Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 102 <br /> <br />This is a false statement, there are no apartments in R2, but the revision will allow apartments. <br />Apartments are not consistent with R2 neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Page 34: "Any such construction would be preceded by the issuance of a PO Permit and accompanied by <br />requisite CEQA compliance." <br /> <br />This Is a misleading statement as detailed in the CEQA EXEMPTION section. <br /> <br />Page 36: Hln the past, the Oty has permitted development in,the R-2 district on lots greater than 10,000 <br />square feetl and has determined the permitted density of such projects by extending the permitted <br />densities for lots smaller than 10,000 square feet in a reasonably proportional manner'to cover lots <br />largerthan 10,000 square feet." <br /> <br />This is a misleading statement. The CitY should inform the public that the legality of this interpretation <br />has been challenged and may n'ot be legal. The City has not specified how long it has been using this <br />fnterpretatlon of R2 density. Why does the Initial Study not specify how long the interpretation has <br />been used or examples of projects? <br /> <br />Page 36: ".... attached "duet" homes (two units attached, different owners), or multI-family (three or <br />more units attached or detached, either single or multiple owers)." <br /> <br />This Is a statement with omissions. The Initial Study should specify IIduet" as a new permitted use. <br /> <br />This fs a statement that Is ambiguous. The Nduet" description seems to imply existing duplex lots can <br />be converted to Ilduets". In other words, a "duet" can be built on ml'nimum lot size of 7,500 sq ft.. But, <br />the actual Zoning Ordinance revision does not mention "duet", WiI1 the City Staff be creating a 000- <br />codified interpretation for IIduet'J? <br /> <br />Page 36: II.... attached "duet" homes (two units attached, different ownersu <br /> <br />This' is a statement with omissions. The Initial Study should specify "duet" as a new permitted use. <br /> <br />This is a statement that Is'ambiguous. The Ilduet" description seems to Imply existing duplex lots can <br />be converted to IIduets". In other words, a "duer' can be buUt on minimum lot size of 7,500 sq ft. But, <br />the actual Zoning Ordinance revisIon does not mention "duet". wm the City Staff be creating a non~ <br />codified interpretation for t'duer'? <br /> <br />Page 36: ".... multi-family (three or more units attached or detached, eIther single or multiple owners)." <br /> <br />This is a statement with omissions. The Initial Study should specify apartments and condos as a new <br />permitted use. <br /> <br />28 <br />