My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
AgdaPkt 2015-09-21 Joint Special SAF PAF
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/22/2015 12:12:16 PM
Creation date
9/18/2015 8:41:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
9/21/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
756
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
No Violation of the Grading and Fill Prohibition is Shown <br />Respondent asserts that the only lots with development within the creek setback are <br />Lots I and 2, and that none of them involve grading or fill along the creek setback area. <br />Respondent points to the EIR stating that no fill will be used, except to fill in holes created <br />by existing structures that are being demolished — not any fill or grading of the undeveloped <br />dirt) portion of the 25 foot setback. <br />In the Resolutions passed by Respondent on the Finger Avenue Project, the Court <br />does not see any specific reference to, or approval or, any exception to the grading and fill <br />prohibited under Section 32.12(F)(2) of the Redwood City Zoning Ordinance. <br />It is not obvious to the Court, and the parties have been unable to pinpoint in their <br />briefs, that any grading will actually take place within the 25 foot Creek setback — or that <br />Respondent has specifically approved such activity. Although there are vague references <br />to potential grading in conjunction with water drainage, Petitioners point to no specific <br />reference that this will occur within the 25 -foot Creek setback. Indeed, it is possible that <br />the grading for drainage would be around certain edges of the homes, to catch run-off and <br />divert it to the street rather than the creek. Respondent has conditioned the Project <br />approval to include that any grading work is specifically subject to particular review and <br />approval before commencing. (See 2AR 84 ¶20, 2AR 86 ¶27, 2AR 87 133, 2AR 89 ¶37.) <br />Respondent and Real Party in Interest assert that there is no unlawful grading to be <br />done in the Creek setback area — that water drainage from impervious area will drain to the <br />street and water drainage from undeveloped area in the backyards of Lots #1 through #4 <br />will continue to flow into the Creek. (See 2AR 1053 -1054, 1078.) <br />In regard to fill, it is undisputed that fill will be used to fill up the holes created by <br />removing impervious surfaces and buildings that presently exist within the 25 -foot Creek <br />24 <br />8.B. - Page 83
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.