CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- . II .1 situation would not exist. Councilman Claire said he wanted to keep his oath of office to uphold the state Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, and therefore it - would be "difficult to find compelling reasons for me" not to allow the Project to continue. "But, I am wondering what kind of mitigations we could put on to the Project at this stage, and not violate the law." He suggested first of all, sidewalks on the south side of Redwood Shores Parkway. Councilman Claire described the potential traffic problems if South Shores had ever been developed. Acknowledging the frustration caused by increased traffic, Councilman Claire said it took him 3 minutes and 47 seconds to get out of his driveway this morning. "I have a great deal of empathy with your frustration." Councilman Claire said he was very concerned with cross street traffic impacts which the Traffic Report did not address. Councilman Claire said he would like to address the height of the building, but it appeared that he would be precluded from doing that. He asked, in addition to sidewalks and cross street traffic mitigations, what were the City's legal options. City Attorney Sehrieker said, "You have focused on specific measures which can be addressed I suppose in two ways. One is, to ascertain whether or not the developer would voluntarily accede to additional design requirements and mitigation measures, which would be appropriate as a result of the re-review, so to speak, of the study... That's one way of addressing it, let's put it that way. If I might for a moment, address your issue regarding the lack of review by the citizens, a private organization, the Redwood Shores Owners Association. That is not a right, nor an issue which the City could enforce. That is strictly a private property right, or authority, that is reposed in the Owners Association. - And under what circumstances annexation or deannexation occurred, ... is an entirely private matter, and not something the City could appropriately or legally get involved with." City Attorney Sehrieker said, "In a larger perspective, this matter came to you originally with a proposal as the result of concerns regarding public health and safety in the context of a proposed urgency ordinance, which would have proposed a short term moratorium, 65 days, under the government code provisions, which allow for such matters. Essentially what a moratorium does is to allow the government to review the circumstances to see whether or not a particular zoning or planning or so forth is improvident and should be revised. The initial concern that was addressed in September with respect to that context, the moratorium, was whether or not public safety was affected. That was the reason why if I recall correctly, the Traffic Study was conducted, to ascertain whether or not the impacts of the proposed Project would be so significant as to be, the term I used at the time was nuisance, the correct term would be whether or not it would create a condition dangerous to the health, safety or welfare. As I have said already, I do not believe on the facts that have been adduced thus far, as a result of the Traffic Study, that you can make that Finding.... Now, having said that, the law also requires that a Tentative Map be consistent with zoning and the Specific Plan. The question here seems to be, whether or not the zoning is consistent with the Specific Plan. That is what all this factual discussion, and issues have evolved with respect to so called low-rise R&D.... Some of the examples - that have been used in the Specific Plan, which is the umbrella over the zoning, raises the REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 063 PAGE 32