Principal Planner Passanisi stated that two actions regarding the
Redwood Shores Bayfront Plan are to be considered. The first is review
of the appeal of the EIR certification and the second is to review
and adopt the Bayfront Plan. Mr. Passanisi introduced Mike Gibson
of Stonybrook Associates, who prepared the Specific Plan.
Mr. Gibson’s presentation was made utilizing a PowerPoint slideshow.
In summary the plan includes elements to:
• relocate the existing SBSA haul road
• provide three recycled water storage tanks
• continue the bio-solids processing that has existed
• provide several new tree screens
• provide frontage improvements including sidewalks and landscaping
along Radio Road
• provide a wetland restoration for the western half of the
SBSA buffer parcel
• provide trails, boardwalks and overlooks at such time as various
other improvements are done
• provide for the Fully Alive Church re-authorization of the
existing use, plus the expansion to the worship center
• provide for no changes except for policies about limiting
antennas and similar items on the NPR property.
Mr. Gibson provided detail on four proposed modifications as follows:
1. Eliminate clean up requirement of the Fully Alive Community Church
(FACC) Open Space area – this is a prerequisite in the plan
for the reauthorization of the ministry center.
2. Relocate “North Tree Screen” closer to recycled water
tanks.
3. Modify “West Tree Screen” by removing the tree element
but retaining shrubs and ground cover.
4. Eliminate the linkage which states that the recycled water tanks
can only be built upon the removal of the existing service road.
Principal Planner Passanisi began to address the Specific Shores
Bayfront EIR appeal and the changes recommended by the Planning Commission.
Council Members asked various questions.
Mayor Claire opened the public hearing.
Appellant – Mary Morrissey Parden, representing the Redwood
Shores Owners Association (RSOA), stated that prior to stating the
basis for the appeal, she would like to be on record to object to
the agenda which as published does not allow comment on the appeal.
She stated that the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, specifically
states, “No action shall be taken on any item not agendized”.
City Attorney Yamamoto stated that in his opinion, the agendized
item is appropriate. Under the Code section named, specifically, provided
is that the Legislative body shall have on its published agenda, a
brief general description of less than 20 words explaining what the
item is. He further stated that all the essential elements that have
been raised with respect to the Specific Plan and EIR are encompassed
within the brief, general description on the published agenda. He
stated that it does meet the intent of the State statute and does
encompass all of the elements for action by the City Council.
Ms. Parden began addressing the appeal by category:
• FACC parking issue – various organizations and residents
publicly expressed concern at the Planning Commission meeting that
FACC does not have enough room on the property to comply with standard
zoning ordinances. Almost all of the 284 parking spaces determined
by the EIR to be the minimum can only be accommodated by using parking
spaces of other adjacent commercial properties. Neither the Specific
Plan nor existing zoning ordinances require FACC to obtain permanent
legal rights for shared parking.
• SBSA changes to the plan – FACC and SBSA will have entitlements
given to them by the plan if approved by the Council without any of
the new wetland restoration, landscaping or trails that are shown
in the originally proposed draft Specific Plan.
• Planned trees eliminated by the plan – a compromise
can be reached that maintains at least some of the trees or changes
to the species or size of the trees in addition to the hedge.
• Public input omitted from the EIR – most of the Gossamer
neighborhoods do not approve of the acceptance of the Redwood Shores
Bayfront Specific Plan.
In conclusion, Ms. Parden stated that it is the RSOA’s desire
that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission to work on
the community concerns.
Robin Smith, Audubon Society, objected to the tree screen on the
western side because the ponds have created a wetland habitat. At
high tide when the mudflats get inundated with water at the end of
the slough, the birds fly over the levee to the pond. The birds need
to see 360 degrees in order to deal with predators. Trees around a
wetland habitat will not work.
Appellant - Gail Stebbins, resident of Gossamer Cove, highlighted
some issues from the appeal. She referred to comment letters not being
included, letters from residents living across from the site and the
Gossamer Isle and Gossamer Cove Associations. She stated that those
associations have private streets with extremely limited parking,
the streets are narrow with fire lane size and width and a limited
number of parking cutouts for guests. They are concerned that the
churchgoers will use the parking cutouts and/or park along the side
streets. She suggested that the church be built to a smaller scale
so more space can be devoted to parking and was concerned about other
events that may occur during other weekday times. She expressed concern
that nowhere in the Specific Plan, draft or final EIR is a visual
of what the FACC would look like.
Public Comment:
David Valkenaar asked if Council had received his letter and summarized
his concerns. He stated that the modification to not require cleaning
up of the future wetland area may be shortsighted because his belief
is that although there may be damage, it will replenish itself. Not
linking the road with the others is an issue and finally, a large
facility with heavy public usage without permanent parking is problematic.
Ryan Mikolasik, President of Gossamer Cove HOA, stated for the record,
that the HOA opposes the Specific Plan and the recommendation of the
Planning Commission for several reasons: 1) Letters of opposition
were excluded and disagrees that they were repetitive. 2) The EIR
and the Specific Plan do not adequately address the long term parking
issues. In summary, he stated that GCHOA strongly opposes the development
plan and the EIR
Principal Planner Passinisi stated for the record that Gossamer Cove
did send a letter directed to the City Council, the Planning staff
did not receive the letter and it did not get included. He further
stated that the issues in the letter had been addressed in the EIR.
