CC Min 1996-07-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. "Height as it relates to residential areas. Does it harm the residential area?" Councilman Ruskin said the 100 feet limit was not imposed for safety, but rather for scale and livability, and campus-like developments have a different scale than other places. A tall building in a campus setting with landscaping as a buffer "wiIl have a different impact on nearby areas than a tall building on EI Camino Real or Woodside where the homes are immediately behind or next to it." Councilman Ruskin said there are sufficient landscape buffer zones to be built so that the impact of the buildings will not be that deleterious. He said he takes "the impact of shadows to be an indication of the impact of the height of the building, and the shadow impact...is limited." He added that any building in any residential area will have an impact of shadows, and "a second story addition built on (his) block will have a greater impact over the course of the year shadow wise on the homes on either sides of it than wiIl the Electronic Arts buildings on the surrounding area." . "Height as it affects safety. This is a very complex subject dealing with very specialized expertise. Although I, as did Councilman Claire, talked to pilots at other airports, disinterested airports, and got some of the same feedback that Councilman Claire did, I'm resting my, this may be an unpopular judgment, but I'm resting my conclusion on the safety factor on the FAA, because there is no way, given the very specialized field and the expertise demanded that I could reaIly draw an inference of any intelligence listening to people in this field debate each other. There would be an endless difference, and I feel that the FAA is the final authority, and I will listen to them." Councilman Ruskin said the reference to Valuejet involves a dynamic and new situation with "new methods of getting the job done, (but) this is a very static and old situation. It is a matter of height, and I think if we can't trust the FAA on this situation, then we really do have a problem." . "Traffic. It is the item that gives me the most cause for concern because the traffic situation in Redwood Shores is a very difficult one." Councilman Ruskin discussed the mitigations planned by the state and the districts and resulting from single-tenant occupancy. Councilman Ruskin said he was not willing to sacrifice economic growth at this point because everyone could work together and find solutions to the traffic situation. . "What kind of a deal is this for Redwood Shores and Redwood City.... We get a great deal out of it." Councilman Ruskin described the more advantageous fee situations with EA than was negotiated with Westport. He mentioned that the EA fee schedule aIlows for yearly increases; the developer will participate in the traffic assessment and the train and bus shuttles; every development phase must be approved by the Planning Commission and the Architectural Advisory Committee; the developer will pay $1.7 million for Shoreline Drive, $1.3 million for widening of Redwood Shores Parkway, $300,000 for traffic lights and a substantial remainder to parks and other REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WLY 15, 1996 MINUTES MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 PAGE 23 Page No. 395