REDWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

June 25, 2001

REDWOOD CITY CITY COUNCIL

MAYOR  IRA RUSKIN
VICE MAYOR  RICHARD S. CLAIRE

 
COUNCILMEMBER JIM HARTNETT
COUNCILMEMBER DIANE HOWARD
COUNCILMEMBER JEFF IRA
COUNCILMEMBER COLLEEN M. JORDAN
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA PIERCE



REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
June 25, 2001



The City Council Meeting and Redevelopment Agency Meeting were called to order simultaneously. The Redevelopment Agency Meeting began immediately following the Written Communications Section (8.0).



1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

Council Members Present: Mayor Ruskin, Vice-Mayor Claire, Council Member Hartnett, Council Member Howard, Council Member Ira, Council Member Jordan, Council Member Pierce.

Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Schricker, Senior Deputy Clerk Ponte, Council Volunteer Balsamo, Police Chief Bolanos, Finance Director Ponty, Public Works Director Ingram, Community Development Director Liedstrand, Attorney Kessler, Planning Director Church, Library Director Chen, Fire Chief Montez, Assistant to the City Manager Gonzalez, Port Commissioner Giari, Parks & Recreation Director Centeno, Engineering Manager Patterson, Financial Services Manager Freeman, Building Manager La Torra, Administrative Sgt. Cesena, Administrative Sgt. Matuzack, Sgt. Blanc, Public Works Superintendent Barwacz, Public Works Superintendent Harang, Public Works Superintendent Mann, Public Works Superintendent Rosas, Economic Coordinator Webb, Parks & Recreation Superintendent Hover, Parks & Recreation Superintendent Beth, Administrative Assistant Fierro, Administrative Secretary Dale, IT Analyst Robles and Analyst Freeman.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Jim Hartnett, Council Member

4. INVOCATION - Steve Converse, Pastor (Grace Bible Church)

5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - None

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Rudy Lucca resident of Redwood City received a response in regards to the traffic light on Vera West of Hudson, and the traffic problem on that intersection. However Mr. Lucca misplaced the letter sent by the City, and he is trying to locate the City Staff who sent the letter. City Manager Everett directed Mr. Lucca to Joel Patterson, Engineering Department Manager.

Warren Dale resident of Redwood City and vice-chair of the Civic Cultural Commission, referred to a letter sent by the Chair requesting an increase in the budget allocated to this Commission. The schools have been requesting more money from the Commission as more budget cuts affect these entities. Additionally, the Civic Cultural Commission has gotten more involved in other community events such as the Jazz Festival causing more expenditures for the Commission.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

MOTION: waive reading of the Consent Calendar except the ordinances by title, adopt the resolutions and the ordinances, and approve other items.

M/S Howard/Pierce to Adopt the Consent Calendar. All in favor. Motion carried.

7.1   Motions

A. Motion to accept the deed offered by Istvan S. Horvath and Julia Horvath, pursuant to Resolution No. 10944, adopted December 5, 1988, and to record a certified copy of the Resolution and Order with the deed in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County;

MINUTE ORDER 01-91

7.2   Section - Agreements/Resolutions

A. Consolidated General Municipal Election, November 6, 2001, Candidate's Statement and Related Matters:

  1. Resolution requesting consolidation with the school district election and other local elections;
  2. Resolution authorizing execution of contract with the County of San Mateo for election services;
  3. Motion to require a deposit of $300 for a candidate's statement printed in English, $300 for printing in Spanish and $50 for the translation fee. All amounts are to cover actual estimated costs;

    MINUTE ORDER 01-92

RESOLUTION 14258 APPROVING JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY;

RESOLUTION 14259 APPROVING JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF PARALEGAL;

B. RESOLUTION 14260 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 2000-2001 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSITS (American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co.);

C. RESOLUTION 14261 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE REDWOOD SHORES STREET SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (Smith-Emery Company);

