Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09011998 - D17 Conga • " • Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM; DENNIS M. BARRY,'' AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -t `c DATE: June 9, 1998 SUBJECT: PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO PARK LAND AND OPEN SPACE AREAS IN PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT' DEVELOPMENTS SPECIFIC REOUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REC !NDAT ONS; APPROVE the: following report and policy on the protection of public access to park land and open space areas in proposed' residential Planned Unit Developments. F'ISCA'L, , IMPACT Norse to the General Fund BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On April 21, 1998, the Beard of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department to provide a >draft policy' restricting the use of gates in new residential planned 'unit development ("PUD") projects that were proximate to publicly owned open space and park' land areas." Over the past several months, County staff`, the Zoning Administrator, the 'Planning Commissions and the Board has spent considerable time on an issue related to the installation of a gate. across'> a private road that has been used for ''access to a regional' park. At issue was the desire of members of the public to preserve broad ':access to park lands through the subdivision while the property owners desire was to construct a gate across their private' road to protect their homes from motor vehicle traffic associated with non property owner users. POLICY DEFINITIQX There are several trends and dynamics that are bringing the issue ' of public access to park lands versus private road access control to the forefront. These are''associated with our County maturing or transitioning from a rural County with wide open space areas to more developed and urbanized communities'. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARDCOMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES) •, ACTION OF BOARD ON SeRte ber :1 , 1998 APPROVED AS RECOX ENDED Xy, OTHER SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS`' (ABSENT #4') TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON 'THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE BATE SHOWN. Contact:R. Mitch Avalon - 335-1221 Orig: Community Development Department ' ATTESTED September 1 1998 cc: CAU PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel TH BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works-Heather Ballenger AN COUNTY NISTRATCR East Bay Regional Park District RMA/df BY , DEPUTY bo3:openspace.bo ' 1.. As the population continues to grow, there is more and more demand for open space and park land areas for recreational purposes. As the demand for park ` land increases, there is also an increased demand for access to those park land. areas'. 2. As the East Bay Regional Park District grows and proceeds in its overall plan to interconnect the open space and park land areas-, the desirability for their use as a recreational facility will `increase. As their desirabilityincreases so will the demand for increased access to the open space and park land areas. 3 As properties that border the open space and park land areas ; develop, the historic access points to the open space, and park land areas diminishes On the other hand, as development occurs, new access points can be created. 4. Many development projects that are in hillside areas adjacent to park land areas propose private roads to reduce the road width, eliminate sidewalks and reduce the right of way width. This .often allows 'thein to 'develop more of the property in a' manner that has a reduced impact on the land than if the . project was proposing public roads. 5. As properties that surround open space and park land areas develop, it is possible to design those developments to accommodate bath public access to open space and park Land areas and provide privacy for the homeowners. There are several goals and policies in the General Plan that support and encourage the development ofaccess to open space and park land areas and to develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located access points to open space and park land areas to serve the needs of all residents.' As., opportunities arise for 'creating new points of access to open space and park Lands, they should be taken advantage of and developed. In addition, as opportunities arise to preserve or improve existing points of access to open space and park lands, those opportunities should also be taken. The goals of the General. Plan in the Open Space Element include Goals 9.H. and 9.1. The General Plan Policies include 9-7, 9-27, 9-34, , 9-33 and 9-40, and the implementation measures include 9--U ' and 9-X. These General Plan policies, goals and implementation measures are listed at the end of this report: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION It is incumbent on staff to review each development project for its impacts on