Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PUBLIC HEARING (continued) <br /> <br />Item No.2 (continued) <br /> <br />City Manager Smith advised that the Council cannot now act to include in <br />the proposed facilities charge financing of improvements in South Shores <br />which does not exist, so the agreement has simply made reference to the <br />use of such charges when, and if, South Shores is developed. <br /> <br />(Council recessed from 9:03 to 9:11 p.m.) <br /> <br />Ralph Nobles, 3720 Country Club Drive, representing Friends of Redwood <br />City (FORC) , described the membership of his organization and its <br />objectives regarding major developments in the area, with quality of life <br />its principal concern. Mr. Nobles submitted a petition with some 1500 <br />signatures opposing the subject General Plan amendment. He presented John <br />Wade, Dave Fogarty, and Mary Gorth to speak for FORC. <br /> <br />John Wade, Redwood City Resident, commented on the traffic impact of <br />the <br />South Shores development and referred to the Eastside Transportation <br />Network Study concerning capacity of highways. Mr. Wade suggested it <br />would be logical to leave the subject property as it is, until the <br />timing for financing road widenings is right, saying the project would <br />not fit within the road and transportation realities for the area. He <br />also referred to housing, suggesting too many jobs would be created at <br />South Shores and at the Port with insufficient housing for workers. <br />Mr. Wade suggested the new housing will not accommodate low and medium <br />income workers. He replied to questions regarding various traffic <br />possibilities. <br /> <br />Councilman Biagi asked Mr. Wade for the record his address and whether <br />he is a traffic engineer or consultant. Mr. Wade replied that his <br />address is 171 Birch Street in Redwood City and that he is not a <br />traffic engineer or consultant. <br /> <br />Further for the record, Councilman Biagi asked Mr. Wade if he is <br />prepared to make the same arguments relating to traffic to all the <br />cities on the entire Peninsula wherever any development is proposed. <br />Mr. Wade said he favors growth, but cannot afford to undertake to speak <br />to each government agency about traffic. <br /> <br />Ernest Goitein, 167 Almendral, FORC, commented concerning the fiscal <br />effect of the development on the City, suggesting a procedure which the <br />City should use to determine the real negative effect. Mr. Goitein <br />stated that he is concerned that the offsite costs will not be borne by <br />the developer, stating Table XIIIA is not realistic. <br /> <br />David Fogarty, 1119 17th Avenue, FORC, said the organization is not <br />opposed to growth, but opposes developments which they believe make the <br />environment unlivable. Mr. Fogarty presented recommendations for <br />consideration in developing the east side of Bayshore, suggesting <br />alternates for development of South Shores are possible. Mr. Fogarty <br />described a variety of developments which FORC might support, <br />mentioning shoreline parks, recreation and "affordable" homes for <br />average income people. It was pointed out that those occupying such <br />homes also drive and create traffic problems. In response to question, <br />Mr. Fogarty acknowledged FORC appears to be totally against South <br />Shores. <br /> <br />Councilman Biagi stated for the record that the figures provided by Mr. <br />Fogarty do not take into consideration all figures, noting that <br />calculations should be provided for the cost of building, operating and <br />maintaining the parks and recreation recommended for the property. <br /> <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />4/26/82 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />(7 <br />,_3 <br /> <br />¿ <br /> <br />L <br />