PRC MIN 2006-05-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Park and Recreation Commission Page 2 Minutes of May 24, 2006 3.)Traffic/transportation – No increase in activity anticipated because the new lights will go off at the same time as old lights; there could be increased use of the field during inclement weather Superintendent Hover stated the consultants might come back to the Commission at their June meeting. ITEM 1 – COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: 1.)Amend the Current General Plan to establish an Active Community Parkland Standard of 3 acres of 1,000 residents and set forth policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities; 2.)Accept the Revised Technical Memorandum prepared by Economic Planning Systems (EPS) as the Nexus Study in support of the establishment of Park Fees as recommended in the Department Strategic Plan; and 3.)Accept the proposed policy recommendations for the fee ordinance as described in the Staff Report Superintendent Hover said that at the request of the City Attorney, the word “Accept” will be changed to “Approve” in Item 2 and 3 that the Commission will take action on above. Chairperson Slusser reviewed with the Commission the action they would be taking this evening. Superintendent Hover gave an overview of the history of the Park Development Ordinance (PDO) for the Commissioners and audience. He stated that he and Director Centeno have met with several developers to discuss the proposed PDO and obtain their feedback, including Max Keech, Paul Powers, Home Builders Association of Northern California, Tri-County Apartment Association, and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. Director Centeno noted that Mr. Powers was unable to attend tonight’s meeting due to another commitment, but that he prepared a letter with his comments which the Commissioners have received. She explained that if the Commission approved the recommendation tonight, it would go before the Planning Commission to amend the General Plan, then to the Council to approve the General Plan amendment, and for their consideration of an in-lieu fee ordinance. Attorney Ted Hannig, representing marina developers, spoke about several items including his community involvement in Redwood City, his representation of the owners of the cinemaplex property in a lawsuit with the City, commented that the current PDO is unconstitutional, that the PDO sets up a “double-dipping” component, inappropriate to use 2000 Census data because it is “tainted”; and offered to volunteer his services to give first language cut on wording of PDO. Dennis Martin of the Home Builder Association of Northern California, gave his comments regarding the proposed PDO and was concerned about the huge fee increase to their members; suggested the Commission pull back or slow down its PDO process; suggested the development of a City-wide park