Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 10-86RESOLUTION NO. 10-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADOPTING THE "PARK PLAN" AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, an Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan was adopted on June 6, 1973, by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, which plan contains certain policies regarding the provision of parks which have not proven sufficient to ensure the meeting of future park land needs for the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, more definitive statements of policies and standards are necessary and appropriate to guide the City and to inform developers of the City's expectations concerning the provision of parks; and WHEREAS, the City Council referred the matter of providing parks to serve future development to the Planning Commission with the direction that residents should have parks reasonably available to them; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission studied this matter, conducted workshops and public hearings upon the proposed park plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65351 of hearing on September 19, 1985, October 17, 1985, and November the Government Code, held a public and continued to October 3, 1985, 7, 1985, on the proposed Park Plan, notice of time and place of hearing having been given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, all matters presented at said hearing were duly considered by the Planning Commission; and -1- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document for use in reviewing this proposed amendment to the general plan and recommended the same to the City Council; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its hearing on November 7, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 154-85 and recommended that the "Park Plan" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof be adopted by this Council as an amendment to the "Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan" and that the park policies of such plan and the parks as delineated in the Rancho Laborde Specific Plan, Sections 6 and 7, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Sections 21 and 22, Township 30 South, Range 27 East Master Plans be included as the general plan policies for the provision of parks therein; and W~EREAS, in accordance with the requirements of law, a public hearing was held before this Council on January 8, 1986, on the proposed Park Plan, notice of time and place having been given at least ten (10) days and before said hearing by publication in a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, all matters prescribed at said hearing have been duly considered by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield, as follows: 1. The above findings and recitals are true and correct. 2. The Negative Declaration is hereby adopted and approved. -2- 3. The "Park Plan", attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, and the parks delineated in the Rancho Laborde Specific Plan, Sections 607, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Sections 21 and 22, Township 30 South, Range 27 East Master Plans and the policies of the Park Plan hereby made applicable thereto, are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. .......... o0o .......... I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of January , 1986, by the following vote: a .... ~ ~ ~ . ..-' CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED this 22nd day of January , 1986 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: CI Y of the City of B~Gkersfield AJS/mro R-PARKPLN -3- PARK PLAN OF THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER, 1985 Exhibit "A" Introduction This document is to supersede pages 28-33 of the Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. It is to update the city's policies with respect to the provision of parks within the city. Although the city has embarked on a pro- ject to rewrite its entire general plan this year (1985/86), due to the pressures of growth and development it is necessary to make these policies more explicit, direct and relevant to today's concerns to avoid the further deterioration of the parks system intended to serve the current and future residents of the City of Bakersfield. RECREATIONAL LAND Recreational opportunities within urban areas have great public value in maintaining physical, mental, and social well-being. This value cannot be measured in monetary te~ms. Public recreation areas tend to be squeezed out of newly develop- ing urban areas because of the high cost of land. The citizens are the ones who lose when this happens. Recreational facilities which are designated on the city's general plan can assist in insuring the proper distribution and spacing of these essential facilities. Polic~ A minimum standard is set for the amount and quality of land devoted to public and private recreation. Dedication of land to public recreation is an essential requirement of all urban planning. Adherence to the general plan which designates recrea- tional facilities is vital to the orderly development of a community. Definition Recreation land is any area of land or water designated on the state or regional or local open space plan as open space land and which is actively used for recreation purposes and open to the public for such purposes with or without charge. EABLE 1: PARK ACREAGE AND ACTIVITY BY RECREATION