The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/21/1991 B A K E R S F I E L D Conni Brunni, Chair Lynn Edwards Mark Salvaggio Staff: Lee Andersen AGENDA CONVENTION CENTER AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Monday, October 21, 1991 4:30 P.M. City Manager's Conference Room 1. Proposal to Build Large Neighborhood Park in Silver Creek Parks Committee Report Planning Commission Meeting of October 17, 1991 PROJECT: General Plan· Amendment 3-91, Seglnent V - Parks within the silVer Creek Development. The_ Parks Committee held meetings on September 26, 1991, and October 15, 1992, with representatives from Caste and Cooke. Development and Lakeside School District to discuss the park configuration, the City's park land standard, proposed facilities, maintenance costs, and. resident's concerns. Four neighborhood residents attended the October 15, 1991, meeting. Caste and Cooke held a neighborhood meeting on October 9, 1991, which approximately 50 residents attended._. Don Lindsey made a presentation describing the proposed park. City staff' answered questions from the audience. Resident's concerns included maintenance costs, security, proposed types of facilities and recreation programming. Mr;:Lindsey stated his estimates indicated at full build out, ea~h single family residence would be assess6d about $170 (1991 dollars) per year for street landscaping and park maintenance, of four small parks.. If three parks were consolidated into a 14-acre park_site with enhanced amenities, the yearly maintenance assessment. would increase $22:for a total of $192 (1991 dollars) per' single family residents.. Assistant Police Chief Jim Lewis sated crime in city parks is not significant. The liquor permit requirement and increased use of parks by youth athletic groups and. neighborhood residents have been a deterrent to criminal activity. Police patrol the parks as well as a special patrol unit used in the summer. Roberta Rous, Lakeside School Superintendent, reported that at their October 14 meeting, the.school:district board philosophically was agreeable to a joint use' agreement. The school's architect has .discussed possible site plans for the school to provide for future joint use arrangements. It appears that'joint school and park facilities, can be provided. The Parks Committee encourages a joint use agreement be pursued. The Parks Committee invited several residents to their October 15 meeting. Three of the~residents stated.they are infavor of the.enhanced park and would like to have recreation programs~. Resident Klm Haerter spoke with many residents South of Hams Road and relayed comments she collected. According to Ms. Haener, a small majority were in favor of the larger park. Those in opposition expressed concern with security- and senior citizehs were concerned with increased maintenance costs. At the September · 19 public hearing, a petition in opposition was submitted. Resident Patricia Sigler canvassed her neighborhood and collected signatures in opposition from 48 homes. Most of these homes are located north of Harris' Road.~ One additional letter in opposition was received October 14, 1991. It has been attached to this report. 10/17/91 (JE) Parks Committee RePort October 17, 1991 Page 2 The Parks Committee recommends that maintenance costs for the proposed pool and. pavilion notbe borne by the maintenance district.. General funds maintain ail other'-city, pools and "community-type" buildings (i.e. pavilion) and .this funding method should, apply to these proposed facilities. Castle and Cooke submitted a list of enhanced . facilities they propose to construct. The list is attached as Exhibit "B". Staff informed the committee that the Comm__unity Services Committee of the City Council will be ~ meeting October 21, 1991, to discuss the fiscal implications and improvement agreement' on this proposal. Mr. Lindsey requested the Planning Commission consider the park land acreage requirement forSilVer Creek be~met by Castle and Cooke's development of an enhanced 14-acre neighborhood park to include the amenities listed in Exhibit "B". The City's Park Land Ordinance Section 15.80.150 allows the. City Council,, upon recommendation- from. the Plannm~g Commi.