AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 142 available until design-level engineering has been performed for Phase 1 and Phase 2, it is not clear how these assumptions can be made without this critical data. It seems like an accident waiting ta happen! ! ! As for the fufure, we are strongly opposed to granting a Planned Developrnent Permit for this project. This would be an open invitation ta irresponsible building practices, which are not consistent with the Redwood City General Policy. This property is designated low density under the General Plan (C4) and is RH zoned. It seems like the only way this project could go forward is if Laurel Way Joint Ventures is given approval for a PD permit. A PD permit would be environmentally unacceptable since it would increase height restrictions, would allow building on sIopes greater than 30 degrees, would decrease setbacks, would allow building on lots that are too srnall, and would allow the remova� of heritage trees. These investors bought these fots for a low price knowing what the zoning and building resirictions were on these properties. They made the informed decision to take a risk and invest in properties, which they new would be difficult to develop. They shau�d not be given special privileges to bnild and shou�d follow the same building codes and practices that the existing homeowners in the suz-rounding neighborhoods are required to abide by. Everyone has a legal right to build if they fol�aw the rules and regulations but not every piece of land can be built on successfully. Having these zoning codes and reg�lations is what keeps the characteristic appearance of surrounding neighborhoods. I hope that the both the Planning Cornmission and Council would consider what precedence this would set if they were ta grant the applicant a�lanned development permit in this area of Redwood City. As for the project altematives, I recornrnend that Planning Cornmission anc� Council consider adopting the No Project Alternative in the EIR as this alternative seems to be the only reasonable alternative which wouId resuIt in reduced environrnenfal impact across the board in all categories as stated in the Fina1 EIR and would require the project to follow current zoning reguiations. I do not agree with the statements in the final EIR suggesting that no development can result in a potential significant impact to the environment since this property has been basically like this �orever, and no problems have arisen in the past 20 or more years which is great evidence for support of this alternative. I also disagree with the comment in the Final EIR that states under this alternative, there is a possibi�ity for piecemeal construction if the individual property owners wEre to ap�ly individually for permits to buila. I do not see how this would be possible since these lots either exceed a 30 degree slope or are substandard atad do not fit current zoning regulations. For the record, I am opposed to alternative B as it does not fi� with current zoning and squeezing 18 hames onto this very steep terrain with basically little ta no backyaxds or front yards is in no way characteristic of the surro�.nding rural anc� low density styZe in our neighborhood. I am also opposed to alternative C. Building bigger houses on steep land is not a solution and creates more problems. This alternative does not make sense that if you combine 2-3 lots of slopes that are greater than 30% �hat then i� is okay to