CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

:44.1 Discussion followed concerning the desirability of avoiding restriction of development wh�ch �s ready to proceed and the need to create value in the District. MOTION WITHDRAWN Councilman Norris withdrew his motion. , MOTION. Councilman Norris moved that prior to the issuance of any new GID 1-64 bonds, Redwood Shores residential property owners be given a vote, with a ma,7ority of affirmative votes cast required, before the City Council can issue any new bonds The motion died for lack of a second MOTION Councilman Norris moved that the Redwood Shores residential , property owners be given an advisory vote to the City Council on the new financial plans for GID 1-64. The mot�on died for�lack of a second MOTION: Councilman Norris moved, seconded by Councilman Barrett,that no land owned by the developer within GID i-64 be allowed to be '. gifted, donated, exchanged, used for mitigation or set aside by the developer, except lands required for public (community) benefit, unless provisions are made for continuing payment for District debt by the developer for such lands. CLARIFICATION Councilman Norris, with the consent of his second, stated that the motion does not refer to situations where the developer has no control over the situation. ' Harry Jackson, attorney representing Mobil, opposed the motion stating that among other things, it is not enforceable. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Councilman Norris, w�th the consent of his second, changed the motion to state that if a situation is created wherein Mobil Oil Estates (Redwood) Limited is considering disposing of any lands, that Mobil be encouraged not to enter into any future negotia- tions regarding mitigation or land donations,without consulting the Board of Directors of GID No. 1-64. The substitute motion carried unanimously by voice vote (MINUTE ORDER NO 77-235A) , Peter 6ruchala (see above) stated that he understood a vote would be taken among the residents of the District before any new bonds were issued. Cquncil members responded tndividually advising that no such statement had been made. It was suggested thdt a�+�SUnderstanding ev�dently ex�sts with regard to voting requirements Por bond issues. It was pofnted out thdt delays �n the �mprovements needed lmmediately . will create great cost increases dnd that Mobil is willing to advance the needed funds on the basis af Bond Anticipatton Notes. The in- creased value whieh is anticipated to occur as a result of the im- provements will then ex�st before gen�ral obligatian bonds are issued, thereby eliminating the risk invalved when forecasts are used, It was , pointad out further that Mobil cannot n�CeSSarily be expected ta per- form as guarantor if circumstdnces are ch�nged, Study Session -7- GID No 1-64 � 11/7/77 ;