CC Min 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

information on guest parking and the city's consultant spoke about transportation management options. Questions came up about the experts' positions on the air quality control issue. Ms. Thompson indicated that the consultant for the City is the expert for the City. One Council Member spoke about the lack of case law regarding what is a "specific and serious health concern". This Council requested that the City's consultant explain the methodology used by the City and said that responses were provided on how the calculations apply. Mr. Wright, the City's consultant, provided details on the independent analysis. The appellant, Tara Kaushik, explained the discrepancy between the City's approach and the Bay Area Quality Control's method published. Ms. Thompson explained that the City's consultant used a very conservative approach where the appellants' consultant used an extremely conservative approach. Mr. Wright explained that the City did not use the average of the five years as the appellant stated. One Council Member inquired if staff felt that all the questions raised by the appellant had been adequately answered in the EIR and Mr. Ekern said yes that was the case. Vice Mayor Gee inquired how the developer will comply with the volunteer offer. Ms. Thompson said we cannot enforce it but it is a voluntary offer made in the public arena. Vice Mayor Gee asked if it had any meaning and Ms. Thompson said that was something for the developer to respond to. One Council Member said he has never seen a double appeal on a project and he would like to further understand the Housing Accountability Act. Another Council Member noted that the developer is going to make some major improvements on EI Camino Real in an effort to address the neighborhood's concerns and issues. This Council Member values the concessions provided by the developer and he is ready to vote on this matter. This Council Member feels confident of the process and the legal input provided. M/S Ira/Pierce to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to certify the EIR, deny both appeals and adopt the revised resolution at the dais. The second to the motion explained that Redwood City needs housing and this is a valuable opportunity. She said that clear rules are needed going forward so that it is fair for everybody and without the developer there are no jobs and no houses and we need these. She also wants clarity for the developer and the community and this need to be clear from the start. This Council Member opined that Urban Housing worked diligently with the neighbors to accommodate concerns. She further stated that Redwood City is an inclusive community which invofves both ends of the spectrum (market and affordable housing) and it is the Council's job to make it a reality and validate those that follow the rules and are providing a benefit. In regards to the prevailing wages issues, she noted that this is not something we can enforce and she encouraged both groups (the developer and the unions) to work together. CITY COUNCIL February 13, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 15 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 48