Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2016 Item 2 CooperNorth Broad Neighborhood Park Acquisition Funding Request Date: June 10, 2016 To: City Council From: Neighborhood Committee for a North Broad Park Reason for this Request. So the city has funds available quickly when an opportunity arises to acquire a site for a “North Broad” park. In the past, the city has lost opportunities because its budget process is too slow to allow it to compete in the real estate market. Time demands of today’s market are even speedier than in past markets. Introduction. For decades the city has noted a park deficiency in the “North Broad” neighborhood, whose boundaries extend approximately from Stenner Creek to San Luis Mountain between Highway 101 and Foothill Blvd. Many ill-fated efforts have been made to obtain such a park. Now, some 40 years after efforts began, the neighborhood is virtually entirely built out, and only a few potential opportunities remain. If the city does not move now, while funds are available to set up a park account, it is likely there will never be a neighborhood park in the North-of-101-to- Foothill area. Establishing a park in a built-up neighborhood presents opportunities, issues and problems different from establishing a park in an annexation area. Unlike in newly developed areas, in older areas potential sites are limited. Opportunities for acquisition may arise quickly, and if not acted upon with speed, the potential park site may go for other uses before the city can budget funds. Therefore, it is important to have funds in reserve for this purpose, so the city can move quickly when the opportunity presents itself. Parks need to be understood as more than simply recreational facilities. In a transitional neighborhood such as “North Broad,” they can serve as catalysts for strengthening a neighborhood. “North Broad” is currently threatened, subject simultaneously to speculator pressure to become a high density transient district and to the desire of individual families to settle in an attractive and convenient older in-town location. A park as catalyst can stabilize a troubled neighborhood like “North Broad,” making it more stable, more all-age friendly, more family-friendly. An example of “park as catalyst” can be seen in “Anholm Park,” not really a park, but a tiny neighborhood playground, underutilized for many years, that has lately become a magnet for attracting young families to the Lincoln Street sub-area of the larger neighborhood. “North Broad” badly needs a larger neighborhood park to provide “social cement” for an age-diverse area populated by both children and adults of all ages. The Need Is Stated In The General Plan. Dealing with the lack of a park for “North Broad” has been a part of city park planning since at least the 1970s. In the most recent Park’and Recreation Element of the General Plan (2001), for example, this need is made explicit in several places and several ways. The list of “unmet needs” denotes the “North Broad” neighborhood as having the only unmet need for a neighborhood park in the entire city. In the list below, copied directly from the P&R Element of the General Plan, “North Broad” park is item 6: 3.12 Unmet Needs The major unmet needs for parks an recreation facilities are: 1.Athletic fields 2.Multi-use community center and therapy pool 3.Mini-parks - Purple Sage Lane, Eto Street 4.Multi-use trails for recreational use and connect to facilities 5.Lighted tennis courts 6.Neighborhood parks: in Broad Street area near Highway 101 and Foothill Blvd. 7.Upgrading and replacement of playground equipment 8.Specialty facilites usch as disc golf, dog parks, BMX parks 9.Mini-parks in underserved areas where neighborhood parts do not adequately meet needs - Marsh & Santa Rosa Streets, Terrace Hill, Royal Way 10.Bocce ball facility Note that most of these “unmet needs” of 2001 have been met. The “North Broad” park is one of the exceptions. The 2001 Park and Recreation Element also includes unmet need funding proposals. Here, again directly from the General Plan element, is that list: Appendix B Park Acquisition and Implementation Priority, 5-10 Years Lighted Tennis Courts $600,000 Laguna Lake Park Improvements $400,000 Sinsheimer Park Improvements $800,000 Special Use Facilities $400,000 Playground Equipment Upgrades $1,000,000 Orcutt Area Neighborhood Park Park-in-lieu project Neighborhood and Mini Parks $400,000 Margarita Area Neighborhood Park Park-in-lieu project Community Garden Improvements $20,000 Open Space Trail Construction Athletic Field Improvements $90,000 Broad Street Neighborhood Park $500,000 Note that these were expenditures to be undertaken within a 5 to 10 year window. Most of these expenditure items have taken place. It has been 15 years, however, and still no movement on a “North Broad” park. It should also be noted that real estate today is much more costly, so the $500,000 acquisition estimate of 2001 is much too little in 2016’s land market. History of Efforts/Opportunities to Obtain a “North Broad” Park. Our history only goes back to the early 1970s. 1. At that time, the first missed opportunity was the Forden farm, at the corner of Broad and Serrano, extending uphill to what is now Palomar. It