CC Min 1996-01-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Hammond used overheads to describe what the alternative would look like, including an additional belt of land to provide additional land for current Port tenants and future Port uses. 2. Regarding Deepwater Sluice Island, some portion of wetlands should be reserved by the Port for their own mitigation purposes. 3. Strings attached: Successful addressing of the compatibilitfissues,)ome form of indemnification, maximum feasible buffer areas, and recogiì1zing:~d.llssuring the ability of the Port and Port tenants in the nearby industrial conun(\fil{y'to carry on business in a responsible manner commonly accepted in a similar heavy industrial atmosphere. Mr. Hammond expressed the serious concerns of the Port Tenants Group regarding City policies such as L9 of the General Plan which calls for a phase out or reld,cation of existing heavy industries within in or near residential, commercial or employment areas. In response to Council questions, Mr. Hammond advised he haØ been .involved with the Port area lands and issues since mid-1994, RMC Lonestar in Redwood City was the major facility for Northern California, and elaborated on the strings attached to the above alternative. regarding indemnification and policies that might cause a phase-out of heavy industrial uses. Wit Manley, representing Sims LMC and the Port Tenants Group, 455 Capital Mall, Suite 210, Sacramento, 95814, advised that they are skeptical that the proposed uses can ever be made to be compatible. He stated that if the Council did go forward with the prezoning, he asked that the package include a development agreement rather than just legislative land use entitlements. Mr. Manley stated the problems they see with the development include: incompatible land use issues, dust, noise, visual, traffic impacts have been underestimated, the psychological incompatibility of introducing an office park into an area that has been devoted to heavy industry, Port expansion would be precluded, it is not clear who is going to pay for the necessary improvements, and they have concerns with the land exchange with the Port, and inadequacy of the EIR. Mr. Manley stated they were working with the developer, but virtually everyone who had addressed this proposed project had recognized the serious land use compatibility issues. Mr. Maoley suggested that the Council not relinquish its basic legislative land use authority until more basic information is known and what the project is all about. He suggested that a development agreement be made part of the package of entitlements that come before the Council, and that the City should retain its leverage and say no to the proposed prezoning. Mr. Manley suggested that the proposed amenities, indemnification, and recognition of the current tenant's right to continue business be part of the Development Agreement which would avoid the risk of the MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Special Meeting Minutes Page No. 044 January 29, 1996 Page 8