CC Min 1997-06-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

John Murphy, 421 Luff Lane, Redwood City, said the proposed action appeared to be establishing another GID 1-64. He said approximately two thirds of the people eligible to vote are the Developers. He said the remaining one third are not members of the Homeowners Association, but owners of property in various tracts, and have nothing to do with the Homeowners Association. He said it was a mistake to rush into this. Mr. Murphy said he had not seen this subject in the City's newsletter. He said the Report cited overruling protests, but he had not seen any protests at this meeting. Mr. Murphy said that "part of this is going to be public lands, and marsh lands, that will be maintained by this improvement district. This is wrong." He said the map included in the Council agenda packet did not agree with the overhead displayed at this meeting. Mr. Murphy said, "I think you are rushing into it... It is a cut and dried issue between the Council and the Developer, and I resent it." City Manager Everett said, "It will not affect any of the properties that Mr. Murphy, I think, was referring to. It is the Cove and one other area. He is right, we have used the words Homeowners Associations, but it is owners associations elected by those residents of the areas who have been talking to us. We have been dealing directly with two small areas of about 200 homes, who elect an owners association who have been talking directly with us, and have given us, at least the leaders of that group, their perceptions of what we ought to be doing. To clarify the protests, he is a little confused. The protests referred to what the Council did over a year ago when you set up the initial Assessment District, and it does not relate to the GID 1-64. We will sit down with Mr. Murphy and give him a little more in depth presentation to clear it up." MEMO 6/10/97 In response to Councilman Leipzig's questions, Mr. Murphy said he was objecting to the "formation of this landscape improvement district. The manner that you go about it is cut and dried. Two thirds of the voters are the Developer. Where is this representation, effective communication and voters representation? It is a cut and dried issue right now." When asked if he would prefer that the City not hold the election, Mr. Murphy said, "absolutely.... Another suggestion... divide the landscape improvements up into two phases: Those for the people who are already there, and those for the developer. Obviously, the same way that the property owners approved GID 1-64 by the property owners, namely one, Leslie Properties, this is going to be approved by the developer who owns two thirds of the property being voted on. That is the part I object to." Councilman Ruskin asked, "unless something unusual happens, the election is already decided, once the developers send back their ballots, is that right?" City Manager Everett said, that was true. "That is the way Proposition 218 was passed by the public. It will be a weighted vote, not by numbers of parcels, but by assessed value. ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JUNE9,1997 MINUTES Page No. 398 PAGE 12