AgdaPkt 2009-03-16 spec, intrv - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

R.:.::....:e. "p' ..";m/......:.::.:R:...:::.:::T... ..; ~ '. . '. .' '. " . . , . . . ....: .: : .,' :' "', . ", :.::' /,:': . . ,', ~. ..~ \. " :;::: '..: :'" ": " '. .'. ". ',. , '" ..".... 4.2A Page 1 March 16, 2009 SUBJECT Introduction of an ordinance setting aside certain actions approving the Downtown Precise Plan RECOMMENDATION Introduction of an ordinance setting aside: 1. Resolution No. 14765 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission certification of the Final EIR for the Downtown Precise Plan. 2. Planning Commission approval of the Final EIR for the Downtown Precise Plan. 3. Ordinance No. 2308 adopting the Downtown Precise Plan. 4. Ordinance No. 1130-338 amending the Zoning Map to rezone properties located within the Downtown Precise Plan area. BACKGROUND In 2007, actions were taken to certify and approve a Final EI R, Precise Plan, and Zoning Map for Downtown Redwood City, constituting approval of the Downtown Precise Plan. Thereafter, Joseph and Roberta Carcione filed a lawsuit challenging the approved Downtown Precise Plan. On February 11, 2009, Judge Marie S. Weiner, Judge of the Superior Court, County of San Mateo entered judgment against Redwood City and issued her order requiring that Resolution No. 14765, and Ordinance No. 2308 and 1130-338 be set aside. The lawsuit claimed the Downtown Precise Plan's environmental documentation did not adequately address the issues of taller buildings casting shadows on other properties, or of the protection of historic structures in the Downtown area. Further, the judge's ruling indicated that the City did not adequately address the potential for an llalternate site" for the project. Following the judge's final statement of decision in the fall of 2008, the City's efforts focused on attempting to work cooperatively with the plaintiff's attorneys to find an expeditious way to resolve the deficiencies articulated by the court. Unfortunately, the City was unable to reach any type of resolution. Thus, while the City respectfully disagrees with the court's ruling, the legal options are limited. To appeal the lawsuit would take an estimated 12 to 18 months or more and would carry no guarantee of a positive outcome. Potential costs to the City would be high, adding to those already incurred. If the appeal failed on even one element of the lawsuit. the City would find itself in the same position as it is today, having to create a revised E I R.