SUPPLIERS--1982 No. of ACREAGE Neighborhood Community Regional Facilities Bakersfield City Parks Kern County Parks Public [lementary Schools Kern Union Iligh Schools PrivaLe/Perochial Schools Bakersfield College Ca1 SLate College PrivaLe DevelopmenL 195.2 120.4 74.8 20 1,171,1 67.2 168.0 974.0 13 247,9 184.8 63.1 47 151.4 151.4 6 37.0 20.8 16.2 9 33.6 33.6 1 60.0 60.0 1 42.9 42.9 68 TOTALS 1,939.1 436.0 567.1 974.0 164 -3- The park and recreation space suppliers include the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, public and private schools and faci- lities provided by residential developers for the use of occu- pants. These suppliers provided 1,939 acres'of recreational opportunity in 164 facilities in 1982. It is estimated that area residents and visitors enjoyed 5.56 million user-days at these facilities. Most recreation occurs at facilities close to the home. Over 55% of the total area-wide usage occurs on only 22.5% of the acreage - the neighborhood parks, elementary school playgrounds and the private recreation facilities such as swimming pools included in primarily multi-family residential developments. The City of Bakersfield supplied 195.2 acres of parks in 1982 which are largely neighborhood oriented while meeting over 49% (or 2.23 million user days) of the recreation demand. While the City is the largest single supplier of close-to-home recreation opportunity, Kern County provides most of the actual park acreage in the study area with 1,171 acres available includ- ing 974 acres at Hart Park and the Kern River Park for general outdoor uses (i.e., special areas for boat races and golfing not included). These regionally oriented county parks supplied 1.16 million user days of recreation in 1982 or 20.9% of the total. The city is also within the service area of several other more distant regional recreation facilities. Overall, 199,618 ~rowth rate. The College, Northeast communities are 10,000 persons. the 1982 estimated metropolitan area population of is projected to 287,789 by year 2000 for a 2.45% annual Southwest, East Bakersfield and expected to each increase by more than Mini-parks, neighborhood and community 4.83 acres of local recreation area per 1,000 population. City of Bakersfield supplied 1.81 acres of parks per 1,000 lation in 1980. facilities now account for The popu- Regional wide recreation provided by the County results in a ratio of 4.08 acres per 1,000 population. By 2000, another 437 acres will be necessary to maintain this supply rate. The overall goal is to provide park and recreation areas within easy access to present and future residents of the urban Bakersfield area. A strategic objective is to encourage all agencies to maintain the current 4.83 acres of local recreation supply for each 1,000 persons. Policies for local recreation supply relate to location, land acquisition and development timing, acreage standards, maintenance through special districts and coordination with other suppliers and recreation programming. THE PARK PLAN - POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION This part presents the City's policies to provide for park space in Bakersfield. Traditionally, local government has provided -5- citizens with formal open space the city to continue doing this, development of adequate recreational facilities This is the central purpose of the Park Plan'as apply to the Bakersfield area guide the City of Bakersfield recreational opportunities. For sufficient sites for future must be provided. it is intended to and it contains the policies to in its provision of parks. The Purpose. In the past, the City of Bakersfield has relied on its ability to acquire necessary park lands as early as possible before the cost of land made it prohibitive. However~ the com- bined effects of the passage of Propositions 13 and 4 (tax limi- tations) have seriously impaired the City's ability to acquire and maintain parks. The problem was held in check for several years through the provision by the Tenneco Realty Development Corporation of park sites in the rapidly growing Southwest Bakersfield area. While it is expected that Tenneco will con- tinue to provide local parks in accord with general plan policies for that area as its lands are developed in the Southwest and park and maintenance districts will be formed whereby residents benefited will pay all cost, the other areas of the city are not as fortunate. The Northeast and South areas are also experienc- in9 and will continue to experience rapid development according to recent population projections. The majority of properties in the Northeast and South are not owned by a major land developer such as Tenneco with the ability to plan entire neighborhoods, including necessary facilities and services. For thence reasons new mechanisms are needed for the City to continue its role in providing park and recreation sites and in developing them for local residential use. (Government Code Sec. maintenance districts maintenance. This plan directs that Quimby Act 66477 et.seq.) provisions be adopted and be established for park development and The neighborhood park or school playground is the cornerstone of our local recreation system. The study area is divided into 11 communities irrespective of the City boundary. The community boundaries were selected bases primarily upon the existing major arterial road system, but also considering State Freeways, pro- posed arterials and non-residential areas. Each community was further divided into neighborhoods utilizing existing and pro- posed major arterial streets and other topographic features cre- ating natural separations. A total of 69 neighborhoods have been identified (See Map 2). An inventory of existing recreation facilities and user activity was the first step in determining the level of recreation participation and the current recreation supply in Bakersfield. Five major supplier groups were identi- fied as supplying land and facilities at community level: 1. the neighborhood and City of Bakersfield Public Works Department - Parks Division. 