My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 2006-12-04
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CC Min 2006-12-04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2011 2:34:37 PM
Creation date
1/11/2007 12:37:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council & Redevelopment
Date
12/4/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
stating that street trees should be of the low maintenance varieties. She submitted <br />written comments dated December 4, 2006 for the record. <br />Keith Bautista, Redwood City resident, asked what the homeowner's responsibility <br />is with respect to the sidewalk hazards created by the trees planted within the <br />City's right -of -way. If the homeowner is responsible then we are all in jeopardy <br />with the raised sidewalks caused by the tree roots. He stated that he utilized the <br />accelerated program where the homeowner requests repair of the sidewalk and <br />pays 50% and 5 years later the sidewalk has raised again despite the root barrier <br />placement. <br />Nita Spangler, a member of the Task Force, stated that she agrees with Chris, <br />she agrees with the man who wants to repair the sidewalks and go easy on the <br />owners. She stated it was interesting experience and she learned a lot. She stated <br />that there were grasslands from the hills to the bay as the City began planting <br />trees in the early 1860's and she gave some of the history at that time in the area, <br />pointing out that we have lost many of the trees. Although trees enhance the <br />landscape they are very expensive and she has been through the appeal process. <br />She stated that we will have increasingly small lots and need to manage nice <br />landscaping as in some neighboring communities. <br />Council Members questions and comments ensued about the practical application <br />of the recommendations; prior to adopting items with budget implications there <br />must be information regarding staffing needs and other costs that might be <br />discussed at the priority session. Council Member Bain submitted his written <br />concerns in advance due to his absence. They included his inclination to support <br />a tree advisory committee and whether other communities have them, do they <br />have thoughts regarding rubberized sidewalks, and the need for a more user <br />friendly website that answers common questions and provides clarifications. <br />Council discussion ensued regarding Foust: Receive the report, ask staff to come <br />back with items without budget implications, and a second series with budget <br />implications, contentious homeowner, liability and right of way issues. Community <br />education early in the process, appeals board would be helpful with an easy <br />process, how do we handle industrial /commercial zones in the unincorporated <br />area <br />M/S Howard /Foust to adopt the vision statement proposed as a foundation for <br />how the City will address the urban forest. The motion passed by a unanimous <br />voice vote with Council Member Bain absent. <br />M/S Ira /Foust to develop a recommended species list. The motion passed by a <br />unanimous voice vote with Council Member Bain absent. <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 4, 2006 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 61 <br />Page 298 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.