CC Min 2012-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Another Council Member noted that the City has no enforcement power and he appreciates the concessions. He would like to further study this matter off line. He is not convinced by the appellants that the concerns were not addressed. He would like to postpone the decision to further study this matter. Another Council Member inquired how a decision can be delayed if there are no legal grounds to postpone the decision. He would trust the Vice Mayor to study the matter, possibly through an ad hoc committee. He would like this continued to study the matter and review the Planning issues and see how it fits with the law. He would expect this would come back within two weeks. The City Attorney would recommend that the City Council not continue the item to get additional experts. Vice Mayor Gee said he would be happy to serve on an ad hoc committee to review the matter. He is willing to review the methodology and he is disappointed that there is no requirement for dual plumbing and or recycled water, and he feels that we missed the boat on this. Vice Mayor Gee is not happy with the assumption of the traffic report and he is willing to work on this if that is the City Council's desire and he would like to see more information on this. Another Council Member disagreed and noted he did not want to recertify the EIR and discuss this further. This Council Member said that the Council's job is clear and he does not agree that there is any merit in the arguments from the appellants regarding the EIR. This Council Member noted that Council tells developers "there is certainty," and when they comply with it, we are telling them the rules can now change. In this case, he believes there is full compliance and nothing extra was requested and so in fairness to this developer and all developers action should be taken tonight. Mayor Aguirre said appreciated all the comments and called for the vote as there was a motion on the floor. One Council Member wanted to further discuss the matter before taking the vote and would like to divulge that sometimes our values are tied by legal requirements. He asked the City Attorney if she could comment. Ms. Thompson clarified that procedurally there is a motion on the table and the City Council must have to have four votes to pass or fail. If the City Council wanted to continue the item the City Council could do so to further discuss the matter with the developer and the appellants. The second to the motion noted that it meant a great deal to her that the developer was going to have Redwood City contractors be considered first. She further commented that it is in the best interest of everyone to bridge these gaps and try to make our community sustainable. She asked the audience to bend and try to make this work because we want this community to build, have jobs, and have people here instead of litigation. She said there is always the option for an alternate option. One Council Member noted that housing is important and it is hard that the rules are not clear. He would have liked to have had a discussion about the public benefit. CITY COUNCIL February 13, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 16 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 49