2. City of Bakersfield Community Services Department Recreation Division -7- 3. County of Kern Parks and Recreation Department. 4. Public schools, including colleges. 5. Private schools. 6. Private development (e.g., subdivisions, planned unit developments and improvement association). Although comparison with NRPA standards and current levels of city service indicate the greatest need will be for more commu- nity parks, neighborhood parks will continue to be foremost in parks planning. Therefore, the direction of city policy will be to maintain present parks in already developed areas and focus attention to providing neighborhood parks in newly developing areas. The including acres per siderable City cannot maintain the present supply level on its own the present supply ratio (1980) of city parks at 1.8064 1,000 population and it is necessary that there be con- cooperation among the present suppliers including the City, overall Metropolitan Bakersfield local recreation acres per 1,000 population. This may be compared standard of overall local recreation provision of County, schools and private development. The current supply is 4.83 to a national 6.25 to 10.5 acres per 1,000 population. The supply of mini-parks throughout Metro Bakersfield is 0.18 acres per 1,000 population compared to the national standard of 0.25 to 0.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Neighborhood parks in Metro Bakersfield are supplied at the rate of 1.99 acres per 1,000 population while the national standard is , I 6 )RTHEAST I '5 RIO E '- -r' -'7 ,/ ENRIDGE: : RANCH EhlA'~ ~5 l OLLEGE ,,', I % 3 4' SOUTHW 5 ;2 'L:I.; 3 ' I ~ j PAN A,I KERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLA ARK PLAN BA NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES "NORTHEAST"- COMMUNITY NAME -- CITY BOUNDARY STUDY AREA BOUNDARY COMMUNITY BOUNDARY 3-NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER ~ COUNTY AREA .... RHOOD BOUNDARY ~ NON-RESIDENTIALAREA NEIGHBOR ~ --- listed at between 1.0 and 2.0 acres per 1,000 persons. Community park and recreation areas comprise 2.66 acres per 1,000 popula- tion which may be related to the national standard ranging from 5.0 to 8.0 acres per 1,000 population. The local recreation areas discussed above include all recreation suppliers within the area covered in the BMAGP (Land Use Element Area). Some of the policies proposed in this section are designed to apply to all current public recreation suppliers in the Bakersfield area. For the City of Bakersfield, the proposed policies are adopted for guidance in future City decisions deal- ing with park and recreation land acquisition and maintenance. To the others providing recreation areas, the proposed policies represent the City's recommendation for a concerted effort and uniform policy. The County of Kern, the public school districts and private schools are hereby encouraged to continue and expand their efforts with the City of Bakersfield to develop additional recreation space and opportunity for the area's growing needs. This part will first deal with goals, objectives and policies, followed by a discussion on existing sources of funding and leg- islative approaches available to local government for acquiring lands for park development. A third section will provide a short discussion of alternative concepts for the creation of neighbor- hood parks. Goals, objectives and Policies. This plan has one overriding goal: to provide outdoor recreation areas, especially parks, within easy access to present and future residents. To achieve this goal, two objective is a the objectives strategic objectives set of policies that are and the overall goal. GOAL: are set forth. Under each essential in achieving PROVIDE OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS, ESPECIALLY PARKS, WITHIN EASY ACCESS TO PRESENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE URBAN BAKERSFIELD AREA. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE A: Maintain the current (1982) supply of 4.83 acres of park and recreation space for each 1,000 persons for local, close-to-home recreation opportunity as a minimum throughout each community. The City of Bakersfield's effort is to provide the current ratio of 1.81 acres of traditional public parks per 1,000 persons. Policies: 1. Local parks shall be developed at the rate of 2.5 acres/i,000 population. Part of these may be as part of on-site recreation for such developments as Planned Unit Developments. Traditional public parks shall be devel- oped at the rate of 1.81 acres/i,000 population. Approved master plans for development showin? the loca- tion and size of parks intended to serve the area shall guide their development in the approved plan area. Plan for and acquire neighborhood parks within the cen- tral portion of each neighborhood accessible to all res- idents where there are no parks and land is available. Acquire