Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 384 <br />8.A. - Page 142 <br />available until design level ming has been, per fbtmod fbr Phase 1 and Phase 2, it is <br />not clear how these assumptions can be made without this cntieal data. It segs like an <br />accident waiting to happen! 11 <br />As for the futures, we are strongly opposed to gmnturg a plarmed D"Clopraent 1'ennit for <br />this project This would be = open invitation to h1egmnsble banding Indices, which <br />are not consistent with the Redwood City General Policy. This. property is designated <br />low density under the General Plan (C4) and is RH zoned. It senna lice the only way this <br />project could go forward is if LaWd Way Joint Ventures is given approval for a PD <br />permit. A FD permit would be environmentally unacceptable since it would iara wn <br />height rcStrichms, would allow bunching on slopes greater than 30 degrees, would <br />dowease soft" would allow building on lots that aro too small, and would allow the <br />ro m id of heritage troes. <br />These investors bought these Iota for a low price !mowing what the coning and building <br />mtrictaans were on these properties. They made the infiormed dedsyon to take a risk and <br />invest in PuPo rties, which dw new would be diiiimft to develop. Tbey should not be <br />given special privileges to build and should follow the same buiMft codes and practices <br />that they existing homeowners in the surr+au nding neighborhoods are required to abide by. <br />Everyone has a legal right to build if they follow the rales and regrtlations but not every <br />piece of land can be built on suceesrsfully. Having these zoning codes and regulations is <br />what keeps the Characteristic appearance of mounding neighborhoods. I hope that the <br />both the Plate Commission and Coinedd would consider what prooede race this would <br />set ifthey were to grant the applicant a planned development pe unit in this area of <br />Redwood C tyr <br />As for the Fruit d alternatives, I recommend that Planning Commission and Council <br />consider adopting the No Project Alwrnafive, in the MR as this alternative: seas to be the <br />only reasonable alternative which would result m reduced covironmeutal impact sexoss <br />Ow board in all categories as stated in the Final EIR and would rergWm the project to <br />follow cw=rt zoning regulations. I do not agree with rho uWcmemts in the final HR <br />suggesting that no development can result in a potential shpt cant impaea to the <br />environment singe this property has bm basically Like this forever, and no problems <br />have arisen in the past 20 or me=re years which is great evidence for support of this <br />alternalfve. I also disagree with dee com memt in the Final EIR that states under this <br />alternative, there is a possibility for piecermad construction if the individual proparty <br />own= were to apply individually for petnn4its to build. I do not sem how this would be <br />Possible since those lots eaither exceed a 30 degree slope or = substandard and do not fit <br />current zoning regulations. <br />For the record, I am opposed to alternative B as it does not fit with current zoning and <br />Knowing IS homes onto this very stoop terrain with basically litdo to no badgrands or <br />front yams is in no way duncterimic of the swrounding rural and low density style in <br />Ow neighborhood. I am also opposed to alternative C. Building bigger houses on steep <br />land is not a solution and creates more problems. This alternative does not make sense <br />that of you combine 2-3 lots of slopes that ane greater than 30% that them it is okay to <br />