|
- 427
<br /> MOTION Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Councilman Rhodes, to
<br /> insert the following paragraph after the first paragraph under
<br /> 1 Purpose on' page 1 of the proposed Historic Landmarks Element
<br /> "It must be recognized that a reconciliation of the,community's
<br /> sincere desire to preserve its her�tage with the considerable
<br /> ' body of law which has been developed over a long period of t�me,
<br /> at both the State and local level, which is basically concerned
<br /> with building safety. It�remains a basic question of determining
<br /> the risk the communtty is willing to take in order to achieve
<br /> a given standard of historic building preservation "
<br /> • r ' P� ' t - >, � t� ,
<br /> The motion ca'rried'unanimously by voice vote
<br /> (MINUTE ORDER N0. 76-162)
<br /> .rt � i �' ` ., � , . �
<br /> Mr Fales stated for the'record that he believes'the Historic�Landmarks
<br /> Element to the General Plan is the f�rst such element adopted in San
<br /> Mateo County and that it should be both encouraging and interesting
<br /> that Redwood City has taken the lead` Mr Fales observed that it �
<br /> should be made clear to�the cortonunity that quality'restoration of
<br /> buildings of�h�storic value is the intent of the Element and that it
<br /> will not be used as a vehicle for find�ng Toopholes in'meeting building
<br /> code requirements.
<br /> MOTION Title ha'ving been read, Councilman Norris introduced the
<br /> following resol'ution,=and moved, seconded by Councilman Barrett, its
<br /> adoption ',
<br /> -� _ r .r, . • . < , •, j , r , „, , , „�
<br /> RESOLUTION N0. 7605 ADOPTING AN HTSTORIC�LANDMARKS ELEMENT FOR �
<br /> THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF REDWOOD'CITY (Element as,
<br /> � amended by motions above) � , , .
<br /> The resolution was adopted �unanimously by rol�l�call vote
<br /> 1�
<br /> S S � � � Y � �
<br /> Legislative Comm ttee Report No. 76-2 � �' �"� �
<br /> , t •-� , , -
<br /> Councilman Barrett�� of the,Legislatihe Committee,,presented
<br /> the sub�ect;'report:. � , , . , _ , , - �
<br /> � << , �;i < < , � - .
<br /> Discussion followed�and Counctlman Barrett replted to questions con-
<br /> cerning the recommendation of opposition to Assembly Bill 3461 (Torres)
<br /> regarding inventory tax revenue limitation
<br /> MOTION Councilman Biagi moved, seconded by Councilman Bury, that
<br /> further review be made of the Legislative Corrum ttee recommendation
<br /> of opposition to AB 3461
<br /> Lengthy discussion followed and City Manager Fales and City Attorney
<br /> Schricker commented and replied to questions concerning the content
<br /> of AB 3461, the fact`that the Council must concern itself with the
<br /> loss of revenue to the City to be anticipated if AB 346I passes and
<br /> not the equity of an'inventory tax, the fact that AB 3461 does not sub-
<br /> vent the loss'of re'venue to City government, the fact that the funds
<br /> which would be lost to'the City under AB 3461 would have to be re-
<br /> � placed by an increase,in real property tax, and,the possibility of
<br /> opposing the bill only on the grounds that it does not include pro-
<br /> vision for reimbursement to cities of the funds which would be lost
<br /> to them. '
<br /> , , , ,
<br /> -4=
<br /> � � Re9.Mtg.
<br /> 6/7/76
<br /> , � , , �
<br />
|