existing park land areas and trail' systems. Staff reviews each project for meeting the goals` and policies of the General Plan for recreational 'and open space needs. This may result in the requirement to dedicate open space, dedicate trail easements, construct new trail facilities or construct parking at a staging area:. This would be done in consultation with the Park District if the project is near their park lands. To protect public access to park: land and open space areas and with appropriate nexus, all future planned unit development 'projects that are proximate to open space or park land areas shall include the fallowing,, or very similar, Condition of Approval. The Condition would be tailored to the site specific circumstances of each project. To preserve and enhance public access to the open space or park land areas adjacent to or near the ,project,, a non- exclusive easement for trail purposes shall be conveyed or dedicated to ( (the `'public agency owning and/or responsible for the adjoining open, space and/or' park land) ) over the roads within the project that now serve or in the 3 future will serve as access to open space or park land areas adjacent to or near the project. The easement shall provide that its described road area(s) 'shall remain open and no gates or other obstructions to passage of the; public, as described in the trail "overlay" easement, are allowed. If required, the PUD project's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall acknowledgethe existence of the trail 'easement and inform the homeowners that they are restricted by the easement. The roads within the project that are planned to be needed for access to open space lands or park land areas and shall` have a non-exclusive easement for trail purposes dedicated over it are the fallowing '( (list applicable roads) ) . The non-exclusive trail easement would be conveyed or dedicated to the public owner of the park land area which, for example, may be the East Bay Regional Park District. It should be noted that the above condition only applies to projects with private roads since public access on public roads is guaranteed. On projects with either public or private roads however`, there may very well be other requirements for trail access and trail improvements' off the roads', GENERAL PLAN The applicable General' Plan policies, goals and implementation measure are the following. 9-H. To develop a sufficient amount of conveniently located, property' designed park and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all the residents. 9-I To develop a system of interconnected hiking, riding and bicycling trails and paths suitable for both active recreational use and for the purpose of transportation/circulation: 9-7. Open space shall be utilized for public safety, resource conservation and appropriate recreation activities for all segments of the community. 9-27. Physical and visual public access to established scenic routes shall be protected. 9--33. A well-balanced distribution of local parks, based on character and intensity of present and planned' residential development and future recreation needs, shall be 'preserved, 9-34 Park design shall be appropriate' to the recreational needs and access capabilities of all residents in each locality. 9-40. Recreational activity, shall be distributed and managed according to an area's carrying capacity with special emphasis on controlling adverse environmental impacts, such ,as conflict between uses and trespass .. At the same time, the regional importance of each area's recreation resources shall be recognized. 9-v. Develop a comprehensive and interconnected series of hiking, biking and riding trails in conjunctions with cities, special districts', public utilities and county service areas. 9-x. Werk with local unincorporated communities to determine the means of providing' local park services where the need presently exists, as well as when development occurs. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D' 17 Agenda September 1, 1998 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the attached proposed report on the protection of public access to park land and open space areas in proposed residential Planned UnitDevelopments. Dennis Barry,Community Development Director,presented the staff report. Victor Westman, County Counsel,was also present. The public hearing was opened, and the following people offered testimony: Steve Fiala, East Bay Regional Park District,2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland; David Kurtzman,146 Castle Crest,Alamo, Those desiring to speak having been heard,the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gerber moved to accept the staff report, and policy on implementing the Condition of Approval for Planned Unit Developments, and major subdivisions. (see Page 2 of the report). Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion with the amendment that the text include "when appropriate nexus is shown."Supervisor Gerber accepted the amendment. