AgdaPkt 2012-05-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 2 ANALYSIS 1. Ad-Hoc Committee recommends that the City Council deny DMB's current application. Denying the project now would allow the City to stop all current processing actions. City staff and decision makers could respond to inquiries regarding the project with reference to the fact that no application is pending, we recommend that this message be clear on the website that is dedicated to public information on this project. That website and other communication tools can be utilized in the future to keep the community apprised of any new application, if one is submitted. If and when DMB presents a revised development proposal, the City can determine at that time whether and how to process the application, and whether seeking public input on the application via any of the options discussed in this report would be appropriate at that time. The committee believes that it is not appropriate to move forward with a public vote at this time. It does not make sense to devote City resources to ascertain public opinion about the application on file when the developer has indicated that the scope and nature of the development project is to be revised. Additionally, whether the City conducted an advisory vote or pursued some other form of garnering public opinion as identified below, the City would be asking for an opinion about a project that does not exist. Denying the current application would not prevent DMB from pursuing a new application in the future. In the meantime, the property would remain subject to current General Plan designations that have been in place since 1990 which are Urban Reserve to the north and Preservation to the south. The Urban Reserve category is for lands that are to be preserved for future use to expand the limits of the urbanized area of the City, with exact land use designations withheld pending review of development plans and their environmental consequences. The Preservation category applies to natural and other areas set aside to allow for: (1) protection and preservation of unique resources in Redwood City, including wildlife habitat, creeks, tidal marsh lands, protected hillsides, and geological formations; (2) opportunities for resource enhancement, including restoration of tidal and other wetlands and creeks; and (3) the preservation and management of locally available natural resources, including but not limited to timber, marine, wind, solar, and other types of resources. Uses allowed in the Preservation category must be complementary to resource preservation, enhancement, and management, including low-intensity recreational facilities, such as hiking and biking trails and related improvements. There is currently no Saltworks development proposal pending before the City that the developer appears to be interested in pursuing. Despite having announced publicly that the application has been put on hold, City staff and decision-makers continue to be approached with questions, suggestions and comments about development of the Saltworks site. It does not make sense for the City to continue to devote resources to a project that the applicant is not pursuing. 2. Ad-Hoc Committee recommends evaluating the following options If and when a new application is filed with a new project description. The ad-hoc committee finds that there are several options that will allow the City Council to evaluate a future submission relating to this project if and when a new application and project description is submitted. The committee recommends that no decision be made at this time as to which if any would be most useful and instead analyze these options when a new application/description is filed. However, having considered the benefits of these various options, the committee wanted to share them with the Council and the community for future consideration. Below is a list of options Council could look at to obtain community input beyond