Attachment C <br />This 74 acre site is privately owned by the Rest-Haven Memorial Park. The property owners <br />have indicated that approximately 27.63 acres is needed for existing or future cemetery use <br />and they would like to make the remaining 46.27 acres available for residential uses. The <br />PROS Project and Priority Plan identifies the need for a neighborhood park in this vicinity; <br />however the PROS Project and Priority Plan states that the location of proposed acquisitions <br />are approximate and subject to change based on land availability and public involvement. <br />The property owner has not indicated any interest in selling any portion of their site for <br />parks at this time. Regardless, City parks are allowed in LDR/R-1 therefore re-designation of <br />the entire site to LDR would not preclude a future park nor affect the City's provisions for or <br />access to recreational areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. <br />To the extent Statewide Planning Goal 8 applies, the amendments are consistent. <br />• Staff had contacted the applicant's consultant prior to issuance of the findings regarding interest <br />in selling a portion for a park, to which the consultant confirmed there was no interest at this <br />time; the PROS Plan indicates property owner willingness as a key criterion when prioritizing <br />acquisition opportunities. Likewise, Parks staff has not determined whether this site is suitable <br />for a neighborhood park. <br />• Re-designation and rezoning does not prohibit this site from future park acquisition as City parks <br />are permitted in R-1 zoning. Further, it is not uncommon for acquisition opportunities to occur as <br />part of, or following the processing of a development application. <br />• It is recognized that cemeteries and other similar uses often have a semi-public feel to them and <br />are utilized by the public unless otherwise restricted by the property owner. It is also recognized <br />that the subject site is private property and not in public ownership; <br />Responses to specific questions: <br />• Show a 1/4 mile radius around existing parks for gaps in parks service areas. The Planning <br />Commission requested staff show a 1/4 mile radius around near-by parks on the map staff used <br />during the public hearing presentation in order to identify whether there are gaps in park <br />coverage. This same map, with the 1/4 mile radius around parks added is Attachment D. However, <br />it's important to keep in mind that this map is staffs representation of parks within a walkable <br />distance (e.g.1/4 mile). This map does not represent actual service coverage areas, or specific <br />needs. Parks planning use a range of specific measures for determining park service coverage <br />areas. As such, staff would caution the planning commission from relying on this map as a <br />depiction of any service gap. <br />• Are there other areas that could meet the identified park need? An analysis of whether there <br />are other sites in the area that could meet the PROS Project and Priority Plan's identified <br />neighborhood park need for this area would need to be completed by Parks and Open Space staff <br />and was not done given this is a quasi-judicial process. That effort is currently underway as part of <br />the new Park and Open Space Planning project. As previously mentioned, the opportunity for this <br />site to meet that need does not go away because the site is re-designated or rezoned. Additionally, <br />as noted at the hearing, property owners may end up continuing to use the cemetery portion of <br />the site if the property owner continues to allow it. <br />• If this application is approved. what options are there to enable future park sites in the <br />area? As mentioned above, Parks staff are in the process of preparing a new plan for its park and <br />open space needs. So ideally, the neighborhood park needs for this area will get further attention <br />through that process. This may include further criteria for site selection, as well as additional <br />proposed actions. Secondly, there may be subsequent opportunities for the city to engage the <br />property owner as part of, or following submittal of a development plan for the site. <br />PC Agenda - Page 20 <br />