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED the staff report(as attached)is ACCEPTED; the proposed standard Conditions of Approval for planned unit developments and major subdivisions,proximate to publicly owned open space and park lands,as amended is ACCEPTED. ss * � * elCONSIDERWO f REGIONAL PARKS EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST �: AIM 111 BOARD OF DIRECTORS - Jean s?n 3rf President J Beverly Lane August 28, 1998 vice-President Carol seven" > � RD O a1""'�U +�°# c.±` Treasurer q a # John Butter Secretary ` Jocelyn Combs Ted Radke Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Doug Siden 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Pat O'Brien Martinez, CA 94553 General Manager Re: Comprehensive Protection of Public Access to Parklands and Open Space Areas Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: The East Bay Regional Park District is supportive of the County's efforts to develop a policy document that addresses the protection of public access to parklands and open space areas related to new Planned Unit Developments. We believe that the policy recommendation should not be limited to"PUD's"only, but should be applied to all new residential development permitted by the County. In addition, as pointed out in prior correspondence and during testimony at public hearings,we believe that a similar policy should also be established to address existing subdivisions seeking to alter established public access patterns. In order to maximize the benefits of the specific policy now under consideration,the Park District would encourage the addition of policy wording to address all existing and well established public access points potentially impacted by new residential projects. Specifically, we suggest the following: 1) Under"Recommendations"change"proposed residential Planned Unit Developments"to ". . . in all proposed residential developments." 2) Under'Rolicy ImnlementaWZ second paragraph, first sentence, change ". . . all future planned unit development projects . . ."to". . . all future residential projects. . ." 3) Under Policy Implementation, carryover paragraph from pages 2-3, 3rd sentence, change"If required,the PUD projects . to"If required,a PUD project's. . ." s 2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O, Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Tel:(510)635-0135 TDD(510)633-0460 Fax:(510)569-4319 In prior discussions with County staff and in response to concerns raised by your legal counsel regarding the potential interpretation of additions to the proposed policy language we have suggested,our agency has retained a private law firm experienced in this field to obtain a legal analysis which we hope will be helpful in your determinations. County staff raised the concern' on the perception of"takings"that might be triggered by inclusion of broader policy language. We believe that the attached response to that issue and the case law cited provides adequate protection to the County to address any potential legal challenges that might be raised should the policy be questioned. Again,our agency congratulates Contra Costa County for taking a proactive step to address an issue of great importance to the general public regarding protection of public access to the thousands of acres of parklands they enjoy and have supported through bond measures and property taxes. We encourage your consideration of the aforementioned additions to the policy to make it comprehensive and maximize protection of these vital resources. We would also be pleased to assist you in any manner you deem appropriate: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important policy issue,and urge you to apply it to all proposed new residential development. Sincerely, Beverly La '' .Board of Directors cc: Pati O'Brien Board of Directors Dennis M. Barry enclosure 08/28/98 14:28 SME,MIHALY 9002/004 SHUTE, MIHALY &'WEINBERGER .cLaa�aarr StiLiYl JiC. ArrO&NrYS AT LAW LtiURSL t»rMi'k'T't1 AtCT MARK 1.WXOOZ kGEli 396 HAYAS STREET UU M RAt W%1t MARC S.kMI ABLY,FS C. SAPS FF ANCISCO, CALIFOR.W A D4102 NUZ'hsl?W M.DODD P-AC M.U. 140 is TILEPHONN.'(415) 332-7272 dr cotrr+acs RAGti6L#."LiOC}tR& AL LEW J.CARYffiR TELICOV121k:WS) 552.31518 TAMruM 3.'CAL AS€ZA &WSON FOLK RICHARD S.T.