CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

326 > Discussion beqan on the matter of a decision as to whether public � recreational use of the waterway is to be allowed, or whether it is to be private commercial MOTION Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Counctlman Barrett, that the waterways be restricted to public recreational activity. The motion carried,unanimously by voice vote -- ' . (MINUTE ORDER NO 77-140) Discussion followed relating to whether the City should assume the re- sponsibility for maintenance and ooeration of the public recreation facilities for the interior waterways, whether the City has the ability to undertake the additional expense, what is equitable for the residents of Redwood Shores and to the residents of Redwood City proper, the fact that maintenance costs would be over $100,000 per year Pete Gruchala President of the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association, cortonented on increases in his home assessed valuation from last year and that he could not absorb more property taxes. Discussion included the suggestion of relocating the dock area �n a less exposed area, not as accessible to non-Redwood City residents, but the matter of policing would still devolve upon the District, or the City if it becomes a City facility, and if it is open to public recreation, anyone, including non-residents�can use it. Further discussion related to whether it is fair to the rest of the Redwood City residents to pay for maintenance of a facility for the pleasure of Redwood Shores residents; to the fact that the City has � responsibility for its parks; and comment regarding serious budget concerns Mr. Fales noted that neither the waterway nor the beach has been accepted by the City as a recreational facility. It was also pointed out that the waterway is basically a storm drain outlet, Mr Gruchala (see above) urged that the City assume responsibility for maintaining the waterway as a public recreation facility Mr Fales advised that if the area is to become a public facility and remain public, then it will be expensive to the taxpayer Re- sponding to further questions, staff advised that it would be the obligation of the City to provide lifeguards, but that the C�ty at present has no liability since �t is a pr�vate beach. Don Warren (see above) commented on the fact that the General Plan for the area locates a public beach in another location, and that in � the future, a better use for that particular beach is intended, but i in the meantime, Mobil would maintain it Since the Council was to convene shortly in its regular meeting, it was the consensus to ad�ourn the Study Session without having con- cluded the discussion on Interior Waterways System, Ad�ournment ' Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Council ad,7ourned at 6�8 p m to Regular meeting in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, at 7 30 p m this date. FRANCES I. REG6ETTS Ad,7 Mt9. -5- City Clerk 7/11/77 `�� / .