CC Min 1984-10-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7. California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) Commitment Agreement Report of City Manager and Housing Officer 10/11/84 Title read. M /S: M /S: Bury /Claire RESOLUTION NO. 9711 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY FOR MULTIFAMILY REHABILITATION AND INFILL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM adopted unanimously by roll call vote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8. Final Map and Improvements - Parcel Map 84 -4 Report of City Manager and Director of Public Works 9/25/84 City Manager Smith advised that the recommendation is that Council approve the final map and authorize execution of the subdivision agreement, but that the developer has certain questions with respect to conditions. Dennis Harker, 114 Hazel Street, representing Redwood City Electric, stated that he takes exception to the condition requested by the Public Works Department for installation of a 6" water line to be extended down Hazel Street. He said that in the initial plan, the Building Department required installation of a sprinkler system for the addition to the store, but this requirement was later dropped because of minimum square footage requirements of the Fire Department, and he assumed that because the sprinkler system requirement was dropped, the water line extension was no longer necessary. However, he was informed by Public Works that the extension was still required for future development use, and he considers the added cost of $25,000 to be an unfair burden .for such a small expansion project and wanted that condition reviewed by Council. City Manager explained in response to question by Council regarding bringing the matter before the Council while there is a conflict, that although it is unusual, in this case all attempts by the Public Works Department to negotiate with the developer have failed to resolve the issue. City Attorney Schricker reviewed the procedural aspects, that what the subdivider is doing is taking issue with recommendations of staff that go all the way back to the Subdivision Review Committee; that under the prescribed appeal procedure, if the subdivider wishes to contest conditions of approval, it may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Therefore, procedurally, the issue is out of order and is brought before Council as an informal presentation at the approval stage, and suggested that appropriately the matter should be referred back to the Subdivision Review Committee. Director of Public Works Addiego advised that the matter had been before the Subdivision Committee twice; that the length of the water line originally required was revised to a shorter line in order to be more fair to the developer; that it was a condition of a Use Permit and Architecural Permit; Reg.Mtg. 10/15/84 Page 6 MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 Page No. 161