Laserfiche WebLink
th <br /> ATTACHMENT 1 – COMMENT MATRIX FROM JULY 27 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Technical Change Proposed <br />GP Direction <br />(Note: Additions to text in bold, deletions strikethrough. Issues which require <br />Comment <br />Element Needed further direction are highlighted.) <br />20. OK with height limits on page 41, Yes See above <br />but can live with less or not being too <br />specific <br />21. Policy BE1.6: Large scale projects No Reference to historic neighborhoods will be removed; language will focus on <br />should have a block pattern that is of a walkability instead. <br />scale similar to historic RWC <br />neighborhoods. This may be <br />appropriate Downtown, but not <br />elsewhere—the policy is too limiting. <br />22. Pages 68-75 related to habitat and Yes Clarification and more direction is needed on this item. Page referenced does not <br />sensitive areas include soft language. seem to relate to comment. <br />Also, we don’t want that language to be <br />too limiting, so we wouldn't have a new <br />school in Area H, for example. <br />23. Support tighter language regarding Yes Clarification and more direction is needed on this item. <br />habitat and sensitive areas <br />24. Regarding Woodside Road and El No None <br />Camino , there is reference to study <br />taking down the overpass. Is someone <br />really going to spend the money to do <br />that? Not very practical. <br />25. Supports removal of Woodside Road No None <br />and El Camino Real overcrossing. <br />However, should include options. <br />26. Page 99 refers to Dumbarton rail No Dates will be confirmed and revised as appropriate <br />and projected dates – that information <br />is incorrect. <br />27. Page 114 refers to grade crossings No References will be fact checked and revised as appropriate. <br />being eliminated with high speed rail. Is <br />that accurate? <br />August 20, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br />