CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.IL .' City Attorney Sehrieker said "The public notices which are required occurred in the - context of the environmental review in 1993 and in the context of the approval of the zoning and the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. Because of those legislative acts having been completed, the only thing left was for the developer to come in for approval of a specific development, and the only entitlement required was the Architectural Permit. All required notices were given. This whole issue sprung up from belated reaction. There is no legal context for what occurred subsequent to the approval of the Architectural Permit. All notices were given. There is no legal requirement for the notices that have occurred since then except for those which have been required by the Council as discretionary to let the people know what was going on." City Manager Everett explained, "Beyond what is required when it was postponed the first time, we contacted all of the speakers because we knew exactly where they were to tell them. City Clerk Jorgenson went to great lengths to mail letters to every (speaker and) association and to get the word out as broadly as we could. The matter was delayed twice for other parties other than the City." Mayor Howard said that there were 75 speaker cards that night and all received notification, and it was also noticed in the Redwood City Almanac. Max Keeeh, 540 Price Avenue, Lido Plaza Developer, said, "The zoning and other items specifically state in writing, done in public hearings, a low-rise office R and D use on this - site, to act as a transition and a buffer. The predecessor that we purchased the property from in good faith after the issuance of a Vesting Tentative Map filed a final map and built in excess of $2 million in infrastructure to service this site. We purchased this property with "CG" zoning on it with the Specific Plan that has a commercial designation and pursued a commercial project with an architect in good faith submitting that to the City's Architectural Advisory Committee to obtain a permit for that approval. Shortly thereafter, we were asked to enter into a standstill agreernent to allow the City to have time to study traffic. In good faith we voluntarily entered into that, allowed the City to study traffic and even got the bill for those traffic studies. In good faith, we agreed to traffic mitigation measures, which are still before the Council. We also met with representatives of the community, homeowners association, RSOA, Governors Bay about traffic. We came back before the Council on November 17 and the issue was whether a 4-story building was consistent with low-rise R and D. In good faith, we went back voluntarily, and sat down to negotiate something that might resolve that issue. The President of the Redwood Shores Homeowners Association had said at that meeting that they thought a 2-story building would be more consistent with the low-rise R and D designation. We worked with them and their architectural representative to come up with the compromise before Council tonight. After several telephone calls, the President of the Homeowners Association said they might set up a committee to discuss compromises, and the board said they were not interested in a compromise involving a commercial project. I also met with LaVerne - Atherly and was told they were interested in a park, a residential place that makes no sense to us (the developer) economically or does not have a foundation in all the entitlements that ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 117 PAGE 12