°YWX SVSANNAk4 T:FRENCH f AA*N 3.'13HEIMOOD XOSENT 3.POLLMLrMP. ryp n SUSAN 3.CL.LN%t,.WIZAugust 9$ fJF.ATNXR.a.FAIW 20, 19 Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors 651 pine Street, Room 106 Martinez„ CA 94553 Re: Co„m9rchensive protect~an of p1:t'l c.Mess tri Sa I land ard ripen :ache areas Dear Members of the Board of Sapervisars> This firm represents the East Bay Regional Park District on legal matters related to open space and park protection in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. We submit the following comments on Contra Costa County's proposed policy to protect access to park land and open space through exactions applied to plaatmed unit Developments. Although the park District generally supports this policy, we understand that the recommended policy would not apply to smaller projects out of concern that doing so would expose the County to takings litigation. The purpose of this letter is to explain why, in our opinion, a more comprehensive access policy would not expose the County to significantly1igher risk oftakings lawsuits. First,mere passage of acomprehensive access policy would not result in increased exposure'to takings liability because courts find facial attacks on such policies overly speculative. The U.S. Supreme Court as well as California Appellate courts<recognize that such attacks face an"uphill battle" since there exists "an important distinction between a claim that the mere enactment of a statute constitutes a taking and a claim that the particular impact of government action on a specific; piece of property requires the payment of just compensation." KUgonc Mmmbous i".call, s'n v. nedictis, 480 U.S'470,494-95 (1987)citing Hade-1 y. SudhaMiniag&l?,wlamsfion AsM.-Inc., 452 U.S. 264(1981). In both. Bitminous and Hadd. a preenforcement takings challenge to a law affecting the use of land was judged premature because there were no property-specific facts upon which to weigh the extent of the alleged interference with property rights. 08/28/98 14:26 SH PMKIHALY Q003/004 This ripeness doctrine rine flaws from the presumption that"local government legislation is constitutional on its face if it bears `a substantial relationship to the public welfare . . .' and inflicts no irreparable inJury to the landowner." Long BeWh]Equities Y. County of Ycn ,M 231 Cal. App. 3d 1016,, 1030(1991)citingntns Y, Tib=. 447 U.S.255, 261 (1980)(overturning a Superior Court decision allowing a takings cast to be heard because the case was not ripe without a final decision on meaningful applications by developer for permits or variances). Maintaining public access to public parks and open space is substantially related to community welfare. 'man v. Califomija Coastal al Q..rr ni ion 483 U.S'. 825, 841-42(1987)(noting the legitimate"public purpose" of providing public access to lands). Thus, the question of whether or not there is a:taking must turn on the existence and extent of injury to a landowner. That showing must be particular to each parcel of land; therefore, mere adoption of such a regulation could not be assailed as a'taking. Furthermore, while it is possible that specific application of the policy might sustain a takings claim, that could only occur if the application did not bear,a necessary relationship to the harm it was designed to remedy. For some applications lack of this"essential nexus" between an exaction and the harm it is to remedy gives rise to a taking. Nglbn, 483 U.S. 825 (holding that a beach access casement exaction failed to further the end of protecting public y;ews of the sea and was:a taking); v.-Cary of TjeaW, 512 U.& 374(1994)(holding,that the conditions on a commercial redevelopment project were not roughly proportional to the harm caused by the development). As the County's policy recognizes,there is a nexus between requiring that existing paths to public parks and open spaces Tremain open and the need for access to those areas, The County's proposed policy appears to assume that this nexus is related to the size of a development. This is not the ease. Regardlessof the size of the proposed development, if it were to block an existing accessway,it would negatively impact a public right. 'Thus, under LIollati and JhAm the County may mitigate this impact through a policy, such as that proposed for PUDs, that requires project redesign or the dedication of the existing accessway. h lw, Mdigb y. C4 of C&er Cily, 12 Cal 4th. 854, 867(1996)(holding a requirement that developers provide art in an area."reasonably accessible to the public"and indexing the value:of the art to the value of the project provides a general solution to the aesthetic problems of development and is not a taking). Finally, a more broad policy would not rmuire County planners to insist on easements in the unlikely case that they result in a taking. if a case ever arises where the nexus between securing access easements and maintaining access to public lands does not exist, the County staff could decide then to avoid taking property by 08/29/98 14.26 ' SHIITE,NIHALY 11004/004 Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors August 28, 1998 Page 3 dropping the exaction requirement. Deciding to institute a comprehensive access policy would never force the'County to require an easement in a particular case,but would provide a general, deliberated basis for guamtecing access to public lands for many more development projects than would a policy that was restricted to Planned Unit Developments. For this reason,the Park District urges the County to adopt the proposed` access policy and to expand it to include all developments that will affect access to public parks and open spaces. Very truly yours, SHUTE,MIHALY &WEINBERGER Ellison Folk EF:swb (A W8a01.00R]