AgdaPkt 2010-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7C "ATTACHMENT 2" Page 17 Mayor Rosanne Poust City Helt Vice Mayor�iane Howard 'E 017 Middlefield Roact Radwood City,CA 94Q63 Councll Members �p/�I�MO� Vaice(650)78G-7220 Alids Aguitre �wa��8�� Fax(65(J}26i•9102 lan Bain �� m8ii�redwoodcaty.arg Jim Ftartnett � wunnr•redwoodcity.org Jen Ira Barbara F'lerce September 29,20Q9 Honorabie Mark Church,Presirfent And Honarabie Members San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Ha[l of Justice,400 Gaunty Center Redwood City,CA 94063 Subject:Redwood City Requ�s#to Pastpone Jaif Site Decisions Dear President Church and Memiaers of the Board of Supervis�rs: As you may know,at our September 21�meeting the Ci#y Councit discussed the Sh�riff s Department Jai!Planning Unit's recammendation ta the Sheriff.}speak far aur entire Counci!when I say that we are surprised ar�d disappointed that the process understood by the Jail Planning Advisory Commi#tee(JPAC)leading to site recommendations was not honared—and an fac#there is npw only a single site�rr�der consideratian,the motor pool area within the County campus in downtown Redwaad City. in Eighf of this,we respectfukly request t�at t�e Board of Supervisors post�aone a decis�on an moving forward an this issue urrtil uve have had the opportunity for fur�her dialogue.We ask for the oppor�unity to share w+th each Board member aur communify's values and�r�nciples cancerning the long tetm plans for powr�fawn Redwood City,and how they indeed davetai!with the Cou�ty's "Shared Visian 2025.° I believe fhat Board members wi(I afso benefit#rorn a full exptanatian of the City's recent report, "Respanse to Request of San Matea Caunfy Shsnff's�ce—Sife lnformatin»for Altema�ivs Locefions for fhe Proposed Replacemenf Jail,r which was transmitted ta each of you on September 4,2Q09.I feel i�'s very impartant ta c{arify tf�af our repot#is not just ab�ut whe�er or not Downtown is ar�appropriate site for a new jail;rather,it concerns the bigger picture of exarnining the highest and F�est Iand uses ove�#he I�ng term for the County campus,foided together with the City's ongoing efforts in revitalizing our powntown. {f's equally critical that we have a conversation abaut the Jai[Planning Advisary Commi#tee process,and what we on the Cauncil feel was a breach of what was agreed to.�rom the beginning,it was my undet-standing that the process was to be En the spirit of cammunicatson, coop�ration,and transparancy,wifh a true pro and con vetting of muttiple passible s�tes. I further understood that this would lead to a narrowing-dow�of�ti�e op#ions to two or thres�otentiaf sites, which would then be studied ta determine t�te optimum location. This did not occur,and I think you'1f agree that fhe Board of Supervisars deserves oniy a high- quality,callaborative,and E�ones#process to provide you with the wide-reachin�information and tools witEz which to make the best,most wei!-rounded decision possible.lnstsad,the recommendation came with only one chaice-the County's mo#or paol in Dowr�towr�Redwood City. The Commitfee's input and suggestions were not heard,were discaunted,or were otherwise not considered.