Loading...
2006/05/08 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Packet CITY OF ROHNERT PARK SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Monday, May 8, 2006 7:30 p.m. Rohnert Park City Offices 6750 Commerce Boulevard AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call: �Blyd . EiBlack dButler Coleman ❑ Griffin P1 Hansen 121 Stevens IV. Approval of Minutes April 17, 2006 Commission Meeting V. Report on the Posting of the Meeting Agenda VI. Unscheduled Public Appearances/Public Comment (Please fill out a Speaker Card prior to speaking) VII. Old Business A.Review of actions of March 20 meeting concerning the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Areas B.Discussion and Consideration of Statement of Position on the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Areas C. Consideration to rescind the March 20 action on the University District and Southeast Specific Plan Areas VIII. New Business A. Select Representative for Civic Center Design Outreach Meetings IX. Matters From/For Commissioners Adjournment to a meeting scheduled on Monday, May 15, 2006, in City Council Chambers at the Rohnert Park City Hall, 6750 Commerce Boulevard, at 7:30 p.m. Page 1 City of Rohnert Park Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda—May 8, 2006 DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, please contact the Recreation Department at (707) 588-3456 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation. Please make sure the Recreation Services Manager's office is notified as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment that requires the meeting materials to be produced in another format. • Page 2 For Meeting with Dan Schwarz, Asst. City Manager and Ron Bendorf, City Planner , Friday April 28, 2006 SYNOPSIS OF P&R COMMISSION PROCESS REGARDING SE AND UD PLANS BY TOM HANSEN, CHAIR Various proposals have been presented over the past year and half with various amount of parkland dedication and credit amounts for Specific Plan areas. During the Feb. meeting, the agenda requested final approval of a plan proposed for the SE area. The discussion focused on the design aspects of the park with an added feature of a detention site for storm runoff. The detention area received the most comments with its concrete ditch running down the center of the proposed park. Only slight comments were made regarding the area to be dedicated since it was assumed to be the same as before of 5.8 acres. No mention of the UD plan was made. In March, the SE plan was represented with the detention pond having a hidden French drain and better grading of the park area. In addition the costs of the park improvements were then shown. There were many questions about what was shown as improvements since many of the items listed are excluded in the Ordinance. Mr. Blackman talked of a five acre park and later that they will not ask for credits for the improvements. The Commission was then asked for its approval so the question was asked a couple of times in different ways of Ron, What is the purpose of a motion for approval? And, What are we approving? The gist of the response was that this was a tentative, tentative map and that all of the details and amounts would be provided prior to the next round of approval. With a vague idea that the main issue was the placement of the park, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the motion. The UD plan then was presented. The main issues discussed were the locations of the parks and the improvements as well as a discussion of the detention areas desired by the City Engineer. Also discussed was the possibility of an all weather field in the main park and the commission's desire to see one there. Mr. Polson said that he would do all he could to make that happen if there was approval that night. Questions of the amount of parkland being proposed meeting the General Plan were asked of Ron who responded that the areas with improvements meet the general plan requirements. A motion was made for approval with caveats. The motion passed. The feeling that we approved the unknown was clear when we met on April 17 after the presentation by Maureen Rich. When we,the Park and Recreation Commission, discussed the requirements of the General Plan and the City Ordinance,we realized that we did not have all of the information available to us and that information provided by RP Planning staff members and the developers was inconsistent. Ms. Rich also indicated that the minutes of our previous meetings could serve as our advisory to the council which was not necessarily our intention since we had previously been counseled by the Planning Dept. that this was not meant as our recommendation. We therefore rescinded the prior decisions unanimously so that we could get the information and provide the Council with our recommendations based on clear facts from the Planning Dept. provided in advance of the meeting so we have reasonable time to review. * * * �pt{NERT Pggk INTEROFFICE MEMO 19 From: Guy Miller, Recreation Services Managertote IMPARTMENT To: Parks and Recreation Commission Cc: Dan Schwarz,Assistant City Manager CAuFORr,P Date: May 1, 2006 Subject: Special meeting of May 8 Community Development Director Ron Bendorff and Assistant City Manager met with Chair Hansen on Friday, April 21, 2006, to discuss actions of the Park and Recreation Commission at its March and April meetings. Chair Hansen was informed that the vote taken by the Commission at its April 17 meeting to rescind actions of its March 20 meeting was not in compliance with provisions of the Brown Act. The concerns and desires of the Commission with respect to the University District Specific