AgdaPkt 2014-08-25 Closed and Joint with SA and Planning Amended

Browse Search

7.1.F. - Page 9 Mayor Gee closed the public hearing and announced a recess of the City Council meeting to allow for the counting of the ballots. CITY COUNCIL RECESS FOR COUNTING OF BALLOTS City Clerk Vonderlinden, City Manager Dr. Bell, City Attorney Thompson, and Economic Development Manager Brooks counted the ballots in the Council Chambers. RESUME CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Gee reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:47 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VOTE BY THE CITY CLERK City Clerk Vonderlinden provided the State of Vote: There were 73 ballots returned, which represented $463,763.56 which represents 58 percent of overall weight. Out of the returned ballots, $349,851.22 or 75 percent voted in favor of establishing the Downtown Redwood City Community Benefits Improvement District and $113,912.34 and or 25 percent voted in opposition of establishing the Downtown Redwood City Community Benefits Improvement District. Based on the voting results, the District passed by a margin of 75 to 25 percent. 2. If the assessment balloting does not result in a majority protest, then waive first reading and introduce an Ordinance Forming the Downtown Redwood City Community Benefit Improvement District and Levying the Assessment in Connection Therewith. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FORMING THE DOWNTOWN REDWOOD CITY COMMUNITY BENEFIT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH The Mayor thanked all those who participated in the entire process. M/S Seybert/Foust to waive first reading and introduce an Ordinance Forming the Downtown Redwood City Community Benefit Improvement District and Levying the Assessment in Connection Therewith. Motion carries by electronic vote 6-0, with Council Member Howard recused and abstaining. MINUTE ORDER 14-126 Council Member Howard rejoined the dais. B. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Cambridge Academy Project at 8:50 p.m. Community Development Director Aaron Aknin presented the report (presentation on file). He stated what the applicants originally proposed, and discussed in depth the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighborhood and why the Planning Commission made its decision. An example he mentioned was the significant unavoidable noise impact and the use permit findings. Mr. Aknin also discussed the appellant's revised reduced proposal. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD July 28, 2014 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8