CC Min 1997-07-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

To have three votes from the Developer and three from the City is set-up in a fashion that on its face shouldn't work, but it has worked very well, because there has been a balance. The people on that committee have been experts in their fields. They have had their counterparts." Mr. Warren related the successes and accomplishments orchestrated by the committee, advising that all the planned public projects were built, for the most part, on time, within budget and accepted by the City for maintenance. Mr. Warren said, "The work is not done. There is still at least five years of similar sorts of projects to be completed in the new Lido area of Redwood Shores, plus a scattering of other projects throughout. Let the work continue. And let it continue in a fashion that is working. The system is not broke, and therefore I recommend that you don't, at this juncture at least, try to fix it. Our recommendation to you is, let the system continue. It has been effective. I agree with the residents wanting to participate in what's going on. I suggest that be done possibly through another advisory committee formed that would be advisory to the voting committee, but not voting members of the committee at this juncture. In time, after the five years, maybe so. But I suggest you continue the Development Agreement in its present form. Because if you let the Agreement die, or if you change it, you may not have an Agreement at all between a private party and a public party. There are provisions within the Agreement where one party can, either the City or the Developer can elect to back out of the Agreement. You don't want that situation. It is my recommendation that you vote tonight to extend it for five more years." 4) Close public hearing; MIS: LEIPZIG/LA BERGE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 10:12 P.M. 5) Council action: In response to Mayor Hartnett's questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that the Agreement can be viewed as trilateral with the City staff, Developers and the City Council sitting as the Board of Directors of the GID 1-64, although it is really bilateral in substance between the City and the Developers. City Attorney Schricker said the decision before the Council was to accept or reject the terms agreed upon by the City staff and the Developers. He added that any change requested by Council would have to be worked out between City staff and the Developers as members of the current Facility Fees Committee, and could not be a unilateral decision. Referring to Mayor Hartnett's questions regarding extending the Agreement as is, with a condition or "an opener or reopener by call of either party", City Attorney Schricker advised, "The notion of reopeners, first of all, would have to be agreed upon, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 WLY 14, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 462 PAGE 25