D. RESOLUTION 14262 ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT (PACIFIC SHORES PLAY FIELDS) (Pacific Shores Limited Partnership

E. RESOLUTION 14263 APPPROVING THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PORTABLE 105 KW DIESEL-ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 CIVIC FACILITIES PAINTING PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS THEREFOR;

7.3   Claims and Warrants

A. Reject the claims of Rosemarie Dufresne, claim no. 1858; claim from Ajnesh Lal, claim no. 1903; and claim from Peninsula Landing Homeowners Assoc. claim no. 1909 as submitted;

MINUTE ORDER 01-93

B. Approve warrants dated through June 25, 2001 and usual and necessary payments through July 9, 2001;

MINUTE ORDER 01-94

7.4   Ordinances (2nd Reading)

A. ORDINANCE No. 2210 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20042 (ONE-YEAR FINAL COMPENSATION) FOR LOCAL MISCELLANEOUS MEMBERS (first reading on 6/11/01);

8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING (CONCURRENTLY)

9. STAFF REPORTS -

  1. Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2; Public Hearing Held on June 11, 2001. Council is continuing discussion of this item.

    Recommendation:

    1. Review the discussion of the June 11, 2001 public hearing and asks staff any questions;
    2. Review and approve the resolution overriding the objections to the action;
    3. Waive reading and introduce the Ordinance adopting the Fifth Amendment to Redevelopment Project No. 2;

      ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF REDWOOD CITY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2;

      RESOLUTION No. 01-66 ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND OVERRULING WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2;

      RDA MO 01-09

    Chairperson Ruskin clarified that while the issue being addressed already had its Public Hearing on June 11, 2001 whomever wished to speak on this issue would be able to do so under public comment. Prior to staff presenting the report, Mayor Ruskin made some opening comments verbalizing his opinion in regards to an anonymous flyer that was mailed to City residents in the Redevelopment Zone. While the Mayor acknowledged the right of the sender(s) to disseminate this information, he found it offensive for two reasons: 1) the headline stating "Notice to Move" implies that the City is the sender and 2) this is was an offensive communication because it assumed that the City would force people to move within one week.

    Chairperson Ruskin also stated that this scary tactic generated a large amount of fear and alarmed many people. Residents telephoned, emailed and faxed the Mayor and alarmed and frightened residents contacted many Council Members. Generally, the comments from residents were about being forced to move within one week. Specific examples of calls from frightened residents were shared, and in one case a resident cancelled a planned vacation. Mayor Ruskin also clarified that senior citizens stressed over this issue and some residents rushed to contact attorneys.

    Chairperson Ruskin made it very clear that there are laws that protect citizens, and would never allow for this to situation to occur. Finally, Mayor Ruskin wanted all residents to realize that the City had not issued a "Notice to Move" nor did the City send out this type of communication.

    Agency Director Church clarified that exempted from Eminent Domain are any properties that are in the Residential Zone (of the Redevelopment Area) and in Residential Use.

    City Manager Everett invited some of the public present to meet Assistant City Manager Gonzalez in the foyer, and go over the specific circumstances of their parcel.

    Agency Director Church stated that the action required of Council was to adopt a Resolution and introduce an Ordinance. Staff recommended an extension of 12 years, however Council could chose a different time period for the extension.

    A brief overview of the Redevelopment Agency was provided. The agency was established in 1982 and the area that it now covers now amended in 1990. Currently, the two main projects the Agency is dealing with are: the Irvine Apartment Project and the Downtown Retail Cinema Project. As requested, Agency Director Church, included with the staff report the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting where the issue was addressed. Other information was also provided (attachment to the staff report) on the relocation process. Copies of these documents were also placed in the foyer for the public to review.

    A list of major Redevelopment Agency projects was provided, and in all cases the City reached a settlement instead of following through with Eminent Domain. According to Director Church, the evidence is that neither the current Council nor its predecessors have taken the issue of Eminent Domain lightly.

