AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 69 stressed his trust of the Planning Staff and the Commission. He noted his trust extended towards the Architectural Review Board and Redwood City itself when it came to building greater neighborhoods. He noted that they were clarifying the language and making sure the amendment and the Zoning Ordinance was clear to all involved in order to protect the best interests of Redwood City and its future growth. Vice-Chair Borgens noted she too had great faith in the Planning Staff and the Commission. Leaning towards scenario number two, she stressed, in no means reflected a lack of confidence in those involved. Commissioner Bondonno reiterated that he was still holding out for scenario number one. He was comfortable that the PO permit process allowed them to keep, when appropriate, the density below the maximum, looking at it neighborhood by neighborhood. Commissioner Smith noted he was going with scenario number two if he had to support one option only. However, he also had a lot of faith in Staff and the Commission's standpoint today and in the future regardless of which option was passed. Mr. Aranda reminded everyone the Motion was to adopt option number two, the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment with scenario number two. M/S (Bondonno/Schmidt) moved to recommend the Zoning Text Amendment to the City Council with scenario Number one, Motion passes 4~3 Commissioner Bondonno proposed the change in language to reflect that previously suggested by Staff and the Assistant City Attorney. Attorney Aranda noted the change in language would appear as "building per lot except for permitted dwelling groups, approved pursuant to a Planned Development permit." He noted the language removed doubt and adds clarity. Ms. Ekas noted they had not suggested any language regarding structures, in terms of dwelling units per structure. At this point they were that to the PO process. Ms. Ekas clarified the appeals process and what could and could not go under appeal. The first action that the Planning Commission took, which was to adopt the Initial Study and Negative Declaration can be appealed. The second one is a recommendation to the City Council, as was the third action a recommendation to the City Council and Zoning amendment. Because the last two are recommendations and not official concluded actions they cannot be appealed but the next step is to follow them to the council. 6. INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - CETRAL BUSINESS RETAIL (CBR) DISTRICT (PUBLIC HEARING) Jill Ekas, Housing and Economic Development Director gave the following PowerPoint presentation: Zoning Test Amendment Central Business Retail (CBR) Zoning District Page 18 of 24