Res14 15311 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

homes) would be an acceptable alternative means of complying with Section 46.1's standard of achieving functional and aesthetic consistency with surrounding existing development. • With respect to the applicant's concerns regarding the financial feasibility of Alternative B, the Council is not persuaded that the construction of homes similar in size to surrounding homes would be financially infeasible, especially in light of the improving real estate market in Redwood City. In any event, the Council notes that the access road as designed and proposed by the applicant appears to be much larger and more costly than it would need to be for a small hillside residential development of this nature. The Council encourages the applicant to work with City staff to revise the design of this private road to significantly reduce its size and cost, and to keep more in character with the design of surrounding roads in the neighborhood. The Council's approval of the current Planned Development is without prejudice to the City's future consideration of proposed amendments to the Planned Development to modify the roadway design in accordance with this direction. The Council is also open to consideration of other proposed amendments to the Project in order to reduce infrastructure and/or construction costs (which, as noted above, could include the voluntary merging of lots so as to allow a lesser number of larger homes). • With respect to SLW's concern that that City's zoning ordinance 32.12(F) pertaining to creek protection and setbacks is applicable, the ordinance applies to protected watercourses. The water crossing the project site is not a protected watercourse because Article 2 of the zoning ordinance specifically defines protected watercourses as, "a perennial or intermittent river, stream, creek, watercourse, waterway or channel within the incorporated limits of the City, which specifically includes and is limited to the following: (a) Cordilleras Creek upstream of Highway 101, and (b) Redwood Creek and its tributaries upstream of Highway 101 to Bradford Street and upstream of EI Camino Real. A segment of a watercourse located within these defined boundaries but located within concrete channels or culverts, as may be determined by the Engineering and Construction Division, is not considered a protected watercourse." While the watercourse is located upstream of EI Camino Real it is not considered to be a part of Redwood Creek and its tributaries, and thus is not defined as a protected watercourse. To be more specific, the Natural Resources Element of the City's 2010 General Plan defines three tributaries of Redwood Creek as the Emerald Branch, Jefferson Branch, and Stulsaft Branch. The watercourse within the project area is clearly not one of the three Redwood Creek tributaries and is therefore not a protected watercourse. Furthermore, the watercourse is already contained within a concrete channel upstream of Laurel Way, where it then flows into an existing culvert underneath Laurel Way before being discharged from that culvert. Thus, even if the watercourse was part if ATTY/RE50.2935/RESO DENYING THE APPEAL OF LAUREL WAY RESO.#15311 REV:12-12-13 PT MUFF#603 Page 6 of 7