Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 43 of 85 <br />b. These new ADU and FAR ordinances will set a new bar and be extremely difficult to modify, <br />thus the importance of not rushing forward now without sufficient due diligence. And all the more <br />reason for an immediate, interim ordinance on 2nd -story ADUs above garages <br />2. Despite claims to the contrary during the PC meeting on May 21, our appeal process is broken, <br />inadequate and expensive. Furthermore, it simply doesn't address the need for increased community <br />engagement and transparency. No other city on the Peninsula has an appeal fee as high as ours. Why is that? <br />a. Our notification process is anemic at best and requires residents to be watchdogs by constantly <br />checking the difficult to use Building Eye program and/or constantly peppering staff for information. <br />b. Also, it's incredibly cumbersome and inconvenient to require residents to trudge down to City <br />Hall during limited business hours to take pictures of plans with their cell phones in order to get <br />the documentation of projects that are of concern. Given the torrent of development projects in <br />our community, why are we not digitizing these plans (as suggested by Commissioner Shoe)? <br />c. The ongoing problems with the appeal process are long-standing and well-documented. I <br />personally have had multiple conversations with Steven Turner on the subject, yet most of the <br />concerns have gone unaddressed. Appeals should not have to substitute for reasonable, smart <br />regulations and guidelines that are applied objectively and transparently. <br />d. Any suggestion last week that our appeals process provides an adequate safety net for <br />residents is categorically untrue. We can and must do better. <br />3. For anyone who believes this is solely a Mt Carmel issue, they are mistaken. It is happening in other <br />neighborhoods as well. The reason you are hearing more from Mt Carmel is that it's the only neighborhoods <br />where developers can scrape historic homes and then sell the 4,000 sq ft replacements for over $3M. <br />a. Yes, Mt Carmel's proximity to downtown and transit, its inherent appeal, the aging small housing <br />stock and ability to command virtually any price, make developer -driven projects for profit in this <br />neighborhood appealing. Why should it surprise anyone that developers are overly attracted to <br />the incredibly profitable development environment that is occurring in a charming <br />neighborhood? <br />b. This neighborhood happens to be represented by a couple of vocal residents who have spent <br />vast amounts of time being voluntary advocates for neighborhood concerns. That is why you are <br />hearing more from Mt Carmel. Given the personal and financial toll, including public <br />disparagement, long hours and the ridiculously frustrating appeal process, is it any wonder that <br />you aren't hearing from more residents and from more neighborhoods? Please put to rest any <br />suggestions that this is just a Mt Carmel problem. It's a city-wide problem that is a byproduct of <br />a crude, rushed ADU ordinance and a non-existent but long overdue FAR policy. <br />FAR <br />4. How did the conversation switch from a .40 or .45 FAR (as recommended by Council on 11/19118) to <br />the suggested .50 FAR detailed in the staff report and proposed by staff? I rewatched the Council video and <br />there was not a single mention of a .50 FAR by Council or by our City Manager at the time, Aaron Aknin. If this <br />was an honest mistake by staff, then so be it. But I hope you can understand why the public might have <br />legitimate concerns when a staff report and recommendation doesn't mirror the Council's direction. Why did it <br />take an inquisitive Planning Commissioner to point out this inconsistency at the meeting last week? And why <br />are we even contemplating a .50 FAR when that doesn't reflect the direction given by Council? <br />319 <br />