AgdaPkt 2014-03-24 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 71 March 24, 2014 Attachment #3 to Staff Report The Miscellaneous Points of the 2012 Memorandum Do Not Establish a Basis for Granting the Appeal Appellant attached an October 2012 Memorandum to the Appeal which addressed whether the Planning Commission should have approved a prior iteration of the Project. Although Appellant is under the obligation to set forth the basis for appeal, Appellant failed to explain the relevance of the 2012 Memorandum to the Appeal of this revised Project so it is unclear what is intended to be incorporated. However, in an abundance of caution, Staff addresses the miscellaneous points raised therein below. Council will note that many of the points raised therein are no longer applicable. A. The City Has Complied with Public Notification Requirements and Objectives Appellant's Position: As of October 2012, the City "may have compromised the rights of residents and the general public" by not providing a properly noticed, public process. (Memorandum, pp. 4-5.) The City provided ample notice of public meetings, including without limitation: • Mailing notice to property owners and tenants within 300 foot radius of the site on October 3, 2012, including the State Lands Commission. • Publishing notice in the Redwood City Daily News on October 6, 2012. • Mailing notice to BCDC, C/CAG, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (responsible agencies). • Mailing notice to Save the Bay, Diana Reddy, and Chamber of Commerce (interested parties). • Providing on-site postings at Pete's Harbor, Villas at Bair Island, Marina Pointe and One Marina. In addition, the 2012 Memorandum suggested that the property owner did not keep the tenants sufficiently informed. This suggestion concerns the landlord- tenant relationship, not the adequacy of any legally required notice associated with the City's process relating to the proposed development.