My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
PRC MIN 2006-04-26
RedwoodCity
>
Park and Rec Commission
>
Parks & Rec Comm Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
PRC MIN 2006-04-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2006 8:13:18 AM
Creation date
6/29/2006 2:01:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park and Rec Comm
Park and Rec Comm - Document Type
Minutes
Date
4/26/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Park and Recreation Commission Page 2 <br />Minutes of April 26, 2006 <br />the Coro Study and brought it current with 2006 figures. She shared the <br />revised 2006 Coro Study Update figures and the results which were <br />compared to local cities. Ms. Chaplick used these results to apply the <br />proposed park impact fee and show how Redwood City compared to other <br />cities in rankings of fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaplick asked the Commissioners and audience for their feedback on <br />four topics: Fee application and key assumption, Exemptions and discounts, <br />Developer Credits, and Fee Implementation. The following comments were <br />received in the four topics: <br /> <br />Fee Application & Key Assumptions <br />? <br />Duration of fees <br /> <br />? <br />There should be a provision to update fees <br /> <br />? <br />Use our definitions of parks from Strategic Plan <br /> <br />? <br />Suggestion to update annually to an index, e.g. construction cost <br /> <br />index <br /> <br />Exemption and Discounts <br />? <br />Question about assumption concerning applying flat amount to each <br /> <br />residential unit; suggested that it should be a graduating fee <br />depending on number of bedrooms; those numbers will impact parks <br />differently <br />? <br />Should have break for low income dwellings <br /> <br />? <br />Variables on land cost? <br /> <br />? <br />2.6 figure is too high for condos; other cities use 1.5 to 1.9 which is <br /> <br />more advisable. <br />? <br />$1.89 million per acre is too low a figure for downtown land; most <br /> <br />downtown developers will pay in lieu fee <br />? <br />“Moving target” – environment changing <br /> <br />? <br />Language of ordinance needed to be fair and equitable to City and <br /> <br />development community <br /> <br />Developer Credits <br />? <br />Have graduating scale to be competitive <br /> <br />? <br />Can City make up difference with another plan? <br /> <br />? <br />Should offer credit to developers <br /> <br />? <br />Be flexible on criteria and application <br /> <br />? <br />Should be accessible to public and open to public <br /> <br />? <br />Could deed property contiguous to development <br /> <br /> <br />Fee Implementation <br />? <br />Collect fees at time of “certification of occupancy” is issued; will be <br /> <br />easier for developers to handle <br />? <br />Look at what Palo Alto does in their program <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.