CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

- - . - with the bottom line. Ms. Dixon said she had reviewed the Plan when she was on the Traffic Advisory Committee, and "no where on those Plans did 1 see at any time that there - would be a four-story office building." Ms. Dixon focused on current traffic problems and how this Project would exacerbate the problems, and asked Council to vote it down. In answer to Councilman Claire's question regarding this Project, Ms. Dixon said when the Plan was brought to the Traffic Committee it was 640 residential units. She described the Planning Commission meeting when the Project was approved and noted Commissioner McCoy's objections based on his understanding that a nursery, warehouse or low-rise building had been intended for that site. Peter Hughes, 18 Admiralty Court, said he objected to this Project for a number of reasons. "I want to highlight the fact that I have always been pro development in Redwood Shores." He said everyone knew that the large land areas west of Bridge Parkway would be developed at some point. Mr. Hughes said, "Redwood Shores Parkway right now is an absolute mess.... When things start spinning out of control, that is the time you ought to put a hold, or a moratorium on the subject... this Project is different from all the others... The corridor to it is right through the residential area of Redwood Shores. Now, since I have been sitting here, and I've heard Mr. Warren, who I have the utmost respect for, and I have heard the Developer, I wonder why we are here. I'm not sure you have any choice. I haven't heard anybody say that we have any choice. I think right is on the side of the Developer.... I don't want to see this developed, but I haven't heard anybody say that we have any choices." - Robert Slusser, 541 Cringle Drive, Redwood City, said he disagreed with Mr. Hughes, "but I think he has a valid point." Mr. Slusser said he didn't think the process was wrong, but perhaps the expectations "that came from ambiguous zoning classifications, that are so open ended they can be interpreted in almost any matter. I think the City is going to have to look at this as a learning experience going forward." Mr. Slusser said the Traffic Report states this project won't make traffic any worse than it already is, that service level D is OK for Redwood Shores, that traffic won't go from acceptable to unacceptable, but the residents of Redwood Shores would disagree. He said the capacity on the Parkway is adequate, but getting on and off the Parkway is not. Mr. Slusser said the Report states the Project would add another car every 15 seconds, but does not address the aggregate issue. He said the bottom line is, the City will have to put in "27 stop lights out there a little sooner than you think." Mr. Slusser agreed with Mr. Hughes, "I don't know that you have a choice, either, but I think you have to take it as a learning experience. Developers are going to ask for the maximum allowed by law and probably going to get it. As a resident I think the Council has a responsibility to take a look at the total community and not just a piece of property in isolation." Carol Ford, 360 Bowsprit, representing Redwood Shores Home Owners Association, said she had attended all the Planning Commission and Council meetings concerning this issue. She referred to the staff report which states the property was designated for general - commercial uses that are compatible with nearby housing... including retail and wholesale REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17.1997 MINUTES Page No. 05] PAGE 20