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. ~.