My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 2005-09-12
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CC Min 2005-09-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2011 2:46:17 PM
Creation date
9/29/2005 9:24:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Date
9/12/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Member Foust stated that she asked for this item to be brought back so <br />that she could be clear on what she Ahought concerning the General Plan land <br />use designation of Urban Reserve. She stated her opinion that the Urban <br />Reserve designation is ambiguous and that it implies future development <br />without any information on the possible environmental impacts. She stated that <br />Urban Reserve is not consistent with the underlying zoning of Tidal Plain in the <br />two areas which have an Urban Reserve land use designation, area "H" in <br />Redwood Shores and the land owned by Cargill Salt off of Seaport Boulevard. <br />She asked that the Council have the opportunity to discuss and that the Planning <br />Commission be encouraged to take the comments this evening and during the <br />General Plan review process, and took very strongly at this land use designation. <br />She asked for a thorough analysis, consideration of all the environmental <br />impacts associated with it, all of the studies 'on the environment, whatever is <br />necessary from a legal prospective, that it vets that information, brings in the <br />public with much community dialogue as the process continues and it comes <br />back to Council through the General 'Plan process. She stated her concern that <br />there are false illusions . within our ' community that there are development <br />proposals on the table regarding both pieces of property. , <br />Council comments included the need for clarification due to a false Impression <br />that it is a designation which encourages massive development expanding into <br />the areas designated Urban Reserve. Success of the General Plan is <br />conditioned and contingent upon the public involvement in initiating ideas and <br />review of the proposed General Plan. Full participation was encouraged <br />throughout the process and direction that when Council receives the staff report <br />that any land designations be clearly defined and that it be consistent with <br />underlying zoning. (601) <br />Public Comment: <br />Ralph Nobles thanked Council Member Foust for initiating discussion of this <br />topic. He stated that as Chair to the Planning Commission in 1990 when the <br />General Plan was considered there was a strong staff recommendation to <br />change the designation back to Open Space. In his search as to how it got <br />changed from Open Space to Urban Reserve he could not find evidence of <br />public notice or an EIR. <br />C. Council Member Bain — mentioned emergency preparedness by expressing his <br />sympathies to the victims of hurricane Katrina and stated his pride in staff and <br />Council in being proactive. There is information on the City website and <br />encouraged the community to familiarize themselves with the plan while stating <br />that more can be done to re- evaluate the plan in light of some recent information. <br />JOINT. MEETING September. 12, 2005 <br />CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE 11 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 60 <br />Page No. 577 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.