    Agency Member Ira asked about the number of units obtained by the City via Eminent Domain. Director Church stated that there were maybe 5-6 rental units taken. The Agency has never initiated Eminent Domain against single family houses that are owner occupied.

    Director Church entertained Council questions about the issue at hand. Agency Member Jordan asked about Windham place. She specifically referred to a certain structure and even though it was not in the Redevelopment area but since it was questionable (because of safety, health reasons and red light district) could the City employ Eminent Domain? City Attorney Schricker clarified that in those situations the City has the power to file an action under the Red Light Abatement Act against the property itself and shut down the business. Eminent Domain may not be used to abate issues such as a health, unsafe or red light district areas.

    Agency Member Jordan asked if the tax rate for property owners in the Redevelopment Agency zone changes. Director Church stated that some of the revenues stay with the Redevelopment Agency, and other portion is dispersed to other agencies such as the County and the Schools. Vice-Chair Claire stated that when there is an increase in valuation all the participating entities will also receive a portion of that increased value.

    Public Comment

    For the record, Attorney Schricker stated that the comments are not part of the public hearing because that has been closed, but they are going to be heard as part of the Brown Act.

    Gary Gotfried spoke on behalf of his father (Irwin Godfried) who has been in business (on Wilson Street) for almost 50 years, and is very frightened about this issue. This issue is a very serious concern because if this goes through he might be out of business and 25 people will be unemployed.

    Robert Baldwin resident of Redwood City apologized for the flyer that was sent out, since he was one of the authors of the notice. Mr. Baldwin stated the intention had been to make it alarming. He also stated that he was offended by the notice sent out by the City, which did not include a map, and was too complex to be understood by lay people. The question Mr. Baldwin posed was if it is fair for local government to support large developers instead of the long time residents. Mr. Baldwin apologized for sending out the "Notice to Move", but hopes some good comes out of it. (Another speaker donated time to Mr. Baldwin).

    Ken Hettman stated that he researched some facts about Redwood City on the web page and it seems like this City is doing really well. However, what concerns Mr. Hettman is that the City is giving property to large developers. Additionally, Mr. Hettman believes that the general view is that people are too ignorant to understand this tool of Eminent Domain, and that was the reason why Mr. Hettman co-authored the flyer that was sent out. While the City Council is generally doing a good job, in this case they are "selling the future" of the community to large developers. As a community it is important to get together and that was the goal of the flyer. Another goal was to promote people to come down and talk about this issue. He also stated that the notices sent by the City are not easily understood especially by senior citizens. Mr. Hettman advised everybody to visit the web site www.redevelopment.org . It was stated that the Redevelopment Agency is a money making machine since it absorbs the taxes as property is purchased. It was also stated that there is no blight in the City, but the City hires people to state that there is blight. (Two speakers donated time to Mr. Hettman).

    Don Jensen requested that the Council vote against this plan, or at least vote for a 6-year extension instead of 12 year. Mr. Jensen has lived in the City for over 40 years, and does not think it fair for the City to have Eminent Domain power. When Eminent Domain proceedings begin, the City gains from the situation however citizens are defenseless when it comes to fair market value and retaining their property. Requested that Council vote no on this plan.

    Paul Goldman is a commercial property owner with a business for over 10 years. During this period he has seen a lot of improvements and positive changes. Mr. Goldman stated that the main issue with the Redevelopment Agency is taxes; furthermore the Agency already had 12 years to address their projects. In his opinion Eminent Domain is not a fair way of treating residents. The developer and the City are the ones that make money, but maybe the City should be thinking about issuing Bonds so that citizens can benefit from economic growth. Concurs with the Mayor in regards to the flyer but if the flyer got people to talk about this, then it was a good thing.

    Richard Haars is familiar with Eminent Domain and does not believe it is a fair process. Stated that the property owner is at a disadvantage and this should be a concern. Also believes that a 6-year renewal is too long.

