CC Min 1996-02-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mayor Hartnett said the prezone would have a positive impact on generations to come, would help reach a job and housing balance, create more blue collar jobs than industrial uses as well as white collar jobs that are in the future, and the Port has stated this land change would not be incompatible with the Port's future viability and profitability. The Port has set its course as a small port and it does what it does well. Mayor Hartnett stated "that inherent in a prezoning decision would be an acceptance on our part that the Port must get at least the 10 acres and possibly additional considerations....That is a land issue not just a development issue." Vice Mayor Howard said she felt it was fair for all the parties involved to hear the reasons behind each Council Member's vote. Vice Mayor Howard said that all the Council Members had studied and learned a great deal ftom this proposal. She stated that she was "charged to look at what I would like to see the use of this land be, not a project, ....but the use of this land." Vice Mayor Howard said that an industrial park would allow schools, day care centers, recreation facilities, research and development, many opportunities for business and pleasure. She said "that is what I always envisioned that piece to be, a combination of business and pleasure. I am in support of the Port and what they do, I just never envisioned it to be the entire area.....! felt my decision had to be, not being influenced by a project that was coming before me which was very enticing, with ball fields....We need land for kids to play.."biking and pedestrian paths, we want these in Redwood City.....My decision is not based on the Pacific Shores project. It has nothing to do with the project....1t is what I envisioned the land to be, whether it be this project or another. I would like to see the land zoned to do what our vision is." Vice Mayor Howard quoted newly appointed Housing and Human Concerns Committee member, Lorianna Kastrop, who said she wanted our community to be able to be the 'owners' of this land. Vice Mayor Howard said "I would like it to be understood that the project, enticing as it is, I could not vote for this project if I didn't feel certain items were addressed....traffic has to be mitigated and there has to be a cost factor that the developer will have to pick up, written in the development agreement. Protection of the present tenants of the Port, the heavy industrial users....they have to feel protected....! feel the Port commission could....help them become good neighbors if the project goes through. I don't want to vote for something implying I am voting for a project. I want the developer to understand I have real grave concerns and unless they are addressed I would not vote for the project." Councilwoman La Berge said that this project had troubled her greatly, and she had, on different occasions, supported and opposed it. Councilwoman La Berge said that in the late 80's she was very involved with those citizens who worked on the Redwood City General Plan. "At that time we had a great number of citizens who spent nearly two years working on the land use in Redwood City, and who made a determination that certain areas of our City should be used for certain kinds of employment. It was reconfirmed that heavy industry in the area was appropriate....! don't say that that is necessarily true today, but I truly feel that we need to have more time to consider, more citizen input, as to what should really happen in that area. I believe that we need to look at this area within the larger MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 084 February 12, 1996 Page 17