Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - - ' - <br /> has shown, it is clearly an approved use in the Specific Plan. There's also been a <br /> suggestion that in some way the adoption of the 'CG' zone was in some way a mistake... <br /> - That as Councilman Claire has pointed out, is clearly not the case. In fact, in no less than <br /> four public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the staff of the <br /> City made recommendations... and the City Council adopted a Specific Plan, a General <br /> Plan Amendment, and a Zoning. In each one of those ordinances, the City Council made <br /> Findings that 'CG' zoning, that is office use on this property up to 75 feet was consistent <br /> with the Specific Plan and the General Plan. Those specific Findings were made in each <br /> one of those ordinances." <br /> Mr. Russell said, "There has been a suggestion in the staff report also, that at the time <br /> when the zoning was adopted in 1993 there was no other zone that could have been used <br /> here. .. Putting aside all the staff reports and public testimony and all the materials and <br /> studies that were conducted, in fact, there were other zones that did exist in the City at the <br /> time. The 'IP' zone existed, the 'IR' zone existed, the 'IP' zone, for example, permitted <br /> even more uses than were permitted under the General Commercial zone without a Use <br /> Permit and that had a three-story height limitation." Mr. Russell said adoption of the 'CG' <br /> zoning was no accident, when it was "suggested by the applicant, part of the SBSA deal, <br /> reviewed by the City staff, recommended by the City staff, recommended by the Planning <br /> Comrnission and ultimately adopted by the City Council." <br /> Mr. Keeeh said, "I think there are two other issues. One is fairness." Mr. Keech said the <br /> same issues under discussion tonight had been thoroughly discussed through the years. He <br /> - said he and his partners had responded positively to neighbor's concerns regarding traffic <br /> and landscaping regardless of the financial impacts to the project, "because it is the right <br /> thing to do.... I have to say that the staff report option of things like residential, is a Trojan <br /> Horse." Mr. Keech said a residential option had been explored extensively, and with the <br /> SBSA agreement and its continuing objections, residential cannot be placed on that site. <br /> He said they were trying to proceed with sensitivity and flexibility, but "we do need to <br /> proceed with the rules that the City has placed before us.... At this point for the City to try <br /> to change the rules would be grossly and fundamentally unfair. And I think it would send <br /> a bad message to business about how the rules work or don't work in Redwood City." <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> Mayor Howard declared a recess at 9:22 p.m. <br /> Meeting reconvened at 9:38 p.m. <br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------______n______------ <br /> Mayor Howard called upon the members of the audience who wished to speak. Mayor <br /> Howard advised that since she had received over 50 speaker's cards each speaker would be <br /> allowed three minutes. <br /> Mary Morrissey Parden, 805 Schooner Bay Drive, Redwood City, representing <br /> Redwood Shores Owners Association, read from a letter which is on file in the City Clerk <br /> - Department. Ms. Parden stated the Association's objection to the Project as approved by <br /> REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17.1997 <br /> MINUTES Page No. 047 PAGE 16 <br />