AgdaPkt 2000-02-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ATTACHMENT s 1) Y.% Redwood City PLANNING" REDEVELOPMENT . DATE: July 27, 1998 SUBJECT: Status of Blomquist Roadway Extension and Bair Island Road Projects RECOMMENDATION: No action is required of the City Council in regard to this update. BACKGROUND: A. Previous Council Direction to Staff: On Janll/l1'Y 30, 1998 staff presented Council with four policy altématives .on how to manage development within the Bair Island area. Only Kaufman & Broad (K&B) and Irvine Apartment Communities (lAC) had applications with the City at that time. Policy Alternatives . 1. Allow development to occur and require no traffic mitigation. 2. Allow development and require payment of a traffic mitigation fee, understanding the fact that such fees (from K&B and lAC) would likely be insufficient to pay the entire cost of the Blomquist extension. 3. Allow development but require the developers (K.&B and lAC) to provide a solution to and pay the full cost of the access problem as a condition of development. 4. Place a moratorium on development. . Staff also informed Council that our Corp Permit to construct a bridge over Redwood Creek was due toe~pire and that we were uncertain whether the Corp would extend the permit. At that time, Council directed staff to allow development to continue (no moratorium); to .' collect anticipated developer fees (not require K&B and IAC to foot the entire bill); and to inform Council of the outcome of the Corp permit extension. On April 27, 1998, staff again asked Council for policy direction on the selection of one of five secondary roadway alternatives. As you may recall, based on the outcome of the Bair Island Road Traffic Study, the Council decided to have new developers north of Redwood Creek pay the cost of a one-lane emergency access roadway. Developers south of Redwood Creek could then contribute towards the cost of making this roadway a two-lane, full service road. Whether the City would/would not receives development proposals south of the creek was still in question. At that time, Council recognized that a two-lane service road would likely require additional funding from local, state and/or federal public agencies. Staff next asked for input from the Council on the following five roadway financing mechanism alternatives: 1. Require the developer to pay the entire cost and prohibit development until mitigation is complete. 2. Impose a Moratorium until a solution is found. '. .....~,........-.--.-.--.-...,.-.. ""'-----""'-.--r--""""'.""