CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I . I . - spend tax payer money to fund the private interests of an individual property owner in paying for an Environmental Impact Report. That suggestion could have been made by the Council or Council member at any time. I think the assessment district and reimbursement agreement are vehicles whereby the properties that would benefit by an EIR could be the ones responsible for the payment. I respectfully disagree with your --- views on that." Councilman Leipzig said "I had no intention of asking or implying that I want the staff to make policy. That's our role. I understand that completely. I certainly wouldn't want them to come to us with any more plans on spending tax payer money. But alternatives, that's what we are given here, and I think an alternative is, looking at a way to achieve what the Council previously had said, is an EIR. That's what I am talking about. No intention of staff making policy." Councilman Claire said "there was clear, very clear indication by prior Councils that the individual property owners of that area would in fact pay for that EIR. Mr. Whitaker has chosen not to do that.... Mr. Whitaker could have come to anyone of us.... and suggested that maybe we can get the rest of the property owners to work on this Environmental Impact Report, because I know that is what the City Council wanted to do." Councilman Claire said this "was a policy of the Council, and staff did exactly what this Council told staff to do." He added that the Council discussion at this meeting elucidated alternatives and that was the job of the Council, to be creative and set policy. Mayor Hartnett said he would vote to deny the appeal, "but the intent is to support a follow-up motion on directing staff to work with the applicant and other interested --- property owners on a mechanism for funding an EIR, if the applicant wishes to proceed in that marmer. For us to consider a way as Councilman Claire and Councilwoman La Berge have suggested, that there might be public participation, that is, public money. I do think that... when we accepted the property into Redwood City we took on to some extent, an obligation with respect to the buildability of these lots, and the obligation is in two respects. One is, as it relates to the individual property owners, and the other relates to the public in general. We have to perform our job as protectors of the public interest, and not just the individual property owners. We have to balance (these interests.)" Mayor Hartnett expressed concern that the results of the ErR might make it impractical for an individual property owner to build, but "we need to have an EIR. It is evident by the fact that the other property owners who are willing to kick in money for the road extension had an expectation that they would get a permit. Already we have a cumulative effect going down the road, so to speak, yet we have not pIarmed for that. We don't have an Environmental document to give us a road map.... The unfortunate thing might be that an Environmental Impact Report is done, the individual owners may find that they don't wish to build because of restrictions that might reasonably be imposed. But that is part of the risk of the process, and I think we have to get on with the process and let people make their own individual determinations." ITERATION OF THE MOTION: '-- REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MINUTES Page No. 484 PAGE 19