neighborhood parks as soon as possib2e to pro- tect and enhance the residential neighborhood environ- ment, ensure park availability and avoid the higher cost of later land purchases. Acauire and develop neighborhood and community recrea- tion acreage through subdivision dedication and in-lieu fees whereby future development provides for future rec- reational need. -11- o 10. ll. 12. Acquire additional neighborhood and community park and recreation acreage needed to achieve better overall dis- tribution of parks to city standards in areas substan- tially developed or in a process of redevelopment and improvement with available funding and donations. Use public mini-parks in developed residential areas where neighborhood standards are not met and where it is impossible to acquire sufficient acreage for neighbor- hood facilities in order to provide a supply of recrea- tional space and opportunity. The planning and acquisition of local parks and play- grounds shall adhere to the following minimum site size standards: Mini-parks (public) Neighborhood parks/playground Community park/playfield 0.5 usable acres 5.0 usable acres 15.0 usable acres The above acreage figures apply to usable acreage. Usable means area that people can use with an emphasis on active and group use. It is essentially flat land that can be developed for facilities and activity areas. It is not land in steeper slope, land with unusually poor soil conditions not suited for park development, land areas subject to periodic flooding, land with riparian or otherwise unique habitat worthy of preserva- tion or water bodies or areas impacted adversely by adjacent or nearby land uses. Community parks within or at the boundaries of' neighbor- hoods should satisfy the neighborhood park need if equivalent facilities are provided in them. New city parks are to be maintained by special districts whether in future development areas or in already devel- oped areas. The districts shall conform as closely as possible to neighborhood boundaries. Local park and recreation areas will be located and designed for access to all age groups where practicable. Facilities will be provided for both active (play areas and courts) and passive (turf, walkways, trees and pic- nic facilities where possible) recreational activity. Encourage developers to plan~for and incorporate common recreational facilities for ~he use of future residents, such as in planned-unit-developments. 13. Encourage schools to make playgrounds and playfields available to local residents after normal school hours and on weekends. 14. Coordinate the acquisition, development and use of parks and schools to avoid duplication of facilities and pro- vide economic use of public funds. 15. Encourage the development of recreation programs by pub- lic agencies and sports organizations to involve more children and adults in outdoor recreation activity. Use volunteers to operate and maintain programs whenever possible. 16. Adopt or recognize an official park acquisition program to meet current and future needs. Such a program should include direct input for capital budgeting purposes including the scheduling of Quimby Act funds. The pro- gram should also be reviewed periodically with respect to changing growth rates and general plan policies. 17. Adopt a parkland dedication ordinance with in-lieu fee provisions under the Quimby Act. 18. Require proposed new development to pay for or provide parks and recreation facilities to off set additional demands on the park system brought about by it. 19. Establish a formal mechanism by which the city may accept gifts and dedications of parks and open space. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Maintain the current 4 acres of park and recreation space for each 1,000 persons for general regional recreation opportunity as a minimum standard. POLICIES Regional recreation is the responsibility of the county and possibly the State. The city will work with the county and North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District in regional park planning. o Plan for and expand regional recreation opportunity connection with the de3elopment and conservation of appropriate areas along the Kern River. in 4. In accordance with the development of a Kern River Plan, designate multiple purpose areas for regional wide recreation use consistent with space standards appli- cable to usable areas (e.g., secondary floodplains) for general purpose use such as picnic areas, camping, trail use for hiking and bicycling and active sports both for informal and for organized groups. 5. Develop a trail system connecting regional recreation and education facilities for hiking and bicycling purposes. 