    Mario Martins consulted an Eminent Domain Attorney and believes that it is amazing that the City has a real challenge when it comes to Public Relations. As far as Eminent Domain is concerned, it is important that people understand that people should fight back. People can not relax when it comes to Eminent Domain; residents should research and get information to defend their cases. Mr. Martins strongly advises people to get together and fight back and find tools to stand their ground.

    Charlene Howard asked questions about properties being exempt that are located in R3 and R4 areas; the concern was if Council could delete these exemptions. Additionally, Ms. Howard stated that relocation is not a feasible solution because the real estate market is so difficult.

    Agency Director Church addressed some of the questions posed by residents. In regards to the R3 and R4 question indeed these areas are exempt and the Council can not simply deliberate to change it unless an amendment to the Redevelopment Agency Project No.2 takes place. In order to go through an amendment (to eliminate the above mentioned exemptions) the law now requires that a "Project Area Committee" be formed, since there would be a significant number of properties affected. This would take an enormous amount of work and various public hearings, since it would affect so many residents. Additionally, the residents from the area would be part of the ""Project Area Committee".
    Responding to the question about who got notifications for the public hearing, Mr. Church stated that notices were sent to all property owners and tennants (commercial and residential) in the area of the Redevelopment Agency Zone and organizations in the area. The notice included a public hearing notice in standard format, a detailed description of the proposal, as well as the maps and legal descriptions.
    The first notice went out for the April 25th, 2001 public information meeting, followed by a second notice for the Planning Commission meeting that took place on May 1st, 2001. Then a distribution was sent out to everybody for the public hearing that took place on June 11th, 2001 at the City Council level. Mr. Church stated that the Agency tried their best to invite people to attend public forums.

    Mr. Goldman interrupted Mr.Church by commenting on the quality of the mail outs. He believes that neither the design nor the content was effective enough and email lists need to be created. According to Mr. Goldman the pieces sent out by the City are not attractive and do not promote participation.

    Council commented that while there was no intent to keep people away it would be beneficial to use a combination of plain language and legal language so that the public is aware of the issues early on. It was acknowledged that the City is trying to make an effort at making the communications more reasonable and understandable.

    Agency Director Church reiterated that the request for a 12 year extension is reasonable, contrary to what a speaker stated, mostly because all Redevelopment Agency projects take a long time (8-12 years) to implement. Responding to questions in regards to the Eminent Domain steps and the valuation procedure Mr. Church outlined the whole process as follows:
    • Agency defines that there is a public purpose justifying the acquisition of certain properties;
    • Order the preparation of an appraisal (not staff); a professional who will provide an impartial and justifiable opinion;
    • The valuation comes from the appraiser and the highest supportable value for the property is the starting point for negotiations;
    • The original value (starting point) never goes down;
    Mr. Church clarified that in regards to sales taxes, and where the money goes when the Redevelopment Agency purchases property, there is a locked in value that continues to be distributed in the same way it was before. However, if an additional project is built and ads value to the site the increment that is added to the property value goes to the Redevelopment Agency. But even in that case a portion of those funds gets passed on to the School District and County. The Redevelopment Agency does not get sales tax; the statutes do not permit.

    Mr. Baldwin interrupted Mr. Church and asked him questions about other projects that the Redevelopment Agency might be considering for the future (beyond the two projects previously mentioned).

    Mr. Church reiterated that the only two active projects at the moment are the ones previously mentioned above.

    Agency Members Comments:

    Agency Members commented on how hard it is to balance priorities and please the people. Some agency members apologized for any miscommunication that might have occurred because of the City's mailings. However, the City is very committed to improving communication with the community and for that reason is hiring a Communications Specialist. It was clarified that the developer reimburses the City for all funds spent during Eminent Domain, so the City has no real gain from the process.

