AgdaPkt 2005-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

B. Public Hearing to Consider Vacation of a Portion of St. Francis Recommendation: M/S Howard/Pierce to continue the public hearing to September 26, 2005. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. MINUTE ORDER 05-191 8. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST A. Legislation (information only) — This sub-section invotves possible discussion of City Position on Proposed Legislation described in the League of California Cities Priority Focus Bulletin No. 34-2005 and 35-2005. Council may direct staff to act on positions taken by Council. (Copies of League of California Cities Priority Focus available in City Clerk's Department). B. General Plan — Issues Relating to Undeveloped Bayfront Land Zoned Tidal Plain (TP) Mayor Ira stated that on July 11, 2005, a presentation by staff occurred on the question related to the land designation of Urban Reserve. At that point, Council determined that it would be a part of the General Plan and since then there have been additional concerns raised. Council Member Foust stated that she asked for this item to be brought back so that she could be clear on what she thought concerning the General Plan land use designation of Urban Reserve. She stated her opinion that the Urban Reserve designation is ambiguous and that it implies future development without any information on the possible environmental impacts. She stated that Urban Reserve is not consistent with the underlying zoning of Tidal Plain in the two areas which have an Urban Reserve land use designation, area "H" in Redwood Shores and the land owned by Cargill Salt off of Seaport Boulevard. She asked that the Council have the opportunity to discuss and that the Planning Commission be encouraged to take the comments this evening and during the General Plan review process, look very strongly at this land use designation. She asked for a thorough analysis, consideration of all the environmental impacts associated with it, all of the studies on the environment, whatever is necessary from a legal prospective, that it vets that information, brings in the public with much community dialogue as the process continues and it comes back to Council through the General Plan process. She stated her concern that there are development proposals on the table regarding both pieces of property. Council comments included the need for clarification due to a false impression that it is a designation which encourages massive development expanding into the areas designated Urban Resenre. Success of the General Plan is conditioned and contingent upon the public involvement in initiating ideas and review of the proposed General Plan. Full participation was encouraged JOINT MEETING September 12, 2005 CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE 10