~sion; to apply credit towards park land requirements for park improvements provided, by the subdivider. If the Commi~ion accepts the proposed enhancement as credit' for the two acre short fall referenced in the staff-repo~ Th-~-. ' proposed park together with existing Wilderness Park, would satisfy the subdividers park acreage requirements for Silver Creek bufldout based on an estimated 6,548 single, family residents (2,20:5 DU) and 1,770 multi-family residents (831 DIT). The Parks Committee agreed the enhanced neighborhood park would benefit the public because of the types.of facilities proposed, andrecommends'approval with conditions:. listed in Extu"oit "A'. TO ensure timely development of the enhanced park as proposed, the Committee recommends that no subdivision be approved which includes the three~ small park sites changed fromOSP to LR (see. Eih~"oit "C~) until an improvement- agreement between the City of Bakeratield and the subdivider which addresses park. development (including scheduling) has been executed._~ Thee.park should be- completed within 18 months of GPA approval. " FINDINGS: 1. All. required public notices have been given. 2. Tile.provisions of CEQA have been followed. 3. Tlii proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 4. The, proposed amendment, as conditioned, is compatible with existing designations and development adjacent to the site.-. Parks Committee RepOrt OCtober 17, 1991 Page 3 5. In. accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section.. 15.80.150, development of the. 14.17,hcre enhanced neighborhood park site by the subdivider in accordance.~ · with an improvement agreement'(or similar instrument) approved by the City- . Council, and list of amenities in attached. Exhibit "B" shall satisfy the park land-~ requirement for the Silver Creek develoPment,., based on an estimated population of 6,548 single family residents-and 1,770 multi-family residents.. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOtion to adopt resolution making findings set forth in 'Parks Committee Report APPROVING the Negative Declaration and APPROVING General Plan Amendment' 3-91, Segmenr¥ conSisting of an amendment to the Land Use Element fr°m OS,P to. LR on 12.86 acres, and from PS'to OS-P on 14.17 acre~ subject-to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit "A", and recommend same to the City--Council. Respectfully submitted, C0mmi~ioner David Colin,. Chairman C6mmi~ioner Steve Messner COmmissioner Darren 'Powers EXHIBIT "A" GPA' 3-91, SEGMENT V Conditions of Approval 1. ' Development of the 14.17-acre enhanced neighborhood park by the subdivider in accordance with an approved improvement agreement (or similar instrument) which includes amenities listed in Exhibit "B", shall meet the park land acreage requirement for the Silver Creek Development based on 6,548 single family residents (2,200 DU) and 1,770 multi-family residents (831 DU). 2. No subdivision map shall be approved on the three sites to be changed from OS- P to LR, as depicted on Exhibit "C", until the improvment agreement .(or similar instrument) between the City of Bakersfield and the subdivider which addresses park development (including scheduling) has been executed. 3. ConstrUction of the 14.17-acre park site shall be completed within 18 months of City Council adoption of this general plan amendment. 4. Maintenance costs for the swimming pool and pavilion shall be paid from 'the general fund or city,wide park maintenance district as approved by the City Council. 5. Funding for recreation programming at said .park shall be from the general fund or city-wide park district as approved by the City Council. 