Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 382 <br />B.A. - Page 140 <br />written public record that this project will only proceed if fxngadally fumble for the <br />applicant. <br />I still smmWy believe that the size of this project i$ way to big for dds type of hillside <br />both from an aesthetic and glmical viewpoint. This type ofprojcct is not <br />characteristic with the sunamdin4g residences in size or density of proposed <br />development. The conceptual drawings visually make this project look lilm it is a <br />separate town from the existing neighborhood. And cano4tuai &awinss should not be <br />accepted as reality since they do not show details that actual arclutecturWenginecring <br />plans could provide. And just the simple fact that this project will have sidewalks makes <br />it look diffamt firom the surrounding rural neighborhood dw the rest of us am living in. <br />In the staffreport, it is noted that the applicant is advocating for lard home sizes. The <br />report goes on to state brat the proposed house sizes = consiatmt with the City's <br />existing Zoning Code, which we disagree with, since these pmapshes fall under hillside <br />development and RH Zone Codes. In Table 2.3-1, since all the lots have either a 30QA or <br />greater steepness or are leas than 10,000 sq. feet, they do not fit under current zoning <br />codes, which also is supported in the letter fi+oma Risk Jarvis. <br />Wee would also like to question the proposed Table I in the staffnpW regarding <br />Adjusted Slope Density Farmula and ask specifically what other cities were surveyed and <br />what floor square ratio's are used by put' surrounding Cities such as San Carlos, Belmont, <br />Emerald Hills, San Mateo County and Woodside in hillside development. Ibis table is <br />not Soatnoted with the sources used for the recommended calculations. Also, we are <br />wondering what happens after 35% steepness since 10 of the lots proposed is this <br />development fit this categomy and is there further calculations done for slopes reaw than <br />35•A? <br />In regards to the table provided in Appendix C of the final Elk our house located on <br />Glenwood Ave is reported as 4500 sq fit. which is not only incorrect but off by 1600 sq. <br />ft. From approved drawings from your Planning Commission in 2002 eta square fi is <br />2977 square feet an& beemse we ate Zoned RH-10 we cannot ctceed 4280 square f1_ <br />Thav&M I wonder how starry other properties are macmate in this table and how the <br />city can make the statement in this report that claims thst "the proposed residences <br />average square fnotsge is nearly identical to the average size of the adsting residences in <br />the project vicinity" which the FIR was based on. We are not clear why this report is still <br />m the mal ETR. <br />We are also eamceaned in regards to the proposed plans that were on file with the City for <br />this project and why neither the EIR nor these plans address a large rock outcropping that <br />is located on lots 8 and 9 and extends into our property as well. Since this rock <br />outxtnppmg falls into the area of where the utility trenches are proposed to be built, we <br />believe that the details of this rock outcropping need to be thorougWy studied, <br />investigated and documented as to its composition, such as if it is sezpardne, how deep it <br />extends and how our part of this rock outcropping will be preserved during any <br />