Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 4 (continued) <br />Robert Field, 2250 Broadway, recalled that in 1975 the City Council had <br />approved a Specific Area Plan for the Parkwood 101 site, and that it totaled <br />1.5 million square feet at a higher ratio than what is presently before <br />Council; that at the time, there was no Facilities Fee and had since that <br />time annexed to the General Improvement District and paid the fees. <br />Paul Shepard, Leslie Salt, indicated that he disagreed with the 1 per <br />thousand concept, believing it will not encourage mass transit or <br />car - pooling; that his solution would be to have enough density to justify <br />paying for transit facilities. <br />Tom, Adams, attorney, San Mateo, representing Kumam Corporation, referred to <br />a letter by Bernard L. Andres, Vice President of Kumam distributed to Council <br />tonight, which relates to Ralston /101 interchange, and indicated that as <br />developers of Island Park - Belmont they are prepared to pay their fair share <br />for improvements to the interchange, and believe also that other developers <br />should pay their fair share. <br />In response to question by Council, City Attorney Schricker indicated that it <br />might be well to acknowledge in the resolution consideration of off site as <br />well as on site improvements. <br />Mayor Britschgi called attention to a letter dated May 6, 1985 received <br />tonight from the City of Belmont, which anticipates impact of four <br />developments on the interchange, and urges Council to consider conditions <br />of approval of the Specific Plan and suggests that developers contribute to <br />improvements of the interchange, since it will be affected by their projects. <br />City Attorney Schricker suggested that the resolution have a sentence added <br />to the effect that the developer will be required to participate in any <br />off -site mitigation required by reason of generation of traffic by his <br />develolpment. <br />Donald Warren (see above) reiterated his concern regarding equity in applying <br />conditions to developers. <br />Justin Jacobs (see above) referred to the Facilities Fee paid the latter part <br />of 1984, and suggested that the resolution should be approved in its present <br />form, without the additional conditions. <br />Mayor Britschgi invited anyone present who wished to speak to do so. No one <br />else wished to speak. <br />M /S: Rhodes /Stangel to close the public hearing. <br />Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 11:30 p.m. <br />Title read. M /S: Rhodes /Stangel <br />Reg. Mtg. <br />5/6/85 <br />Page 7 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 <br />Page NO. 465 <br />