My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2021.03.22 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
AgdaPkt 2021.03.22 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2021 12:21:02 PM
Creation date
3/18/2021 4:58:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
3/22/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
Created:
4/7/2021 12:01 PM
Modified:
4/7/2021 12:01 PM
Text:
mailto:krisjohnson@gmail.com
ID:
2
Creator:
Created:
4/7/2021 12:01 PM
Modified:
4/7/2021 12:01 PM
Text:
mailto:mdiaz@redwoodcity.org
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
546
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
From: <br />Kris Johnson <br />To: <br />MGR -Melissa Stevenson Diaz <br />Subject: <br />Item 6H on the consent calendar - ADU <br />Date: <br />Monday, March 22, 20213:19:35 PM <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when <br />opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. <br />Hello Melissa, <br />I was just reading the ADU ordinance that is on consent this evening. I noticed the 576 sq ft limit for a second -story <br />of a detached ADU is no longer part of this ordinance. Understandably, the size limit for a second -story was <br />removed from the 3/8/21 ordinance because it prohibited a two-story detached ADU. That provision was never <br />brought up for Council discussion and public engagement on the issue. Why was it not put back in? I would like to <br />assume this was just an oversight, nonetheless, the public was never formally notified that this provision was being <br />dropped nor was Council involved in this decision. Not having the ability for Council or public comment is not <br />due process. This could lead to legal challenges to this ordinance. <br />Furthermore, the vote on the 8th was to affirm Council's interest in a 20 -feet height limit but this is the first time the <br />ordinance's provisions specifically related to height (i.e. balconies, external stair placement, etc...) will come to <br />Council. How can this be on consent and the second reading? <br />Finally, I question whether or not all neighborhood associations are aware of this proposed ordinance and have been <br />notified of the content of the most recent ordinance. Can you please share with me what public outreach has been <br />done on these most recent changes? <br />Regards, <br />Kris Johnson <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.