Supervisors Pull Back on Parkland Proposal

The Orange County Board of Supervisors has decided to scrap the controversial plan it approved a year ago to relieve some developers of their obligation to donate land for local parks, officials said Tuesday.

The board delayed the official burial of the plan for two weeks to give developers a chance to propose other ways of cashing in the excess “credits” they earned in past years by building more affordable housing than was required by county regulations.

Thomas F. Riley, the board chairman, said developers and county staff members were “seeking a fair and equitable program” to retire the excess credits.

Supervisor Bruce Nestande said that “there seems to be a consensus” that the supervisors will not permit builders with credits to cut back on parkland.

Riley and Nestande represent the two districts that would have been most heavily affected by the plan. Both said they agreed with the decision to rescind the board resolution passed in June, 1984, on a 5-0 vote.

The county’s mandatory affordable housing program, which is now being phased out, required developers to provide 25% of their new units for sale or rent to low- or moderate-income residents. Those who exceeded the 25% mark were given credits, which they could sell to other builders or use themselves for future developments.

Under separate regulations, developers are required to give the county 2.5 acres of land for every 1,000 people who will live in their new development, or else pay substantial fees.

Thirteen months ago the supervisors adopted the resolution setting up guidelines to let developers trade in their excess affordable-housing credits for a reduction in the local parkland requirements.

The original resolution passed with little public notice, but when planners began drawing up legislation to implement the measure, there was opposition.

The county Environmental Management Agency said that in the “highly improbable” case that developers cashed in all outstanding credits in return for the reduction in parkland requirements, the county could lose 154 acres of future local parkland or $46 million in fees.

Opponents of the swap said the parkland had nothing to do with affordable housing, and criticized the cost in lost land or fees to the county.

“Needless to say, we’re real pleased that the Planning Commission and the supervisors decided against proceeding with that (swap) concept,” said Stiles T. Burke, president of the South Laguna Civic Assn.

‘United Against the Concept’

“We were coordinating with the other (homeowners’) associations, and generally speaking, we were united against the . . . trade concept,” Burke said.

Speaking about the swap plan on behalf of his association last month, Burke told the Planning Commission that “it is impossible for us to understand how it in any respect benefits the average citizen of Orange County.”

But Philip Bettencourt, a vice president of Gfeller Development Co. of Tustin and an official of the Building Industry Assn.’s Orange County branch, said developers felt the parkland plan was “the most workable exchange mechanism that could have been used.”

County records show at least nine developers with excess credits.

Riley said that at the time the board passed the parkland option, “it did not seem to be a major deterrent to parks and open space in the county. But all of a sudden when the cost of land (was calculated), it seemed the county’s best interest was not being protected.”