CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- . , "' - Couneil Member Claire said, "the smartest thing for a politician to do in this case is to vote against the agreement and vote for the moratorium. Unfortunately, we would be - sued, and we would cost the taxpayers of our community probably $300,000 in that suit. It is my opinion after listening to upwards of four attorneys, we lose, and the developer would build a 4-story building. I would prefer to have a park out there. Next, I would prefer to have residential out there. SBSA, which we do not control, will not allow us to do that. There are Board members from other cities that will not allow residential ever to be built there, and they have the majority vote on SBSA Board. No matter how much we try to convince them otherwise, they will not be in favor of residential. We negotiated down from a 4-story office building to a 2-story office building to try and help the neighborhood. We reduced the square footage by 23%. There were a number of us on this Council who worked to try to achieve that. I met with La Verne Atherly on December I... and asked for a compromise. The answer was absolutely not." Couneilman Claire said, "The suggestion tonight was that no one from the neighborhood was part of the negotiation process. I would suggest that is not quite accurate. I would also like to remind Carol Ford that when these public hearings took place in 1993, the major concern that we heard, both Planning Commission and City Council, did not revolve around commercial buildings on that site. They revolved around avigation easements that would go into all the new property owner's deeds informing them they could not sue the San Carlos Airport for noise. That was nine speakers' worth at one meeting, and in fact Carol Ford addressed us on avigation easements and not necessarily on the commercial building itself. I do agree with her on one point. She suggests that it was her - interpretation that there would be something other than an office building on that site. I have to agree with her. I came away from those meetings also with the feeling that there would be a nursery, warehousing, which I now understand residents would not want, but it wouldn't be an office building. I know from my Planning Commission experience that if you zone something "CG" no developer would ever go for anything less than he or she could get in that zoning. While I may have thought during those hearings that possibly a nursery would be appropriate I never thought an office building of low-rise density would not also be appropriate. I think we would cost taxpayers a lot of money and then end up with a 4-story building out there anyway, from what I have heard, from every lawyer I have talked to." Couneil Member Ira directed his comment to Max Keech. He said "Max had brought up good faith a lot in his remarks, and on behalf of the Council, we appreciate his willingness to negotiate quickly. I personally would like to see you come back in January and work, with the type of developer we think you are, the way you have acted professionally, please come back in January for a project downtown. I think that there is no question that the project does feel, and fit right. Don Warren has talked about how Redwood Shores has earned a claim for the way it was laid out. I certainly don't think that anyone envisioned a commercial building at the end of a residential area. I am certain it would make much more sense to be something else. I think we all agree that something that would cater to the residents would make more sense, something that would be open space, or some kind - of public facility. We understand the traffic issue and traffic is the major problem. The ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18,1997 MINUTES Page No. 121 PAGE 16