CC MIN 2013-09-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

One Council Member inquired more about the General Plan and the three different engineers that reviewed the EIR. Planning Manager Lyon stated that the General Plan is a long range vision document; a road map for staff and community to move forward in its vision for Redwood City. With regards to the three engineers, he went on to say that the applicant put forth a geotechnical consultant, the City acquired its own, and then there is a third consultant was hired —these were geotechnical consultants and they all came to the same conclusion. Lauri Hietter briefly discussed the three consultants and importantly said that they agreed on the same conclusions. The same Council Member further discussed what the EIR does, its processes, and the difference between certifying EIR and approving EIR. The City Attorney added that the EIR document provides specific mitigation measures dependent upon future studies. But it also achieves specific performance measures that must be followed. M/S Ira/Foust certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote. One Council Member provided a hypothetical example of a vacant lot and the ratio the house could be built at. Mr. Lyon addressed that question and said that the Zoning Code doesn't have a floor area ratio for residential. The same Council Member discussed further the comparison table from other Cities and Condition 19. Mr. Lyon added that the reason for variations was due to cities' using different methodologies. One Council Member said that she would support Condition 19, without the edits from the Planning Commission if that was a motion on the floor. Another Council member noted that she too would support Condition 19 as presented by staff and not edited by the Planning Commission. A different Council Member agreed that the logic from staff is reasonable, but her concern is that the vision for this development does not meet the character of this neighborhood. She would support a more rural look and feel, and would like the development to fit the neighborhood. One other Council Member is concerned about having currently having no hillside ordinance. He feels that this is making a de facto action or setting a precedent. Dr. Bell said that this plan will be brought back to Council and he does envision this does not establish the City's new hillside ordinance. City Attorney Thompson interjected and said that this would be setting a frame of reference but not a reaf precedence. This Council Member said he is concerned about that. Another Council Member wanted to know if there was no hillside ordinance what is the Council to apply. Mr. Lyon said that through Article 32, it would be applicable to newly created lots. This is specifically related to lot size and not house size. The same Council Member further stated that the City could apply new building laws and Mr. Lyon confirmed. Council Member Foust would like to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. M/S FousUGee to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m. Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. CITY COUNCIL September 23, 2013 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 13 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 448