Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 51-99RESOLUTION NO. 5 ~L ' 9 gt RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING AND ADOPTING CASE NO. P98-0838 OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PARKS ELEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD 20'10 GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, THE Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Section 65353 of the Government Code, held a public hearing on MONDAY, March 15, 1999 and THURSDAY, March 18, 1999, on Case No. P98-0838 of a proposed amendment to the Parks Element of the General Plan, notice of the time and place of hearing having been given at least twenty (20) calendar days before said hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, such Case No. P98-0838 of the proposed amendment to the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan is as follows: General Plan Amendment P98-0838 The City of Bakersfield has applied to amend the Park Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan consisting of a change to the existing Park Element Policy which requires a minimum neighborhood park size to 6 acres. It is proposed to increase the minimum neighborhood park size to 10 acres; and WHEREAS, for the above-described segment, the project was found to be exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); WHEREAS, the law and regulations relating to CEQA and City of Bakers~eld's CEQA Implementation Procedures, have been duly followed by the city staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found as follows: Increasing the minimum neighborhood park size is necessary to provide more amenities. There are valid situations where new neighborhood parks can be constructed to be less than 10 acres. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 44-99 on March 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended approval and adoption of Case No. P98-0838 and this Council has fully considered the finding made by the Planning Commission as set forth in that Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Bakersfield, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65355 of the Government Code, conducted and held a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, April 28, 1999, on the above described Case No. P98-0838 of the proposed amendment to the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, notice of time and place of the hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before the hearing by publication in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and found by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals and findings incorporated herein, are true and correct. 2. Case No. P98-0838 is hereby found to be exempt from CEQA per Government Code Section 15061 b3. 3. The report of the Planning Commission, including maps and all reports and papers relevant thereto, transmitted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission to the City Council is hereby received accepted, approved and incorporated as though fully set forth herein. 4. The City Council hereby approves and adopts Case No. P98-0838 of the proposed amendment to the Parks Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, constituting changes depicted on Exhibit A, as attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth, for property generally located Citywide. 5. That Case No. P98-0838, approved herein, be combined with other approved cases described in separate resolutions to form a single General Plan Amendment. ......... o0o ........ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on APR 2 8 1999 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERCA SON, DEMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVANSALVAGGIO COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER APPROVED APR 28 ~999 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield EXHIBIT A CHANGES TO PARK ELEMENT TEXT Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks provide both active and passive recreational activities for surrounding residential development. The minimum site size standard for neighborhood parks is 10.0 usable acres. The location should provide adequate street frontage, parking and good accessibility. The service area covers the neighborhoods within three-quarters (3/4) of a mile of the park site. Development improvements include a variety of facilities including single and/or game courts, open turf area, landscaping, parking and security lighting. Policy 8 Require the following minimum site size standards in planning and acquiring of local parks and playgrounds: Mini parks (public) Neighborhood parks/playgrounds Community park/play field 2.5 usable acres 10.0 usable acres 20.0 usable acres Implementation Measure 9 Require, where feasible, parks be developed with the following minimum acreage standards: Mini-parks Neighborhood parks/playgrounds Community Parks 25 usable acres 10.0 usable acres 20.0 usable acres Add to: Implementation Measure 9 Neighborhood parks may range in size from 6 to 10 acres at the discretion of the Director of Recreation and Parks. Reason for a size less than 10 acres may include Master park planning for a given area, land availability in areas with fragmented ownership or restrictions to a typical park service area. Add to: Neighborhood Parks Restroom facilities, parking lots and picnic areas. S:\pat\exhibit, MG, mar, 26 .wpd APPROVED as to form: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY BY: v """'- GA!~L HEF~NANDEZ Assistant City Attorney :pas April 15, 1999 S:\P98-O839,ccr,mar30.wpd 3 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Apl~ndix I TO: _X_ Office of planning and Research 1400 Tenth Strut, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. CA 93301 FROM: City of Bakersfield planning Departn~nt 1715 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Project Title: C~neral Plan Amendment Project Location-Specific: City wide Project Location-City: Bakersfield Project Location-County: K~ra Dem'iption of Project: A ci~n~ in Park F, len~nt Policy to increase minimum sizs- for n,'ighbor hood park~ from 6 acres to 10 acres Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Bakers field Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Bakersfield Exempt Status: Ministerial (Sec.210S0(b)(l); 15268)); Declared Emergency (Sec.21080C0)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080C0)(4); 15269(b)(c)); Categorical Exemption. State type and section number. Statutory Exemptions. State code number. Reasons why project is exempt: This proposal does not CharWe service area r~Uir~ment~. Dark f~ dedication. and co--~tmction r~jirgn,m~ or level of service ~-nd-rds. ~ will be no in~u-~ to the piWSigal ~nVirOnrnsnt. thO aver~gl~ sir~, for CiW n~ighhorhood parks is now more than 9 acres. Lead Agency: Contact Person: Marc Gauthier, Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (805) 326-3733 If fled by applicant: Attach certified document of exemption finding. