CC Min 1982-05-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Item No.1 (continued) Discussion followed and Mr. Warren, Mr. Schricker and City Manager Smith commented and replied to questions concerning different understandings with regard to the inclusion of South Shores, Inc. in the subject agreement; the fact that South Shores, Inc. is not a contracting party to the agreement and is a separate corporate entity; that separate negotiations would have to be held at such time as the development becomes reality; and that there is support by both parties to the agreement for inclusion of the reference to South Shores in the agreement (Para. 13). Discussion continued concerning the fact that at one time South Shores was included in the geographic area covered, but was deleted because of the number of questions relating to its eventual development; that it is not possible to be sufficiently specific about South Shores development at this time as to location of facilities; the legal difficulties presented if public monies in the form of fees are collected with no defined plan to spend it; the possibility that South Shores Inc. wishes to retain all options; the difficulty of marketing land for which development fees are charged when it is not possible to show any facilities; the understanding of some Council members that South Shores could not be included in the subject agreement only because the relevant amendment to the General Plan had not yet been approved and that the proposed agreement could include it later. In response to question, Mr. Warren said that he believes Mr. MacQuarrie's suggestion regarding adoption of a resolution providing guidelines to future landowners is a good one and that South Shores, Inc. does not oppose a development fee agreement in principle. Gre~~ Doran, President, Redwood Shores Homeowners Association (RSHA), 510 Marlin Drive, reported RSHA supports the fee schedule agreement and would support adoption of a resolution indicating Council intention to impose such fees in the future on new developers. In response to question, City Attorney Schricker reported his research regarding the possibility of deauthorizing the District bonds is almost complete, and he expects to make a report to Council within two to three weeks. Peter Gruchala, 513 Marlin Court, member of GID No. 1-64 Advisory Coomittee, said he favors the proposed agreement and also a resolution of intent regarding future agreements with developers in the District. John Murray, 568 Sea Horse Lane, urged Council to repeal the authorization for the District bonds and said he favors adoption of the proposed agreement now. Mayor Stangel invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so. one wished to speak. No MIS: Biagi/Britschgi to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 8:52 p.m. Ti tIe read. MIS: Biagi/Rhodes to approve ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH REDWOOD SHORES (GID 1-64); THEREBY ESTABLISHING FACILITIES CHARGE; and that in Paragraph 5(b) to delete the words in the last sentence commencing with "charged" and substitute wording to indicate interest is to be computed at the rate received by the City on invested funds at the time the project is proposed; Reg. Mtg. 5/11/82 Page 3 /' /' 315 / ' l.