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 >
There are no annotations on this page.
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: David Wu <br />To: GRP -City Council <br />Subject: RE: Agenda Item 8.0 - Zoning Ordinance Article 33, March 22, 2021 city council meeting <br />Date: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:53:10 AM <br />CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when <br />opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. <br />David Wu <br />Redwood City, CA 94061 <br />March 21, 2021 <br />To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Redwood City <br />RE: Agenda Item 8.0 - Zoning Ordinance Article 33, March 22, 2021 city council meeting <br />I am penning this letter out of concern to the proposed modifications to Redwood City <br />Zoning Ordinance Article 33 - NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES, STRUCTURES AND <br />PARKING. <br />Specifically, the sections delineated below, <br />33.10 - Enlargement of Nonconforming Structures. <br />33.11 - Repair of Nonconforming Structures. <br />I am troubled by the suggested amendments to the content requiring that nonconforming <br />structures be compliant before proceeding with major improvements. The new verbiage <br />seemingly provides a loophole that allows one to proceed with major work without 33.11 <br />being applied as it currently is. Specifically, removing the text "Notwithstanding the <br />provisions of Section 33.10" provides this detrimental backdoor. If these changes are <br />accepted, a builder can seemingly enlarge a nonconforming structure and then state that <br />only 33.10 applies, thus circumventing 33.11. <br />I strongly believe that 33.10 and 33.11 should not be mutually exclusive as the necessary <br />safeguards are currently in place against the construction of nonconforming structures <br />within our neighborhoods and city. <br />Best Regards, <br />David Wu <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.