My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2006-08-28
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2006
>
AgdaPkt 2006-08-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2006 3:46:36 PM
Creation date
8/24/2006 12:05:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council & Redevelopment
Date
8/28/2006
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.
/
340
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
<br />Chuck Dionis, one of the first on Starboard Drive, gave the history of the <br />area, stating that there should be grandfathering in because there had <br />been permission by the City. He stated that there is confusion on what can <br />or cannot be done and that there is actually more erosion on the other side <br />of the bridge that has been there for a long period of time. He further stated <br />that he does not think his situation is a Level 3. <br />Pete Hughes stated that be purchased his property because of the lagoon <br />and is now being asked to sign to encroach on his own property. He thinks <br />the City is too heavy handed and that the provision reduces the property <br />value. He further stated that owners know that the banks must be treated <br />properly and urged elimination of the encroachment provision. <br />Tom Davenport stated that he has raised questions and has been ignored, <br />that the original studies are outdated, the bridge is worsening and that there <br />are far more serious issues to worry about. <br />Celli Frost stated that she was seeking clarification of the hold harmless <br />proposal, explaining her experience when her boat was struck by the <br />Waterworks weed whacker. She asked how a hold harmless provision <br />would have effected the outcome of such a situation. <br />John Nash owns property on the lagoon and stated that the policy is similar <br />to the Holly Street project that went on for years. He stated that he had <br />followed the process, left it and returned to find that the encroachment <br />provision is being proposed. He has a Level 1 because of stairs to the boat <br />dock and feels that the provision is pernicious and punitive. <br />M/S Foust/Howard to extend the meeting to 11 :30 p.m. The motion passed by a <br />unanimous voice vote. <br />Carole Wong, spoke as a resident of 14 years, stating that the header <br />board at the top of the slope present a Level 1 situation for her. She <br />expressed that the encroachment permit should be done in a fair way, <br />encouraging Level 1 grandfathering without a hold harmless provision, fee <br />or grace period due to the minor impact. <br />Pat Dixon read the petition and a letter. <br />M/S Ira/Hartnett to extend the meeting to 11 :45 p.m. The motion passed <br />by a unanimous voice vote. <br />M/S Ira/Aguirre to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a <br />unanimous voice vote. <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JULY 24, 2006 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 <br />- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.