6. Study the feasibility of a recreation and land manage- ment program allowing for the generation of supplemental revenue to offset the cost of necessary further land acquisition, development and operational costs. This could include establishing concessions, rentals, user fees and land leases. funding purposes is highly competitive. In FY 1983-84, the city spent nearly $0.5 million, primarily from 1980 State Bond Act funds, for the development of parks in the southwest and northeast communities. Park development in the college community, under development by the Tenneco Corporation, will be financed by Tenneco and main- tained by special districts. Because of the depletion of outside sources, the city is now faced with using the Quimby Act to require residential developers to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees and other fees and mechanisms to acquire and develop park space. The Subdivision Map Act also allows local government to require reservation and/or dedication of land for park and recreational purposes provided that it has adopted appropriate policies in its general plan. Park and Recreation Area Funding and Acquisition. The from State and Federal sources for park and recreation -14- The law requires that dedications required pursuant to Quimby may not exceed three acres per 1,000 population unless a greater amount was actually provided in 1980. For the two local agen- cies, the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, the followiDg 1980 population, acreage and acres per 1,000 persons existed. TABLE 1 Park Acreage Agency 1980 1980 Park Population AcreaGe Park Acreage per 1,000 persons City of Bakersfield 105,735 191.01 1.80641 County of Kern (Metro area south of Kern River only) 81,127 197.7 2.4369 1This is rounded to 1.81. Therefore, 3 acres/i,000 population is the limit as far as exac- tions as conditions of subdivisions. In order to meet the intent of the legislation as to the how, when and where land dedication and fee expenditures are to be accomplished, it is necessary to prepare a development schedule. It is highly desirable, as indi- cated in the policy portion, that sites be acqured before an area is built up to ensure a better residential environment, the pre- ferred site location and to avoid higher land costs later. The implementation of Quimby Act legislation will not by itself address all the needs. New schools and private development -15- should continue to assist in relieving the pressure on local governmental agencies. The difficulty in relying only on Quimby Act legislation becomes evident where large acreages are needed such as for community parks in the south and southwest. If it were to only require 1.81 acres per 1,000 population to reflect present city supply rate in the southwest, only 25.4 acres by Year 2000 would be pro- duced - adequate only for a single community park. Other sources of land and funding will be necessary if desired standards are to be achieved in the southwest. An option currently forthcoming is in the recommendations of the Kern River Plan where some areas adjacent to the southwest may be developed for active and passive recreation use. Park Development and Maintenance Costs. While the primary empha- sis has been given to the space and distributional needs for parks and recreation areas, it is also important to review the costs involved in developing and maintaining parks. Once land is dedicated for parks, there is a commitment for its development particularly in the application of Quimby Act provisions which would apply to growth areas with increasing recreation needs. This part provides estimated development, and annual maintenance cost factors for mini-park, neighborhood and community parks. -16- Table 2 describes estimated acre and total development costs pro- vided by the City Parks Division and from current Tenneco Realty Development Corporation costs for Table 3 provides estimated annual unit basis with totals by type of parks in southwest Bakersfield. park maintenance costs on a park. The information was developed from the Park Division Maintenance Program Budget. The complexity of larger parks in evident in increased numbers and a variety of facilities contributing to higher maintenance costs. The estimated total annual cost involved in operating a mini-park of 2.5 acres is approximately $19,000 compared to over $43,000 cost for operating a neighborhood park of 6.0 acres. Community park annual maintenance costs approach $125,000 each. -17- TABLE 2: ESTIMATED Park or Recreation Area Mini-park or Small Neighborhood Park1 (2.5 acres) Neighborhood Park2 (6 acres) Community Park3 (15.0 acres) PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY FACILITY Development Acre Total Item Cost Costs Picnic Tables Bar-B-Q's Playground or Tot-lot Fountain Landscaping Security Lighting $30,000 $ 75,000 Picnic Areas (Group) Bar-B-Q's Fountains Playground Tennis and/or Game Courts Landscaping Security Lighting $40,000 $240,000 Picnic Areas (Group) Bar-B-Q's Fountains Playgrounds Game Courts Softball Diamonds Incl. Lighting Swimming Pool Tennis Courts Security Lighting Parking Restrooms $50,000 $750,000 1Amberton Park is used as example: no parking, restrooms or basketball courts. 2From Tenneco Realty Development Corporation for park development costs, in Southwest Bakersfield. 3Figures are rough estimates. Actual costs may exceed estimates source. -15- TABLE 3: ESTIMATED PARK ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS BY FACILITY Park of Recreation Maintenance Annual Unit Total Area Item Cost Annual Cost Mini-park1 or Grounds $3,600 (acre) $ 9,000 Small Neighborhood Recreation Park Facilities2 310 7,148 (2.5 acres) Irrigation 628 (acre) 1,570 Tree Maint- enance 30 1,200 TOTAL $18,918 ($7,567 per acre) Neighborhood (6.0 acres) Grounds $3,600 (acre) $21,600 Recreation Facilities 310 15,810 Irrigation 628 (acre) 3,767 Tree Maint- enance 30 2,700 TOTALS 43,877 ($7,312 per acre) Community (15.0 acres) Grounds $3,600 (acre) $54,000 Recreation Facilities 310 30,422 Park Building 4,138 4,138 Irrigation 628 (acre) 9,420 Tree Maint- enance 30 6,000 Swimming Pool 21,125 21,125 TOTALS $125,205 ($8,347 per acre) 1AmDerton Park is used as example: no parking, restrooms or basketball courts. 