Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 28 <br /> <br />Date: April 20} 2009 <br /> <br />~ ~r--f--~-~ <br />h ' b rr:P q '_) , CU.V Dig l~, i~ <br /> <br />d .\ r-:, \. L ,. 1'0 <br /> <br />To: Sailesh Mehra} Associate City Planner <br />City of Redwood City <br /> <br />CITY OF: HEGWOOD CITY <br />i:.~NN1NG~RvrCES <br /> <br />-.- <br /> <br />From: Michael & Michelle Bautista <br />1543 Kentfield Ave. <br />Redwood City <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Comments to Negative Declaration for Project at 1581 & 1617 Kentfield Ave.} and <br />Comments to Community Development Services - Memo dated March 30 <br /> <br />Mr. Mehra} <br /> <br />Thank you for allowing us to comment on the documents listed above. We are pleased that the plans <br />attempt to match the mix of duplexes and single family homes in the area. But} we were disappointed <br />with several aspects of the project. In particular: <br /> <br />1. These documents characterize the neighborhood as containing only multi-unit structures} and <br />do not mention the existence of single family homes. The mix of structures on Kentfield from <br />the southeast property line of the project to Palm Ave is entirely single family homes and <br />duplexes. Including both sides of KentfieJd} there are 11 duplexes and 9 single family homes <br />between Palm and the southeast property line of the project on Kentfield. Please update both <br />documents to accurately describe the neighborhood. <br />2. The variance request for the reduction front and rear setback is NOT consistent with the <br />neighborhood. The street-side setback for lots on Kentfield and Union are typically 20 feet or <br />more. The proposed 11 foot setbacks are NOT consistent with the neighborhood and also do <br />not aiiow sufficient space for maintaining street side trees, Rear setbacks of 20 feet are <br />designed to provide privacy. From the second floor porches} the rear setbacks are only 7 feet. <br />This is close enough for someone to flick cigarette asses into a neighboring property. Please <br />respect the privacy of the adjacent properties. We recommend maintaining the R2-zoning <br />requirement for setbacks. <br />3. The variance request for three-story single family homes is NOT consistent with the <br />neighborhood. There are no three-story single family homes in the neighborhood. Not only are <br />three story structures invasive} the City is opening the door to the building of three story single <br />family homes throughout the area. We recommend maintaining the R2-zoning requirement for <br />building height and number of floors. <br />4. The variance request for the reduction of on-site parking will increase off-site parking and <br />directly affect "quality of IifeJl in the neighborhood. The on-street parking issue in the <br />neighborhood is acknowledged in the documents above. With the added driveways, this project <br />is eiiminating existing on-street parking. These are large single family homes with three <br />bedrooms. It is not reasonable to expect two parking spaces in a minimum size garage with <br /> <br />1 <br />