1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r- 'uu11 The report also stated a great deal of research and more than four months of nego- tiations had gone into the development of the policy recommended and the cooperation of Staff and Commissions to make this possible was acknowledged. Committee report concluded with their strongly recommending that the Council adopt the "Proposed Neighborhood Park Dedication Policy" as a firm and permanent policy for the City —. in connection with the Redwood Shores development, and that Staff be requested to continue to investigate and recommend any additional actions which may be advisable to further implement such policy. Councilman Rosselli moved to accept report and recommendation of Committee on "Park Land Dedication Policy" so it might be established as a policy, also commending both Staff for a comprehensive, effective proposal, and developers for their will- ingness to cooperate with City, seconded by Councilman Petersen. Councilman Henderson expressed opposition to motion to adopt the policy at this point as felt more study should be given to proposal and public hearings be set to allow for community -wide publicity. Councilman Petersen commented on importance of adoption of the policy due to possible future legislation which would preclude the requirement for neighborhood park dedications. He pointed out City cannot force Leslie Properties to dedicate park land under proposed policy because of techni- cality of City's General Plan not being adopted, that the offer is probably the only one of its kind in the United Stated, and that it should be approved by Council at this meeting. Councilman Henderson opposed approving action at this meeting because of concerns expressed for (1) questions of funds available for park & recreation in District; (2) effect of proposed policy as to school open space and School Districts involved not being given a chance to discuss proposal; (3) questions concerning details on dedication of land to City and title thereto; (4) questioning of proposed priority of park planning in District, whether it would jeopardize City's park planning, and (5) maintenance costs involved affecting community; (6) questioning of how compu- tation of fair market value or costs of concern for a restrictive policy statement relating to future community, city-wide or regional parks at this time, and ques- tion as to whether adoption of this policy would be binding on future Councils. Mrs. Doris Thompson of the Park & Recreation Commission, stressed fact that the proposed dedications were voluntary on the part of the property owner; that Park & Recreation Commission had been requesting such a policy for subdivisions, and that Council's approval was recommended by the Commission. James Knecht, of Park & Recreation Commission, concurred with statements made concerning Commission's recommending Council adopt proposed policy, as felt it was most comprehensive. City Manager stated proposed policy contained no new concept for park dedication requirements as it was contained in the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan which had been adopted by Council after public hearing, and that the formula worked out with Leslie Properties, Inc., complied with that, and also contained additional plus factors. oil '61