AgdaPkt 2009-08-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7B Page 2 process, the City has received a development proposa� fior the Cargill property (Attachment 1 - Executive Summary). The development proposa! includes a request for a Generaf Plan Amendment; consequentl�r, the City Council is being asked to eonsider the Generai Plan Amendment initia#ion pursuan# to Municipa� Code Section 18.61 and California Go�ernment Code 65358 (Attachment 4}. Therefore, what is being placed before the Cit�r Counc�! is �he question as �o whether the City Gouncil wishes to d�rect staffi to conduct an in-depth s�udy of the development proposal submitted by DM� Associates ("Deve(oper"} for the Cargill Saltworks property, which in turn may lead to a potentiai General Plan Amendment. Given �he importance of this decision and the infierest demonstrated by �he community, it is appropriate to present tnis �nitiatian �o the City Council in a public meeting format, as a first, enabling step in fihe study/review process. This is in keeping with our efforts to date to establish and maintain the highest possib{e level of ful! public disclosure and invol�ement. [f the City Council chooses to ini#iate th� process for evaluation of a potential General Plan Amendment and review of the developr�en� proposal, this action does not ca�stitut� an appro�ra! or d�nia0 0# �he project. Shvu[d the Council determine that it is in the public interest to proceed, City staff will ! need to retain consultants, prepare detailed analyses, commission technical studies, and keep the public informed about staff's progress throughout #he re�iew period, and prior to the subsequent public outreach, en�ironmentaf review, and decision-making processes. Based on an initial re�iew ofi the development proposal, staff has serious ca�c�rns about key issues suc� as wat�r supply, t�arspo�atia�, Lfimate �,hange and jurisdictional authorities. ln addition to thes� fundamental challenges, the scale of the proposal has the potent�al to increase the City's population by one third and thus represents a significant expansion of the City's urban area. Should such an expansion occur, the questions of how the expansion integrates into the City's exisfiing fiabric and how it supports �he rest of the City are of primary interest and wili require thorough analysis and discussion. �t is also well understood that there remain several essential questions, which members of the Redwood City community and regional interest groups have eleariy expressed: Should these lands, which were once part of the San Francisco Bay, be considered far any deve(opment at all? And if so, at what le�el of intensity, and for what types of �and uses? Pending an answer to these and other questions, and absent a development proposal, what would be the most appropriate future land use designation(s) and is a General Plan Amendmenfi necessary to obtain those designations? Staff ful(y expects that essent�al questions such as these wil( animate and inform the public discussians throughout the review process. The nature of these questions meri#s full expioration that can only be accomplished through a though�fiul, in-depth evaluation, en�ironmental re�iew, and a City-led, public discussion of all passible, alternati�e future uses for the Cargilf Saltworks pr�perty. Next S�eps The only question before the City Council at this time is whether ar not to initiate fihe process for eva�uaL�r�g a pc#2�tia! General Pla� Amendment. 4ther pa�#s af �he development app��cati�n, such as en�ironmenta( assessment, exp�aration of a�ternatives, zoning map, preparation of a specific plan, development agreement, et�. will be addressed in subsequen# phases, as appropriate. This additional work will require c�#y staff and specialized consuftants to conduct a full evaluation of the submittal