CC Min 1997-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- - ' - the property, but now it is a piece of property that some people say should be changed from its present condition to something else. SBSA started the planning process to evaluate what - might be appropriate from the community point of view, the SBSA point of view, and the City point of view about a month ago. At the SBSA meeting on December 17, as Councilman Hartnett identified, the plan was outlined to the commission, and they achieved a general consensus on the direction to follow. While SBSA was preparing their plan, the urgency ordinance came up." Mr. Bewley said he had talked with Mr. Passanisi and City staff, and he feels that what the City is doing with this ordinance and what SBSA is doing are very compatible. He said he looked forward to working on the committee and supports the ordinance. He added SBSA has no concerns about the 45-day moratorium or an extension. MIS: HARTNETT/IRA TO INTRODUCE THE URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE "TP" (TIDAL PLAIN) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED BETWEEN THE LIDO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND BAY SLOUGH IN THE REDWOOD SHORES AREA OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, INCLUDING AREA H. CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE OF MEMBERS PRESENT: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BUCHAN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, LEIPZIG AND MAYOR HOWARD. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER RUSKIN MINUTE ORDER 97-242 - nn______---------------------------------------__n_____----------------______n______------------------------------------- B. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, LIDO SHORES PLAZA, REDWOOD SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD (100) REPORT: Senior Planner Passanisi, November 17,1997 City Attorney Dave Sehrieker stated this agreement "comes in the context of potential litigation and resolution of a dispute between the parties. To summarize, the owners of the property designated for commercial development in the Lido Shores Specific Plan propose to develop the property with a 4-story, 150,000 square foot office building development with an adjoining parking structure. The City has taken a position, and the owners contend they have a legal right to do so based on the Vesting Tentative Map, Zoning and the Specific Plan and General Plan designations for that property. The City contends, to the contrary, that the 4-story development which has been proposed is not consistent with the Specific Plan and that the zoning is not consistent with the Speeific Plan and; therefore, The Tentative Map is not valid, or at least under the Tentative Map the owner has not acquired any vested rights. That is the position of the contending parties, and as Council is aware, this matter has been discussed in closed session. - "If the matter were to be litigated, and the City were to prevail, then the Vesting Tentative Map would be declared invalid, but I would underscore this point because of questions ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 DECEMBER 18.1997 MINUTES Page No. III PAGE 6