My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
AgdaPkt 2013-11-18 Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2013 10:11:16 AM
Creation date
11/15/2013 3:48:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Special
Agency Type
City Council
Date
11/18/2013
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.
/
402
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 131 <br /> EXHIBIT A <br /> Grounds for Denying or Modifying the Tentative Permit for 525 Middle£eld <br /> I. The proposed Development violates the following provisions of the Downtown <br /> Precise Plan (DPP): <br /> A. 1.2.4 (page 9) The Development violates the documented "community <br /> preference" for buildings that reflect the context of the historic architectare <br /> throughout the downtown area. <br /> B. 1.2.6 (page 10) The Development violates the city's commitment to "complete <br /> streets" in the Downtown area. Particularly, a ten story escarpment only twelve <br /> feet from the narrow Bradford Street side of the Development will increase <br /> feelings of"uncomfortablilty, lack of safety and inconvenience" for many users. <br /> Essentially no consideration has been given to the disparate heights between the <br /> Development and the cluster of historical buildings immediately across Bradford <br /> Sh-eet that will not tend to make pedestrians feel their streets are "safer, more <br /> livable and welcoming to everyone". <br /> 1) The Development violates the primary vision of the DPP in that it does not <br /> establish a distinctive "human scaled" district that retains the "history, charm and <br /> livability" of an historic medium sized city. <br /> 2) The Development provides no affordable housing for a"variety of income <br /> groups" as extolled in the vision of the DPP. <br /> 3) The Development violates the DPP vision that "new buildings are to define a <br /> distinctive, unique and livable form for a medium sized city...well scaled to <br /> surrounding neighbarhoods". <br /> 4) The Development does not maintain access, human scale, walkability and the <br /> right "feel"which should be "strongly rooted" in Redwood City's history. <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.