CC Min 1995-01-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

In response to Council questions regarding the language in Paragraph 5 d of the development agreement, City Attorney Schricker advised that "presently the language does not expressly state that the developer would waive protest, but it does say that the developer shall be required to participate in an assessment district. Mr. Schricker stated that "the only problem with including a specific waiver is that if we make it too broad, it may be hard to enforce. The one put in force, the requirement that they shall not protest or waive protest with respect to the formation of the district, I question whether we legally could bind them to waiving protest to a particular assessment. They don't know what the assessment will be, and that is one of the issues they have raised. We could legally enforce the clause which would require them to waive a protest to the formation of the district." City Attorney Schricker advised that an assessment district could be formed that would include improvements within Redwood Shores and to Highway 101, although it would require the consent ofCalTrans, which is provided for in the Code. City Attorney Schricker advised that improvements to local roads in Redwood Shores is not clearly spoken to in the agreement, and if local and regional road and transportation improvements are desired by the parties, then the agreement should be expanded to include that. In answer to further questions regarding the vehicles available to establish an assessment district and override protests to still create the district, City Attorney Schricker advised that the Council has the legal authority under assessment district proceedings to do so; however, the Crane Study recommendations and proposals in the "current agreement deal with multi-jurisdictional issues and conflicting concerns, as well as ownerships crossing political, that is jurisdictional boundaries which might evidence differing private property owners interests such that practical difficulties might arise. If the Council enters into an agreement which provides for mitigation in an assessment district and it is not feasible, then it is really an idle act as far as the agreement is concerned. n Vice Mayor Hartnett stated it was his opinion that the language in the development should be clear that the traffic assessment district would include local roads as well as highway improvements. MEMO 1/18/95 Councilwoman Steinfeld advised that CCAG was aware of this project. In answer to Council questions, Planning Director Patterson advised that the proposed parking exceeds the City's requirements, and that the trips per day nurnbers mentioned earlier by the public, sound high, but that could be verified through the EIR. Planning Director Patterson advised that the same traffic mitigation measures for other Redwood Shores commercial areas would be utilized for the Westport Development; including the establishment of a traffic assessment district which was recommended by the Crane Study. In answer to Council questions regarding an on-going review being written into the development agreement, Planning Director Patterson advised that the monitoring was to be done in accordance with state and county laws, and the City does not have any specific requirements with respect to monitoring. City Attorney Schricker advised MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 Regular Meeting Minutes January 16, 1995 Page No. 024 Page 15