AgdaPkt 2009-06-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 83 result of home construction 'when parking requirements were relatively low', and at the same time recommend the reduction of on-site parking for the Kentfield Project. . Variance to reduce width of private driveway and pedestrian path. Driveway width reduced to create space for structures. Needless to say, these variances create a development that is NOT in harmony with neighborhood. If the number of units on the lot is reduced to that allowed by R2 zoning, most, if not all, of these variances would NOT be required. We have made a written inquiry to the Planning Department regarding the formula used to calculate R2 lot density. As of the submission of this appeal, we have not received a response to our request for the formula used to calculate R210t density, orto our request for identifying the applicable zoning articles and paragraphs associated with the formula. OTHER ISSUES While the primary justification for our appeal is unit density, there were a few additional aspects of the approval process that we did not understand. Not knowing better, we include those here. CEQA #1: Public comments to the Mitigated Negative Declaration were not included in the Staff Report to the Commission. The staff report includes project comments and correspondences received on or before April 16, but not from April 17 to April 20. According to staff, comments received April 17 to April 20 were not received in time for printing. Yet, the Staff Report dated April 21, was received in time for printing. We do not understand how material received April 17 to April 20 was not in a Staff Report dated April 21. We are concerned that the staff did not have time to consider the comments received April 17 to April 20, and that the Planning Commission did not consider the comments in the approval process. CEQA #2: According to the Staff Report, public notke was Issued "20 days prior to the public hearing". This public notice was also the announcement of the CEQA required 20 day public review period. The review period ended one (1) day before the public hearing. Therefore, the public was only afforded a 19 day review period. No Elevations Provided: No rear elevations were provided for the 5-unit 3-story structure. We do not understand how the Architecture Review Committee can approve a project without reviewing all of the elevations. We do not understand how the public is expected to review a project without all of the elevations. No Duplex: All of the Kentfteld Project documentation approved by the Planning Commission refers to a Duplex in this project. There is no Duplex in this project. We don't understand how the Site Plan claims the existence of a duplex when there is no duplex. We don't understand how the Mitigated Negative Declaration claims the existence of a duplex when there is no duplex. We don't understand how the Staff Report claims the existence of a duplex when there is no duplex. One of the speakers at the 3