CC Min 1982-05-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/ ,/ PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Item No.1 (continued) / AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN: Councilman Biagi withdrew his motion until the conclusion of the public hearing. In response to questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that with regard to other landowners in the District and development of their lands that an agreement like the subject agreement can be DBde between GID No. 1-64 and the landowners, if their properties also require public facilities; that the subject agreement has ene paragraph relating to the South Shores, Inc. development (Paragraph 13) stating only that the agreement may be amended to include that property; that annual review of the agreement is required by the Govel"lllllent Code; that the 15-year term probably refers to the "buildout" period for Redwood Shores; that the &g!"Ml88nt has nothing to do with South Shores; that the fact that action can be deferred now on the subject ordinance is not a legal matter but a practical one; and that the planned construction at South Shores is not specific now. In response to questions, City Manager Smith said that there is no restriction on Council members being among the City/District representa tives en the quarterly review committee (Paragraph 8 (e)) except for the need for certain professions to be represented, and that there is no requirement that the City Council approve findings of the Committee below a 5' increase in the Rate Schedule in any given quarter. Ron MacQuarrie, ChairDBn, GID No. 1-64 Advisory Committee, referred to his undated letter received April 29 to the District Board colllJlenting on sections of the agreement, offering unanimous support and urging positive action by Council. Mr. MacQuarrie said that the Committee would like to have a commitment by the Council to treat all properties alike with regard to facilities fees and to adopt a resolution to the effect that all properties not cover't!d by the subject agreement are expected to participate in similar agreements in the future regardless of ownership. He also requested that the Committee be given the opportunity to review all such agreements. In response to question, City Attorney Schricker stated that it is crucial to the DBtter that the developer charge would not apply to some properties that were purchased before the fee schedule is adopted and which are not party to the agreement. In further response to questions, Mr. Schricker advised that the proposed ordinance and agreement cannot be modified by Council to accoDlllOdate other properties because it is a contract between the two parties who negotiated it; that future landowners cannot be compelled to agree; and that the Council could adopt a resolution expressing the present policy regarding financing of public projects in a particular area as a guideline and enact a procedural ordinance. Don Warren, Redwood Shores, Inc., 350 Marine World Parkway, stated that the proposed agreement is the result of many months of complex study and negotiation between Redwood Shores, Inc. and the City Council/Board of Directors. Mr. Warren observed that there are legal, financial, political and DBrketing ramifications which interrelate and any changes might require significant additional study. He recolllJlended that Council approve the Agreement. In response to question, Mr. Warren said that he would substitute the same interest rate the District is currently receiving from invested funds at the time the project is proposed as the basis for computation of interest. In response to question, Mr. Schricker said that in Paragraph 11 there is a clerical error and "one (1)" should be "one (1) year". Reg.Mtg. 5/17/82 Page 2 '" ..J