    Agency Members expressed sadness because the public seems to distrust the Council, and assumes that the Council would not be considerate and understand the implications of Eminent Domain. The Council is very committed to meeting needs of the community by looking at the broader picture. It was stated that many residents have wondered about Council efforts to build affordable housing, transportation, community services, and the Council members are very aware of these needs and are trying to respond to the needs. A Council Member stated that the Redevelopment Agency helps the Council meet some of these needs and address blight. Council does not believe in terrifying people to make them show up, every body has the responsibility to keep themselves informed and aware of what is going own in our city. Agency Members stated that the Redevelopment Agency is a tool to provide affordable housing and the Council Members do not take this issue lightly.

    Agency Members stated that in order to meet the needs of the community the Redevelopment Agency serves as a tool. Additionally, as developers want to come into the City, the City is able to demand that a certain portion be allocated for housing. The history of this and prior Councils shows how seriously Eminent Domain is viewed. However, the goal is to design the Downtown with great transportation, services and some affordable housing; this can only be accomplished with the help of the Redevelopment Agency.

    M/S Hartnett/Ira Motion to Adopt Resolution and Override Written Objections Received.

    Discussion:

    Agency Members mentioned that the Notice was very upsetting, false and misleading but the positive aspect is that it did bring many people to the Council meeting to express their views. Agency members said they value the public participation in this process, and hope that people continue to get involved in the City and people business. Some agency members defended that the primary purpose of the Redevelopment Agency is to give people opportunity; and Eminent Domain is very seldom used.

    Some Agency Members expressed frustration with the City's approach to engaging the public. It was stated that the Redevelopment Agency is a great distraction because it gives the City the opportunity to become developers, and avoid focusing on other important city issues. It was suggested that it would be better to spend more time in planning appropriately instead of developing. Infrastructure should be the focus instead of development by the Redevelopment Agency.

    Voting:

    Yes- Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Pierce, Vice-Mayor Claire, Mayor Ruskin;
    No- Jordan;

    Motion carried.

    M/S to Introduce the Ordinance Approving and Adopting the 5th Amendment without Modification. Motion died for a lack of a second.
    M/S Howard/Hartnett to Introduce the Ordinance Adopting the 5th Amendment for a Period of Six Additional Years.

    Discussion:

    Some Agency Members stated that the City wants the public to trust this Council and in order to build a trust a six-year extension will help demonstrate that the City has the best of intentions.

    Statements were made that when a property goes through Eminent Domain one benefit is that the owner does not have to pay any capital gains tax if he/she reinvest the funds within 24 months. Similarly, the process of Eminent Domain is an open process and all those affected are notified and have the right to get involved. Furthermore, the Redevelopment Agency is not in the business of being a developer but the business of trying to improve the community as best as it can. Some Agency Members disagreed with the assumption that the City does not want people to get involved in these meetings; the City is always trying to get people involved but it will certainly not use threatening flyer to get residents to the City Council meeting. Agency members asked when the Redevelopment Agency sunsets in its entirety. The answer provided was 2028.

    Agency members also explained that in numerous contacts with the public the perception is that people are happy about the different projects initiated by this Agency. When it comes to Eminent Domain the Council Members are very sensitive to the seriousness of the action, and would never act in a hastily manner.

    Final comments on the issue included that the Redevelopment Agency's purpose is mainly to revitalize Downtown and to create infrastructure that will better the community. While Agency Members understand the fear of Eminent Domain from a resident's standpoint the Redevelopment Agency constitutes is here to support the community in its revitalization and development.

    Voting:

    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Pierce, Vice-Chair Claire, Mayor Ruskin;
    No - Jordan;

    Motion carried.

    The Chairperson thanked all those presents for coming to the meeting and speaking on the issue.

City Council recesses - 9:20 p.m.

Redevelopment Agency Budget and City Council Budgets will be addressed separately;
  1. Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Appropriations Revisions;

    Recommendation:</p>

    ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCES TO SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS, CANCELING CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS, AND TRANSFERRING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED APPROPRIATIONS TO OTHER SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS

    MO 01-95

    Finance Director Ponty provided the staff report stating that the issue of the 2000/2001 Appropriations Revisions pertains to budget adjustments and amendments (about 27 line items).

