CC Min 1995-01-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

double those statistics for what would be the possibilities today. Mr. Bailey stated that none of the recommendations in the Crane Report had been done so far. Mr. Bailey said he was very much opposed to three story buildings on any part of the Development. Pat Dixon, 16 Admiralty Place, Redwood City, stated she supported what the previous speakers had said, that she would have no objection to the Westport Development if it wasn't in the middle of a residential area. Mrs. Dixon described the traffic problems that would be created for the condos in the Peninsula Landing if Bridge was used as a main entry into Westport. Mrs. Dixon stated that the development would take away everything people moved out there for, such as tranquillity, and questioned the ability of the fill to support the weight of the proposed buildings. Mrs. Dixon spoke about other problems of settling and gas from land fill areas. Mrs. Dixon invited the Council Members to her house for cocktails on Friday afternoon, so they could leave during commute time and everyone could experience the current commute problems on Marine Parkway. Virginia Dolely asked that Carol Ford be allowed to use her allotted time. Mrs. Ford agreed and asked that she be allowed to speak after all the other speakers had had their turns to speak. Michael Gibson, representing Redwood Shores Properties, Inc., 301 Island Parkway, Belmont, spoke to the issue of the Development Agreement. Mr. Gibson stated he attended the Council workshop last week and advised that staff had suggested that the proposed traffic assessment district focus on freeway and interchange improvements and that the GID would focus on local traffic improvements. Mr. Gibson cited the Crane study improvement recommendations using overheads showing many more lanes along Marine parkway than exist now. Mr. Gibson stated the traffic assessment district should focus its monies not only on the freeway, but on local road improvements, and asked that "the record show that there are significant requirements for funding on the local road network that the GID can't handle. The GID built these roads that are there right now....The advent of the commercial developments can't be accommodated by the GID." Mr. Gibson asked that the traffic assessment district take care of most or all of the additional enlargements to the local road network in areas that are affected by the commercial traffic and that the development agreement at least be compatible with that. Mr. Gibson stated that his second issue was with the language in the agreement that required the project to participate in an assessment district, and asked that the language be more specific and tighter. Mr. Gibson stated that City Attorney Schricker had advised that the language in Paragraph 5 d. was tantamount to a waiver of protest for the formation of the assessment district, and if that is true, Mr. Gibson asked that that language be stated directly in the agreement. Mr. Gibson stated that the staff report prepared after the study session last week shows that if six of seven Council Members vote for the assessment district it will happen. MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 020 January 16, 1995 Page II