6. The city, in coordination with the developer, shall actively pursue a jont use ageement with the school district for the purpose of providng additional facilities and open space not otherwise available for park users. a:pc EXHIBIT B, SILVER CR~K NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROPOSED-~NI'I~S GPA 3-91~ SEGMENT V (Oeober t~,lggl) Play Squtpment Fmutly Pfmic/Ba~ B~ Ff~ ~~/~ v~ W~~ ~/s~ EXHIBIT GENERAL.. PLAN AMENDMENT' 3,91, SEGMENT $! ROAD \ ~I~ . GC ~ I ~ l i ~'R~" LR = Lo~ Dens~ry Residential OS-P = Open. Space Park' PS = Public School ..... .:- ~: ;- SILVER CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS (October 9, 1991) An~outline of the 1991-92 fiscal year assessment costs for a single.~mily dwelling unit within Maintenance District No. I7 to maintain Wilderness Park and the existing st' tee, t parkway landscaping and median islands, as well as the estimated assessment costs to maintain future park and street landscaping. (Source: City of Bakersfield Park Division unless noted otherwise) AMENITY/BENEFIT MAINTENANCE COSTS ASSESSMENT COSTS (per Sin$1e Family Unit) o COMPONENT A (Existing) Wilderness Park (5.20 acres). $38,790 $16.90 Existing Sla-eet Landscaping Street Parkway (6.57 acres) $86,920 $6.35 Median Islands (1.10 acres) $15,280 $36.16 Sub-Total (Existing) $140,990 $59.41 o COMPONENTB (Future - ThreeParks) * Future Parks (3 @ 5.4 acres) $145,000 $63.18 ** Future Street Landscaping Street Parkway (6.67 acres) $90,000 $37.44 Median Islands (1.85 acres) $25,000 $10.40 Sub-Total (Component B) $260,000 $1II.02 -. Estimated Total Assessment $400,990 $170.43 "'--'- o COMPONENTB'_(Futiite :'One Park)' -' - : ..... * Future Park (162 acres) ................. z z$194,700 $84.83 ** Future Street Landscaping street Parkway (6.67 acres) $90,000 $37.44 Median Islands (1.85 acres) $25,000 $10.40 Sub-Total (Component B 9 $309,700 $132.67 Estimated Total Assessment $450,690 $192.08 * See Page Two ** Estimated by Milazzo & Associates, Architects Page One A comparison of park amenities and estimated costs to maintain three smaller parks, as would be allowed in the existing development plan, and a single larger park as proposed in the General Plan Amendment now being considered by the City of Bakersfidd Planning Commission. These costs are preliminary and do not include costs to maintain Wilderness park or existing or Proposed street parkway landscaping (see above). EXISTING PROPOSED o Size: Three small parks about 16 acres o Size: .Single park approximately 16 acres o Amenities: o Amenities: Turf/Landscaping Turf/Landscaping Play Equipment Play Equipment Game Courts Preschool and Elementary Family Picnic/BBQ Family Picnic/BBQ Security Lighting Security Lighting " Parking Ball Fields Softball/Football/Soccer Meandering Trail Group Picnic Lighted Tennis Courts Horseshoe Pits .Par and Frisbee Courses Pavilion/Multi-Purpose Center ~ Restrooms Basketball Volleyball ~ Badminton Snack Bar Office Space Multi-Purpose Space : - .... ' (Classrooms, Daycare,Crafts) Swim Complex Wading Pool .... - - o Assessment Costs: $63 :Annually ' -' _ .. o A~sessment Costs: $85 Annually.. ' . -. ..... . (Note: Maintenance District Costs would be reduced to $61 annuallY if the City's General Fund paid for · the costs of maintaining the Pavilionand -- Swim Complex.) ;An increase of $22 annually.($1.83 per month) to a household's tax bill would cover the costs to maintain a Single -park developed with the proposed.amenities. ._ Page 2~wo SILVER CREEK PARK AND' RECREATION AREA I 0-21-91 FOLLOWING ARE THE ESTIMATED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR THE SILVER CREEK:PARK AND RECREATION AREA. PARK MAINTENANCE: PAVILLION $15,000 RECREATION ROOMS $24,000 SWIMMING POOL $24,000 I SUB-TOTAL $63,000 RECREATION PROGRAMMING: YOUTH ACTIVITIES $12,300 YOUTH SPORTS $70,'300 ADULT SPORTS $14,600 AQUATICS ' - $102,900. LEISURE CLASSES 910,800 tSUB-TOTAL $210,900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES .$273,.900 PARKS ..... --- t $1,000. -.- ~ RECREATION .~ ....... { $65,800 ~= · o~,,~ ,~v~,~ ~-' --~.8001:1-' ............... .~i_.. 'i .~., 'NET COST TO GENERAL FUND $207,100 NOTE: ' IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO SHIFT EXISTING STAFE AND PROGRAMS'TO SAVE AN ADDITIONAL$10,000 TO $20,000 OF THE ABOVE COSTS' TO THE GENERAL FUND.