Laserfiche WebLink
449 <br /> For clarification, City Manager explained that his previous comments concerned <br /> what are defined as real mini parks , those limited to 5 , 000 to 10 , 000 square feet . <br /> These were very different from the parks proposed , which involve about three acres , <br /> and the minimum sized park was about one acre . He also commented that in driving <br /> around the development , the places for the parks are there , with homes built around <br /> the space intended for such use . Councilman Williams noted that this concerned <br /> three parks in a developed area , and felt City had the obligation to the people in <br /> those areas to fulfill what was shown in the Master Plan . Councilman Petersen <br /> advised that some years earlier agreement had been made with Leslie that in the <br /> development , for every 1, 000 people , a definite number of acres would be developed , <br /> and that this acreage was to become dedicated to Redwood City , which was then <br /> obligated to begin improvement . City Attorney agreed , and indicated that for a <br /> number of these parks a deed had been accepted , to be developed within a specified <br /> time , or revert to the owner . He indicated if these particular parcels were part <br /> of the park dedication program, there was high probability of their reverting if <br /> improvements are not made . <br /> Mr . James Reiter of DMJM, 611 Veterans Boulevard , <br /> advised the subdivision was over a year old and <br /> therefore the parks were presumably in that <br /> category . Without arguing the legality , he did <br /> want to make the point that the tax rate the <br /> owners are paying reflects the fact that the <br /> money was borrowed and tax amortized for parks , <br /> but the parks are not there . In terms of total <br /> program commitment deed bonds did anticipate <br /> parks . In response to question by Council , he <br /> confirmed that these parks were part of the park <br /> dedication program, and he was sure dedication <br /> took place over a year ago . <br /> Motion carried on roll call vote , Councilman Henderson voting no . <br /> CONSENT CALENDAR : <br /> ( a ) Adopt ORDINANCE NO . . 1130 . 138 AMENDING SECTIONS 41 . 1 , 41 . 4 , 42 . 2 , 43 . 2 , 44 , 2 , <br /> 45 . 5 , 46 . 3 AND 48 . 3 OF ORDINANCE NO . 1130 , THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY <br /> OF REDWOOD CITY , RELATING TO THE FEE STRUCTURE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE APPLI- <br /> CATIONS . <br /> Aye votes : Councilmen Henderson , Keckley , Rhodes , Weymouth , Williams <br /> and Mayor Bury . Councilman Petersen ' s vote disqualified due to absence <br /> from Public Hearing held March 6 , 1972 . <br /> ( b ) Adopt ORDINANCE NO , 152.8 AMENDING SECTION 11 . 74 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br /> -- REDWOOD CITY , RELATING TO COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEMS ANNUAL <br /> FRANCHISE FEES . <br /> ( c ) Adopt ORDINANCE NO . 1529 AMENDING SECTION 23 . 72 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF <br /> REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF SALARIES OF <br /> CERTAIN EMPLOYEES SPECIFIED THEREIN . <br /> ( d ) Adopt ORDINANCE NO . 1530 AMENDING SECTION 11 OF ORDINANCE NO . 1519 , THE <br /> SALARY ORDINANCE , RELATING TO THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS . <br /> Ordinances were introduced at Council meeting of March 6 , 1972, and <br /> affidavits of publication were on file . <br /> 3 - 13 -72 <br />