CC Min 1997-11-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

nurseries, public storage, warehousing, public recreational or other parking, and low-rise office R&D. She said, "it was stressed over and over again at all these meetings that it was going to be nothing important, just low-rise, wholesale nursery, public storage, warehousing, things that would make good neighbors. Nurseries are trees, that's a good neighbor. Public storage, they are very quiet... and they have a security person there... It was never discussed that there would be a four-story office building with over 115,000 square feet." Ms. Ford also quoted Planning Commission McCoy's statements that the Plan never mentioned such a large office building. She said this Project was not compatible with the neighborhood, and noted the projected 1,600 vehicle trips per day. Ms. Ford asked, "Why is it, traffic is never considered serious by people who don't live or drive in the area under consideration?" Colleen Jordan, Lee Ann Crabtree-Sprick and Ashley Trewman advised from the audience that they wished to yield their three minutes to Carol Ford. Ms. Ford said the reason why traffic consultants state traffic cannot be worse than "F" is, because that is gridlock, and this Project will only create more gridlock. She said it is extremely difficult to get into Redwood Shores now. She said shuttles haven't worked so far, and "there is not enough parking at this site" for its projected use." Ms. Ford said the Traffic Assessment District isn't working, and she has never heard anything to support the claim that commercial was to be allowed east of Bridge Parkway. "Westport was part of 101 not a part of Redwood Shores Properties." Ms. Ford said the actual height of the proposed four-story office building had not been disclosed and she would like to have that figure. Ms. Ford said, "then there is the problem of integrity, and that problem hasn't been addressed yet, in this way. We were told these were the types of buildings that we were going to get in Redwood Shores. That it was going to be a wholesale nursery or storage, and that this was a buffer zone. A buffer zone could be nothing on the property at all, or a park.... I think that promises to the community should supersede the promises to the Limited Partnership involved here, however sincere and well meaning they are. To change things without regard to what has been promised before is not right. This is one of the last opportunities in Redwood Shores for you to do the right thing for Redwood Shores. I hope that you do." Carlos Panaeeione, 804 Corriente Point, said, he disagreed that there are no choices and this should be a learning experience. He said one issue not previously discussed, is "the majority of the people that this new complex would be affecting did not live in Redwood Shores a year and a half ago. He said, "I myself received this notice tonight at 7:45 when I got home and came straight to this meeting. It was the first tirne I was aware that there was possibly no chance of stopping the Lido Project." Mr. Panaccione said, "We can all agree that any road can take maximum traffic. It's whether you want to live on that road." He described what traffic was like when he lived on Union Street in San Francisco, and said he did not want Redwood Shores to develop the same kinds of problems. Mr. Panaccione said there was a choice, "a choice to come up with an alternative that will allow the community to live with this." He said the project will not only affect Redwood REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 NOVEMBER 17, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 052 PAGE 21