CC Min 1997-06-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

churches in Redwood City do this already, in very close proximity to neighbors. I understand Mr. Saisi's concern. He is impacted the most. But I do feel that this is a compromise. If we want churches in neighborhoods to co-exist. The church has been there since 1950, and from what I can see has been a good neighbor. If you have driven that area, that lot is a dust bowl. I would not want this next to my house. What they are proposing will be reviewed by architectural review as well as Engineering. My suggestion would be to see which would be more appropriate, spanning the culvert or doing major construction. May be there is something a little less intrusive that could be worked out. But the last time this came up in October of 1995, I thought this was a very, very good suggestion and a good compromise, and I did vote for it, and I will vote for it again, because I still think this is an answer. It is not the perfect answer, but I don't want to see people now going back for another year or two and never having come to a solution, when possibly this is the solution for 90% of the people in that area, and the 10% who are impacted, I apologize, but my decision stands. I still feel it is the right decision to make." Councilwoman La Berge said, "Mr. Saisi's argument was a persuasive one, and certainly I think any of us who would be in that position would have the same concerns. But I do believe that the plan that was brought forward by the church to provide landscaping and fencing was a good one. I think that it is unfortunate that there won't be the opportunity, obviously, I am going to vote against it, but I'll be in the minority, that there won't be an opportunity to begin to upgrade this area. And I know that some of the neighbors don't think that's what would happen, but my belief is, that if a really well designed parking area was put in and very careful landscaping and fencing, that it would have been an improvement to the area. I'm really sorry that you haven't been able to come together with a plan that you could all support. As I did last time I will support the church's position. Mayor Hartnett said, "I find something certainly good to be said about the arguments that my colleagues have made both in support of and in opposition to the motion. I disagree with Council Member Claire in one respect. I do think that this is an attempt by the church to be neighborly. It may not be perceived as such by the neighborhood, and perhaps as we find in the case of significant commercial developments, a lot of times how something is perceived depends on how it is formulated and when it is first formulated and how it is discussed with those who are directly impacted by it. We have two contrasting examples of commercial development in that respect: One is the Circle Star developrnent in which the developers came in with a major project and won over the neighbors who were opposed to it, such that representatives of the neighborhood came out to speak in favor of the project. Not there just to be neutral, or to oppose it, but actually came to praise the developer. And we have contrasting that the Roosevelt Petrini site, where the developer was never able for whatever reasons, to elicit any neutrality, much less support from the neighbors. And some times it may be just in the approach. I do think this is an attempt to be neighborly." Mayor Hartnett said that on the other hand he did agree with Councilman Claire, that the neighbors are REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JUNE2,1997 MINUTES Page No. 382 PAGE 26