CC Min 2006-07-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Public Comment: Peter Budelov spoke about the hold harmless provision of the encroachment permit. He requested Council look out for the interest of the owners stating that the City has been remiss in establishing a lagoon policy that is creative, cohesive, fair and addresses the issues. He further stated that later in the evening a petition would be submitted stating the reasons for objecting to the provisions and not the concept itself. He stated that it is unfair and unacceptable for homeowners to shoulder additional liability as suggested in the hold harmless provision. David Valkanaar, speaking as a member of the Board of Directors of the Redwood Shores Owners Association, read thoughts of the Board. He thanked the Council for the draft policy and ensuring the safety of the lagoon. He expressed support for the staff recommendation dated June 4, 2006 as a reasonable and positive way to handle the current concern about improvements that encroach upon the lagoon banks. Darryl Coe offered counterpoints to the staff report and stated that there is nothing wrong with the banks and if there was anything wrong, residents would make appropriate repairs. Chuck Dionis, one of the first on Starboard Drive, gave the history of the area, stating that there should be grandfathering in because there had been permission by the City. He stated that there is confusion on what can or cannot be done and that there is actually more erosion on the other side of the bridge that has been there for a long period of time. He further stated that he does not think his situation is a Level 3. Pete Hughes stated that be purchased his property because of the lagoon and is now being asked to sign to encroach on his own property. He thinks the City is too heavy handed and that the provision reduces the property value. He further stated that owners know that the banks must be treated properly and urged elimination of the encroachment provision. Tom Davenport stated that he has raised questions and has been ignored, that the original studies are outdated, the bridge is worsening and that there are far more serious issues to worry about. Celli Frost stated that she was seeking clarification of the hold harmless proposal, explaining her experience when her boat was struck by the Waterworks weed whacker. She asked how a hold harmless provision would have effected the outcome of such a situation. John Nash owns property on the lagoon and stated that the policy is similar to the Holly Street project that went on for years. He stated that he had JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JULY 24, 2006 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTE BOOK NO. 61 Page No. 225