Greenbelt Quandary : County Continues to Put Aside Developers’ Lands for Parks, but Lack of Funds Makes It an Open Space Plan Gone to Seed

The sign stands alone in a field with a stubble of grass, a dumpster and a lawn roller. It reads “proposed park site” and has a figure of a child flying a kite.

The land behind the triple-strand barbed wire fence, next to El Toro Cemetery, has been a “proposed” park for four years now. By law, the developer had to turn the property over to the county. But Orange County officials have steadfastly refused to accept it, saying there is no money to develop the eight-acre plot.

“We’re stalemated, and there’s not much we can do about it,” said Fred Trost, president of the homeowners’ association in the Landmark Los Alisos development next to the bedraggled field.

Offered But Not Accepted

The site is like 22 others across Orange County, records show. In every case, the land has been “irrevocably offered” to the county as required by law, but has not been accepted.

In addition, 20 other sites have been accepted by the county , but not developed, Yet the county continues to insist that developers offer land for local parks.

Two sites, one in Laguna Niguel and one in Mission Viejo, have been untouched since 1973.

County officials say they act as “stewards” in insisting that land for local parks be provided. As urbanization spreads to rural areas of the county, there must be enough space left for the recreational needs of residents, the officials say.

But Philip Bettencourt, a vice president of Gfeller Development Co. and a member of the Orange County chapter of the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California Inc., says having more land than can be used is “not good public policy.”

Bettencourt said many builders believe that “in our lust, our rush to acquire more and more and more parks and open space, we haven’t always had the resources to care for the open space in a responsible way, and maybe we ought to concentrate on taking care of what we have rather than acquiring land simply for the goal of having a lot of acreage.”

Differing Definitions

County officials say they are studying the matter of local parks, which are defined as those being within walking or bicycling distance of a residential development. Some parks may just be grass and walking paths; others have play areas and equipment and sports fields.

County regulations require that a developer either pay fees or provide 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 people in a new residential development.

Supervisor Bruce Nestande, whose 3rd District includes the unused site by the cemetery, said it is important to get the land “in the bank, so to speak.”

But if the county can’t afford to turn that land into parks, he said, it could require developers to do the job instead of providing more land. But, he said, “I don’t think there’s a ‘park crisis’ right now.”

As with so many problems when governments plead empty pockets, Proposition 13 is blamed.

Tax Eliminated

Before the 1978 tax-cutting initiative, residents of unincorporated areas of Orange County known as county service areas paid a property tax to the county, like other homeowners. In addition, they paid a property tax to the service area to fund services such as development and maintenance of local parks.

Proposition 13 knocked out the service area property tax entirely, cutting the amount of money available to service areas in Orange County by an average 50%. The Board of Supervisors approved supplementary funds to make up some of the gap in subsequent years, but last February supervisors decided to end the subsidy.

Although developers still must put up the land or pay fees, the county has refused to accept most of the land since 1978. That means the developers or homeowners’ associations pay taxes on the land.

Developers now sometimes put in grass, shrubs and an irrigation system, but “the norm is that (the park sites) remain undeveloped,” said Robert Hamilton, an official with the county’s Environmental Management Agency. Grading, irrigation, turf and trees cost a total of about $40,000 per acre, he said.

‘Not Pleased at All’

Hamilton and an aide to Nestande met last month with Trost and his colleagues in the El Toro homeowners’ association, and they have met with other residents’ groups complaining about the lack of local park development.

Hamilton said the residents’ groups were “not pleased at all” with the county’s explanations of lack of funds.

“They’re looking for solutions to their problems, not explanations why they can’t be accommodated, understandably,” he said.

Supervisors are considering a plan to help replace some of the lost revenue to the county service areas by a program of assessments on homeowners.

If the county decides to use such “assessment levies,” county staffers would return to the pre-Proposition 13 practice and “meet with the various communities each year to determine what they wished from the county in the way of services and what they were willing to pay for those services,” Hamilton said.

Will Have to Pay More

Still, the service area that includes Trost’s house will be an estimated $300,000 in the red when the county stops providing supplementary funds. Homeowners will have to pay more just to maintain existing services. Even higher payments would be needed to get the eight-acre park developed.

All of which leaves Trost unhappy.

“The fact that all of us in our little development (of 69 homes) pay $3,500 or $4,000 a year in property taxes has nothing to do” with getting the park site developed,” he said.

Right now residents of his development and nearby homeowners gaze at a strip of land that amounts to “a nice little park--if you like weeds,” he said.