AgdaPkt 2012-07-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-81- 8.A. - Page 170 ATTACFfMENT 8 The 1.fi9 acre project site is irregularly shaped (refer to Draft EIR Figure �.Q-3} and thus requires a roadway to access the project's r�ine proposed parcels. The proposed 22 foot wide one-way roadway exceptfon is considered a su�erior roadway design option for this particular development because it is proportionally sizedlscaled ta the si#e's relatively small size and �ehicular demand, The site is a relatively small sized (1.69 acre) iR-�!I property that does not warran# a full, 25 foo# wide, two-way roadway (per City Engineering standard), the width of wt�ich woufd be excessive far this small subd��ision. The proposed 22 foo# wide one-way roadway is not necessary for neighborhood or general citywide circulation needs; rather i# is a private roadway i�tended to serve ortfy nine property owners and their guests. By contrast the City has appro�ed many larger-scaled, multi-phased residential projects in Redwood Shores with pri�ate 25 foot wide, two-way pri�ate roadways (per City Engineering standard) as these roadways serve as a nefwork of neighbarhood streets for larger deve�opments that generate greater vehicle demand/ traffic volumes (i.e. �000 Redwood Shores Parkway contains 168 single family residences & 2000 Redwood Shores Parkway contains 68 single family residences, etc). The City Traffic Engineer has re�iewed the traffic reports/memos prepared by RHK and Fehr & Peers (Appendix G o€the Finger Project Draft EIR) and concurs #hat that the proposed 22 foot wide one-way roadway will meet necessary access and circulation needs of the project, 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment af a substantial praperty right of the subdivider. The General Plan land use designation and R-'f (single family residet�tial) zoning for the si#e allows up to 7 unitslacre where the Project is proposed for de�elopment at 5.3 unitslacre. The Finger Project Draft EIR Sec#ion 4 (pages 159-160 & 1fi4-168) ar�alyzed tf�ree nine unit Project Alternati�es that meet the City's 25 feet wide, two-way pcivate roadway errgir�eering standards, all of which were determined to ha�e grea#er en��ronmentaf impacts than the proposed Project. Thus the pro�ect's proposed 22 foot wide, one-way priva#e roadway is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the subdi�ider. 3. The granting of the exce�tion will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injcarious to property in the vicinity of the subject property. Allawing an exceptior� to the City's pri�ate roadway engineering standard wilf not be detrimental to the public weltare ar ir�jurious to property in the vicinity of tf�e subject property as tf�e EiR has determi�ed #hat #he project, A7N/RESp.22551ATTACHMENT 1 FINGER VESTWG TENTATIVE MAP-PC REV:06-14-12 VR Page 4 of 18