AgdaPkt 2007-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7B Page 2 It should be nofied that the Cammission understood that parks have been created in Redwood City in the absence af a standard. Parks were donated to the Ci#y by individuals and civic groups in the City's early history, or land was purchased by the City for purposes of establishing a park. !n the case af the Redwood Shares neighbarhood, 6 acres/1,�00 residents of parkland was created. The Commission's goa! with the proposed standard was nat to limit staff's ability to negotiate the number of park acres. Rather, their goal was to establish a minimum threshold that does not exist taday. As such, the amendment would provide certainty and consistency with respect to fihe community's expectations for parks and, as a result, save time and money for ali parties. i he Planning Commission, afi cheir April 3, 2007 meeting, suppor�ed the park standard recommendation and adopted a Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Ac#ive Community Parkland Standard and adapted a resolution recommending that City Council amend the Open Space Eiement of the current General Plan to include the following poiicy: Policy 0-10: The City shall assure a standard provision of 3 acres of active community parkland per 1,400 residents which shall be maintaRned and not decrease as new residential development occurs. If Council chose to apprave this amendment, the only peninsula cities withaut a park standard and in-lieu fee ordinance would be HiElsborough, Atherton, Colma, and BurEingame. Given the overwhelming majarity of Peninsula cities with standards and in- iieu fee ordinances in place, it is evident that park development fees are nat, in and of themselves, a deal breaker for the development community. A lack of available land appears a mare da�nting issue with respect to development; however, the same land fhat is available for new residential development is also availab(e for parks. !t is a matter of the community making (or nat making) the decision that the highest and best use of that land should be for active parks and having funding available to purchase the property. Those issues aside, there is no question that the standard wilf add to the overall cost, but it should not put the City at an economic disadvantage with other Peninsula cities. DEVELOPMENT FEE ORDINANCES The State Quimby Act and Mitigatian Fee Act permit the City to impose fees and dedication requirements on development to provide for parkland and for park and recreation improvements. Staff entered into an agreement with Moore lacofano Goltsman, inc. (M[G) to develt�p an inventory by type of parkland within the City jurisdiction which resulted in an exosting standard of just less than 3 acres/1,000 residents. MIG then subcantracted with Economic Planning Systems (EPS} for a nexus �ti�d)�#0 COt��,u�'r#h8 iTtiNaCi �f Nt'�j�cted new residential units through 202G.