2Recreation Facilities in a mini-park include tot-lot play apparatus, picnic nook, bar-b-q's, settees, fountain and electrotier. In a neighborhood park, recreation facilities include game courts, horseshoe courts, playgrounds, shelter, group picnic area, picnic nooks, food serving shelter, bar-b-q's, park tables, settees, fountains, bike racks, electrolier and flood lights. Tennis Courts are optional and account for the range in cost figures. In a community park, recreation facili- ties include all neighborhood facilities plus tennis courts and softball facilities (incl. backstop and bleachers). Annual cost figures from PARK DIVISION MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, Budget Analysis 1983-84 Fiscal Year (City of Bakersfield). -19- TABLE 4: PROJECTED PARK DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OVER 10 YEAR PERIOD Park or Recreation Area Development Annual Maint- 10-Year Cost enance Costs Total Costs Mini-park or Small Neighborhood Park (2.5 acres) Neighborhood Park Community Park $ 75,000 $18,918 $264,180 240,000 43,877 678,770 750,000 125,205 2,002,050 The overall total cost comparison of the three types of parks is projected over ten years in Table 4. Since both development and maintenance costs rise with the size and complexity of the park, it is not entirely surprising that it would be less costly to provide mini-parks or small neighborhood parks rather than com- munity parks. For example, on an acreage basis, a mini-park would cost $105,670 for development and maintenance over 10 years compared to $113,130 for a neighborhood park with tennis courts and $133,390 for an acre of community park land. Under the above distribution, which provides maximum opportunity for various kinds of facilities under the city's current level of provision, it would cost approximately $1,575,552 (not including interest) to fund development and maintenance over a 10 year period. For comparison purposes, other parkland concepts for neighborhood distribution ~ere evaluated with the following deve- lopment and ten-year maintenance cost factors without interest: -20- Concept 1. Mini-parks only 2. Neighborhood parks only 3. Community parks only 4. 3.5 acres mini-parks 10.0 acres neighborhood parks 5. 7.5 acres mini-parks 6.0 acres neighborhood parks 6. 7.5 acres mini-parks 6.0 acres community parks 10-Year Cost $ 1,426,572 1,527,228 1,801,845 1,501,132 1,471,310 1,593,360 As a matter of course, it is expected the fees or cost of park land will become a part of the purchase price of residences and would be spread over the term of 20 or 30 year mortgages for lower annual payments. Development costs can only be paid for by the city, a recreation district, developers, or outside funding sources like grants or donations as they become available. Maintenance costs can be paid for through the formation of special districts such as a recreation district or districts with powers to assess develop- ment's costs to users. Implementation. Map 2 identifies both existing and proposed park and recreation areas. It also shows existing and potential future regional parks in the Metropolitan area. The application of Quimby Act dedication or in-lieu fee payment requires basic criteria for site selection and fee application. Map 2 identifies a central site within each neighborhood where sites may be dedicated. A hypothetical neighborhood with a site envelop area is shown in Figure 1 (Page 22). REFER iO RANCHO LABORDE SPECIFIC PLAN TENNECO DEV CO MASTER PLAN APPROVED REFER lO TEVI$ RANCH M~STER PLAN APPROVED 10-3 85 -- REFER TO TENNECO MASTER PLAN APPROVED H-21-85 I I L) ( p ~O.P 0 S EO REGIONAL PAR~( ALONG KERN RIVEI I eIcAuF 81 ::'i IpANAMA LN I ~_ KERN RIVER pAR _1 I~ CAMPGROUN P~ E] L / :::i:i'~.. / ' ",~' / 7 .. :: ::..: .':: /~, .: \ / ( 6qoo ~2ooo FEET 2 MILES PARK PLAN BAKERSFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN MAP 2 URBAN · STUDY AREA BOUNDARY -COMMUNITY BOUNDARY NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY METROPOLITAN AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES EX ISTING -e- EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING · PRIVATE PUBLIC SCHOOL OR SITE PRIVATE SCHOOL CITY PARK COUNTY PARK OPEN SPACE WITHIN TRACTS 1983- 2000 CSO- CALIFORNIA STATE COLLEGE BC -BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE G-GOLF COURSE [] PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ACREAGE NEEDED TO MEET METROPOLITAN 45.3- STANDARD BY YR. 2000 BY COMMUNITY -Z/- -22- Figure 1 Theoretically, a neighborhood consisting of primarily single- family residential development resulting in a population of 7,500 would require 13.5 acres of city parkland. Assigning the acreage to the three levels of facilities results in 3.75 acres of com- munity parkland, 6.0 acres of neighborhood parks and 3.75 acres in 3 mini-parks assigned per neighborhood in the following con- ceptual layout: Figure 2 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Community Park 3.75 I 3.75 3.75 I 3.