AgdaPkt 2009-06-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Planning Commission packet was delivered to the Commissioners on Thursday,Page 4 April 16, 2009 [in accordance to the Government Code (Brown Act), committees and commissions must receive the packet 72 hours before a given meeting]. All comments received up to this date were included in the packet. All correspondence received after this date, which included one letter of opposition from the appellant and two letters of support, were provided to the Planning Commission before the meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2009 (in accordance v\!ith City and State standards). . "CEQA #2" The appellants state that the public comment/review period was not for the required 20 days. The public review period commenced on April 1, 2009 and ended at the close of business day on April 20, 2009. The Planning Commission held the public hearing on April 21, 2009 in conformance with CEQA. The public comment period can close before the hearing. . No Elevations provided The plan sets contained sections and elevations however, the rear elevation of one building consisting of units 11-15 was not included in the packet. . No Duplex The appellant questioned the staff report's description of one of the residential buildings within the proposed project as a duplex. There are many instances of buildings containing two, three, or more individually owned dwelling units in Planned Developments. In the proposed development, the "duplex" was accurately depicted one building which includes two dwelling units. This reference was pursuant to the City's definition of a duplex in the Zoning Ordinance (Section 2.34). The definition does not specify ownership type (rental vs. owned either with land or even as a condo). In so doing, the focus is on the form of the building (one) containing two units. . Neighborhood Characterization Biased Toward High Density The appellant seems concerned about the staff report and IS/MND's characterization of the project's vicinity. These descriptions were fairly specific to the immediately adjacent land uses which predominately include condominiums (along the southeastern property line) and duplex development (behind the site, across the street, and immediately adjacent to the northwest property line). Behind the project site there are seven parcels, two with single-family homes, the other five developed with duplexes. Immediately across the street from the project site there are six parcels, two with single-family homes; one with a combination of a single-family home and a second unit; two duplexes; and one four-plex which may have additional units per the County Assessor. The staff report did not mention the presence of the four single-family homes (two behind and two across the street) in the description of the immediate vicinity of the project. Staff agrees with the appellant about the neighborhood as a whole. The area is comprised of many building forms with a range of densities. There are a considerable number of single-family and duplex units throughout the area. The project, which includes eight townhome style attached units in two buildings; two units in one duplex type building; and 14 single- family homes in a small-lot planned development format bears resemblance to the density mix and range of building types in the neighborhood.