AgdaPkt 2010-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C �n eariy August 2009, #he Jail Pianning Ur�it contacted planning agencies as part��P'a3 due diligence process for obtaining complete information a�out the top se�en sifes before the list was to be submitted for consideration. In response to#his request the City Manager directed Redwood Ci#y pianning staff to provide as thorough a response as possible.The resulting report was pro�ided to the City Council and was submitted to the Jaii Planning Unif on September 2,2009. The report focuses on the Jail Planning Unit's request for mo�e information about the Redwood City sites and includes detailed information about community vision, new general plan designations and poiicies, Downtown Precise Plan (zoning), surrounding uses, and appropriateness of each site for a replacement jail. in addition to this analysis,staff also prepared site studies of the Motor Pool and adjacent surface parking lots in an effort to explore othe�options that the County may find interesting for future consideration with respec#to their campus developmer�t needs. Staff knew at the time that this additional analysis was beyond the scope of the Jail Planning Unit's informatfon request as well as the Coun#y's site selecfion process, but believed that i# would be helpful for the decision makers at the County {ultimately the Board of Supervisors) to consider as wide a range of opportunities as possible.The report also provided analysis ofi the additionai three sites located on the City's borders. ln summary, the analysis determined that the two potential Downtown Redwood City sites are unacceptable focations for a replacement jail. Staff encouraged addi#ional consideration of possible locations based on the follvwing fundamental criterion: The sife for the new replacement jail shvuld nof adversely impact any community's downtown, existing residential neighborhoods, and/or planned residentia!neighborhoods. � It appeared at the time that a number of the top seven sites identified by the Jaif Planning Unit, as wel( as other sites thraughout the County that had not yet been considered, could realize this basic principle and would also meet the Sheriff's stated site se{ection criteria.The record also�ndicates that factofs that lead to the Jai{ Plar�ning Unit's dismissal of some o# these sites it� other cornmunities, such as long-range planning efforts and locations within redevelopment areas, seem not to have been considered in the evaluation of the Redwood City sites. On September 21,2009,the City Council took the following actions: 1. By motion accepted the report prepared by City s#aff submitted to the San Mateo County's Jail Planning Unit en#itled"Site lnformation for Alternative Locafiions for the Proposed Replacement Jail". 2. Discussed desired outreach effarts to Downtown stakeholders as we(I as community members that have been engaged in the Ciijr's land use planning efforts including the New General Plan. Then-Mayor Fausfi reported an her work on the JPAC, and her expectation tha# - after eight months of ineetings —there would be two or three viable sites identified for further study and considera#ion. However, she related to the Cauncil that at the Sept. 15 JPAC meeting, it was announced that the County would immediateiy focus their attention on only one site—the Downtown motor pool location within the County Center campus. 3. Provided direction to staff regarding next steps to take for the City's participation in the County's jail planning process. As a result, a (etter was conveyed from then-Mayor Faust to#hen-President of the Board of Supervisors Mark Church on