Plan and the Southeast Specific Plan were discussed. As a result of this conversation, it was concluded that the special meeting of the Commission shall include the following: discussion between the Commission and staff as to what actions the Commission took at its March meeting, discussion by the Commission as to whether it wishes to initiate the process to rescind its March 20 actions concerning the two specific plans, and discussion by the Commission of what, if any, statement it wishes to submit to the Council concerning the specific plans. To ensure that this meeting is as productive as possible, we are requesting that you submit questions to staff in advance of the meeting. Please submit your questions to me by Thursday, May 4 and Planning will prepare written materials responding to these questions. You may e-mail your questions to me at gmiller@rpcity.org. A7 HAR rZ7 CITY ATTORNEY/CITY ADMINISTRATION 9 a s2 MEMORANDUM CA LI FORN<<' CONFIDENTIAUATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DATE May 2, 2006 City Council TO Rohnert Park Parks and Recreation Commission Tim Smith Mayor cc Ron Bendorff, Community Development Director Vicki Vidak-Martinez Darrin Jenkins, City Engineer Vice-Mayor Guy Miller, Recreation Services Manager Maureen Rich, Senior Planner Arnie L.Breeze Armando F.Flores FROM Dan Schwarz, Assistant City Manager Jake Mackenzie Gabrielle P. Whelan, Assistant CityAttorney Council Members Via: Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Stephen R.Donley RE Dedication of Parkland by Subdividers City Manager Daniel Schwarz • In connection with the Specific Plans being discussed by the Parks and ' ssistant City Manager Recreation Commission, Torn Hansen contacted the City Attorney's Office with several questions regarding parkland dedication and the responsibilities of the Judy Hauff Parks and Recreation Commission.' Specifically, Chairperson Hansen's City Clerk questions pertain to the potential use of parkland as a storm water detention area. Michelle Marchetta Kenyon We believe that the answers to these questions will be helpful to the Commission City Attorney as a whole, so we are providing you with our analysis. Gabrielle P.Whelan Assistant City Attorney Question: Is the use of parkland as a storm water detention area for a Thomas R.Bullard subdivision an "encumbrance" on the parkland -- and therefore precluded by the Director of Public Safety City's subdivision ordinance? Ronff Answer: Municipal Code section 16.14.020(D)(1) requires that dedicated Director of Community Development parkland be free of "liens and encumbrances." It is important to give the terms Darrin W.Jenkins "liens and encumbrances" their legal meaning. The legal meaning of the term Director of Public Works/ "lien" is a "claim, encumbrance, or charge on property for payment of some debt, City Engineer obligation, or duty" and an "encumbrance" is "a right or interest in land which Sandra M.Lipitz belongs to another." The dedicated parkland would belong to the City in fee and Director of Administrative Services therefore would not have any liens on it. The dedicated parkland would also not be encumbered as it is the City that would be using the parkland both for park purposes and as a storm water detention area. For these reasons, accepting dedicated parkland that would also be used as a storm water detention area would not violate section 16.14.020(D)(1) of the Municipal Code. 'The City's parkland dedication requirements are contained in Municipal Code section 16.14.020,which is available on the City's website. 6750 Commerce Boulevard•Rohnert Park CA•94928•(707)588-2226•Fax(707)588-2263 www.rpcity.org Dedication of Parkland by Subdividers May 2, 2006 Page 2 Question: When parkland is used as a water detention area, is the parkland "usable land" as contemplated by the City's subdivision ordinance? Answer: Municipal Code section 16.14.020(D)(1) requires a subdivider to dedicate "usable land" as parkland. While the City's subdivision ordinance does not define the term "usable," it is commonly understood to mean "available for use." In other words, the City's ordinance requires that parkland be "available for use" for park purposes. For example, if a proposed storm detention area were not to be available for park uses for several weeks in the winter, a Parks and Recreation Commission determination that the parkland was not "usable parkland" would be defensible. However, I understand from staff that at this point the detention ponds are intended to hold water during peak rain periods for a maximum of a few hours. Whether a park is sufficiently "usable" is a factual question and any determination made by the Parks and Recreation Commission should be based on the facts presented to it by staff. Question: Can the Parks and Recreation Commission approve or recommend the proposed dedication of parkland that is to be used as a detention basin? Answer: Municipal Code section 16.14.020(K) requires the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on: 1) the amount of land or fee or both to be required from a subdivider, 2) credit to be given to the subdivider making the parkland dedication, 3) the location of the land proposed for dedication or the proposed use of in lieu fees, and 4) the location and configuration of land proposed for dedication. Reporting on items 1 and 4 will by necessity be based upon the Commission's opinion as to whether or not the land is "usable" as a park -- because un-usable acreage cannot be counted against a developer's dedication requirement and a park's configuration aids in determining whether or not it is "usable." Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Commission can recommend acceptance of proposed parkland dedication if the four elements of section 16.14.020(K) are satisfied -- two of those elements include a consideration of whether or not the proposed parkland is "usable." It will be the job of the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine whether or not proposed parkland that will be used as a storm water detention basin is "usable" based upon the facts presented at its meeting by the applicant, staff, and others. Please contact Dan Schwarz, Assistant City Manager, at (707) 588-2212 with any follow-up questions related to this topic. INTEROFFICE MEMO DATE: 5/4/06 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: RON BENDORFF,DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PARK PROPOSALS Staff has been asked to provide a summary of the actions taken so far in reviewing the proposed park plans for the Specific Plan Areas. The following presents Staff's overview of the discussion to date: Commission Actions In late 2004, the Commission began its review of the conceptual park plans within the Specific Plan Areas, focusing on the locations and sizes of the proposed park sites. Staff notes that such a review is not required by the Municipal Code for a Specific Plan application; however it was felt that it would be beneficial for the Commission to review the conceptual plans at that time in order to determine their consistency with the General Plan's park requirements. That way, Staff could report to the Planning Commission and City Council that the Commission had reviewed the park concepts at the time the Specific Plans were under consideration. As some of the Commission may recall, this conceptual review took place over a series of meetings,ending in a determination of consistency in 2005. In the interim, the proponents for the University District and Southeast Specific Plans submitted tentative subdivision maps for their projects. Section 16.14.020 K.2. of the Municipal Code requires that "[a]t the time of approval of a tentative map, the city council shall determine whether to require a dedication of land, payment of a fee, or a combination of both. The city council's decision shall be based upon a report and recommendation from the recreation and parks commission which shall include: a.The amount of land or fee or both to be required; b.Credit to be given(for private open space and/or park improvements); c.The location of the dedicated land or proposed use of in-lieu fees. d.If land is dedicated,the city shall determine the location and configuration." At the March 20, 2006 meeting, Staff requested that the Commission make a recommendation related to items "a," "c," and "d" above and a general statement regarding "b." Staff understood the Commission's vote to mean that the recommendation was made as requested by Staff, with the provision that the final park plans for the developments return to the Commission for approval prior to the approval of final maps for the projects. This was intended to allow flexibility in the final design of the park improvements, since the parks may not be built for some time and Staff is reluctant to approve a final park plan that could become out-of-date prior to its construction. So, what Staff believes the Commission has recommended is that the park locations are appropriate, the park site sizes are adequate in size and general shape, and that credits for park improvements and, in the case of the MEMO TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIFIC PLAN PARK REQUIREMENTS ,"'\ University District, credits for private open space are appropriate, with the actual park improvement credits to be determined when a park facility is ready to be built(see below). Approval of Park Improvement Credits Staff understands that some Commissioners may have reservations regarding the proposed approach to park improvement credits. As the Commission is aware, such credits are beneficial in that they allow the City to have a park facility completed by a developer at an early stage in the project's development, rather than having to wait until such time as the City has the funds to complete the improvements. Staff notes that the procedure in Section 16.14.020 K.2. regarding credits is fine for a typical subdivision on residentially-zoned land that is ready to be built; however, it does not apply well to a Specific Plan situation. As noted above, the park sites within a Specific Plan application do not have to be reviewed by the Commission; rather Staff may make the determination that they are consistent with the General Plan. The Specific Plan is the guiding document and functions as the master plan for an area. If the Specific Plan is approved and the park sites "set in stone" with that approval,the only time the Commission would be asked to review the proposed parks would be at the tentative map stage. This review would not have much utility regarding park sizes or locations, as these would already be approved with the Specific Plan,but it would concentrate on the improvements proposed and the resulting credit amount. Given that the improvement of the parks may not occur for a number of years, Staff is cautious about attaching exact improvement credits to the project now, as this would lock-in the specific improvements to be made and could preclude the City from requiring more up- to-date facilities at the time of construction. As an alternative, Staff has suggested that the Commission allow the use of improvement credits in its recommendation to the Council, with the credits to be specifically determined at the time the final park design is approved by the Commission and Council. In this way,the Commission still has the ability to review the final park plans and any proposed credits and make its recommendation to the Council prior to the approval of a final map for the project. At that time any fine-tuning of the park site can be accomplished. Also, as noted previously, the City can ensure that "state-of-the-art" facilities are developed, rather than ones that may be outdated by the time that they are completed. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at 707-588- 2231. Thank you for your consideration. Page 2 , Questions for Planning Staff ANSWERS IN BOLDFACE WHERE CAN BE GIVEN Regarding Both UD and SE areas: Establishing Park Land Dedication Requirements • What is the estimated population and on what basis was this estimate made? University District: 4;310 persons (2.62 persons/unit per General Plan) SE Plan: 1,307 persons (2.62 persons/unit per General Plan) Does this population estimate differ from the Quimbly Act estimate, the General Plan estimate or the Ordinance estimate? Yes. What is the largest population estimate? For the University District, the largest would be the General Plan and the Ordinance would be largest for the SE Plan. Staff did not do a Quimby Act estimate, as that is not required if we have implementing measures. The Ordinance requires "five acres of park for each one thousand persons" of estimated population and the General Plan states this same requirement. (OS-11 and in 5-14) What is the requirement for park land dedication for each project using the various estimates of population? University District: General Plan — 21.55 acres Ordinance — 18.53 acres SE Plan: General Plan 6.54 acres Ordinance — 7.77 acres In addition, the General Plan states . . ." mini-parks, and other appropriate open spaces from non-residential developments in locations such as the University District, subject to a maximum of one acre per 250,000 square feet of nonresidential space." With this requirement what is the total park land dedication required for each Specific Plan area? What is the maximum parkland dedication required for each area? The minimums and maximums are established in the Gnereal Plan. For the University District it is a range of 12-15 acres for a "linear park" and 1-2 acres for a plaza. For the SE Plan it is 5-8 acres of park. In Table 5.2-2 of the General Plan there are footnotes stating "1. Excluding mini- parks, plazas, and greenways. 2. Although geographically linear, these would be neighborhood parks. Does this table nullify in any way the requirements stated in three other places for 5 acres per 1000? No. The Ordinance requires "3. The subdivider shall, without credit, provide: a. Full street improvements and utility connections including curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees, and sidewalks adjacent to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; and b. Fencing along the property line of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated land as approved by the director and the city engineer. Since in some locations the required improvements are not necessary, we need to determine the value of these so that effective credit can be given to the city. What is the circumference of each of the proposed parks? What is the cost per length of installed sidewalks? What is the cost per length of installed Street Trees? What is the cost per length of installed fencing? What is the total amount of these improvements for each project? This will all be provided with the final park plans in the future, at which time credits will be considered. The above figures should not factor into any credit given, as these are all required of an improved or unimproved park site. ^� Also in the Ordinance it states; "2. The amount of the fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land prescribed for dedication in subsection D of this section plus the cost of improvements required under subsection (D)(3) of this section." What is the current fair market value of the land? Does the assessment of the fair market value reflect recent sales of bare land in Rohnert Park? This will all be provided with the final park plans in the future, at which time credits will be considered. To do this now would not have much utility, as costs will change by the time the parks are developed. This actually works in the City's favor, since the annexed lands will have a greater value than the lands in their existing unincorporated state, meaning it will take more in improvements to qualify for an acre's credit. In addition, since the Ordinance states; " 3. For purposes of this section, the public works improvement costs, subsection (E)(2) of this section, shall be determined by the city engineer based on any increase in cost of construction over the phasing period, as determined for that period by the Engineering News Record Cost of Construction Index published by McGraw-Hill Publishing Company." • P`\ What would the total value be of the parkland to be dedicated with improvements be in dollar amount? And in equivalent acre amount? See above answer re: land costs. The ordinance provides; "the subdivider is required to dedicate usable land for a local park. All park land shall be dedicated free and clear of all liens and encumbrances to the city and shall conform to the provisions of this section." Is the land proposed for dedication usable all year and at all times for recreation purposes? If not, what portion of land is not usable? For how long? What are real remedies for reducing the amount of time the land is unusable? Can the remedies be added to the project and be implemented if needed? For example, can there be valves available to use to stop a park from being used for storm water