Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 132 <br /> C. 1.1 (page 13) The Development violates the "downtown vision" whereby"every <br /> built piece" of development in the Downtown area should contribute to the <br /> formation of a"vibrant and beautiful city center". <br /> D. 1.2.1 (page 14) The development does not aid in creaYing a"memorable urban <br /> district interwoven with the city's identitv". Further, it does not "actively <br /> encourage and promote the preservation of Redwood City's historic resources". <br /> Finally, it does not "make pedestrians the priority". <br /> E. 1.2.2 (page 15) The Development violates the strategic goals of the DPP by failing <br /> to "achieve benefit to the widest possible range of user populations". No ten story <br /> escarpment rising from the edge of the property line across a narrow street from a <br /> cluster of recognized historic buildings can be considered appealing to that "user <br /> population" represented by the owners of those properties on that adjacent block. <br /> F. 1.2.3 (page 16) The Development violates the future goals of the DPP in that it <br /> does not"rebuild the downtown on the traditional framework" of its history and <br /> scale. Further, although the DPP seeks to favor stylish"urbanism"versus stayed <br /> "high density suburbia", when one compares the photographs representing the <br /> vision of urbanism and high density suburbia to the Development, one can readily <br /> notice that the Development looks more like high density suburbia than well <br /> planned urbanism, in which the fronts of buildings (regardless of their total <br /> height) reflect the scale of the street and are no more than four or five stories. In <br /> fact, the photo in the DPP of high density suburbia that is to be avoided looks <br /> eerily similar to what the corner of Bradford and Middlefield will look like if the <br /> Development is approved in its current form. <br /> 1) While the DPP does not require developers to "mimid'the proposed drawings <br /> representing its vision, those of us affected by the DPP were given no waming <br /> from the materials provided about the DPP taken as a whole that buildings rising <br /> ten stories immediately adjacent to our property would be tolerated. The <br /> representative drawings in the DPP at pages 19, 20 and 23 (see Exhibit B) <br /> assumably reflect the "vision" of the designers of the plan to allow for high rise <br /> 2 <br />