CC Min 1996-01-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I I I . Hammond discussed on-going discussions and facilitation. He mentioned two alternatives the tenants group had proposed, a maritime industrial park on the entire '--- 116 acre parcels, and another alternative, with strings attached, to be discussed later. Mr. Hammond addressed the concerns of the Council regarding RMC Lonestar's plans for its land advising that RMC Lonestar is in the process of proceeding with full utilization of all of its property at the Port. Mr. Hammond stated that the Port facility is absolutely central to its company plans, it is the regional center and there are no alternative plans, and RMC Lonestar has invested heavily in this facility. Mr. Hammond stated RMC Lonestar's greatest concern is that the proposed Pacific Shores Center Project is well out in the bay into the wind and is directly upwind and is very different ITom the Lincoln development. Also, it is 2 miles out along a single corridor and there is no way a ITontage road could mitigate the truck traffic at the intersections. Mr. Hammond stated there were serious concerns over incompatibilities and the future of the Port. He stated the Port committed itself without a full plan for the Port and Port area, and it publicly supported the Pacific Shores Center project which would landlock the Port while receiving only 9.6 additional acres. Mr. Hammond described the easements on the 9.6 acres held by RMC Lonestar. Mr. Hammond stated that the existing Port tenants have said they need additional land, now and in the future, and advised there would be other heavy industrial companies wanting to come to the Port. He criticized the Port Commission for their - quick leap into an agreement regarding Deepwater Sluice Island. Mr. Hammond stated that the tenants believed a better business deal could have been struck, including establishing and managing a mitigation bank. Mr. Hammond cited an article in the Port's newsletter stating the Port needed land for future growth, and advised that the Pacific Shores Center Project would not allow the Port to have access to the land it needs for the future. Mr. Hammond discussed the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (BCDC committee charged by BCDC and MTC to oversee the Seaport Plan, part of the Bay Plan) meeting scheduled for January 30, 1996 and the implications of the committee's recommendation to BCDC to dedesignate the subject property. Mr. Hammond discussed an alternative proposed by Mr. Bill Montgomery, Bell Harbor Sand & Gravel, 775 Seaport Blvd.: He handed out sketches of what the following alternative would look like. The Redwood City Port negotiate with Pacific Shores Center to achieve the following: 1. Set aside 40-45 acres for future marine use and heavy industrial expansion needs, zoned :"G.1.", and retain the Port priority designation. The remaining 71-76 acres '-- remaining owned by Pacific Shores could be used "IP" and utilized accordingly; Special Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 January 29,1996 Page No. 043 Page 7