Laserfiche WebLink
___________________________________________________________________________________ <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD/ April 13, 2015 <br />PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES PAGE 13 <br /> <br />Alen Bygness spoke about an incident 5 years ago where two very steep lots were <br />developed without a building permit. He spoke about homes that were destroyed by <br />landslides. <br /> <br />M/S Seybert/Howard to close the public hearing. Motion carried by voice vote with <br />Council Members Aguirre, Pierce and Vice Mayor Foust recused. <br /> <br />Mayor Gee asked staff to clarify some topics brought up by public speakers. Mr. Aknin <br />stated that the current proposal is not proposing that nonconformities will occur; <br />however, if there was a strict FAR cap, then that would create nonconformities. He <br />agreed that if the Council wanted a delayed timeline then staff would be happy to do <br />that. He noted that Building Codes change every three years as mandated by the State <br />of California. He stated that if there were an FAR requirement there would still be an <br />Architectural Review requirement, which is typical. <br /> <br />Council Member Howard asked about how the geotechnical report is paid for and what <br />methods are utilized to ensure it is an accurate report. Mr. Aknin replied that Staff either <br />utilizes in-house Staff that has that expertise, or on-call experts are hired and paid for by <br />the developer. Council Member Howard noted that Planned Development Permits have <br />been used to allow for flexibility with homes, but there are too many variables in the <br />hillsides to have such a flexible document. She asked if the PD Permit might phase out <br />at some point. Mr. Aknin stated that the PD process will be used for the lot but not <br />construction. Staff is also going to look at the PD process in its entirety to evaluate its <br />efficacy. Council Member Howard noted that in other municipalities that use the Floor <br />Area Ratio, they are applied throughout an entire city and Redwood City does not <br />currently have that requirement. It would be inconsistent to apply FARs only to the <br />hillsides. <br /> <br />Council Member Seybert asked if this applies to empty and existing lots, with uphill and <br />downhill slopes and Mr. Aknin confirmed that is correct. Council Member Seybert <br />stated that sloped lots are going to be treated differently because they are shaped <br />differently. He stated that Planned Development Permits are exceedingly subjective <br />which is why they are going to be changed. He stated that this process is in fact adding <br />more objectivity to the process and that the Zoning Administrator is a public process <br />with the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Council Member Bain noted the 3,000 square foot house size that triggers the <br />Architectural Review and asked what the minimum slope is. Mr. Aknin replied that any <br />lot 15% or more with a home of 3,000 square feet or larger will trigger the Architectural <br />Review. He noted that the process for expansion on existing homes has not changed <br />as much. Council Member Bain asked how lot owners know the slope of their lot. Mr. <br />Aknin replied that it is in the City's GIS (geographical information system). Council <br />Member Bain asked about the process for deciding the maximum house size based on <br />slope. Mr. Aknin spoke about the decision-making process for deciding on this <br />ordinance and felt that for safety this was the best process. <br /> <br />7.1.J. - Page 13