Patricia Dixon stated that parking will be a definite problem. She
stated that during the Bayfront Task Force meetings, at no time was
a church discussed. Her concern is that a potentially deserted building
will result due to there not being permanent parking. Her final concern
related to emissions not being considered in the EIR. She stated a
lot more study must be performed.
Council Member Jordan and Principal Passinisi agreed that the Committee
that rezoned the tidal plan zones included a church in the permitted
uses.
David Kennedy stated his credentials and that he is a resident of
Redwood Shores and a member of RSOA. As a member of the Fully Alive
Real Estate Committee, he was asked to review the proposed agreement
prepared by RSOA. The problem he expounded on was that should the
church enter into the agreement, it would violate the loan agreement
and it would immediately go into default with their lender.
David Conklin, a Redwood Shores resident, attends Fully Alive Church
and is a member of the church property committee. He stated that as
a property commercial business person on the Peninsula for 13 years,
his opinion is that the proposed parking easement allowing Fully Alive
the right to park at the Point, has been and continues to be insufficiently
characterized by many as a temporary agreement. An easement is the
legal right of one property owner to use the property of another.
An easement is appurtenant to and runs with the property which benefits
from it. The easement which the Point proposes to grant Fully Alive
will be part of the real estate which the church owns. Conversely,
the easement will be an encumbrance on the Point property creating
limitations on its use of parking. The grant of an easement expresses
the sincere intent of the owners of the Point to provide a permanent
parking solution for Fully Alive. The right of the owners of the right
of the Point to revoke the easement is simply a provision to mitigate
any potential reduction in property value which the easement might
represent in the eyes of the lender or prospective buyer.
Joe Verga, stated he is a member of the Fully Alive property board
and Governor’s Bay HOA Board. He stated that an issue with any
Homeowners’ Association is overflow parking from other uses
within the community. All the streets within these affected communities
are private, posted with parking restrictions, there are towing rules
and regulations in place, and Governor’s Bay has experienced
on occasion, the overflow from Sandpiper Community Center. The problem
was dealt with and the issue has been resolved, therefore, he does
not see overflow parking as an issue.
Jim Bewley, Manager of SBSA, highlighted some items mentioned that
relate to the plan. The first item noted was an item identified as
a change recommended by the Planning Commission, not to remove the
radio tower abutments. He stated that it was not a request of the
landowners or SBSA, but an observation of the EIR consultant. The
north tree screen was raised as a concern that people have of moving
it inward from what was the edge of the biosalt area. This item developed
again from the EIR consultant that the tree screen should be brought
closer to the treatment plant. The west tree screen along Radio Road
was determined to pose a problem for the birds. It is appropriate
to remove the existing road if a new road is built and the storage
tanks are owned by the City of Redwood City.
Council Members asked clarifying questions of Mr. Bewley.
Scott Owens, lead pastor of Fully Alive, stated he is present for
any questions pertaining to the church. He stated that consideration
of a written agreement that would not violate the bondholder’s
agreements is possible.
Dennis Logie stated that the concept of shared parking is used with
most places of worship. He further stated that 16,000 feet is not
an extraordinarily sized facility. He stated that he thinks a church
is an asset to a community and a church with a building is able to
host weddings, voter precincts and other uses.
Rich Hegeman, speaking as President of Gossamer Hollow HOA, stated
for the record that Gossamer Hollow HOA does not share most of the
concerns of RSOA. They do not believe that the parking issue will
pose much of a problem. They do not believe that SBSA’s changes
to the plan are problematic. He stated a more technical concern with
respect to the agenda and whether an appeal might be filed.
Robert Baldwin commented that many things are done in the name of
public good and he asked that while moving forward with the project,
that the impact on the wetlands be considered.
Gail Stebbins responded to the comments regarding towing company
fees. She stated that the HOA would pay for any towing fees incurred.
She further clarified that her reference to a temporary parking agreement
or easement was not pertaining to the actual legal document only that
it is for Sunday and Tuesday evenings and could be cancelled at any
time.
David Volkanaar, stated his background as a retired land surveyor,
civil engineer and 40 year public city employee. He stated that there
are permanent and temporary easements. A temporary easement is often
used to allow construction and a permanent easement will not be rescinded
by either party.
Patricia Dixon stated that in all of the sessions of the Bayfront,
the document has been referred to as a temporary parking agreement.
Her question was whether an easement will cloud the title of the Point.
Recess 10:12-10:25 p.m.
M/S Ira/Ruskin to close the public hearing. The motion passed by
a unanimous voice vote.
Council Members asked various questions of staff.
M/S Hartnett/Howard to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of
the Planning Commission to certify the Environmental Impact Report.
The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote. MINUTE ORDER 02-263
M/S Ruskin/Pierce to extend the meeting to 11:25 p.m. The motion
passed by a unanimous voice vote.
M/S Hartnett/Ruskin to adopt the Specific Plan as recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call
vote.
MINUTE ORDER 02-264