    Council Members asked if the line item relating to the overtime paid out to the Fire Department was in addition to the amount that was already allocated in the budget. Mr. Ponty explained that the item listed was an additional appropriation to supplement the current appropriation for Fire Department's overtime.

    Chief Montez made some comments on the fact that over the last year there were 3 firefighters that either retired or were out on medical disability, and this impacted the rest of the team. However Chief Montez expects to be fully staffed very shortly, and avoid the overtime situation.

    Chief Montez was asked to convey the City Council's gratitude for their work earlier on the day in trying to extinguish a very serious fire in a downtown building.

    M/S Ira/Hartnett to Introduce the Ordinance for the 2000/2001 Appropriations Revisions:
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan, Pierce, Vice-Mayor Claire, Mayor Ruskin;
    No - None

  2. 2001/2002 BUDGET;
    (No Staff Report/Copies of the Proposed Budget Document at the Council Meeting)

    Recommendation:
    Approve and/or provide recommendations.

    MO 01-96

    Finance Director Ponty provided a PowerPoint presentation on the issue illustrating the recommended modifications to the 2001/2002 that was conceptually approved in July of 2000. While there were no major changes in the objectives there are some specific items that have been adjusted.

    The major issues discussed were:
    • Expenditure changes
    • Major Council Priorities
    • Transportation and Traffic
    • ICMA performance Measures

    M/S Ira/Howard to approve the recommendations made by Finance Director Ponty.
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan, Pierce Vice-Mayor Claire and Mayor Ruskin;
    No - None
    Motion carried.

    Public Comment:

    Zack McRunnels resident of Emerald Lake area and is very embarrassed of the road conditions in that area; it floods and there are street holes. The infrastructure is not acceptable. The condition of that road is very sad and he hopes the City Council can address the needs of residents. Mr. McRunnels offered to get the community of Emerald Lake organized to expedite the process. Mr. McRunnels complimented the City Council on many visible accomplishments over the last few years.

    Council members stated that the City is taking a serious look at sub-standard streets in a very methodical manner so that roads that are in very poor condition can be placed on the list of city projects. It was requested that the City Clerk department place Mr. Runnels on the agenda mailing list, so that Mr. McRunnels is notified of when the next study sessions on City road conditions will take place.

    Linda Orandi resident of Emerald Lake reiterated the comments made by Mr. McRunnels and requested that improvements be done as soon as possible. Ms. Orandi appreciates the signs the City is placing in the area, and strongly recommends speed bumps so that people slow down. A significant decrease in speeding has been visible because of the signs recently placed by the City.

    Mayor Ruskin referred that the request should formally be made to City Traffic Engineer Mr. Richard Haygood. Additionally it is important for other residents to get involved.

    Diane Puccinelli resident of Emerald Lake echoed the concerns of the previous two speakers and thanked the Council for any efforts in resolving this issue. Around Ms. Puccinelli's residence there is a natural water spring that floods the sidewalk and her property. Additionally, the Hetch Hetchy leaks and creates mud in her backyard.

    Returning to the Performance Measures issue City Manager Everett stated that this is the only way for the City to hold itself accountable and see how good Redwood City is doing.

    Council Member Pierce would also like to talk about Valota Road when the Council conducts the Study Session.

    Commenting on the budget some Council Members mentioned that there were a few positions that were questionable e.g. the training position in Human Resources and it would be nice to understand what is the benefit to the organization and how money will be cut somewhere else to make this happen.

    Council requested that the City find out what can be done to avoid false alarms in the Fire Department, since it is such a huge waste to the City. Chief Montez stated that education is one portion of the issue and enforcement of having functional fire alarms is the second portion of it. It is important that maintenance be done in fire alarms so that they are efficient.

