My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/29/2020 11:08:42 AM
Creation date
9/20/2013 9:10:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
9/23/2013
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
751
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
8.A. - Page 312 <br />B.A. - Page 70 <br />GROUP 2 <br />I. What do you like about the proposal? <br />2. What concerns you? <br />o Existing infrastructure in bad shape on surrounding streets. Haw can we thea add to <br />already fragile infrastructure? <br />+ Too high density <br />Fragile area <br />o Steep <br />o Water draining down <br />o Development too large for lots <br />+ Concern EIR is not worst case scenario but the developefs dream scenario <br />Doubt integrity of EIR. Why could developer input maadmum buildable house size? <br />Why wasn't it done relative to maximum size of house in the neighborhood? <br />• Traffic impact with a minimum of 36 additional cars <br />+ Repairing road <br />+ SoiI erosion <br />+ One house previously slid down the hill <br />e If City widens the road, some homes will lose a portion of the front of their properties <br />3, Hors could your concerns be addressed? <br />o Open Space lot size is included in averaging the size of all lots, This makes ratio % of <br />lots to house sizes inaccurate. EIR should be changed to reflect this discrepancy <br />+ Address concerns by conforming to current building codes on hillsides <br />4. What additional information do you need about this prod? <br />o If the City isn't responsible for utilities and infrastructure, who is responsible for safety <br />services, including fire? ANSWER: Proposed roadway has to allow for public safety <br />access <br />c Is there a limit on # of construction startslyear? <br />GROUP3 <br />1. What do you like about the proposal? <br />What concerns you? <br />+ Danger to homes below the news homes because of slope <br />8 PIR did not include adjacent areas. It should <br />• Outcropping tree #193 not addressed <br />Have tarn of questions we need City and developers to answer rather than talk to <br />ourselves for the rest of the night <br />Current regulations prohibit slopes over 30%. Only Z lois are buildable ender current <br />regulations <br />Sets precedent. Could translate to building on other substandard lots <br />3of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.