My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-08-24 clsd and reg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2009 11:58:43 AM
Creation date
8/20/2009 2:22:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
8/24/2009
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.
/
325
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
th <br /> ATTACHMENT 1 – COMMENT MATRIX FROM JULY 27 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Technical Change Proposed <br />GP Direction <br />(Note: Additions to text in bold, deletions strikethrough. Issues which require <br />Comment <br />Element Needed further direction are highlighted.) <br />54. Best management practices for No Add information on shuttle best practices. <br />shuttles should be explored, marketing <br />(signs) and certainty on schedule are <br />both important. <br />55. Curious in port areas if there is No Add program to consult with Port about the most efficient use of port land for port, <br />timeline for life of the portside complex. recycling, and/or industrial related uses. <br />The General Plan includes discussion of <br />reserving land for Port related business, <br />including industrial and recycling. <br />Perhaps the port should work on <br />timeline with staff to phase out office <br />uses for industrial uses. <br />56. With regards to Downtown, we No Add a program to consult with County representatives regarding building design, land <br />should mention partnering with the use, and economic development. <br />County as they are a large land owner. <br />Benefits include consistency with design <br />and making sure our businesses work <br />well; as the County is one of our biggest <br />employers. Include them in a positive <br />collaborative way. <br />57. Page 227: City's creek setback No Programs will be revised to ensure that the creek setback ordinance is the <br />ordinance is unclear in terms of Finger appropriate tool for creek maintenance, daylighting, and restoration. If additional <br />Ave setback. We should look at the programs are needed to fully address policy, they will be added. <br />creek setback ordinance, and why we <br />have it. We talk about daylighting, etc. <br />But the way the ordinance is organized, <br />it deals with runoff and flooding rather <br />than riparian corridors. Working with <br />neighbors to restore creeks is a <br />program. We should explore the idea of <br />easements and see what other <br />communities that have done a good job <br />with restoration have done (San Jose <br />August 20, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.