AgdaPkt 2004-06-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� • • • s Y to the City, to be recorded on the area govemed by this Precise Plan and provided to purchasers of individual residential units. (ii) Along with the avigafion easement, purchasers of individual units will be prc vided a document, acceptable to the City, which summarizes fhe provisions of the �: vigafion easement using understandable ferms. (iii) It is the policy of the City Council to minimize noise disturbances in existing Redwood City residential neighborhoods. Therefore, except to protecf public safety, the City will not support any effort to change San Carlos Airport flight paths in existence at the time fhat this Precise Plan is adopted. Reference to this prior sentence will be included in any avigation easement or summary document prepared pursuanf to this Section 19 (c). Alternative 6 Feasibility In addition to the C�ty Council's questions during the public hearing on May 24, staff asked that the last paragraph of the Alternative 6 discussion, Section XIV(F) of Exhibit A, be deleted. The following paragraph replaces the deleted text and more simply describes the basis for finding Alternative 6 infeasible: Both the Proposed Project and Altemafive 6 set maximum Peninsula Marina Area building heights at 205 feef. However, unlike the Proposed Projecf, Alternative 6 a/so limits average building heights to 14-stories, or approximately 140 feet. This addifional development standard substantially reduces the fotal number of housing units that can be developed and, consequently, prevents the Project from reaching fundamenfal housing production objectives. For fhis reason, Altemative 6 is not a feasible alternative to the Proposed Project. The text simply clarifies the slight distinction between Alternative 6 and the proposed project in "average" height only. The maximum building height is still 205 feet for both Alternative 6 and the proposed project for the Peninsula Marina portion of the property, and 240 ft for Pete's Harbor portion. (Note that Alternative 6 is basically the same project as the proposed project except for some minor variations to set backs, amount of fill, and other minor changes) C/CAG Comments The CitylCounty Association of Governments (C/CAG) commented on the Marina Shores Village Project in a letter dated May 17, 2004 Please refer to attachment 8 of the May 24, 2004, staff report. Staff found all the comments acceptable and incorporated them in Attachment A(Proposed Revised Conditions to Precise Plan), except for Condition 3A. Conditions 3A currently states: The developer shall submit a set of final building plans for each construction phase of the project to ALUC staff and to the County Airport Manager for staff 5 C/CAG's comments are advisory to the jurisdiction having land use authority. The City could decide to exclude any of C/CAG's comments if it so wishes, although that is not recommended. 5