holding? If private land is being used as credit for the park land requirements, can the water detention area be placed on that land? The City Engineer will be in attendance at the 5/8/06 meeting and can be asked about detention basins. What are the specific locations and areas of land being proposed for park land in each of the projects? What constitutes the edge of the park land? See attached plans for University District and SE Plan. Does it include or exclude any other General Plan or Ordinance requirements such as for traffic or open space? Staff is unclear what is meant by this. Parks should not affect other requirements. Could a map be provided of the exact areas proposed shown? See attached. Private Area Credit Requests For private areas are to be considered for credit, the following criteria is from the Ordinance; "5. The space for which credit is given is a minimum of two acres and provides a minimum of four of the following local park basic elements, or a combination of elements and other recreational improvements, which will meet the specific recreation and park needs of the future residents of the area: *Elements * *Acres * 1. Children's play apparatus areas 0.50 -- 0.75 2. Family picnic areas 0.25 -- 0.75 3. Landscape park-like and quiet areas 0.50 -- 1.00 4. Game court areas 0.25 -- 0.50 5. Turf play fields 1.00 -- 3.00 6. Swimming pool (42' x 75')with 0.25 - 0.50 adjacent deck and lawn 7. Recreation center buildings 0.15 -- 0.25 What is the area of each private park area? What elements does the specific area have? The park program for the University District is attached and "1 gives the acreages of the private recreation areas. Are non listed elements being requested for credit? No. What is the amount of this non listed element credit request? N/A Could a map of the private park land proposed be provided? See Attached. What is the ratio of park land credit request? If this means what ratio of credit would be given, it would be 50 percent. If it means what ratio of park need would be met with private recreation area credits, that would be about 6 percent of proponent's overall need. What are the reasons for using this ratio over a lower ratio? It is allowed by the Ordinance. The lower ratio of 40 percent is for private recreation areas that do not include the above amenities. Park Improvements Credits In each park, there are areas for improvements such as walkways, landscaping, drainage, irrigation and added elements such as playing fields or equipment and recreation facilities. --� /\ What is the total amount of value for the park land improvements in current dollars and in future dollars? See above answer regarding improvement costs. What portion will be spent on the various aspects of improvements and what is the basis of these cost estimates? These can be given in dollar amounts and percentages? See above. Pa4N it +I it I 1u I I. I 1. 1 1 J ' vC •Io1 I I I I 1 I I I OI N O U)N O O-. IN r, 2 C m OI I o 0- IQ N N w 01 w w 0.N c h N o . r m 9 oa l Irl^ - "' '•o^I i pQr` 7 NNNm NN w N _ OY ? y Il N • 1'-elm oil N N a(V f7(V N C O N f' m ° I I O.. I I ; I I i a.0. I I a t I l I r l 1 1 I 3� 11 i I E •° l 6000000 lob 'o o 8: • c m I I 11 pp p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 3 10 E of I8 8 E , .1 I8N O N 000 O O O v,: ` T o oI o 0 0 L Q Io (�wilt.. OI 010.60 00 .ci (0 O � C R (04_ O II II I 1 I i I f if oI I I ! I l t m 1 1 79k O 010N000�p O 8 8 �- >la ` mlo O I 'o too 0)o.0 0 oV o o O m °O U NIc 'n Im o1 m n cix!. o 10000000 0 0 0 1O EF-Q !=1• ° • of o ^ ^ N a I 1 i - i I I I • n O Cr NI 1V-P.812 0oi0 O o _ � 7eI I:111! � w'�i w Imo- O N m O O U h1O e o a' q I-- O lV O 10 QaI�� I' � I.g ti I � I I Q 9 Q o' co N O N o • w N LL QY � 11111 . ^ ON pNi,IOp pwi. � �l cpit a 1•- ,-O a7 O O. N1 IOI I «u mO a m 8I O 8 Is 1818 O O I V '116 o4312m ss rt ,I:al atm Q � I 1 I • m m _ I c' I . ,a OOOOr o o • ° e 8 sr:. 8 8 8 $ 80 c co tl d� 6. .066006 - - 0 00 • Q l� od 7 0 0 0 pp iiii o 0 ai 8 $ 8 a c 0> . O 000 O 3 8 8 43.0 O 0 0 0 O O - Q o o G m m 3 0 01 O o 0 O O > N 0 N N N N E.0 . D 1 1 u I 11118 m jjIt Iwc 1IHhIiILIIO O - e of 6 0 Eimiliiiiii ' 1 111 milli i � Ioa ---- 1 ill Op � wapNw iiii m �, .� 1 - o 1 I � lI � ool�l� � 1 o1 o 11 �• ] am N �N?ii111111 a ill 8d >aa ,12 .12 ei m of log - moon o Io - u e o 111111 a = = tr2 R, 8 8. !I 1 Y 111111 : I I I 1 } n�.� l' '1111111 OCII1I11 1• 1 C1 11111 C �i I`m toi°.N 0h OI 10 - ° yOn0 0I 1 1 • I > �vofIwl~I1rIr-o.�n en .•-I •' 0�0 181 0 EQ 0 0 - - o1 m �1 w Mw�t7 m N IO $ _, Io o cI- E II ' I ' 1FF_II IW IIIt 1 I II I O IIvFQ �O1O IOI�i0I0 O N Nl I� - C I IIZ. i 1 " 1 11 > m l I. ia1 w 111 I ° m >o II ' 1 11 I 1asIno, ; , , , , z101IOIOINI010O O !O - n'10 ivi'm • J'.Yi ! ' lI c• Qaol o l I 'f 0 1"1 c• �1 a. a I I l 1 1 1 I I m. a m I i 1 I m. I 3Q - a. C C m 'p b a A u I I 1 l i t l il u a A.m u.m m m 2 I o U • E ami I I I 1 1 Q m 0 0- E8. . . G. > m m p Q a- til W LL ! Oro ,0j 1 I I 0 h. ' _ !n•ii . W 2Dm JJ mQdN 7 00 is'jj, , Q a ,y, t;., 0) 10000000 0 lW W 00 a 6O ° 0 0 0000 a w m oo 0 II- 0 00 a 0 »>>»> 0 0 < I- M won. » >>» 0 0 Q ..1- co , FIGURE 17 i . I i `01 I I IL is i1 di 11 lj�i II I ' , , mu N o i mai I a I LA 1111111111111/ umj ,IIi MEM -- -Mills = �1� W inl =. r -= :Ibl ;l . { `� _ ', g to I • in f ■�� 1 , 1 - 11 I,�/ K/ _'+ 7� moi• g. 1I-- �i o it �IIi t / • it _ -- A N Pe ''/ . 1 mum 13 IID t f / ,r a 0 Unlit r 111i11� I CZZ Z -,ii -4 ., ii Lii.11111LIII 10111.11111 - ,M,fa 7. s IL_11M111111 IIIBfllI :M Eg 1' �--�>Li: 11111 ffj d gi g i ti !1111 1/011111 1 I a H __ \ I °I l l l""I'l it I ' `/� `Lil llit� I1IIIRI ! 1i j��� /����/�,1r ; ; ; �o o w V]{1] • 1I I a i-- L r. fi =-�. • I a f�-f (�z SSS ] d • ii �� ." 