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes_ No_ Signature: ~/}~ (~~ Date: 3' } ' q q Ti~e: Princ~ml Planner x Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: Signed by Applicant S:f',noeP98-0838 Revised October 1989 Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Sprague questioned if the properties in the layouts for the redevelopment map are currently zoned for industrial or commercial, o if the zoning is overlapping for purposes of this plan, to which Mr. Showalter responde hose are the general plan maps for the City, and ther fore are existing zonings, and e redevelopment plan would not change anything within e General Plan. Commissioner Sprague furthe inquired of the traffic and transp ation study done, to which Mr. Showalter responded hat in the EIR prepared for these rojects those issues are addressed and are based on eneral plan build out. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Gra if the City should be developing ecial ordinances for these redevelopment eas that would encourage develo rs with greater See sent agenda. PUBLIC - Amendment to the Com Mall No. -0627 - MCG Architects. Staff report 1. Public portion hearing was opened. No one Sign Plan for Valley Plaza opposition. DRAFT Daryl Rheingans, consistent with the ,~ral Manager for Valley Plaza, recommendation and recommend that the sign is )roval. Commissioner Sprague the circumference area, staff responded they sent staff if they have sent public g notices to people in they have received any negative back to which but received no negative comments. Commissioner Dhanens ' ' ' s and seconded by commissioner Ortiz. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMFNTS. ASSOCIATED RFTONINGS. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. CIRCULATION. KERN RIVER PLAN AND PARKS ELEMENTS: 8.1) Amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Parks Element - City of Bakersfield Staff report was given. Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page 4 Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague inquired if developers put in land as well as the designated improvement for these parks, how does the developer get credited back through park fees, and how long does it take to recapture that cost of development, to which Mr. Doyle responded that the land acquisition is the responsibility of the developer or the land can be dedicated. The development of the park is paid for through the amount of permits gathered from the dwelling units in the subdivision. That money goes into the City, and the City reimburses the developer when the funds become available. If there is not a build out, there is not going to be sufficient money to reimburse the developer the total price of developing the park. Normally, the City has 15 to 20 years to reimburse. If within the 20 years there is not a total build out, essentially the developer does not get reimbursed the total amount of money that it cost to develop the park. It is usually more beneficial for the developer to develop the parks because the increase in property value will be realized more quickly then if the City has to wait until sufficient permits have been issued and the City has sufficient funds to develop the park. Commissioner Sprague requested a change regarding the Parks Director being the sole decision maker on park locations and sizes so that the discretion is given to the Planning Commission, because the Planning Commission is going to have the site plan in front of them and are going to be able to determine where the park should go to service that subdivision and be able to make a logical choice as to what size park should go in that particular area, along with the comments from Planning staff. Commissioner Dhanens stated that the language in the March 19t' memo is similar to those included in many recommendations with respect to Public Works and City Engineer in how they leave several of the technical items to the agreement of the applicant and the City Engineer on roads and streets and traffic and sewer. When subdivisions and maps are reviewed it is at a stage where they may not be able to site that park, therefore, it would be premature at the Planning Commission level to make that decision then and he would be in support of the language as it is drafted in the memorandum. Commissioner Brady commented that giving the discretion to the Park Director is a compromise and is not something that you do off the cuff and does not think it is appropriate that the Planning Commission gets involved unless there is something that they can't resolve. He is comfortable with the language and supports the memorandum. Commissioner Boyle commented that the way the City looks and feels is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and where the parks are constructed and their size gives more appeal to a community than almost anything else unde~,~: Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page 5 our jurisdiction. He stated that he does not believe that takes away from Staffs expertise in giving information on how to design it, and there is some benefit to having the Planning Commission taking a look at the issue of parks. He would support Mr. Sprague's recommendation. Commissioner Kemper commented that implementation measure 9, "neighborhood parks may range in size from 6 to 10 acres at the discretion of the Director of Recreation and Parks; reasons for a size less than 10 acres may include master park planning for a given area, land availability and areas with fragmented ownership, or restrictions to a typical park service area." This gives the flexibility of the developers to meet with the City and to work out the location, the size, the streets and bringing it to the Planning Commission would be premature, because it will eventually come to the Planning Commission in the proper timing. Commissioner Brady commented that if a developer proposed a park that was 9.9 acres do you really want to have that developer come back in and have a full public hearing as opposed to just going to the Park Director and getting their agreement that 9.9 is good enough. Commissioner Brady stated he doesn't think the cost factor makes sense, and thinks this is an appropriate compromise. The Park Director is in a good position, and knows what he is doing with Parks, and can decide the issue. Commissioner Sprague commented that he is trying to get away from policy call by one person who is in charge of Recreation and Parks making that choice for the City of Bakersfield, and the citizens of Bakersfield, when the Planning Commission body should be the appropriate jurisdiction for that choice. Commissioner Tavorn expressed his agreement with Mr. Sprague and Mr. Boyle that they need to leave avenues open for