CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

was to protect their operation from the new residents, and the impacts that might be real or perceived by the new residents... and the necessity of a proper buffer... This was something that was not negotiated behind the scenes. It was done in a series of public hearings." Mr. Warren said, "As you know, I am very concerned about property rights, and due process. Irrespective of where we are today in terms of the design of the facility or the type of facility that is now being proposed, in this case there has been a plethora of process through the City over a number of years. And the process has been organized and has been public and it has been made available to residents through a series of public hearings." Mr. Warren said there is an issue of due process here, and an issue of property rights. He said that as far as he could tell "there has not been any violation of the rules that were laid down by the City on either side of this. It is an interesting conundrum for a Council to deal with. But the property rights are an issue here, and I feel personally strongly about that." In answer to Couneilman Claire's question regarding the CC&Rs, Mr. Warren said, "I was with Redwood Shores Properties at the time. RSOA, the Association itself was established by the predecessors in interest to Redwood Shores Properties... in 1981. In the establishment of that, Redwood Shores Properties became what is called the declarant, and there are certain rights ascribed to the declarant... One of those rights was the right to request the annexation of properties to the boundaries of the Association. So there were a series of annexations into the Association. In the Annexation agreements that were signed by the Association and Redwood Shores Properties to annex Area I and Area H, Area I being the Lido Area, there was a reservation put in that particular Annexation Agreement which gave the unilateral right of Redwood Shores Properties as the declarant, to deannex properties from that particular annexation. And there have been in fact two deannexations exercised as a result of that right. One was this property, and I can tell you categorically, the deannexation only took place after the rezoning to commercial was required. Because having a commercial zone in that location made that property potentially very difficult to market." He added that the other deannexation involved the property SBSA recently purchased. Patricia Dixon, 16 Admiralty Court, distributed a letter which is on file in the City Clerk Department. Ms. Dixon said when she moved into the Redwood Shores Neighborhood 12 years ago she "was told by her broker that there would be no comrnercial building east of Bridge with the exception of Westport." She said the City and the Planning Department had done an end run around the residents by approving this Project and it "was dishonest and deceitful." Ms. Dixon described her attendance at many of the hearings and the additional residential units built since 1992. She described the lack of public transportation in the area and this Project would add an additional 2,000 cars, along with the new School traffic and delivery trucks. Ms. Dixon said the developer should have held Redwood Shores only hearings, "not the underhanded way it was done." She said she did not hear about this new Project until September 8, 1997 when it came before the Council. Ms. Dixon said the developer was not concerned with the Redwood Shores residents, only REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17. 1997 MINUTES Page No. 050 PAGE 19