AgdaPkt 2007-06-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A ~° Page 13 Policy 010: The City shal3 assure a standard provision of 3 acres of active community parkland per 1,000 residents which shalt be maintained and no# decrease as new residential development occurs. In developing the recommendation for the 3 acres per 1,000 resident standard, the Park and Recreation Commission defined active community parkland as a subset of the total open -space accessible to the public. This subset was represented by mini, neighborhood, cortimunity and special interest parks. if all public land and amenities that could offer passive recreation were included, the city standard would be over 12 acres per 1,000 residents. The decision to use 3 acres of active community parkland per 1,000 residents was based on an understanding of the type of parkland needed in Redwoad City. Specifics{Iy, it was felt that the City is blessed by its close proximity to large open space areas including Edgewood Park and the Don Edwards Wildlife Preserve Area; but we have much less abundance v~rhen it comes to space for parks in neighborhoods and sporting fields. Et is this type of parkland that will be most affected by new residential development. How would the establishment of a Partc Standard affect development? Hillsborough, Atherton, Colma, Redwood City and Burlingame currently are the only Peninsula cities that do not have a park standard and in-lieu flee. Given that none of those cities have been ovenuhelmed with applications for development at the expense of neighboring cities, it seems fair to assume that park development fees are not, in and of themselves, a deal breaker for the development community. Substantial amounts of housing have been built in the Gi#y of San Mateo for example, where both a park standard and in-lieu fee have been in place far many years. A lack of avai(able Land appears a mare daunting issue with respect to development_ The same land that is available for new residential development is also available far parks, !t is a matter of the community making (cr not making) the decision that the highest and best use of that land should be far active parks and having funding available to purchase the property. Those issues aside, there is no question that the standard will affect development as it will add to the overall cost. It is also important to note that parks have been created in Redwoad City despite the absence of a standard. Parks were donated to the City by individuals and civic groups in the City's early history, or land was purchased by the City for purposes of establishing a park. In the case of Redwood Shores, the City entered into a development agreement that resulted in an area with 6 acres per 1,000 residents of parkland. The proposed standard would not fimit staff's ability to negotiate the number of park acres. It simply would establish a minimum threshold that does not exist today. As such the amendment would provide certainty and consistency with respect to the community's expectations with respect to parks and, as a result, save time and money for al! parties. policy now in order to apply it to development proposals received prior to adoption of the entire General Plan update.