CC Min 1996-02-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_nn______n__n______--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Hartnett declared a recess at 9: 17 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:31 p.m. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. STAFF REPORTS A. Council to consider the application of Pacific Shores Limited Partnership to prezone 116 acres at 1000 Seaport Boulevard ITom "M-2" (Heavy Industrial) District (unincorporated San Mateo County) including 106.5 acres to "IP" (Industrial Park) District Redwood City, and 9.5 acres to "GI" (General Industrial) District (Redwood City) Pacific Shores Prezoning (602) THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED, PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARD, AND THE HEARING CLOSED ON JANUARY 29, 1996 AS PUBLISHED. REPORT: Project Planner, February 12, 1996 Letter ITom the Redwood City Port Commission, February 8, 1996 Mayor Hartnett provided a summary of Council actions regarding this matter. Planning Director Patterson elaborated on the Council's options: 1) Deny the prezoning; 2) Provide new direction and remand this issue to the Planning Commission for further deliberation and subsequent recommendations; 3) Prezone a smaller area than proposed; or 4) adopt the Ordinance to prezone the property. Director Patterson advised that the decision before the Council was a land use issue only and not a decision on any specific development. Guy Smith, 675 Seaport Boulevard, Chairman of the Board of the Redwood City Port Commission, summarized the letter sent to the Council and expressed the Port's support of a land use designation and general plan amendment that would allow for an office park on the 106 acre parcel, "provided: that there are assurances to protect the existing and future Port industrial users; that there is a transfer of at least 10 acres of land for future Port expansion at the time that the Port's priority use designation is removed by BCDC; that there are guarantees that proper mitigation measures will be in place to protect the existing and future Port industrial uses; and that there are guarantees to the Port for reasonable access to the 10 acre site." Mayor Hartnett asked if the Commission's position was that "the reasonably obtainable goals of the Port in terms of future expansion can be met and would not be unduly harmed as a result of the land use change being approved, provided that the additional acreage that you referred to is made available to the Port." Chairman Smith stated "that is correct." MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Page No. 080 Regular Meeting Minutes February 12, 1996 Page 13