Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />MINUTE ORDER <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> <br />December 19.1994 <br /> <br />MO. 94-270 <br /> <br />CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT <br />Redwood City <br /> <br />DATE: December 21,1994 <br /> <br />Attention: City Manager <br />City Attorney <br />Council <br />Community Development Director <br />City Engineer <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Request to Vacate a Portion of Cedar Street (702-06) <br /> <br />Meeting of the Council of the City of Redwood City on December 19,1994. <br /> <br />Present: Councilmembers Hartnett, Howard, La Berge, Sanfilipo, Steinfeld <br />and Mayor Gasparini <br /> <br />Absent: Buchan <br /> <br />The following motion was made and entered on the Minutes: <br /> <br />MIS: Hartnett/Steinfeld that the Council hear the speakers but advise them <br />that the Council did intend to refer this matter to PCRC without debate; and this <br />matter would be reconsidered on January 30, 1994, with the hope that the matter <br />had been resolved by the parties involved at that time. <br /> <br />In response to Councilwoman Steinfeld's question, City Attorney Schricker <br />advised that the motion was preliminary, that the Council was dealing with <br />property interests and the individuals mayor may not have an interest or <br />ownership interest in the property, and they may have some compelling reason <br />why they do not want the public hearing to be continued, and they were entitled <br />to have the Council hear their concerns. If their comments were on the merits <br />there was no sense in having two hearings, and if there were no 0 bj ections to <br />referring the matter to the PCRC, well and good. If there was an objection, the <br />Council should hear and make a determination as to whether the hearing should <br />