Laserfiche WebLink
Preferred average building height for any <br />redevelopment of Sequoia Station <br />SNO LOVESTIVNIE%T <br />PERCENT MAP WEIGHMD <br />o � <br />0 <br />0 <br />a <br />o ■ <br />0 <br />A 9 C D E <br />959--.— <br />U2 <br />59res-.— <br />U2 1.W, (12.7%) 0 142 13 -stories (14.M <br />Q 241 2-3 stories {25.1%) <br />Q 250 4-6 —ries (26.1%) <br />Q 121 7-9 ztori- (12.6%) <br />E 0310-12 staries(6.716) <br />F <br />San Carlos RESPONDENTS BY <br />■ NEIGHBORHOOD <br />4111■ <br />RES <br />Park X1PtjUali Ffr Oaks <br />Atherton <br />■POSIRWor <br />Menlo Park <br />�uddart Park <br />Map data 12021 Google Tern <br />7. What is the thinking behind the proposed project at Sequoia Station with <br />maximum height for office when the City survey clearly states that the majority <br />of residents were not okay with increased height for offices and the VOCA <br />survey results clearly favor buildings less than seven stories tall? <br />8. How does staff come to the conclusion that 43% of the community is fine with <br />intense growth beyond what is currently planned despite not providing detailed <br />explanations of what was meant by "planned downtown growth", "intense transit <br />district growth" and "broader growth"? (See below) Was it explained to the <br />respondents that we already have the greatest heights (10-12 stories) and <br />density allowed on the peninsula? Did they truly understand what high, <br />medium and low density equates to? Were they shown renderings? Are we truly <br />expected to believe that 43% of RWC residents want even greater growth than <br />what is currently allowed despite many contrary points of reference over the <br />years? <br />"As discussed, 43% of the community preference was for intense Transit District growth <br />which allowed for development beyond what was currently planned" - Planner O'Dell, <br />01/25/21, City Council presentation <br />