AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 140 written public record �hat this project will only proceed if financially feasible for the applica.nt. I sti11 strong�y believe that the size of this project is way to big for this type of hiIlside bath from an aesthetic and geotechnical viewpoint. This type of project is not characteristic with the surrounding residences in size or density of proposed . development. The conceptual drawings visually make this project look like it is a separate town frorn the exisdng neighborhaod. And conceptual drawings should not be accepted as reality since they do not show details that actual architectural/engineering plans could provide. And just the simple fact that this praject will have sidewalks rnakes it loak different from the surrounding r�al neighborhood that the rest of us are living in. In the staff report, it is noted that the applicant is advocating for larger home sizes. The report goes on to state that the proposed house sizes are consistent with the City's existing Zonix�g Code, which we disag�ree with, since these properties fa.11 under hillside development and RH Zone Codes. In Table 2.3-1, since a.Il the lots have either a 30% or greater steepness or are less than 10,000 sq. feet, they do not fit under current zoning codes, which also is supported in the letter from Rick ]arvis. We would also like to question the proposed Table 1 in the staffreport regarding Adjusted Slope Density Formula az�d ask specificalZy what other cities were surveyed and what floor square ratio's are used by our sUrrounding Cities such as San Carlos, BeImont, Emerald Hills, San Mateo County and Woodside in hillside development. This table is not footno�ed with tkie sources used for the recommended calculations. Also, we axe wondering what happens after 35% steepness since 10 of the lots proposed in this development fit this category and is there further calculations done for slopes greater than 35%? In regards to the table provided in Appendix C of the final EIR, our house �ocated on Glenwood A�•e is reported as 4500 sq ft. which is na� only incorrect but off by 1600 sq. ft. From approved drawings frorn yotu Planning Com�nission in 2Q02 our square ft is 2977 square feet and�because we are Zoned RH-10 we cannot exceed 4280 square ft. Therefore, I wonder how many other properties are inaccurate in this table and how the city can make the statement in this report that claims that "the praposed residences average square footage is nearly identical to the average size of the existing residences in the project vicinity" which the EIR was based on. We are not clear why this report is still in the Final EIR. We are a.�so concerned in regards �o the proposed plans that were on file with the City for this project and why neither the EIR nor these plans address a large rock outcropping that is located on lots 8 and 9 and extends into our property as well. Since this rock outcropping falls into the area of where the �tility trenches are proposed to be built, we believe that the details of this rock outcropping need to be thoroughly st�died, investigated and documented as ta its composition such as if it as serpentine, how deep it extenc�s and how our part of this rock ontcropping will be preserved during any