CC Min 1997-05-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

because it is in an R-l neighborhood. I am not against 'infill', I believe it belongs in the downtown and El Camino corridors. In this particular site, the concept of 'infill' does not sway me.... I think the General Plan is correct. I don't think there is a need to amend it at this point. I do not believe in developing a particular zoning designation for three properties in Redwood City. I would hope our Community Development Department would have more creative ways of addressing that problem through existing zoning ordinances or appeal processes and variances." Mayor Hartnett said, "If the motion passes, what it means is the project as proposed to us could not go forward, and the other issues that are before us tonight would become moot. We would not need to vote on those, because without a General Plan change the other amendment to the zoning ordinance is impossible, and then a rezoning doesn't take place, and the covenants regarding parking easement become irrelevant as well. I intend to support the motion for similar reasons to Councilman Claire. As I look at this site and the issue of rezoning I have cause to consider that while housing is an important value that we need to support in our community, there are other values that we need to support as well. Those values include churches, schools, they include adequate open space and playing facilities. They include commercial developments where they are appropriate. Now, the zoning here clearly, if it is not changed, remains as commercial. There are uses for that commercial property that are non-commercial that would fit within the current zoning - a church, church school, or public school could all be on that property without a change in zoning, providing an appropriate Conditional Use Permit is issued. There are planning controls through that process, but a zoning change is not required for that purpose. What the future of this property may be, is not certain... but I think it is important to recognize that if we did the General Plan change tonight, then the logic would be to do the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and make the other decisions, and this property would thereafter be permanently removed ITom its availability for those other qualities that I think, and other values that I think are extremely important in our community, and have virtually no other place to be expressed. We are running out of places.... Housing, while important, we have opportunities in other portions of our City for much higher density housing that is appropriate to the area, the Franklin area is one that we are actively working on. And we have produced in Redwood City far more than in any other city on the Peninsula, additional housing over the last five years.... It is never enough in terms of numbers, but sometimes you have to say it is enough in terms of quality.. .. I would like to compliment the Planning Commission and staff." Mayor Hartnett said despite the fact he did not agree with their recommendations he greatly appreciated how hard they worked on this project, and "we have to recognize that Planning Commissioners are no different ITom anyone sitting in the audience." They are volunteers who are doing the best they can for the benefit of the entire community. He said, "They gave it their best shot, and I know staff worked diligently on it as well. The applicant is also to be commended. My vote has nothing to do with the quality and the background of the applicant. There is a demonstrated history of good buildings, sensitive to the community's needs, and they did attempt to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors." Mayor Hartnett said there was really nothing the developers could have done to convince him to approve the projects, "because REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY 12, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 318 PAGE 12