Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I . I . - <br /> MIS: CLAIREIRUSKIN. TITLE READ. <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 12798 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF <br /> - REDWOOD CITY TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS IN THE <br /> UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ADJACENT TO THE <br /> CITY OF REDWOOD CITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE TERMINUS OF SEAPORT <br /> BOULEVARD FROM "HEAVY INDUSTRIAL" TO "LIGHT INDUSTRIAL" <br /> Councilman Claire said he has "believed for a very long time that....the so called <br /> 'smokestack industries' are not the future of our community necessarily; that I would <br /> do everything in my power....to make sure that those industries that are currently there, <br /> stay there, and are not forced to move or change; that I believe the kinds of <br /> employment that we as a City should be looking at would be in another direction. <br /> From a planning process I made this motion, not from a project process. I believe the <br /> process we have foIIowed is a process I have been familiar with since 1972 and I <br /> would have to disagree with the attorney from RMC Lonestar that.....many Councils <br /> prior to this date prezone(d) properties in Redwood City and then change(d) the <br /> General Plan to bring it into conformity. It did not impact the planned development of <br /> those projects one iota." Councilman Claire said Planning Commissions have and will <br /> make sure that planned development agreements benefit the City of Redwood City. <br /> Councilwoman Buchan said tonight's discussions answered the questions she had, <br /> and Senior Planner Jany's comments focused the issue before the Council very clearly, <br /> that this decision was strictly a land use decision. Councilwoman Buchan urged "all <br /> - parties involved to get back to the table, please, and get it done." She added that she <br /> supported the prezoning as a land use issue some months ago and would support this <br /> amendment as "it is the right use for that area." <br /> Councilman Leipzig echoed Councilwoman Buchan's comments and said "I don't <br /> think (our vote) is going to upset too many people one way or the other....1 would also <br /> like to ask all three parties, the Port, the developer and the Port tenants to get together. <br /> Quite frankly, I've been a little embarrassed by some of the correspondence (the <br /> Council has received) and I think it is almost on the verge of childish. We need to get <br /> our act together and get going one way or the other." <br /> Councilman Ruskin said "I have much the same feelings as Councilwoman Buchan <br /> and Councilman Leipzig. I intend to vote yes on this and ask the parties to think of a <br /> new way of coming together. What is important is to come together and make an <br /> agreement." <br /> Councilwoman La Berge said she voted against the prezoning some months ago, and <br /> "I am looking very carefuIIY at this issue.....However, I believe it deserves a 'yes' vote <br /> because it is a legally required act. However, I want to make as strong a case as <br /> possible and reaIIy echoing what other Council Members have stated, that it is very <br /> L- important to this community that the three parties work together to solve the issues. I <br /> MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 <br /> REGULAR MEETING PAGE 15 <br /> MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 <br /> Page No. 279 <br />