CC Min 1996-01-29 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mayor Hartnett declared a recess at 10:03 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m. ---___n_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In response to Council questions regarding RMC Lonestar's long term commitment to the City, Jim Scheindenberger, representing RMC Lonestar, 876 Seaport Boulevard, described RMC Lonestar's property owned at the Port and advised that the terminal is one of two major cement terminals in Northern California for RMC Lonestar. Mr. Scheindenberger advised that imports were handled at this facility with approximately twelve employees, and they intended to stay. In response to Council questions, Mr. Hammond explained the sketch plan for a maritime industrial use (bulk handling and related industry) for the whole 106 acres, as a conceptual plan as Pacific Shores Center project was conceptual. Mr. Hammond listed a number of huge construction projects slated for the peninsula and bay area in the next few years. Mayor Hartnett called on those in the audience who had submitted speaker's cards. Patricia Dixon, 16 Admiralty Place, stated there was no other land available for heavy industry and urged Council not to give the subject property away. Mrs. Dixon cited the noise, wind, dust, traffic and noise from the amphitheatre to consider, and told council if it must approve prezoning then it must keep 40 acres for the Port. Pat Webb, 540 Price Street, Member of the Board of Directors of the Redwood City San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce, and Chair of the Economic Development Committee, advised Council that the Board voted to support the proposed project in concept, stating the project has the potential to vitalize economic development and she urged Council to permit the change in land use. Nick Watry, 1050 Lakeview Way, member of the Redwood City Planning Commission and Redwood City citizen, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Watry commented on the late submittal of documents, discussed indemnification, and urged Council to ask where the developer would be in ten years when legal problems arise. Mr. Watry stated that approval ofthe proposed prezoning would allow the project to go on and on, it would be a thermometer, measuring the attitude of the City about the proposed development. Mr. Watry stated he hoped the Council would not approve the prezone and that the developer would give up so other appropriate things could happen. In response to Council questions, Mr. Watry stated a hold harmless clause in the development agreement would protect the City ITom lawsuits, and he was challenging the developer to do the same thing for the current Port tenants. Lorianna Kastrop, 28 Meadow Lane, spoke in support of the proposed public amenities stating that the current Port tenants did not provide any amenities to the City, and after MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Special Meeting Minutes Page No. 048 January 29, 1996 Page 12