AgdaPkt 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 63 stakeholders are private residents, business owners, the city, the community in general and present occupying landowners. Mr. Ekern provided some contextual knowledge about what the area encompasses so the Council can have a better idea of who is involved. There was a brief discussion about the "Who" and the "How". Mr. Harkness provided a brief description of the difference between the primary and key stakeholders. Another Council Member inquired if all the previous work done in this area will be used and Dr. Bell confirmed that was the goal. Other stakeholders to be included are partners like the County, city, homeowners, recreation, impacted land owners, those using the recreation, and all those in surrounding areas. Council would like all of these engaged in the process. One Council Member wanted a clear timeline that serves the process and does not work to deter it or over expedite it. This Council Member would like a process that is timed right and does not impede people's ability to work and live there. The Council requires a respectful and robust community process that accomplishes results and is clearly communicated. One Council Member wanted to have clearly defined expectations so people don't expect the City to start digging in six-months. The Mayor asked that we not reinvent the wheel, since there has been prior work and it should be used to educate the present proposed process. Mayor Aguirre would rather be more inclusive in the "Who" then less. The facilitator agreed that this is not a tabula raza because the past actions need to be honored. Another Council Member talked about a letter submitted by the Seaport Industrial Association outlining stakeholders to be considered. The facilitator noted that he was hearing Council speak about lands in the area that will stay the same, assessing those that have a transformative potential, and others that need enhancing of the existing use. He added that such assessment might be part of the process. Mayor Aguirre, asked the facilitator to consider the fact that there were members of the public who wanted to address Council. One Council Member noted that this is not a planning process for the Inner Harbor, but a planning process for the whole Redwood City. One Council Member said that there has been a lot of planning and visioning with the current landowners and this should be taken into consideration. This Council Member agreed that it will be important to connect this area to the rest of Redwood City and plan for that bridging. Another Council Member wanted the opportunities and plans to be realistic and grounded in the realm of compatibility. This Council Member also noted that the Port of Redwood City is part of the equation and this exemplifies that there are varied components that have to be considered. This Council Member said that Federal and State Authorities also need to be brought into the loop early on the process. Vice Mayor Gee noted this is not a linear process and there will be side trips but the purpose needs to be moved along. He believes that it is a process and it will evolve as it progresses. Public Comment Tania Sole, President of Redwood Creek Floating Community Association, expressed interest in engaging all parties on the plan into the next century. She wants to participate with the entire community to enjoy the area and plan the area. JOINT CITY COUNCIUSUCCESSOR AGENCY June 25, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 10