|
� 123
<br /> �:...�
<br /> to make an`extensive study: Mr. Schroeter also noted that it is re-
<br /> quired that the EIR take into consideration no development of the
<br /> property. , ,
<br /> , MOTION�. Titles having been�read, Councilman Norris introduced the
<br /> follow7ng resolutions and moved, seconded,by Couricilman Biagi, their
<br /> adopt,ion. ` �
<br /> RESOLUTION N0. 7749 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZIN6 EXECUTION OF
<br /> "fUNDING AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL' INIPACT REPORT�SERVICES,
<br /> RESOLUTION N0. 7750 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
<br /> AGREEMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
<br /> (CITY/PORT/IDEAL/LESLIE LANDS,), , . .
<br /> . � � ,
<br /> In response to question regarding the possibility of the State paying
<br /> for a portion of the EIR relating to traffic considerations in con-
<br /> , nection with the new Dumbarton' Bridge, Mr. Fales advised that such
<br /> participation by the State would depend upon the t7ming of var�ous
<br /> events, but that if.it seems likely the State could be included, the
<br /> matter would be�pursued. (memo 1/18/77)
<br /> The resolutions were adopted unan�imously�by { roll, call'vote.' .�
<br /> , , , � , !�,;� " .. ` , ,,, t- , „y
<br /> Annexation of Archdiocese of San Francisco Property , ,,
<br /> City Manager Fales 'refe'r`'red to his report'regardin�g the annexation of
<br /> Archdiocese�of San Francisco property; proposed amendment of Planned
<br /> , Development Permit, Public Data Service (Motorcycle Hi11�Development)
<br /> and attaching report from the Director of Public Works of January 13
<br /> and an exchange of comnunications between the Local Agency Formation
<br /> Commission (LAFCO) and the City
<br /> City Attorney Schricker advised that changed circumstances since the
<br /> date of the Manager''s report cause"the public hearing date�for' the
<br /> proposed annexation to be req'u"ired to be set not,less than 40 nor
<br /> more than 60 days from date of,adoption of the proposed resolution,
<br /> rather tfian within 30 ilays. Mr. Schrtcker advised that with regard
<br /> to the public hearing on amendment to the Planned Development Permit
<br /> (PDP) of Public Data Services, the City Clerk is already authorized
<br /> to set a hearing date and should be requested to set the same date
<br /> for that hearing as ,for the,proposed annexation so that the matters
<br /> might be considered at the same time. � „ `,
<br /> , . - r , ,
<br /> Discussion followed and Mr Fales and Mr. Schr,icker commented and re-
<br /> pl�ed to questions concerning whether or not the City could instst
<br /> on its PDP condition which is not compatible with"the conditions set
<br /> by LAFCO, the probable practical result of doing so; the fact that the
<br /> condition regarding improvement of a port,ion of Upland Road was pro-
<br /> posed by City staff and endorsed by Council, and that fairness sug-
<br /> gests a hearing be held on the PDP amendment, the problems relating
<br /> to title of property involved which could'create lengthy delays in
<br /> � resolving the matter, the,apparent opposition of residents of the
<br /> ad,7acent unincorporated area to �mprovement of the street, the re-
<br /> sponsibility of Council to citizens of Redwood City, and the de-
<br /> sirability of pursuing d�scussion of the proposed annexation and
<br /> PDP amendment at a public hearing where evidence may be presented
<br /> and all concerned may be heard.
<br /> -2-
<br /> Reg Mtg.
<br /> 1/17/77
<br />
|