Laserfiche WebLink
9A <br /> Page 56 <br /> 5. How would this alternate land use impact Redwood Cit�j? <br /> GROUP7 <br /> 2. What could be th�public benefit of the proposed Woodside Viilas project? <br /> • Group did n.ot see any p�.iblic benefit <br /> 2. Whut are your concerns regarding the proposed project? <br /> e T�affic flo�a� <br /> • Iss?ze of cuto�.its—wha.t di.f.fer.ence c�oes it make? <br /> • Amotu�t of cut through traffic on I�T�wcastle needs to be eliminated <br /> • Concerns ahout safety v��ith traffic and speeds an Newcasfile <br /> • Congesfiion on Woodside is already horriUle <br /> • What puL�lic benefit is there to building 43 more tuzits,none of which are low <br /> incame. <br /> • What happened to the s�isrnic sttidy not yet provided to B.A.G.G? <br /> 3. Hozv could your concerns be addressedJsolved? <br /> • Access to complex should be on Woodside Rd. <br /> o Recanfigirtre island and traffic light Uet�ween Kentfield and Gordon <br /> • T'ut boilards at intersections at�lewcastle and Hr�rgan <br /> • Reduce the number of stori.es Erom 5 to 4 <br /> • Reduce impact of shadow effect <br /> • Hold to zoning requirements of 40 tuzits/acre <br /> 4. Is tkere an alternate land use fnr the area that woutd better serve Redwood <br /> ,�, <br /> i.��. <br /> � City Park <br /> • Hotel <br /> 5. How would this alternafe land use i�npact Redwood City? <br /> • Ciiy�dik w GtIli�.t�'iC aCSihetlCaliy pieasing <br /> • Hotel would be Iess traffic <br /> ➢ Small Graups Report Out: <br /> PCRC small group facilitatoYS t•ecorded informRtion sllared during small group discussion <br /> and sumrnarized the information shared. FaciIit�ators were askecl to indicate w��en their��r'oup <br /> came to similc�r candusions and sliare��ew informcztian. <br /> 1. Woodside ViIlas pr.oject benefits <br /> 2. Communzty concerns ahout the propased project <br /> 3. How concerns could be addressed/solutions <br /> 4. Alternate l.and use irnpact on Redwood Ci#y <br /> 5. Cancerns/solutions for alternate land tise <br />