufficient park, and recreatio--,
facilities (200 acres would be required to meet the minimLri level of service
establishe3 by the standard). However, because of the distribution of pmala-
tion an3 parkl and, certain neighborhoods within the City do not have adequate
parklare as note? in the following table.
PARF,LA*M,/POPaATIONI DISTRIB.r'IO!: - 1979
Geog raph i s Park
Service Area Acrea,3e
Planning Area,/Park Dist. 1 57.19
Southwest Costa Mesa
Re.j.:ired Excess or
Acreage Basel on Deficient
Population City St.arriarris Acrea-i -
21,022 52.56 +5.23
Planning Area/Park Dist. 2 52.46 14,472 36.16 +16.2:,
Mesa Verde
Planning Area/Park Dist. 3 11.50 18,286 45.72 -34.22
Eastside Costa Mesa
Planning Area/Park Dist. 4 60.97 19,776 49.44 +11.53
Central Costa Mesa
Planning Area,/Park Dist. 5 13.43 2,660 6.65 +6.78
North Costa Mesa
Planning Area/Park Dist. 6 8.64 3,781 9.45 -0.81
Northeast Costa Mesa
7ICTA- 204.79 80,000 200.00 +4.79
As noted earlier, modification or consolidation of the six existing Park
Districts could allow the transfer of fees from areas with sufficient parkland
(Districts 1, 20 4, and 5) to areas without sufficient parkland (Districts 3
and 6). 7his may be especially beneficial to District 3 where the deficiency
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 4
is the greatest and the amount of vacant land suitable for new park, sites is
the most scarce.
A telephone survey of eleven cities in Orange County noted that the use of
park districts to collect and dispense in -lieu fees varies from con -unity to
ccnr,�.mity. H wever, it should be noted that those cities which have electe,?
to employ park districts do require that the fees collected be expended in
the district in wt,ich they were generated. The results of this survey are
noted in the table on the following page.
As noted in the results of this survey, there does not appear to be a direct
relationship between the size or population of a city and the division of
the city into smaller park districts. Average populations per district rang(
fray„ approximately 1,000 to 25,000 residents while average sizes range frarr,
approxbratley 1.5 to 3.5 square miles. Cities without districts range fro-,
40,326 to 206,050 in population and from 6.2 square miles to 40 square miles
in land area.
VI. CONSOLIDATION OPTION'S
Three alternative district consolidation options, in addition to the existing
six -district division (Map 9A), have been prepared. Each option is discussed
in the following sections.
A. 92tion I (Map 9B) results in the consolidation of existing park dis-
tricts to form three new districts. In this alternative, Districts
and 3, 2 and 4, and 5 and 6 have been combined.
While this approach will provide greater flexibility in the disposition
of in -lieu fees by providing a larger area in which to locate new public
parks, the combination of Districts contained in this alternative creates
certain inequities because of the development patterns and distribution
of parkland within the newly formed districts. The resultant District
2 is the combination of existing Districts (1 and 3) which contain the
oldest parts of the City with the least desirable distribution of
existing parkland.
B. 0
ption II (Map 10A) bisects the City into two Park Districts in an east/
west direction. The boundary between the districts could became the
northern edges of the Fairview Regional Park site, the Costa Mesa Golf
and Country Club and Fairview Hospital, Merrimac Way between Harbor
and Fairview, and Arlington Drive between Fairview and the ODsta Mesa
Freeway. This option would allow slightly more flexibility in the use
of in -lieu fees than Option I.
C. ion III (Map 10B) results in the consolidation of the six existing
districts into a single district serving all of the City. Obviously,
this option provides the greatest opportunity to allocate in -lieu fees
to the specific neighborhood with the greatest need for park services.
Such an arrangement would also reduce the need for administration of
the fees because of the elimination of individual s000unts for each
of the existing six districts.
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 5
C U, . • •
i rC G V iC 0 < a C V Q v Q
LG C '
.r =
y
R
v' ff
1O . N .mocr
Ali
i • Ip
p •� L
y
d
ti v
E E E E E E E E E E E E
a � .>
> Er
� v:
0 o ac N c v-4 f o r+ o 0 0� •.•
a y
C o � a N r r •-1 rl O O �`
v
Ad
.a
:�
ow -
a - Cc - o
.�yv--4I
$ m
...,
w
�c
�g
� r
.-
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 6
f. a
EXISTING PARK DISTRICTS
9A
NEWPOPT $LVD
OPTION 1
9B
•
NEw►0017 B4vC
ANA A
i
2
AE D MILL AVE
�s
. -��► s
rdm*)
r •, l�� iEET
.o
MAP 9
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 7
J
ki
11
OPTION II
10A
0000000
NEWPORT •LVD
1
■' 1
OPTION III
10 B
NEWPMT BLVD
=of
2
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 8
MAP 10
VII. RECYT.E2m;7m7.;ti
Staff reccrriends implementation of option III. The elimination of separate
park districts to collect and dispense in -lieu park aryl recreation fees is
the most efficient and potentially beneficial option analyzed as a part of
this req Jest.
Implementation of this option would require textual and graphic a'ienri-K2nt=
to the existin^ Envirori-ental Management SystL-,, and draft Environ-lantal
Resources/Manage-7ent Element of the General Plan. In both cases, reference-
to "Park Districts" or "Park Zones" would require replacement with. "lieigh�Dr-
hood Planning Areas" or, simply, "Planning Areas." Within the CMS, these
anen3-ents are confined to the text, maps, and tables between pages 27 an -9 4L.
Within the Draft WME, these anerxlrrents would be confined to text, and charts
between pages V-7 and V-8 and V-15 and V--16.
Further amendments to ER/ME, the Community Developnent/Management Element anti
Land Use Element drafts are not required. Staff contends that the six subun .S
provide a convenient and useful means to aggregate and analyse data for a
variety of planning studies. As such, the boundaries of the districts should
be maintained and the individual districts should be classified as "Plannin3
Areas."
Implementation of option III will also require amendment to Section 12-4 of
the M micipal Code and ordinance 72-46 which estahlish the boundaries of the
City's six existing Park Districts. Staff recommends the concurrent process-
irr, and adoption of these amerylnents ar,3 the requested General Plan Atmendr-ien ..
Exhibit "A" for Resolution No. 80-69
Page 9