2.1: I a 7 x 111 ► �� ; �. 1 rim ii r ir�. E I LI O o° H IR III e _ I . a c. 8"1 ",y-,';I w a i` )1 o _ ..W� M El . s I 1� _ 1101' (=i W I' I og O.20 ` 'C1 1,illl IIII -II II' ,�� —f 011 I A A .,, IN 1� I"\ 0., ' I C. c =v' t a =MIN, I -- b WIZ—— i ///����i' j • 11X i..a' -lara141 °Ivy 1 ` i °i :!1tJ 4 Pe**At il Fil 1 E ----L,s- I. is 11.: gE **740" k. 1.0 ": ,2 ' -' 11 <wit — co IIle ..\ ` tom._ III 1 ���I�J n � °%aia`�j I o . Cniii,,,:.-...C:J.':ItilIA;•:."...."....- i j " ' ,---- ri ,--- iii - ... ... ..,-, -1,,,,,,:-..-.ir 0•Oir 0 r ,-----,.------, rTCC1 IY� O•,•.. ____...2_,..- - •�.�,••,� �at'C\ 4 I !/ I e$ 1 n 24. I b- /..N a w,.-.w+....,4+nw..fttestva a** a.. saes • f -I 41 'q.,1'.' Li � ate` 0 It ti li t §,- `�, -. .� 6 l a i ' '''' ',, ,1 '''',',.,'7:,,..:si:',4-- , --, ',*, ,‘ li yN3 �^�, V1 '- 'e . 4 � 11 4 ': zoNwo(';' 111 4 U ,-"1 Questions for Planning Staff Regarding Both UD and SE areas: Establishing Park Land Dedication Requirements What is the estimated population and on what basis was this estimate made? Does this population estimate differ from the Quimbly Act estimate,the General Plan estimate or the Ordinance estimate? What is the largest population estimate? The Ordinance requires"five acres of park for each one thousand persons"of estimated population and the General Plan states this same requirement. (OS-11 and in 5-14) What is the requirement for park land dedication for each project using the various estimates of population? In addition,the General Plan states . . ."mini-parks,and other appropriate open spaces from non-residential developments in locations such as the University District, subject to a maximum of one acre per 250,000 square feet of nonresidential space." With this requirement what is the total park land dedication required for each Specific Plan area? What is the maximum parkland dedication required for each area? In Table 5.2-2 of the General Plan there are footnotes stating"1.Excluding mini parks,plazas, and greenways. 2.Although geographically linear, these would be neighborhood parks. Does this table nullify in any way the requirements stated in three other places for 5 acres per 1000? The Ordinance requires "3. The subdivider shall, without credit, provide: a. Full street improvements and utility connections including curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees, and sidewalks adjacent to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; and b. Fencing along the property line of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated land as approved by the director and the city engineer. Since in some locations the required improvements are not necessary,we need to determine the value of these so that effective credit can be given to the city. What is the circumference of each of the proposed parks? What is the cost per length of installed sidewalks? What is the cost per length of installed Street Trees? What is the cost per length of installed fencing? What is the total amount of these improvements for each project? Also in the Ordinance it states; "2. The amount of the fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land prescribed for dedication in subsection D of this section plus the cost of improvements required under subsection (D) (3) of this section." What is the current fair market value of the land? Does the assessment of the fair market value reflect recent sales of bare land in Rohnert Park? In addition, since the Ordinance states; " 3. For purposes of this section, the public works improvement costs, subsection (E) (2) of this section, shall be determined by the city engineer based on any increase in cost of construction over the phasing period, as determined for that period by the Engineering News Record Cost of Construction Index published by McGraw-Hill Publishing Company." What would the total value be of the parkland to be dedicated with improvements be in dollar amount? And in equivalent acre amount? The ordinance provides; "the subdivider is required to dedicate usable land for a local park. All park land shall be dedicated free and clear of all liens and encumbrances to the city and shall conform to the provisions of this section." Is the land proposed for dedication usable all year and at all times for recreation purposes? If not,what portion of land is not usable? For how long? What are real remedies for reducing the amount of time the land is unusable? Can the remedies be added to the project and be implemented if needed? For example, can there be valves available to use to stop a park from being used for storm water holding? If private land is being used as credit for the park land requirements, can the water detention area be placed on that land? What are the specific locations and areas of land being proposed for park land in each of the projects? What constitutes the edge of the park land? Does it include or exclude any other General Plan or Ordinance requirements such as for traffic or open space? Could a map be provided of the exact areas proposed shown? Private Area Credit Requests For private areas are to be considered for credit,the following criteria is from the Ordinance; "5. The space for which credit is given is a minimum of two acres and provides a minimum of four of the following local park basic elements, or a combination of elements and other recreational improvements, which will meet the specific recreation and park needs of the future residents of the area: *Elements * *Acres * 1. Children's play apparatus areas 0.50 -- 0.75 2. Family picnic areas 0.25 -- 0.75 3. Landscape park-like and quiet 0.50 -- 1.00 areas 4. Game court areas 0.25 -- 0.50 5. Turf play fields 1.00 -- 3.00 6. Swimming pool (42' x 