Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 69 <br /> Policy BE 10.3:Ensure that development in Waterfront Neighborhoods considers and plans for <br /> potential impacts associated with climate change and sea level rise. <br /> Policy BE-22.2 Limit new development within the flood plain or ensure new development <br /> incorporates extra precautions into the site and building design to account for flood plain location. <br /> Policy BE 24.2:Focus infill growth in the City's Centers and along the Corridors with the twin <br /> objectives of addressing global warming issues and maximizing use of limited resources. <br /> Policy BE 24.11: Consider the impacts of global warming, such as rising sea levels and <br /> floodplain areas, when reviewing plans for new development. <br /> Damage to surrounding buildings and similar developments on bayfront landfill on Peninsula <br /> Settling and damage to the Villas should be explored, and the Villas ownership of a view <br /> easement should be confirmed to avoid litigation. Settlement and sinking of structures in <br /> Redwood Shores should be explored and confirmed. This development is on a potentially <br /> unstable landfill that was undertaken by a private party, not a corps of engineers overseen by <br /> local, state and federal officials and standards. <br /> E. Affordable Housing; <br /> The Pauls Corporation's proposed development plan is not in accordance with the General Plan <br /> since the General Plan expects Precise Plans.Every city must have a certified housing element to <br /> satisfy all needs of the community. SPH suggests a dialogue about the certification of the <br /> housing element.The housing element needs to be updated every five years. <br /> Why has the City of Redwood City not taken responsibility for the affordable housing element? <br /> Although 1,000 units of housing are being added to Redwood City, no affordable housing units <br /> are being added, and The Pauls Corporation's development plan intends to unnecessarily remove <br /> existing affordable housing units by displacing 184 residents from Pete's Harbor. <br /> The city is jeopardizing the affordable housing element by failure to maintain adequate affordable <br /> housing.The cumulative impact of displacing approximately 400 residents from Peninsula <br /> Marina and 184 from Pete's Harbor is shameful. <br /> CEQA Guidelines Amendments 2009 -Appendix G, XIII(page 49):This project would displace <br /> substantial numbers of existing housing and substantial numbers of people. In addition CEQA <br /> guidelines respecting relocation of community are applicable and must be considered, with <br /> attendant responsibility to ensure local housing relocation in such a displacement. <br /> General Plan, Appendix B: There are a number of floating homes currently in existence <br /> at Site J (also known as Pete's Harbor). The site includes the marina,but there is no <br /> assumption that these housing units would be lost as part of redevelopment. The retention <br /> of liveaboard slips in the marina is supported in any proposed redevelopment plan. <br /> It is noteworthy that all published plans and references that the SPH coalition can find in <br /> the general plan documents assume or reference keeping liveaboards at Pete's Harbor. <br /> F. Historic and Architectural Matters: <br /> The Redwood City General Plan Section 1.5 discusses the Historic Preservation <br /> Ordinance and Historic Resource Advisory Committee. The ordinance is intended to <br /> 10 <br />