Laserfiche WebLink
project that responds the points made by Council tonight. One Council Member wanted <br /> the 25 feet creek setback but the other ones were somewhat flexible. <br /> Mayor Foust would like this to come back sooner rather than later especially since this has <br /> been in the works since 2004. She explained there had been delays with the application <br /> and other issues. It was agreed that when the project returns if it is different from what is <br /> being submitted then the Public Hearing will be reopened. Council discussed timing and <br /> how this would be brought back. The City Manager explained that this might not come <br /> back as quickly as desired because there are a lot of other items in the works. It was <br /> agreed that staff and the developer would work together but a consensus between the two <br /> parties was not mandatory. Staff is to bring the matter to the Mayor/Vice Mayor meeting <br /> to discuss the progress on the various issues/modifications and schedule appropriate <br /> Council follow-up and action. <br /> Ms. Ekas confirmed the direction from Council to make sure staff understood it correctly <br /> and the following motion was made: <br /> M/S Hartnett/Bain to direct staff to come back at the appropriate time with the <br /> modifications discussed by the City Council and having the Council retain jurisdiction over <br /> the matter. The issues that were mentioned for modification included: consider the <br /> twenty-five foot creek setback to the top of the bank but this is not set in stone primarily <br /> focusing on having the houses built on solid ground; focus on spaciousness and not <br /> specifically on "open space"; guest parking considerations; possibly taking one house <br /> down or not; looking at the private one-way street design including safety considerations <br /> and pedestrian friendly issues (sidewalks not mandatory) and review fire access issues. <br /> City Attorney Yamamoto clarified that this would be a continuance of the matter and <br /> referring the matter back to staff. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote. <br /> Minute Order 09-168 <br /> (Between 8:00 p.m. and 12:48 a.m. the City Council listened to staff presentations,the appellants, heard public <br /> comment and discussed the Finger Avenue double appeal matter. For the full content of the discussion please <br /> watch the web stream at: http://www.redwoodcity.orp/qovernment/council/agendas/2009/mov 090803.html <br /> and select item 7 through 9) <br /> 8. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST <br /> A. Legislation (information only) - This sub-section involves possible discussion of <br /> City Position on Proposed Legislation described in the League of California Cities <br /> City Advocate Weekly Issue No. 28-2009. Council may direct staff to act on <br /> positions taken by Council. (Copies of League of California Cities Priority Focus <br /> available in City Clerk's Department). <br /> B. Council Reports on Committee Meetings Attended. <br /> 1. Council Member Aguirre <br /> 2. Council Member Bain <br /> 3. Council Member Hartnett <br /> 4. Council Member Ira <br /> JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AUGUST 3, 2009 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10 <br /> MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 <br /> Page No. 440 <br />