    Council discussed the issue of the lagoons in Redwood Shores and how saturated they were with algae. Public Works Director Ingram stated that 1998 was the worse year. As far as the water is concerned the consultant is cleaning the water but as it gets cleaner and the sediment deposits at the bottom there is more weed growth. One issue that is impacting the work is access to the lagoons, there is one access point in 200 or more acres where a harvester can go in and clean. While people complain about the problem, not everybody will allow the consultant to go enter their property. A second machine is going to be used to get the lagoons cleaned. Eventually the lagoons will have to be dredged. Discussion took place on deadlines and future steps to resolve this issue.

  3. Redevelopment Agency Budget Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Appropriations Revisions;

    Recommendation:
    Motion of the Redevelopment Agency appropriating funds in order to conform budgeted amounts to actual expenditures approved for transactions which occurred during fiscal year 2000/2001;

    RDA MO 01-10

    M/S Ira/Hartnett to approve the recommendation.
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan, Pierce Vice-Mayor Claire and Mayor Ruskin;
    No - None
    Motion carried.

  4. Proposed Changes to Redevelopment Agency's 2001/2002 budget;

    Recommendation:
    No action is required at this time. The formal approval of the budget changes will occur in July, 2001.

    Council briefly discussed the item and concurred with the Agency Director Church recommendations.

10. PUBLIC HEARING - None

11. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST -

  1. Resolution Supporting the Development and Adoption of the Bay Area Alliance Draft "Compact";

    RESOLUTION No. 14264 SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF THE BAY AREA ALLIANCE DRAFT "COMPACT";

    On May 14th former Council Supervisor of San Mateo County Mary Griffin brought this item forth. Once preliminary approval was provided from Council the City Attorney prepared a resolution and at this point it was requested that Council approve the item.

    Council requested that Mary Griffin define social equity. It was clarified that social equity is defined as "Equal opportunity for education, employment, housing for all races and social levels."

    Mayor Ruskin thanked the former supervisor for staying so late.

    M/S Hartnett/Claire to adopt the resolution.
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan, Pierce Vice-Mayor Claire and Mayor Ruskin;
    No - None
    Motion carried.

    Mary Griffin thanked the Council for their support and gave some newspaper articles.

  2. Discussion of the Redwood Shores Levee Trail System (Levee Committee);

    MO 01-97

    A brief overview of the history on the issue was given. The goal now is to address the possibility of using a different approach to resolving the Redwood Shores Levee Trail System via Ruben Morales who is in Washington.

    Members of the levee committee stated that what is significant is that the empirical data shows that the clapper rail is thriving in various areas namely areas where there is public access and dogs wander. Consequently, people and animals seem to have a benign influence in this particular population. If the evidence is that the clapper rail can thrive and public access is not destructive it is the duty of the Council to make sure this is allowed. Similarly, a very reasonable solution is to have a guard that will open the gates in the morning and close them at night.

    M/S Claire/Ira to extend the meeting until 11:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion Carried.

    One member of the levee committee dissented from the proposal made by the other committee members. It was explained that in the past there had been some preliminary agreement but the main objection is that the City has been dealing with local entities and the proper channels at the Fish and Wildlife level. It was mentioned that to go to Washington is to go straight to the top. The previous approach in negotiations had been to go to the Fish and Wildlife and see if our needs and demands are acquiesced, but this new approach is entirely different because we are going over the heads of local agencies. Additionally, and because of the record of the current administration when it comes to environmental issues, some council members could not in good conscience take this route. Some council members had serious concerns about the environmental validity and soundness of a decision made at this top level.

    Robin Smith President of the Sequoia Audubon Society gave an update on the rail population at the Redwood Shores. The results of the most recent counts show that the birds are using the area for refugia. Ms. Smith further stated that apparently the birds are feeling more comfortable and reproducing. Ms. Smith also said that the proposed approach is not appropriate and the birds still need the protection.

