AgdaPkt 2019-08-26 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 42 of 85 CD -William Chui From: CD -William Chui Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 8:49 AM Subject: FW: Feedback from 5/21 meeting on ADU and FAR From: Kris Johnson Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 10.11 AM To: GRP -Planning Commissioners <PC@redwood city.org> Cc: CD -Steven Turner <sturner@redwood city.org>; ATTY-Prasanna Rasiah <prasiah@redwoodcitV.org>; CounciHan Bain <ibain@redwoodcitV.org>; Council -Diane Howard <DHoward@redwoodcitV.org> Subject: Feedback from 5/21 meeting on ADU and FAR Dear Planning Commission, Thank you for your time and deliberation on these two complicated issues. Even with the criticality of getting this situation addressed quickly, I fully support sending these items back to staff for more data points, analysis, and deliberation. In the meantime, I echo Rachel Halt's recurrent call for a moratorium (or interim ordinance) calling for the immediate halt to 2nd -story ADUs above garages while we hash out this policy over the next few months. To be very clear, I am not asking for a halt to all ADUs. Rather, I am asking for the temporary halt on 2nd -story ADUs above garages new and incomplete applications until the updated ordinance gets approved. Some of you expressed serious concerns back in 2017 about the new and rushed ADU policy. City staff made promises that never materialized re: addressing these concerns. In this void, plans that push boundaries to the max and lead to neighborhood strife continue to pour in. Just last week, another neighbor who lives adjacent to the approved ADU at 208 Lowell (see attached image) expressed to me how irate she is, feeling that our City is turning a blind eye to its residents. A series of key questions came up from this devastated resident: • Why is it up to residents to fight 1:1 with their neighbors? • How are residents supposed to keep current on technical building codes and arcane regulations? • Why does Redwood City continue to allow projects that aren't allowed in most cities on the Peninsula? Fallowing are a few of my concerns, questions, and suggestions that have arisen from the meeting on 5/21: PROCESS 1. I would hope we can agree that both FAR and ADU would have been better served by an extensive study session (or two) prior to last week's Planning Commission (PC) meeting. An ordinary PC meeting should not be the vehicle to create a policy on the fly even if it is interim ordinance (as is the case with FAR). Given the complexities of the two issues and the implications for every Redwood City resident, did staff truly believe we were going to (or should) hammer this out in one PC meeting? It was a tall ask of the engaged public who want to keep involved to slog through a 4.5 -hour meeting. a. Why we didn't have a study session for these two issues? Was it to save time or to short-circuit the process? I recognize the necessity for expediency, but we would be better served by an interim ordinance that gets it right the first time. This is why some of us have been asking for a moratorium on 2nd -story ADUs. 318