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

Browse Search

7A Page 96 There is insufficient information to validate the numerical results as detailed in the DENSITY ANALYSIS NOT ADEQUATE section. Page 19: "It would affect only the QtYs existing R-2 zoning districts, and would not permit any new uses or alter the existing residential character of these districts.J' This is a false statement. The permitted uses are being modified to include condo, apartments, and duets as permitted uses. Article 6.2 Permitted Uses is being modified. There exlsts a viable potential that existing duplexes will be converted to large single family homes which wilf alter the character of this Duplex District. One onlv needs to drive down KentfleJd Ave from Palm Ave to Woodside Road to see the future Impact of higher density On the residential chal"acter of R2. Near the Woodside Road there exists R3 development that is slightly higher in density that the proposed density for R2. White the corner of Kentfield Ave and Palm Ave has a single family and duptex residential character, the property near Woodside Road has a complete1v apartment character. In addition, such a conversion will put upward price pressure on the remaining rental properties (i.e. duplexes and trIplexes). This wUl result in higher rental costs, less affordable rentals. There wilt also be less affordable housing. Page 24: ''The proposed code amendment is consistent with both the 1990 General Plan (including revisions), as well as the draft General Plan pending adoption and is thus aligned with the past, present and future visIon for the Clty/' This is a false statement. The proposed code amendment is not consistent with the 2004 Housing Element of the General Plan as detailed In the ILLEGAL PAST PRACTICE section. This statement is misleadIng. The only reason the proposed code modification is consistent with the draft General Plan Is because the draft General Plan has been modified to be consistent with the proposed code modffications. These draft General Plan modifications occurred in response to the KentfleJd lawsuit. In addition the'R2 density cJarifications in the 2004 Housing Element have not been included in the draft General Plan. Page 24: "Program H-8 from the Draft Housing Element" ThIs is just another name for the City's Interpretation of R2 density. As such, the City should inform the public that the legality of Program H-8 has been challenged and may not be legal. Page 25: "In the R2 zone, the Zoning Ordinance is currently silent with regards to development on larger parcels (greater than 10,000 square feet)." this Is a false statement.. The Zoning Ordinance is not-silent, see the ILLEGAL PAST PRACTICE section. 22