My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-02-28
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-02-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2011 10:02:58 AM
Creation date
2/24/2005 3:17:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
2/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
188
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
<br />8' ß- 1\ <br /> <br />- ¡ <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT IC <br /> <br />Planning Department <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />P.O. Box 391 <br />Redwood City, CA 94064 <br /> <br />~ <br />RedwoOd <br />O-IIV olllr... <br />fI- ., <br />~...c.'." <.""'." <br />~ <br /> <br />Telephone (650) 780-7234 <br />Email: planning@redwoodcity.org <br />Website: www.redwoodcitv.org <br /> <br />September 29,2004 <br /> <br />Scott Sweeney <br />17915 Old Barn Lane <br />Salinas, Ca. 93907 <br /> <br />Dear Scott: <br /> <br />On September 28, both Jill Ekas and I met with you to discuss your vacant parcel on <br />Laurel Way immediately west of 3726 Laurel (Assessor's Parcel Number 057-301-250). <br /> <br />At the meeting you stated your belief that your parcel did not fall under the current <br />Laurel Way Development policy which prohibits any development west of 3726 Laurel <br />Way until an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other technical studies are <br />completed for the remaining vacant sites. You believe that the intent of City Council <br />Resolution 14111 adopting this policy only related to those parcels which were fronting <br />on unpaved portions of Laurel Way with no city improvements and utilities. Your parcel, <br />however, fronts on a paved portion of Laurel Way (but not up to City standards) with all <br />the necessary utility access. You also highlighted discrepancies between language in <br />the Resolution and an exhibit (map). You believe that the correct map should have <br />showed the paved and unpaved areas, and not the demarcation line showing what <br />parcels needed an EIR. <br /> <br />Both Jill and I explained that Planning staff was following the adopted policy and it was <br />very clear from the staff report accompanying the Resolution that the City Council did <br />indeed "draw a line in the sand" and that any development to the west of 3726 Laurel <br />Way could not be built until the EIR and other studies are completed. The staff report to <br />the City Council dated December 18, 2000, clearly states under Issue #4 (Policy for the <br />Remainder of Laurel Way): <br /> <br />However all other vacant parcels along Laurel Way that are located westerly of <br />3726 Laurel Way would have to comply with the requirement that an EIR and <br />technical studies (geological, engineering, etc.) covering the entire undeveloped <br />area be prepared prior to any development in accordance with Council's policy <br />adopted in 1998. <br /> <br />A map was attached to the Resolution which clearly showed those lots needing an EIR. <br />Your parcel is one of those lots. <br /> <br />Indeed, on December 8, 2003, the City Council also used this same policy and <br />accompanying map as a basis for denying an Architectural Permit for a new home <br />without completion of environmental and infrastructure studies and plans at 3738 Laurel <br />Way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.