    Mike Spence stated that it is sad that not many people show up to discuss such an important matter. Mr. Spence came to thank the Mayor and the Council about their decision to protect the clapper rail. While it has been a long arduous project, the reality is that nature is being protected and it is important for Council to stand by previous sound decisions. Mike Spence stated that many good things are happening in this City, i.e. revitalization of Redwood City, and being environmentally minded is a very important thing.

    Ralph Nobles believes that after much studying and research, if the Fish and Wildlife wants the City to block public access then we should respect their decision and not try to override their position. The most important issue is to protect wildlife and it is not wise to go to the Bush administration and ask Ruben Morales to act on our behalf but against the environment. Mr. Nobles stated that this approach is not appropriate.

    Some council members stated that the City of Redwood City should approach the administration because it was not a fair negotiation the first time around. Some council members also stated that it is not unreasonable to make the request to the Administration and if this is not a successful effort for environmental reasons then we just accept the response.

    Other Council members wondered about the ramifications of this approach at the local level and how it would impact further negotiations between the City and Wildlife. Some Council Members responded that this type of approach would not be beneficial or favorable to our local relations with Fish and Wildlife.

    M/S Claire/Ira to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. All Yes. Motion Carried.

    Council also shared concerns that this will set a precedent in the Bay area and other areas of the 400 miles coastline may be closed in other cities because of what happened in our City. It was said that the City does not want to be setting a precedent and jeopardizing other communities access to bayfront.

    Council also discussed concern about leapfrogging over Fish and Wildlife and going to the capital. Some Council members stated that this is not a wise choice. Other Council Members clarified that talking to Ruben Morales might be a positive experience because it will bring awareness to how long it takes to get a permit for the levees. Council also believes that Ruben Morales will be able to address the issue with objectivity, and bring awareness to the current process and possibly better the situation for other communities.

    M/S Jordan/Hartnett Motion to arrange for another hearing at the Secretary's level to address our concerns, incorporating the Consultant Terri Hoffman in the process by having him reevaluate, strengthen and advocate the position of the City in this matter.
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan.
    No - Pierce, Claire, Ruskin
    Motion Carried.

  3. Tariff 7 and Redwood City Waterway Enforcement Recommendations;

    MO 01-98

    Recommendation:

    Consider adoption of Police Department recommendations pertaining to the following issues:

    1. Local speed ordinance and the need for speed restricted areas;
    2. Overnight mooring and anchoring;
    3. Abandoned vessels;
    4. Pollution;

    James Jonas spoke on the issue of the waterways in Redwood City and what a marvelous resurgence of birds is taking place. However there is a serious speeding problem. Those who live in the Marina feel that this is creating an unsafe water environment. Additionally, he said that it is also very important to address the vessels that sink and are not pulled out of the water. Mr. Jonas said that while we have a wonderful waterway it is important to be responsible for making it even better.

    Ralph Nobles spoke on behalf of Bob Hoffman and explained that continued enforcement should be a priority for the City. It is very important to address this issue and take care of it efficiently.

    M/S Howard/Ira that the recommendations presented in the report be forwarded to the City legal department to be incorporated into codes that will be usable by the police department as tools to act on the issues at hand.
    City Attorney stated that for Council clarification when the issue reaches the City Attorney department it will be necessary to review the issue from a jurisdictional standpoint.
    Mayor Ruskin concurred.
    Yes - Hartnett, Howard, Ira, Jordan, Pierce Vice-Mayor Claire, Mayor Ruskin
    No - None
    Motion Carried.

    Council Member Howard thanked the police department and Mike Giari, Port Commissioner for staying so late.

    Mayor Ruskin invited City Residents to apply for the current vacancies in the City of Redwood City various Boards, Commissions and Committees.

12. BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - None

13. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - None

14. ADJOURNMENT - MOTION:M/S Hartnett/Ira to adjourn until the meeting next meeting of July 9, 2001.



Respectfully submitted,

Silvia M. Ponte

Senior Deputy City Clerk

Copyright © 2001. The City of Redwood City. All rights reserved.