CC Min 1996-01-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- - . - - Mr. Brandon explained why indemnification was an absolute impossibility for Pacific Shores Center. "It would shut down the project for legal reasons" and financing would ---. be unattainable. He stated it was not an equitable solution. Mr. Brandon suggested that mitigating the incompatibility issues should not be insurmountable and suggested that inclusion in CC&Rs, existing uses, and notification be explored. Mr. Brandon, responding to Planning Commissioner's concerns, advised that the Pacific Shores Project was an effort to support future growth ofthe Port, including the inITastructure improvements along Seaport Boulevard, the addition of 10 acres to the Port through an exchange of property with Pacific Shores Center, after BCDC dedesignates the 106 acres ITom Port Priority Use. Mr. Brandon used a drawing of the terminus of Seaport Boulevard and surrounding land areas and waterways to describe the environmental impacts of the Project. He advised that they envision locating the Marine Science Institute on a 5-acre waterITont park within the Project. Mr. Brandon remarked on the proposed Project's benefits to the community including community recognition of environmental improvements and economic development. He stated that this project was being watched by other communities and others interested in land use issues, as a challenging way to deal with heavy industry and changing uses around it. ~ Mr. Brandon advised that the Pacific Shores Project would create 4,000 jobs and provide annual net revenue of $1 million to the City coffers. The Project would allow Redwood City to enhance its quality of life. Mr. Brandon introduced Peter Bohley, civil engineer of Bohley Mahley Engineers, 1875 South Grant Street, San Mateo, advised that Seaport Boulevard would have to be improved no matter what project is built on the subject property and described the costs of those improvements (streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, sewers, water, storm drains, etc. and the federally mandated NPDES program) totaling approximately $20 million - just getting to the site. Larry Patterson, Pacific Shores Center Project advisor in the area of traffic and transportation, acknowledged and described the traffic impacts ITom the proposed Project to Highway 101. He advised that Pacific Shores Center Project would "be participating in a share of the improvements both on the actual access roadways as well as potentially on the ITeeway system itself." He advised that the future for funding highway improvements has brightened. The San Mateo Transportation Authority administering the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation projects has established a Specific Plan that prioritizes the Highway 101 corridor, and identifies projects that will widen the ITeeway between Marsh Road to Highway 92. Mr. Patterson also described '- the recommended improvements to the access points, contained in the EIR, including MINUTE BOOK NO, 54 Special Meeting Minutes Page No. 041 January 29, 1996 Page 5