Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commissioi. <br />2/12/86 <br />Swift indicated he is not familiar with the types of assessment <br />districts available for recreation-type facilities. <br />Mr. Callahan again stated they will be happy to pay their fair <br />share of charges for recreation facilities but does not feel it <br />would be equitable to have to totally fund them. They are only <br />60% of the development in the area. <br />Commissioner Inner asked Mr. Swift if he was aware of the <br />mechanisms which should be used for assessments for recreation <br />facilities. Mr. Swift stated staff would like the opportunity to <br />look at the legal parameters concerning this. The City Council, <br />in setting the Proposition 4 override vote, has said that there <br />shall be no new fees nor increases in existing fees. Further <br />development agreements with various developers might preclude <br />assessing for recreational facilities. <br />Commissioner Wellman asked how the City could protect itself. <br />Mr. Swift explained that staff is recommending that the developer <br />pay its pro rata fee following a study of the park and recreation <br />needs; such study would determine whether to use assessment <br />districts, if available, developer fees, or some other mechanism. <br />Commissioner Innes felt that the City and the developer are in <br />accord with the need for recreation facilities but the only <br />disagreement is how the cost will be spread. <br />Mr. Callahan reviewed capital improvements and stated they have <br />worked with the two high schools in an attempt to develop ball <br />fields, etc., but because the consumption of alcoholic beverages <br />can't be controlled, this has not worked. He asked again that <br />the City not have an open-ended condition relative to their <br />contribution to recreational facilities. <br />Commissioner Michelotti felt that the business parks should <br />provide some recreation. Mr. Callahan said one of the problems <br />is land. It is very expensive. The cost to provide facilities <br />at Amador/Foothill High Schools is about $1,000,000 not including <br />parking. <br />Mr. Swift indicated staff has looked at the overall recreation <br />needs with regard to the General Plan. There will be a need for <br />softball fields, etc. Tennis facilities have already been <br />handled through the park at Hopyard and Valley. <br />Commissioner Inner indicated that the applicant wishes to <br />eliminate Condition 2f requiring 25% parking be provided in <br />decked or multi-story parking structures. Commissioner Inner <br />then asked staff if any consideration was given to density <br />exchange for parking structures and if 5-10% F.A.R. increase <br />would convince developers to provide multi deck parking. Mr. <br />Callahan then stated that various sites have different parking <br />requirements. He then reviewed various sites and their parking <br />requirements. <br />- 4 - <br />r _. __.... _ _ _ ._ <br />