Laserfiche WebLink
setback. This would seem to be within the category of "protective restoration" "or <br />otherwise provide for the public health or safety", as permitted by Section 32.12(F)(2). <br />The EIR states: "No fill is proposed along the rear ofLots 1 through 4, except that needed <br />to fill in any below -grade holes or areas that might remain after demolition of existing <br />structures or to fill in the existing concrete foundation remnant that is located at the rear of <br />Lot 4 (2AR 1053.) <br />The Court does not see evidence of violation of the Redwood City Zoning <br />Ordinance in regard to grading, fill, and "disturbance" within the Creek setback (other than <br />houses, as discussed above), and thus does not find any "abuse of discretion" by <br />Respondent in regard to grading and filling. <br />Approval of the 22 Foot Private Road Was Not Abuse of Discretion <br />Real Party in Interest needed approval for a road that does not meet existing <br />requirements, because the road needs to be smaller than usual so that the lot sizes will be <br />big enough to build the large homes that Real Party in Interest wants to build. <br />Real Party in Interest, as part of the Finger Avenue Project, obtained permission to <br />build a 22 -foot one -way private road with one 4 -foot rolling sidewalk — which is an <br />exception to the municipal standards. It is a horseshoe shaped "U", acting as the main <br />road entrance to the nine parcels proposed to be subdivided. The plan provides for a <br />22 -foot wide, one -way private road with a four -foot wide sideway, instead of the minimum <br />required 25 -foot wide (or 34 foot wide), two-way road with a five foot -wide sidewalk for a <br />private street under the City's Engineering Standards and/or Municipal Code. <br />Respondent references Section 30.118 of the Redwood City Municipal Code, <br />giving authority to grant exceptions to the regulatory measurements required of streets and <br />W <br />8.B. - Page 84