Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 66 <br /> <br />Commission made their decisions on what was best for the City overall. He was <br />unhappy to hear the continued criticism that the Commission was for the developers and <br />not for the community. He stated the Planning Commissions actions continued to be for <br />and about the best needs of Redwood City with a full understanding of how continued <br />growth plays a factor in their decisions. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Borgens asked if there was currently a judicial decision that stated what they <br />were doing was illegal in any way. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda assumed she was making reference to the Kentfield lawsuit. If not, however, <br />he assured everyone that there had been no other current judicial decision on what they <br />were discussing. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Borgens asked, dependent on what decisions they made tonight in the R-2 <br />zoning area, whether or not an apartment building mayor may not be allowed on a piece <br />of property in this zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda stated apartment buildings were a possibility. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Borgens asked if there was a way to exclude apartment buildings in the R-2 <br />zoning area in any of the scenarios offered in the presentation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas stated it was not possible to codify whether the dwelling units are to be rented <br />or owned. For that reason, they could not make such a statement about the ownership <br />type. They could, however, put some language in the Purpose section or the Permitted <br />Uses section. Staff would then take a look at the Required Conditions to make sure that <br />it was compatible to suggest this sort of limit in terms of the number of units. Someone <br />would still be able to perhaps achieve a Planned Development Permit with a few more <br />units strung together, however, unless specific wording was added ensure no more than <br />three (3) units per building in the context of triplexes and row houses, for example. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bondanna suggested a way to move forward on the issues. He noted <br />they did not have a magic number to plug in for the number of units per building in order <br />to direct Staff to figure out how to make that in a general statement. It may need to be <br />looked at neighborhood by neighborhood. If a decent project came down the pike, he <br />was looking towards a Planned Development Process that offered some control but did <br />not tie anyone's hands. He suggested adding clarity to the Other Required Uses section <br />as well as adding some language in the Purposes section as Ms. Ekas had also <br />suggested. Moving forward, he saw this as more defensible with less potential for future <br />legal questions. He was of the mind for Adoption of the Initial Study and the Mitigated <br />Negative Declaration and wished to suggest additional amendments before final <br />recommendation to the City Council. His first choice was option one, but he was willing <br />to negotiate through option two. He did not feel option number three offered any answer <br />to the infill housing problem. He was comfortable with the greater density in option one <br />because the PD was in place giving them the ability to approve or deny projects. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt stated she was more comfortable with the second scenario because <br />it landed them right between the R-1 and R-3 numbers. She felt the 13 units per acre <br />was an infill number that will help with the housing issues, but was still sensitive to <br />existing neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Page 15 of 24 <br />