CC Min 1988-03-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 2 (continued) 12) DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIM CITY OF REDWOOD CITY TO ATTACK TWO CONDITIONS RELATING To TIE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, AND CERTAIN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY, TO SAID PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (APPELLANT, DES, etc., ON BEHALF OF SEQUOIA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ASSOCIATES) Public bearing having been duly noticed and held, a*ameneing on February 29, 1988 and concluding on March 1, 1988, on the abovementioned appeals, oral evidence having been heard, and documentary material having been received, opportunity to be heard having been given to all person present, the Council of the City of Redwood City hereby finds, determines and concludes as follows: I. Appeal (1), above, should be, and vas, heard first in order because the appeal raised the issue of granting the entire permit, determination of which could be conclusive as to the narrower issue raised by appeal (2). 2. The planned development permit approved by the Planning Commission allowed the construction of a 3 -story 60,000 square foot medical office building with a 3 -story terraced parking garage (the 'Project*) on property arced or under the control of the Sequoia eospital District (the 0 8ospital 0 ), subject to compliance with certain conditions specified by the Planning Commission. 3. The Project was proposed by Sequoia Professional Building Associates (the 'Proponent•), wbo proposed to enter into a ground lease with the 2ospital, thereafter construct the Project, and, upon completion, lease space in the Project to physicians and other persons associated with the medical profession. Tbe proposed Project would include medical offices, a surgery center, laboratory and x -ray facilities, a pharmacy, and food service facilities. 9. As approved by the Planning Commission, the Project would require a total of 921 parking spaces (Condition 3 of the planned development permit) and would also require the Proponent to pay a •fair share• (as determined by the City Council) of the costs of improvements for the widening, striping and installation of traffic signals and controllers at the intersection of Whipple Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas (Condition 10, planned development permit). it is the foregoing conditions which are appealed by the Proponent. During the bearing the Proponent requested permission to withdraw the appeal as to Condition 3. S. A final environmental impact report ( 0 212 0 ) for the Project was certified by the Planning Commission on January 7, 1988. The 211E has been revie and considered by the City Council, and each member thereof, prior to making a decision on the appeal. 6. The SIR identified certain significant effects upon the environment which cannot be reasonably or foresseably mitigated as followss 41) the conflict of the proposed professional office land use with the residental land use of the surrounding neighborhoods; (ii) the increased traffic on local streets which would result from operation of the Projectand (iii) the potential unearthing of asbestos and mercury during construction. The SIR proposed, and the Planning Commission required, the implementation of certain mitigation measures to reduce the aforesaid impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The Planning MINUTE BOOK NO. 47 Page No. 5 25 Reg.Mtg. 3/14/88 Page 6