My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-01-26 clsd and reg
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-01-26 clsd and reg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2009 9:16:48 AM
Creation date
1/22/2009 3:38:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/26/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
239
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
<br />78 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />On January 12, 2009, The City Council received a letter from John Bruno, Vice President <br />and General Manager of OMS Redwood City Saltworks (representing the property owner, <br />Cargill). In the letter, Mr. Bruno requested that the City's general plan process retain the <br />existing IlOpen Space" and uUrban Reservell land use categories on the Cargill Saltworks <br />property. He also suggested that the City only evaluate the General Plan designations for <br />the property at the time an application is made to develop the property. The stated reasons <br />for this request were to allow for a more comprehensive approach to evaluate alternatives for <br />the property and also to permit the City to complete its general plan update in a more <br />expedited manner. (Please refer to Attachment 1, letter from OMB Redwood City Saltworks <br />dated January 12, 2009). <br /> <br />On January 13, 2009 the Planning Commission further discussed various land use <br />alternatives for three corridor study areas and also a new corridor for consideration, <br />Middlefield Road. It did exclude, however, the Cargill Saltworks property from the discussion <br />because of Council's request through staff to have the Planning Commission wait for their <br />input. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission confirmed their preferred <br />land use alternatives for each and all of the corridor study areas. <br /> <br />The purpose of this report is to provide information and options on the New General Plan <br />process going forward, specifically as it relates to the Cargill Saltworks property, and to <br />provide the City Council with an update of the land use alternatives being generally <br />supported by the Planning Commission, and an opportunity to concur with the draft land use <br />maps dated January 26, 2009 for the four study area corridors. <br /> <br />Upon direction by the City Council, and concurrence of the Planning Commission, the New <br />General Plan team will immediately begin the Programmatic EIR and complete the drafting of <br />policies and writing of the New General Plan elements. <br /> <br />Cargill Saltworks Property <br />Beginning in the fall of 2008, the New General Plan team prepared land use altematives for <br />the Cargill Saltworks property for the purpose of public outreach and discussion. As of <br />December 16, 2008, seven alternatives were presented to the public and Planning <br />Commission. These alternatives are summarized in Table One below (see also Attachment <br />2). At the December 9th Commission meeting staff also introduced the concept of <br />"Performance Standards" relative to the Cargill Saltworks property, but which could also <br />apply to land use planning throughout the Bayfront Area to some extent. The standards <br />included: <br /> <br />. No net new water use <br />. Resolve flooding issues and plan for sea level rise <br />. Accommodate wetlands restoration <br />. Support mobile home community <br />. Provide secondary access (e.g. via Marsh Road) <br />. Roadway performance criteria (e.g. Level of Service) <br />. Must not exceed specified carbon thresholds <br />. Provide active park space <br />. Net positive fiscal impact for City of Redwood City <br />. Inclusion of affordable housing <br />. No interference with Port functions <br />. Transit linkages <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.