AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 108 248 Pamela Drive, #31 Mountain View, CA 94040 June 7, 2000. Mr. Thomas Passanisi Planning Department City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94064 Re: Undeveloped Lot Number 21 on Laurel Way APN 057-301-220 Dear Mr. Passanisi: 1 was born and raised in Redwood City. After graduating from graduate school and getting married last year, my husband and I began looking for a lot to'build a new home not far from my parents. Needless to say, vacant land is nearly impossible to find, and the price of an existing home unaffordable. In desperation I called George Meredith, who has been a longtime friend of the family. I knew he had a lot that he had been trying to sell for many years. After looking at the property, I signed a purchase contract on the lot owned by George Meredith which is Lot 21 on Laurel Way. Soon after, I contacted your department and was told there was an "informal" moratorium on Laurel Way. According to the records I obtained from Redwood City, some plans and specifications were prepared for Laurel Way, and a soil and geologic investigation was undertaken in 1970. Based on that information, the Planning Department felt that an assessment district should be formed for the entire street. In 1979 after a public hearing was held, Resolution No. 6639 was adopted determining to abandon the improvement project which was known as Laurel Way Assessment District No. 2. In November 1985, a report was issued from the City Manager to the City Council. The report states that, "the main issues that have defied a satisfactory conclusion to Laurel Way development have been . health, safety. and economics. (my underlining) Road improvements in this area would be relatively very costly, even for a substandard condition. The slopes of the properties increase the farther one gets from Highland Avenue, and soil studies suggest that there are stability problems because of subsurface seepage in the soil." In the conclusion of the report, the first option listed was, "consider the Georges property as the end of the line." Under the final recommendation the report stated, "Therefore, it is recommended that the course of action, listed as number one above, be adopted by the City, viz., consider the Georges' property as the end of the line, reserving the balance of the undeveloped area for some innovative approach of land assembly and reallocation, with a planned development permit, or a redevelopment project, growing out of the joint efforts of the owners."