AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 73 Commissioner Tabing was supportive of the changes occurring in downtown Redwood City since they needed to do everything possible to get more businesses downtown. The idea of medical offices did not bother him as he felt the City could not be picky about what to put into the vacant spots downtown. He had slight concern over the impact that shorter-term, high turnover startups would have on the downtown area. and he did feel that medical offices may be slightly more stable. Commissioner Bondonno was also supportive of the Ordinance. He had not considered the option of medical office buildings until now. but noted that in his experience medical office businesses set themselves up and were around for an extended period of time. Later, however, they may change hands if a physician retires or a practice closes. He was not entirely sure, then, if they wanted this in the heart of downtown. He also noted an increased flux of patients in the downtown area affected parking and traffic. He was not sure that the medical office businesses themselves would be interested in this scenario. In either event, he did not see very many of these medical offices setting up downtown. Commissioner Smith was in general support of the Ordinance. He stressed the cost of doing nothing to promote growth downtown was unacceptable and businesses needed to return to the area. He noted as well that medical offices brought with the increasing parking and traffic issues. From that perspective, he felt if they omitted the medical office buildings they would not lose a tremendous amount of revenue with that decision. Vice-Chair Borgens asked for a more clear definition on what medical offices meant, what was covered and what would not be allowed. She also was concerned over the parking issues mentioned in public comment and by some of her colleagues. She stressed the need for parking management. While she liked seeing full spaces at night, which meant downtown was thriving, she did not like to see cars parked and not moving during the day which would curtail the retail traffic. Ms. Ekas stated medical offices included a "use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic. preventative. corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the State of California and including services related to medical research, testing and analysis, but excluding the use of hazardous materials in excess of exempt amounts contained in the USC and UFC building fire codes." She noted a city adopts and amends their codes frequently and so a code like this is very broad. Vice-Chair Borgens asked where medical marijuana and dispensaries fell in this category . Ms. Ekas stated the moratorium on this was still in place and they were only a few months into the 24-month moratorium on that issue. Staff anticipated that there would be code at some point specifically defining this type of collective based on what was allowable under State law and then would also propose locations for such usage. Staff, as of yetI had not begun drafting this information, however. Chair Radcliffe asked if they were to assume that allowing these medical offices might later lead to legal medical marijuana dispensaries downtown on the ground floor. Page 22 of 24