CC MIN 2013-09-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and elaborated on how the applicant has responded. Chris Wade, with SSL Law Firm in San Francisco, representing the applicant addressed the Council. She explained that they appealed due to economic hardship, and so they don't think a smaller home can obtain the financial return that they need to cover all the infrastructure costs. She noted that there is also the issue of fairness, since her clients have already been forced to do more than other people who in the neighborhood have build in the past. She noted that had Condition 19 been applied to prior homes that were just built those houses would be smaller. She asked that the Council approve the project as previously submitted and they are willing to consider some of the information but they are seeking an approach that makes sense. She believes that the issues brought forth were addressed presented by staff. Ms. Jabba closed her presentation by saying they are here in the spirit of collaboration and compromise. She thanked the Council for the opportunity. Public Hearing Toni Williams said that the prior owners just added on and did not have new homes built. He made comments about the issues that might originate from these big homes. Bruce Storms, an aerospace engineer, talked about home size. He stated that the average property slope is not mentioned in the report, and he took the time to calculate the slopes through the City archives. He said that the average was 17% slope. He opined that the staff report is not a good faith representation. He urged the Council to not consider larger home sizes. Brian Cervenka, with the Laurel Way Joint Venture, supports the development and hopes his Dad will help him out. Karen Cervenka spoke in favor of her son's plans to build. She mentioned how her son purchased property and believed there had been significant time and resources invested to make this happen. Bob Cervenka would like to see his son develop his home in this area. He believes the sizing of these properties seems to be consistent with the City's and homes around them. He would like to see this approved. Jo Ann Tyson owns property adjacent to Laurel Way, believes in individual property rights, and reasonable development. Thus, she said she opposes the proposed development. She noted that the only discretion the Planning Commission was afforded was because of the Planned Development permit. She believes the Laurel Way proposed development was using the Planned Development permit to loop hole the slope issue. Paul Tyson, a Redwood City resident, developer, and builder stated that he did not agree with the Laurel Way Project appellant, because they want larger homes to make a profit. He believes financial feasibility is not a reason to appeal. He inquired as to who is in charge and a Planned Development should not be used to circumvent rules. CITY COUNCIL September 23, 2013 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 8 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 443