came on the market. About 8 acres, with beautiful trees, a farmhouse and farm buildings including a great barn, it would have made a wonderful park. But the city dallied, and in time a developer purchased it and subdivided the land. 2. In the later 1970s, Planning Director Rob Strong proposed, as part of a General Plan update, that a park be carved out of already-developed lots in the 100 block of Broad. This proposal involved purchasing and demolishing the Brazil House at 148 Broad to create a parking lot, and condemning the back yards of several residences to create a center-of- block park. None of these properties were on the market – acquisition would have been via eminent domain. This clumsy proposal had been drawn up without consulting constituents. Because it tread so harshly on existing property rights it had near-zero neighborhood support. The Council took one look at the idea of condemning constituents’ homes, and shelved the idea. (To illustrate how incongruous the idea was with various civic goals, the Brazil House is now on the city’s master list of historic properties.) 3. For decades a large parcel between Foothill and Ramona next to the neighborhood shopping center sat vacant. One development proposal after another came and went. Neighbors repeatedly asked the city to purchase the tract as a park. Again, the city dallied. After years of city inaction, the Mormon Church purchased the property and built on it. 4. Today, there are only two obvious potential park parcels remaining within the neighborhood, and at the moment, neither is for sale. We believe, however, that could change quickly and without notice, and the city would then have a narrow time window in which to act. That means funds would need to be at the ready – and that’s the crux of this request for setting aside a reserve account for this purpose. In today’s real estate market, the city simply would not have time to go through a budget cycle to acquire either of these sites. Funding Mechanisms. On this issue, we’ve found considerable confusion among both staff and council members we’ve spoken to. In annexation areas, park acquisition is generally carried out by agreement with the developer. That is the situation the city has dealt with in the recent past. For unmet needs in an older built-out part of town (“North Broad” was mainly subdivided in the 1920s and 1930s), developer exactions do not work. Meeting these unmet needs is therefore a function of the city’s general funds, such as those being allocated by the Council tonight. This is explicit in the Park Element’s program policies: Program 6.4.1 Schedule “unmet needs” projects for construction through the normal capital Improvement proceeds, as funding exists Clearly, as of this Council session and deliberation, funding exists in the form of the unanticipated $5.8 million in city revenues Council members are being asked to divvy up. Allocating a portion of those for the capital investment in a “North Broad” park site seems entirely appropriate. Funding Request. This request has several aspects. 1. We request the funds be put into a reserve account earmarked for a “North Broad” park. The reason for a reserve is twofold: first, obviously the funds cannot be spent tonight on acquisition absent availability of a specific site; but second, and more importantly, they need to be available on short notice when one of the sites does become available so the city can move, with the speed required in the current real estate market. Without funds on reserve, we’ll find ourselves where we’ve been in the past, with the city taking months to years to get in motion, and in the meanwhile the property being sold to others. IT IS ESSENTIAL FUNDS IN AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT BE AVAILABLE QUICKLY WHEN NEEDED. 2. The advantage of a reserve account is the money isn’t actually spent until it’s needed. In the meanwhile, it becomes part of the city’s investment portfolio. Should the project ultimately fall through, the money is still available for other municipal purposes. 3. Our research of the current real estate market suggests a neighborhood park site could cost close to $3 million, perhaps a bit less. While that sounds like a lot of money, the city today finds itself with an unanticipated surplus plenty large enough to fund a reserve account of that size. In doing so, the Council would be providing residents with something of perpetual value rather than something of short term value from which none of them would actually benefit. We believe this is precisely the sort of public- benefit capital investment a Good City undertakes. 4. If the council is uncomfortable with an open ended reserve account, it might consider a “sunset” period equal to that of Measure G, 8 years. If the funds are not expended in that time, a “sunset” would allow the council to reassess at that time whether the funds should continue to be set aside for this park, or whether they are better reallocated, hopefully to some other long-benefit resident-serving project. 5. Our explicit request: That the Council set aside $2.8 million of the $5.8 million currently available in a ready reserve account earmarked for site acquisition for a “North Broad” neighborhood park.