PRC MIN 1975-06-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. - .,- ;86 .~ REPORT ITEM 3 ... Qeerational Policies Co~,i~~te~- Operational Policies Committee Chairman Rollins reported that the Com- mittee met on May 23,1975 to discuss the proposed regulations for the Park Land Dedication and Fee Assessment Ordinance. He reported that this proposed ordinance required that as a condition of approval of a final map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City for Parks and Recreation purposes at the time and 'according to the standards and formula contained in the ordinance. The City recognizes that a subdivider, by virtue of increasing the density of population, creates an additional demand on the community and should assist the community in meeting these demands. It was pointed out that the Committee had reviewed the proposal and had forwarded a copy of the proposal to the Commission members for their review prior to this meeting. Commissioner Pound mentioned that the Planning Commission was beginning to review the General Plan Task Force revisions and one of the ~ecommend- ations from the Land Use Committee as well as from the Open Space Com- mittee was to proceed with the adoption of a Park Land Dedication and Fee Ordinance.' Mr. Weeks indicated that the staff had been working on the provisions of this ordinance, together with representatives of the Public Works Department, the Planning Department, the Building Department, and the City Attorney's òffice over a period of the last eight or nine months. He further indicated that this team was currently working on the complete revision of the Land Subdivision Ordinance of the City and that it was felt the provisions of ~he Park Land Dedication and Fee Ordinance should be worked into, and become a part of, the new Land Subdivision Ordinance for the City. It was pointed out that this type of an ordinance had been adopted by many cities throughout the state and that the state enabling legislation for the ordinance had been challenged through the California State Supreme Court and was found to be valid. The Policy Commi ttee had mixed emotions about the proposed regulation in that it was felt the ordinance would place further constraints upon developers, which in the long run would be passed on to the consumer. However, the Committee also realized that the impact on public park and recreation facilities by con- tinuous development needed to be addressed and they felt that the proposed Park Land Dedication and Assessment Fee regulations would be appropriate to consider. It was suggested by Mr. Weeks that if the Commission felt that this was a proper approach to the acquisition of land and the acquiring of funds for the construction of park and recreation facilities" efforts should continue to be made with the Planning Department to include the proposed regulations into the Land Subdivision Ordinance. By this means, all matters relating to land subdivision could be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council in one ordinance. It was pointed out, however, that additional sssessment fees would be determined for those high density, multi-residential structures which do not require land