AgdaPkt 2007-05-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

emergency vehicle access, should be studied as to how it would affect rear units with little or no access. He stated that 2/3 of an acre and 95-100 occupancy residing in that small space will contribute to the overburdening of the infrastructure available for egress and ingress on such a small footage of property. Craig Silverman, board member of Kentfield Commons, stated that he asking Council to not approve the precise plan for several reasons. He stated that as an advocate for the children in the area, the "horseshoe" is potentially, a nightmare. He further stated that the safety of the children is his primary concern, the project is far too dense, and it does not consider any of the traffic concerns. He stated that if the project goes forward, the ingress and egress must occur on Woodside Road. Richard Tsukushi stated that he and his family are longtime residents of the area. He cited various historical points of the area involving prior development, a gas leak, several deaths at Woodside and Horgan, and concern with emergency response access. John Gerber, a small business owner in the area, stated that employees would love the opportunity to live anywhere close to Redwood City and the Peninsula corridor and this is a great opportunity to get a project built quickly, efficiently and make a real name for Woodside Road. M/S Bain/Foust to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Ken Doran, an original homeowner in Hampton Oaks, stated that at the November Planning Commission meeting, a petition was turned in, with over 100 signatures, which does not appear in the Council packet. He stated that his points would cover traffic safety, environmental safety, and suggestions. Alicia Guerra addressed some of the legal issues presented. She explained the reason the item before the Council is the Precise Plan and not the mitigated negative declaration is because the mitigated negative declaration was not brought before Council on appeal, which is different from the Bakersfield decision. She stated that regarding height and density issues, the project is consistent with the General Plan, the zoning and effect on the property, consistent with the density bonus requirements, and consistent with State Law requirements related to density bonus and provisions for incentives associated with it. The project complies with the findings necessary for the precise plan and zoning requirements in place for the site. She further stated that there is no evidence to indicate property values will be decreased as a result of the project and is not a finding required for consideration in a precise plan nor is an environmental impact appropriately addressed through the CEQA process. M/S Foust/Aguirre to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote by those present. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING APRIL 9, 2007 MINUTES PAGE 9