Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> insistence of developers was á mistãke, and led to overcrowding; he is <br /> terribly concerned about density, but stated that with the required Use <br /> Permit in this case the City has control over what happens in that facility, <br /> and is willing to take a chance that it will work. Councilman Claire stated <br /> there is a right way to vote and a smart way to vote, the smart way being <br /> the one that gets you the most votes; that each Council Member will decide <br /> for himself or herself what he or she feels is right and that he will <br /> respect their decision; and that he personally believes it is right to <br /> approve the Use Permit for Hawthorne House as three more people in the <br /> neighborhood will not be that disruptive. <br /> CONSENSUS: At 11:30 p.m. it was determined by Mayor La Berge that it was <br /> the consensus of the Council Members to extend the Council Meeting to 11:45 <br /> p.m. <br /> Councilwoman Buchan stated she has sympathy for both sides, and like her <br /> colleagues had changed her mind several times on this issue. Councilman <br /> Buchan advised she had not supported Hope House and Hope House has been <br /> successful; but her heart tells her not to support Hawthorne House in this <br /> crowded neighborhood, and she hopes she will be as wrong about this as she <br /> was Hope House. Councilwoman Buchan advised that if the appeal is denied, <br /> the community should work with Hawthorne House and become part of their <br /> program. <br /> Councilman Murray listed the following reasons why he would vote to uphold <br /> the appeal: Hawthorne House is not a nursing home and therefore does not <br /> fall within the definition of the Redwood City zoning ordinance for an R-4 <br /> neighborhood; there are 270 persons in residence throughout the County and <br /> 61 in Redwood City and 30 in the unincorporated area, and although Hawthorne <br /> House is a good facility, too much of a good thing can create problems <br /> for a community; this location is not appropriate as Redwood City has done <br /> far more than its fair share; denying the appeal would be projecting our <br /> values on persons who are unwilling to accept them; not all neighbors are <br /> against this program, but there were two who were very frightened of this <br /> facility and it would be unfair of me to force them to accept it; and it is <br /> very important that these decisions conform to the General Plan and Land Use <br /> Policy L-2 which speaks to the issue of protection against encroachment of <br /> incompatible activities which may have a negative impact, and unless we are <br /> certain that it cannot have a negative impact then we must reject it. <br /> Discussion ensued regarding census data stating there are 2.6 people per <br /> household and 3.2 per family which multiplied by five would suggest a <br /> possibility of more than twelve people in the five apartments at 251 Jackson <br /> Avenue. <br /> Mayor La Berge advised she would support the motion to deny the appeal, and <br /> her decision was based on listening to what everyone said, looking at <br /> all the information within the context of the larger picture, and asking <br /> what is best for Redwood City. Mayor La Berge stated she believed it is <br /> best for Redwood City to be a caring City, to be a City that is willing to <br /> say that all the people who live in the City belong to us and deserve the <br /> opportunity to live in any neighborhood. Mayor La Berge acknowledged that <br /> Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> April 20, 1992 <br /> Page 15 MINUTE BOOK NO. 51 <br /> Page No. 57 <br />