CC Min 1996-02-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1) Traffic. This is a major concern that has not been solved except in the ear 1940's with ration books and the early 1970's with the gas shortage. Traffic problems are increasing, but this project would not "contribute dramatically to this situation. We are in 'F' level on Bayshore ITeeway now, and we will be at 'F' level with this project....We have to move, as leaders of this community, more towards rapid transit and I will be working hard in that arena in the near future." 2) Uses in the Port area and along that corridor are another major concern. "I would like to find a way to guarantee that (the heavy industrial tenants) have a home out there. As long as I am a Council Member I would never support anything that would remove that industrial zone in existing parts (of the Port area.)" Councilman Claire stated that during his lifetime he watched many heavy industrial companies leave the City, as well as Ampex and others. He stated he was glad to hear at the public hearing that companies at the Port were committed to Redwood City, but he had heard that ITom companies no longer in Redwood City. He stated that most of the 96,000 workers laid off this January were in heavy industrials, and that future economic development in the U.S.A. would be in high tech. "Redwood City (cannot) hold on to the notion that 'smokestack America' is a viable alternative,.....it would be foolish. We have to look forward and look at the economic realities of where the jobs will be and that will be in high tech." Councilman Claire added, however, "I do not want to neglect the current industrial uses at the Port. 3) Environmental Impact. The EIR shows this project would result in a 4.9 acre loss of wetlands, but would be replaced with 20 acres of wetlands elsewhere. "That is a good mitigation." 4) Port expansion. Councilman Claire stated that in spite of what has been seen as past criticism of the Port, he is "really supportive of it. I want it to be a viable, very viable port. Because the State can't touch their money....so I am a major supporter of the Port....! believe that the Port with the 10 acres will have sufficient land mass to do what they want to do." Mayor Hartnett stated that over a period of time the Council has had the opportunity to become familiar with the property and land use change that had been compelled as a result of the proposed project. The Council had received a substantial amount of information which was well presented and well articulated by all parties. The Council had been presented a multi-faceted community view with respect to the land use change proposal. Mayor Hartnett said that each issue had been raised and dealt with and the Council had been fully informed. Mayor Hartnett expressed his concern regarding three basic factors, environmental, compatibility and traffic, "wrapped around the broader land use decision of what is the highest and best use of property in that general area, specifically the area before us, consistent with the goals of our community, (and that is) the kind of use that would be allowed under the land use change that is before us tonight. I feel that the environmental MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 082 February 12, 1996 Page 15