CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

have preceded it, or are not allowed within the context of the EIR Specific Plan, Zoning and General Plan designation. In good faith, we voluntarily agreed to resubmit with a two 2- story building suffering significant financial impairment to do this in good faith to appease the concerns we have heard in the community and at the Council. We also offered additional rnitigations relating to pedestrian safety, landscaping and other items. We have pursued this for a long time in good faith and I ask for Council approval." In response to Mayor Howard's questions regarding a building permit, City Attorney Sehrieker said that the developer had filed a Final Map, and Mr. Anderlini's comments regarding a two-year time limit from the date of a Vesting Map, were not germane. Bruce Russell, Attorney for the Developer, said. "Within 2 years from the recording of the Final Map, you have vested rights to proceed with your development. The Final Map was recorded in August, 1996 and until August 1998 if there are vested rights, the owners of the property have a right to proceed with the development. When they signed the standstill agreernent with the City, that agreement suspended the running of these time periods and that was the term of that agreement, but the two years is not from the time of the Vesting Tentative Map. It is frorn the time of the recording of the Final Map. The City Attorney, not having an interest in representing the owners or the community can corroborate that. Once a Final Map is recorded, even if we were beyond the two year time period, all that means is that we do not have a vested or guaranteed right to move forward, but we can file a building permit application anytime after the filing of the Final Map. There is no time limit on the filing or the request for a building permit. I have had an opportunity to review all of the minutes from all of the prior hearings and staff reports from 1992 on, hoping that we did not have to present that in another form. In the course of reviewing, there have been 14 public hearing, numerous staff reports, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council in which the issue of commercial use on this property has been the topic of discussion. In 1995 when the Vesting Tentative Map was approved, there was considerable correspondence to the City in opposition during that hearing on the use of that property for commercial property, and the City approved the Vesting Tentative Map and determined that commercial use was consistent with the Specific Plan and the zoning. There have been no less than five years of public hearings in which the community has appeared and people have stated their case. And the City has decided that the compromise was low-rise office R and D. People could possibly disagree if 4-story is low rise but the City Attorney will confirm nobody could argue that a 2-story is inconsistent with a Specific Plan designation that says low-rise office R and D." Carol Ford, 360 Bowsprit, urged the Council to adopt this rnoratorium. She said this building would be lovely, somewhere else. She said she had attended all the meetings, and had been told repeatedly that anything built on the subject property would be a nursery or a public storage unit. She said there was never a discussion of low-rise R and D and suggested that the minutes be reviewed. Mrs. Ford said there will be more than 15,000 vehicle trips a day from this site going past the school site and that is a serious public safety issue for Redwood Shores, and none of the other commercial buildings in Redwood Shores ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18. 1997 MINUTES Page No. 118 PAGE 13