the public to come in and express themselves. If this is given over to the Director of Parks you take the public out of the loop, and they should always keep the public in the loop, and the Planning Commission appears to be the only arena where they can come and voice their opinions and parks are something that we can plan and it is a great part of a city. We need;to plan parks, and the public needs to be involved. Commissioner Dhanens inquired how Mr. Sprague's argument works in reality when a subdivider comes before us and knowing the process of how parks get set aside, and ultimately get constructed. Mr. Grady responded that typically the only time you would see a park issue would be in a General Plan setting where there the parks are being master planned, or when a subdivision would come in and as a condition of approval of that subdivision we are requiring that they actually dedicate land, because now the area is closing in, and we've identified a location, and this subdivider needs to begin to dedicate land, and may even be required to set aside land. The other situation would be if someone offered a park to the City to be constructed. It may or may not come in as part of a subdivision, and the Parks Director makes a determination if it is premature to accept that land now because based on how it ,, DRAFT Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 Page 6 develops we might want to put the park in another location, or do they want to accept that park site at that particular time, and that Park Director makes that decision today. To accomplish the changes proposed by Commissioner Sprague they would have to look at a larger park at the time of the subdivision being offered to us, because you wouldn't see it. For example, the subdivisions you have had on your past agendas there is a condition requiring the developer to pay his park development fee, and his park land in lieu fee. Rarely do you see a condition requiring them to dedicate a six acre park. It would require a new bureaucracy requiring developers who want to dedicate a park less than 10 acres and then say now they have to have a hearing in front of the Planning Commission in order to reach that decision, and it's the kind of decision that seems to be perfunctory. Commissioner Dhanens stated the ordinance is a General Plan Amendment and it is proposing to amend the General Plan document with the language as proposed in the memo, and doesn't address the construction of the park or the timing of the park, as much as it does the setting aside of the appropriate acreage for neighborhood parks and making that the standard as opposed to the six acres that we currently have as a standard. In doing so, he is convinced that the Parks and Recreation Director is the most adequate person in the City Staff to make that judgment. Commissioner Boyle stated the public has stated their preference for larger parks and the additional facilities that larger parks would offer; parking, bathrooms. If the ordinance had been adopted as originally presented by staff there would have been no flexibility to create a park less then 10 acres, so he does not know how they are creating a bureaucracy of making them come back to the Planning Commission when the staffs original ordinance wouldn't have given them the flexibility to begin with. Mr. Grady stated the language was put in there to accommodate the concerns of the industry. The way the policy is written now, it states what the minimum acreage is, being between 2-% acres to 10 acres. If you take the General Plan policy, 2-¼ acres would be the size for a mini park. Between 10 acres and 20 acres would be the size of a neighborhood park. You already have ranges because the policy is written for minimums. Commissioner Boyle stated that absent this change they could have built the 9.9 acre site and called it a mini park and not need a Park Director's approval or Planning Commission or anybody else, to which Mr. Grady stated that the fee program is set up to build neighborhood parks, and there is no fee program set up to build mini parks. The 6 acre park does not meet the General Plan neighborhood park with a 10 acre minimum as proposed. Commissioner Boyle inquired what happens when you build a mini park and if the developer gets his fees, to which Mr. Grady responded that they don't accept mini parks as a standard operating practice. The mini parks have been part of a master plan, where the park locations are identified for a section of land, and the required park acreage. ,:~: - '.~. :~" ',-,.~, ~..:, Minutes, PC, Thursday, March 18, 1999 DRAFT Page 7 8.2a) Commission Boyle further inquired if to the extent there is a master plan with a General Plan Amendment, then the Commission would be making a determination as to park size and location as part of the General Plan Amendment, to which Mr. Grady affirmed. Commissioner Boyle stated that a large portion of the ordinance is designed in situations where there is no master plan for the community, but where irs been built in small bits and stages by various developers, to which Mr. Gredy affirmed. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if Measure G was put in for the developer and the Planning Department and not the public, to which Mr. Grady responded the General Plan is a public policy document so the policy is for the public. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if it was removed, would it change the overall ordinance change, to which Mr. Grady stated if measure 9 in the memo is not adopted then the existing policy would stay in effect. Commissioner Tavorn inquired if this was put in for certain parts of the general public, or for whom, to which Mr. Grady responded that a survey identified the 10 acre park size as the size the community wanted. Commission Tavorn suggested they concur with Commissioner Sprague or remove it. It does not appear to give the general public what it is asking for. Commissioner Brady stated the committee looked at 6 acre parks that had extra amenities and they were trying to give the developer some flexibility to put in an extra nice park, even though it was a little smaller than 10 acres, but the community would get extra and allow that flexibility to occur with the people that know parks; the Park Director. We're giving flexibility and increasing the size. It's a better system than we have now. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Kemper to adopt the resolution approving and adopting the notice of exemption approving General Plan Amendment P98-0838 with findings as presented in said resolution and recommending same to City Council by the following. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, Tkac NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Ortiz, Tavom General Plan A dment P98-0749 - Kern Coun Superintendent of Schools rfte~ Combined with 8.2b below. ~.