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

Browse Search

7A Page 78 The remainder of this document provides evidence supporting the altegatlons of CEQA non-compliance as stated above. Also note, an of the comments are directed at the 2,500 increment scenario; and may or may not be applicable to the other two scenarios. IlLEGAlPASTPRAcnCE The referenced documents state the purpose of the "Text Amendmen~ is to IIdarify" the density standards for the R2 districts. The basis for the alleged "clarification" Is a City interpretation of R2 density that has been applied only once to a previous development projecf. The legality of the City's interpretation of R2 density was challenged 1n front of the City Council July 13th, 2009. At the July 13th meeting, Mike presented an analysis of the CIty's interpretation that clearly demonstrated the City's interpretation was in conflict with multiple sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The City has never challenged or address my claims that the Otv's interpretation of R2 density conflicts with mUltlple sections of the Zoning Ordinance. By State Law, Redwood aty is required to comply to its Municipal Codes and Zoning Ordinances. Since the City's interpretation of R2 density conflicts, and therefore is not compliant, with existing Zoning OrdInances, the City's interpretation of R2 density is ILLEGAL. The City disregarded Mike's dalms that the City's interpretation of R2 density is not complaint to the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, there is current litigation (I.e. lawsuit) that directly challenges the use of the City's interpretation of R2 d~nslty as it was applied to the Kentfleld project, and therefore, indirectly as It has been applied across the entire R2 zone. Since we are plaintiffs in the Kentfield lawsuit" and the Oty has never addressed my claims the City's interpretation of R2 density conflicts with multiple sections.ofthe Zoning Ordinance, we will be referring to the City's interpretation of R2 density as ILLEGAL throughout this document. Based on the Qty's attempt to ttclarify" the zoning ordinance before the Courts provide clarification, one might conclude the City is attemptlng to preemptively nullify an expected adverse Court decision. In other words, the City has determined CitY's interpretation Is ILLEGAL, and is attempting to flght the lawsuit by other means, such as re-writlng the Zoning Ordinance to make an ILLEGAL practice legal. As documented in the Initial Study quotes below: . The Initial Study alleges the Zoning Ordlnance does not specify denslty standards for lots greater than 10,000 sq ft. . The Initial Study states the City has. been applying (usfng) an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that specifies density standards for lots greater than 10,000 sq ft. 2 The CIty Staff has identified only one development project where the CftYs Interpretatio"n of R2 density has been applied. That project being 1581 & 1617 Kentfield Ave. There may be other projects, but the Kentfield lawsuit, may prevent the City from providing history of past use of the CIty's interpretation of R2 densIty. 4