75' ) with 0.25 - 0.50 adjacent deck and lawn 7. Recreation center buildings 0.15 -- 0.25 What is the area of each private park area? What elements does the specific area have? Are non listed elements being requested for credit? What is the amount of this non listed element credit request? Could a map of the private park land proposed be provided? What is the ratio of park land credit request? What are the reasons for using this ratio over a lower ratio? Park Improvements Credits In each park,there are areas for improvements such as walkways, landscaping,drainage, irrigation and added elements such as playing fields or equipment and recreation facilities. What is the total amount of value for the park land improvements in current dollars and in future dollars? What portion will be spent on the various aspects of improvements and what is the basis of these cost estimates? These can be given in dollar amounts and percentages? * * * SPECIFIC PLAN PARKLAND DEDICATION QUESTIONS (Respectively submitted by Bonnie Black) Staff Answers in Boldface General: • I understand that the General Plan and the Municipal Code play important roles in guiding this process. I also understand that at times the two documents are inconsistent with each other and when that occurs, the GP is the governing document. When the GP does not provide details for the new park development process (Example: What specifically can and can not be accepted as parkland credit), then we look to the MC to be the guide, correct? Yes. The Municipal Code specifies what credits can be given to a project. The actual amounts of credits will be considered at the time the park plans are considered by the Commission. • The Municipal Code states that: "The land, fees, or combination of both may be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision..." Therefore, it would be possible to apply any in-lieu of land dedication fees to maybe rehabilitate Magnolia Park or the Community Center for example. Correct? Could some kind of fund be established for future rehabilitation of these new parks with any additional fees that may be owed to Rohnert Park? This can be considered if it is the Commission's pleasure. • Retention ponds required by what agency and/or document?? The Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP) requires that new projects manage their storm water quality and quantity and conserve natural areas of the development site. A detention area is a way to achieve this. The City Engineer may provide additional guidance at the 5/8/06 meeting. • Why was it necessary to vote on the general placement and size of proposed parklands again? The UD, and SE plans general size and placement were approved by P&R @ the April 2005 meeting. Is it because the sizes of these parks have changed? The first meetings regarding the parks were related to the Specific Plans, and Staff only requested that the Commission make a General Plan consistency statement, which was done in April, 2005. Since that time, tentative maps were submitted for the University District and the Southeast r1 Specific Plan and these also require Commission review, so that's why the second round of meetings. South East: • Previous Staff memos and staff reports refer to developer of South East offering 5.8acres for.park and improvements on that land to satisfy the 7.3 acres required for their proposed development however at the March meeting the developer's figure dropped to 5 acres and no credits being requested, yet provided an itemized list of proposed improvements and their costs. Which is it? The 5.8 acres refer to gross park area, which includes the perimeter streets. The net park acreage is 5.0 acres. University District: General Plan projected 12-15acres of new parkland. Nov. 2004 Memo from R.Bendorff—states that a total of 21.38 acres are required Offered: 5.34 Private acres (full credit applied???) 9.74 Public acres (total of 15.08)plus credits Feb. 2005 Memo from R.Bendorff —states developer offering: 1.66 (for 3.32 private) plus 14.46 public (total 16.12acres) March 2006 P&R meeting Developer proposed 13.72 plus some private parks/pools. (Unclear on the total now) • Request clarification on current parkland requirements - still 21.38 acres? (I understand that the development plan has evolved over the past 18months and some of this may have changed) • Request clarification on totals of parkland and credits being offered now. The entire University District Specific Plan proposes a total of 1,645 units, which is 35 units higher than what the Commission previously saw. This is the result of a "swap" of 75,000 square feet of commercial space for the 35 units. At the General Plan ratio of 2.62 persons per unit, the overall project requires 21.55 acres of parkland or equivalents. Of this total, approximately 18.47 acres would be the proponent's responsibility. Attached is the University District's park program, showing the total dedicated acreage for the proponent's portion of the project (13.72 acres of public parks and 2.37 acres of private recreation area. At a 50 percent credit, the 2.37 acres of private recreation area would equal 1.19 acres, so the total amount of parkland provided by the proponent would be 14.91 acres, requiring an additional 3.56 acres of ,.., credits to meet the proponent's parkland requirement. The attached park program also gives a rough idea of the improvement costs for • /'•N the parks and the credits that could be obtained, however hard costs will be required prior to approval of the actual park plans, as will the latest per acre average land costs in the area. These figures will be subject to review by the City Engineer for accuracy. MISC: • In the