CC Min 1993-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

insufficient and an avigation was needed. Redwood City staff sought legal advice and was told that The "City could not legally request an avigation easement" and "it was too late in the planning process and the City could not legally add a discretionary condition for a ministerial approval" of the building permits. However, CICAG agreed with ALUC and has asked the City to require an avigation easement before granting a building permit and failing that, that the City require the CC&R's include warnings about airport noise plus name the County of San Mateo as an affected third party. Mr. White and other airport people want an avigation easement for three reasons: 1) people will move into the condominiums with full knowledge of airport noise and consent thereof; 2) the County cannot be sued; and 3) CC&R's can only be enforced by a homeowners association and not the County. In answer to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that the ALUC cancelled a meeting with staff to review the General Plan Amendment so staff proceeded; no action could be taken tonight as it was not on the agenda; the CC&R's do include language regarding airport noise and provide that "the CC&R's cannot be amended nor deleted without the consent of the County of San Mateo which is a third party beneficiary"; the issue of an avigation easement v. CC&R's includes legal implications of property rights and economic factors involved and could become a very complex legal issue; the City's deliberations have been completed, and discretionary entitlements have been granted. Councilman Greenalch asked that this item be scheduled for an upcoming Council meeting so Council can take action on C/CAG's recommendations. MEMO 3/23/93 Councilman Greenalch advised that a property attorney at the C/CAG meeting advised that an owner would be giving up significant rights if he or she agreed to an avigation easement; there is no legal basis to require an owner to grant an avigation easement; the County and the ALUC want to incorporate an avigation easement into their plans in the future; and the Council has had an ongoing committee on airport noise, and should make absolutely sure that everyone who buys one of these units is fully aware of the airport noise. Planning Director Patterson advised that the noise study Mr. White referred to did present statistics about noise from the airport, but it also presented statistics about the noise from automobiles on Redwood Shores Parkway which would be higher than noise from the airport. City Attorney Schricker advised that this issue involves property rights and economic rights of parties involved, and Mr. White is urging the City to take preemptive action to prevent the issuance of building permits, on grounds that an imminent danger to health and safety and welfare exists and therefore there is an overriding effect on the ministerial duty of the agency on issuing building permits; the mitigated negative declaration addressed the noise issue and Mr. White is advancing the argument that noise levels in excess of 10 or 80 db are deleterious to health, and he refers to the EPA's report as guidelines, but in fact, MINUTE BOOK NO. 51 Regular Meeting Minutes March 22, 1993 Page No. 350 Page 1