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 refers to acreage of each mini-park shown -23- The site envelop is intended to comply with the policy to plan for and acquire neighborhood parks within the central portion of the neighborhood. Within the theoretical neighborhood, only one- fourth of the area would qualify for park dedication. Subdivisions proposed outside the envelop shall contribute in- lieu fees based on fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required. TABLE 5: PARK LAND DEDICATION FORMULA Types of Dwellings Population Density per housing unit Acreage per housing unit Single-Family 3.5 .00875 Duplex, Triplex 2.8 .00070 Mobilehome 2.0 .00050 Apartment, Condominium 2.0 .00050 Note: The above table represents an example. will need to be developed from the 1980 Specific figures U.S. Census upon drafting a Park Land Dedication Ordinance. The fee schedule will be based on the land value for the par- ticular acreage required per housing unit. For example, if the unimproved land value is $20,000 per acre, the fee required for a single-family residence (detached) is $175. The County of Kern should also adopt the provisions of the Quimby Act. If the county does not enact the Quimby Act provisions or otherwise acquire parks and plan for neighborhood recreation facilities in the review of development proposals, it would become virtually impossible for the city to provide adequate space or central site locations if the area is annexed later. -24- This plan does not proposed to make up acreage if the county fails to provide it. With the above information, it revenue and alternative supply development fees and donations) the short fall in park is evident that major sources of contributions (such as grants, are needed to address community park needs. Commercial recreation, such as that provided in the recently developed softball complex at Mesa Marin, and the use of existing city and county-owned lands are possible alternatives to meeting some of the need. The use of city land along the Kern River adjacent to the southwest community will be addressed in the following brief discussion of regional recreation supply. Supplying Regional Recreation Opportunity. The Kern River Plan recomanen~s the preservation of primary and secondary floodplains along the Kern River. Between Gosford Road on the west and Manor Way on the east, an area comprising 740 acres is designated for preservation of the primary floodplain, resource management within the secondary (t00-year) floodplain and public or private recreational purposes. Approximately river channel or water recharge area) developed for recreational purposes. 350 acres is usable (not and has the potential to be This is more than suf- ficient acreage to qualify as a regional park and would approach the required 437 acres needed by 2000 for the entire Bakersfield Metropolitan Area including Rosedale and Oildale. In view of the total 740 acres proposed for open space which would include river -25- uses and less intensive development for the appreciation and use of the natural river environment within the primary floodplain (i.e., the river channel and high groundwater conditions), the overall requirements should be met. In the southwest area, a serious community recreation need has been identified and will continue throughout the planning period. Within the area between the Kern River and Truxtun Avenue west of State Highway 99, the City of Bakersfield owns approximately 60 acres of usable area which may be considered for the develop- ment of community recreation facilities primarily for the south- west community. This would provide a significant part of the current and future larger park needs in the southwest. Alternative Actions. As indicated earlier, this plan and park acquisition program respond to the minimal needs of the Bakersfield area to the Year 2000. It is obvious that several techniques or strategies will be needed to respond, including new legislation (Quimby Act Ordinance), development fees, use of city and county lands, encouraging private and commercial recreational development, and providing assistance to the various public schools in planning locations for future schools. Given this participation, and the augmentation of city and county revenue with State and Federal sources, the plan is achievable. Public and private land trades may also be another means of acquiring important parcels for recreation and park lands. -26- However, alternatives need to be considered either for the entire proposal.or more appropriately in specific neighborhoods and com- munities where the plan cannot be implemented ideally because sufficient acreage is not available. The Park Plan does not sug- gest removing homes in order to provide open space. For this reason, alternative actions are suggested which would, if imple- mented, move the community forward toward meeting the future local recreation need; however, not all policies of the plan would apply to the alternatives. The alternative is termed a design approach. Design Alternative In the event that existing development precludes the acquisition of five to fifteen acres for a neighborhood park or it is deter- mined that small park sites are more appropriate as in the direct applicability of the Quimby Act to subdivision residents, smaller sites may be acquired close to homes. This concept assumes that a school site will be acquired in a central area of the neigh- borhood as outlined below. The school would provide approxima- tely 5 acres of the approximately 15 acres need to serve a neighborhood with a population of 7,500 (i.e., 1.99 acres per 1,000 persons). -27- Figure 3 Approximate Scale: Two inches equal to one mile. School and park sites are not to scale. The design aproach may also be used as part of a local area mas- ter plan approved by the Planning Commission for development which takes into conslaeratlo the land in distributions and intensities within the plan area.