My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 4:43:56 PM
Creation date
6/3/2010 3:07:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
6/7/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
<br />7A <br />Page 67 <br /> <br />Chair Radcliffe noted that in the discussion so far, the lean was towards scenario two. <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas stated they were leaning in that direction, but there were no significant <br />development going on in these R-2 areas with which to draw from for further information. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda stated the items should be taken separately if they were indeed ready to <br />make a Motion. <br /> <br />MIS (Bondonno/Schmidt) to Adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt stated the Independent Study and Negative Declaration (ISND) and -- <br />talked about all three scenarios. In the Motion then, she asked if they were approving all <br />three scenarios and that their recommendations were where the specifics would come <br />in. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda stated this was exactly how it was being done. The ISND covers all three <br />scenarios. <br /> <br />Motion passes by 7-0 <br /> <br />Mr. Passanisi reminded the Commission that this item can be appealed within 7 <br />calendar days of the date of the decision which would lead to Tuesday April 27th at 5pm. <br />Protest or submit an appeal. <br /> <br />MIS (Borgens/Holt) approve the proposed Zoning Text Amendment with findings of <br />Scenario Number Two, <br />Motion did not pass 3-4. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bondonno asked if his colleagues wish to offer suggestion for clarification <br />and clearing up the ambiguity in the Zoning Test Amendment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt asked if he was suggesting taking out Other Required Conditions <br />and fleshing out the Purpose instead. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bondonno spoke to the wording "there shall be a limit of one" in the <br />clause regarding one dwelling in the combination of the single family, duplex and triplex. <br />He was comfortable with Staff's of this as "per lot" except for permitted dwelling groups. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holt asked if this was in addition to adding the text amendment which <br />included what the specifics were for the 3,333 square feet per additional unit beyond <br />10.000 square feet (13,333 SF lot and a 75-foot lot width). <br /> <br />Commissioner Bondonno stated this was a separate issue and would have nothing to do <br />with choosing one of the three scenarios. He was suggesting this language in addition <br />to recommending the text amendment to the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Tabing asked if Commissioner Bondonno was asking the Commission if <br />they thought the subsequent changes or text amendment should be added to this <br />section or taken away where it currently states "except for permitted dwelling groups." <br />Was he questioning whether or not this language was ambiguous. <br /> <br />Page 16 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.