My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-06-01
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-06-01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2009 9:55:33 AM
Creation date
5/28/2009 4:26:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
6/1/2009
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.
/
335
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 />Mr. Ward, with time ceded by other speakers, spoke about previous communications. He <br />also addressed what he believes to be public benefit for the community and the city. Mr. <br />Ward made comments related to the fact that in the past this was a public street and now <br />it is a private street and in his opinion this has no impact in the determination. He does <br />not believe that either way the city has any financial obligation to maintain the street. He <br />provided information about the public benefit such as the improved culvert and the access <br />for fire crews. He asked that Council consider a financing mechanism to cover the matter <br />to start the EIR process. <br /> <br />Council asked for a quick update on the status of this project. Mr. Passanisi, Principal <br />Planner, explained that staff is on its way to beginning the work on the 21 parcels on <br />Laurel Way. The issue of the 21 parcels was discussed and one is being excluded <br />because of the owner not wanting to participate. The Council discussed the properties <br />included and the one excluded. Staff confirmed that the entire area will be included in the <br />EIR. One Council Member commented on the issue of the 180/0 contribution mentioned in <br />1996. Staff said this possible contribution was later reversed based on a legal opinion. <br />One Council Member provided historical background on positions taken by Mr. Sweeney. <br />The Council Member that was present at the prior discussions did not recall this being a <br />blank check approval at that time. One Council Member suggested coming back with a <br />menu of options. The matter was referred back to City staff to look at other financing <br />options because this is a unique situation. <br /> <br />Various Council Members did not want to take action tonight but instead have staff look at <br />other options. One Council Member said it was unfortunate that prior Councils (in 1996) <br />were not told that such action was against an existing policy. Vice Mayor Howard wanted <br />a differentiation between what the project was with a public road versus the current private <br />road design. Mayor Foust would not like to undo what has been done in the past or have <br />future Council's deal with situations that are created by the current Council. Mayor Foust <br />made comments about the tone of certain correspondence received. She stated that this <br />is a Council of integrity and it tries to be responsive and ethical. <br /> <br />City Manager I ngram explained that it might be better to hold off on scheduling this until <br />the EIR is certified by the Planning Commission. There was no consensus on setting a <br />date for this to come back. One Council Member stated that he did not want to leave the <br />impression that the city will fund the EIR. One Council Member was clear that changing <br />prior resolutions and Council actions was not a welcome solution. In general, the Council <br />asked for exploration of legally acceptable alternatives. Council stated that there is no <br />pre-ordained assumption that the Council will pay but that merely Council is asking staff to <br />provide other choices. Council consensus was to have this come back with some <br />options for Council consideration. Council consensus was that this action tonight <br />is not to be viewed as a commitment to funding or that the project is approved even <br />if certified by the Planning Commission. The consensus also included that this <br />come back after the possible certification by the Planning Commission. Mayor Foust <br />thanked all those present for their time and comments. <br /> <br />6.1 Section - Motions <br /> <br />SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD <br />MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />MAY 18, 2009 <br />PAGE 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.