My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2009
>
AgdaPkt 2009-08-03 spc, clsd and jnt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2013 12:20:14 PM
Creation date
7/30/2009 12:41:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
8/3/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7A <br /> Mayor Foust Page 40 <br /> May 21, 2009 <br /> Page 2 <br /> correctly stated the findings to be made for modification of the 25-foot setback standard <br /> which include avoiding the discharge of polfutants into the creek, non-disturbance of <br /> riparian vegetation, and maintaining stability of the creek bank. Ali three of these factors <br /> were fully covered as Commissioner Gee stated in the applicant's submit#als. As <br /> proposed by the applicants, there�s no diminution of water quality because the storm <br /> v�ra#er is being fully fi(tiered and directed to Finger a�enue, the riparian habitat wi!! be <br /> preserved and improved upon, and the stability of the creek bank wiil not be#he least bit <br /> impacted by#he development. Ne�erfhefess, three of the Pianning Commissioners <br /> ignored the findings tha# could be made for an exception and simply expressed the fact <br /> that this was the firs# deve�opment#o come befare the City fhat involved a 25-foot creek <br /> setback consideration. Thev were troubled with having to be the first to act on a <br /> modification request covered under the umbrel[a of the PD application. They did not <br /> fairly act on the applicant's perrni# reque�t and failed to adopt nra�er findings. . . � <br /> Thereafter, the Planning Commissianers denied the vesting tenfiative map simply , <br /> because they had denied the pEanned development permit. <br /> This project has been pending before the City since July 10, 2006. While it has <br /> remained a 9-unit subdivision, fhe deveivpment has been substantfally madified to <br /> address concerns o�staff and the Commission. The project has been fully analyzed in <br /> the fnitiaf Study for CEQA purposes. Accordingly, the appiicants believe that the project <br /> meets all the requirements af the General Pian; the R-1 zoning districfi, fits the <br /> provisions of the planned development permit process and #he Storm Wa#er Pratection <br /> Ordinance. An extraordinary amount of consultant work has been done to anaiyze the <br /> geoiogy and soils of the prajecf sit�, preservation of#re�s, s�te bioiogy, drainage <br /> impro�ements, and internal roadway design and safety. We be�ieve this is a projec�of <br /> which the City can be proud. <br /> 1t is our understanding from the City Attorney fihat the City Council will hear t�is <br /> matter de novo and the applicant looks forward to making a full presentation to the City <br /> Council. <br /> Very t iy yours, <br /> ��� �� � <br /> v <br /> Robert J. L nzone <br /> cc: J.R. Rodine <br /> Kirk McGowan <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.