Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />LINDY CHAN  <br />Senior Planner, Community Development Department   <br />Phone: (650) 780‐7237   <br />E‐mail: lchan@redwoodcity.org   <br />www.redwoodcity.org   <br />  <br />  <br />            <br />  <br />From: Michael Goolsby   <br />Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:38 PM  <br />To: CD‐Lindy Chan <lchan@redwoodcity.org>  <br />Cc: Ed McCabe   <br />Subject: Re; 353 Main Street ‐ Redwood City  <br />  <br />Lindy, <br /> <br />Thank you for your call late this afternoon.. <br /> <br />I was a bit surprised to hear from you for the first time, and that you were not sure there was any basis upon <br />which Better Neighborhoods Inc (BNI) would be filing an appeal today. You stated that the issues BNI raised <br />in our March 5, 2018 comment letter were rendered moot because all parking for the Project will now be above <br />grade. This was confusing to me because your website shows no updated plans making this change. I have <br />looked at the video of the March 6th Planning Commission meeting, wherein you address BNI’s concerns by <br />stating that our analysis was based on “a 2016” submission [of the Geotech Report], and that the Applicant has <br />subsequently provided an updated memo on behalf of the Geotech engineer. <br /> <br />To be clear, no such updates for the Project were every posted online or made available to the general <br />public. You yourself stated to me on the phone today that your department also did not send BNI any <br />response letter. As a result, we feel that BNI’s and the public’s due process rights have been abrogated by this <br />lack of transparency, because all of the Project materials and particulars were not made available to the <br />public. How can a Project be approved without adequate transparency? <br /> <br />If there is, in fact, a revised Geotech report subsequent to the one dated 2016, BNI would like to see it. <br /> <br />Further, the issues BNI has raised on the appeal filed today are absolutely valid because the 2016 soils report <br />says that even if parking is at or above grade, you still cannot put a 7-story building on top of the inadequate <br />soil - it still needs to be excavated, analyzed and properly compacted, as we stated in our March 5th letter. <br /> <br />BNI also objects to the allowances for (1) 7 story height, (2) parking above-grade that is taller than allowed by <br />zoning, and (3) the lower parking ratios. Under the zoning code, the incentives granted cannot have a specific <br />adverse impact on the physical environment, and we believe that they do have such an impact as it relates to <br />traffic and limited parking. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />7.B. - Page 24