future, please provide clear information regarding the proposed units in varying densities, formulas used to calculate parkland requirements and any pertinent information prior to our meetings so we have time to review and prepare to make informed decisions. Agreed. • Please also provide exact questions being posed to the P&R Commission for consideration and anticipated action on future agendas. Agreed. • If in-lieu of land dedication improvements are being requested for credit, then it will be important for P&R to be given true fair-market value of an acre of land of that subdivision information. The developer's estimate of that value alone will not be sufficient because of obvious conflict of interest. True. The City Engineer will verify all costs prior to any credits be given to one of the projects. it i ' I 1 ; Ii ll 1 1 i - 1 I I 1U ' . rI I 1.11 �I< O mN N OO 'A Ir. m O YCW aoI 1' 0-1•E y Nm NinmN"! ' m N O OY > '4 eW', oNeI2 iC W N N N C N 6 of G C - F' 1N l • I I I 1 I i O_ .9 1 1 7 1 i '. E „',i ! 616 0 0 pOp 0 0 o! 0 0 O_ ® m (I EQY O1 OV88100SSS 181 (S S N_. -�YE 88 c Ioo $ �! ( ' 0Ka. d ,01000661.- o d 0 , • c,10 of lol80 01 0 00 1 1 1 1 I l l N n a 1 • 0l I II” d ii% I 0 0 l 0 II m o' 8.I0.I7,888? o 0 0 2• ?Q io;o7,o0ov 8 o 8 ' IIWIo - „ I� SI1I II o u �Io I ' • 0I • ! p.6QoIe000oe00 0000_ VOO o'g :1hlxmo Ha NLL0 I7O,010 O O O m•• u1ei e n o a2& N • 1 0.-N0 fp O l06 a0.. ;I-q I a i • I ' I I p q 1N- mNOINOO Nmj I r0Ngi 'IIi I ; l a. o LL 0-Y ON 01 cowth ( I hEe q .� on16 ON ONI O O I I CL I 1 lis eri.go iiiiiiiiiiiiiiim IL;lir:: :11011111CO• Y I 1iii:ia:miii_ _ . SS '� o syI SISS O _ _ - < $ - O 1111111 I ELL o.1 -m oi 00004 o o • o « o 1N m 00p Z � n l O co of o O opo o vj 8 n nm o + _0- 63 ;l : :,,,, I � u • rt W,„,••1,, I§ §.111E111 . Po 2 2 o 2 $ U Q o $8_g_ I IN ii N4. NmmV IGIi1IIIIIv m a. So 1 I eia r h _ 1 1UiLI II 13 qd1 MIS NmIrN!<mNr1. U a L111111111:11111ifimiiimilil JO 1.1,,:t,1,,,,...: 11. 01 t! o r1giigiiij a 8 „ ,, r 5 ., 8 1 HIII II ti I Imo� N cIiimilimiliti:,_, I Iw! QW _•I MI pm i I 1 f lr7, i M 8 ; � l . a I�l 18 r7rm`MoNM !o _ 1111 el e an gpp d . limit! . a m ifi o ooeIll INvilitpif III i I »I Itt I I = N15 vg' d '>.3a�. 03 oto loN1010 o n .0 10 I�1 nUar W0 I lo I' MIo1l I p f 1111 onrc ce a j il i l R: i �I I i ! a: l Q i : ! a:. IJ . 11. 1I3 u 13 �.� JW y V • E d Ipugc n maQ m U a E d IS CI' n ta p 11 .2o.- I rj = 7,• U w a- JJmS a0 a1 U V v S. J ' N M'V 7,7, O d iW Ti W O� OJ J - :d R W ) YW s nw ° 0 10000000 CC W ? a. a2 Op 0000 W m o0 0 1F- M 7,0 O. 0 >>>> 0 o < ..- O o p O. » >>> 0 0 q .1-. co /'N SPECIFIC PLAN PARKLAND DEDICATION QUESTIONS (Respectively submitted by Bonnie Black) General: • I understand that the General Plan and the Municipal Code play important roles in guiding this process. I also understand that at times the two documents are inconsistent with each other and when that occurs, the GP is the governing document. When the GP does not provide details for the new park development process (Example: What specifically can and can not be accepted as parkland credit), then we look to the MC to be the guide, correct? • The Municipal Code states that: "The land, fees, or combination of both may be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision..." Therefore, it would be possible to apply any in-lieu of land dedication fees to maybe rehabilitate Magnolia Park or the Community Center for example. Correct? Could some kind of fund be established for future rehabilitation of these new parks with any additional fees that may be owed to Rohnert Park? • Retention ponds required by what agency and/or document?? • Why was it necessary to vote on the general placement and size of proposed parklands again? The UD, and SE plans general size and placement were approved by P&R @ the April 2005 meeting. Is it because the sizes of these parks have changed? South East: • Previous Staff memos and staff reports refer to developer of South East offering 5.8acres for park and improvements on that land to satisfy the 7.3 acres required for their proposed development however at the March meeting the developer's figure dropped to 5 acres and no credits being requested, yet provided an itemized list of proposed improvements and their costs. Which is it? University District: General Plan projected 12-15acres of new parkland. Nov. 2004 Memo from R.Bendorff—states that a total of 21.38 acres are required Offered: 5.34 Private acres(full credit applied???) 9.74 Public acres(total of 15.08)plus credits Feb. 2005 Memo from R.Bendorff —states developer offering: 1.66 (for 3.32 private) plus 14.46 public(total 16.12acres) March 2006 P&R meeting Developer proposed 13.72 plus some private parks/pools. (Unclear on the total now) • Request clarification on current parkland requirements — still 21.38 acres? (I understand that the development plan has evolved over the past .-� 18months and some of this may have changed) • Request clarification on totals of parkland and credits being offered now. MISC: • In the future, please provide clear information regarding the proposed units in varying densities, formulas used to calculate parkland requirements and any pertinent information prior to our meetings so we have time to review and prepare to make informed decisions. • Please also provide exact questions being posed to the P&R Commission for consideration and anticipated action on future agendas. • If in-lieu of land dedication improvements are being requested for credit, then it will be important for P&R to be given true fair-market value of an acre of land of that subdivision information. The developer's estimate of that value alone will not be sufficient because of obvious conflict of interest.