My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-06-07 clds, jnt
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 4:43:56 PM
Creation date
6/3/2010 3:07:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
6/7/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />7A <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Appeal <br />On April 26, 2010, Michael and Michelle Bautista filed an appeal of the Planning <br />Commission's action to adopt the IS/ND for this Zoning Text Amendment (Attachment <br />5). Staff has summarized some of the appellants' concerns and has provided responses <br />to the concerns (Attachment 6). Also included in the attachments is a map with a list of <br />Planned Developments approved in the R-2 Zoning District throughout the City <br />(Attachment 7). The City has allowed more than three units on a variety of larger <br />properties with R-2 zoning over the years. These developments include single-family <br />homes, attached units and buildings with more than three units per structure. <br /> <br />The comments submitted by the appellants, in their April 19, April 20, and April 26, 2010 <br />written communications to the City and the oral communications made by the appellants <br />at the April 20, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing do not present any <br />"substantial evidence" that a fair argument can be made that the project may have a <br />significant effect on the environment. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion <br />or narrative, or evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate does not constitute <br />substantial evidence. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />1. Uphold the appeal for the adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the <br />proposed Zoning Text Amendment. <br />2. Do not approve the proposed 2,500 square foot alternative increment as <br />recommended by the Planning Commission. Instead: <br />a. Approve the 3,333 square foot alternative increment; <br />b. Approve the 5,000 square foot alternative increment; or <br />c. Limit the R-2 zone to no more than three units on lots of 10,000 square feet or <br />larger. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />All costs for processing development permits on sites larger than 10,000 square feet are <br />funded by the applicant and thus this action will not result in future incurred fiscal <br />im pact. <br /> <br />C'> <br /> <br />Sailesh Mehra <br />Associate Plan r <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />J,~~~6 <br /> <br />D ector, Planning, Housing and <br />Economic Development (PHED) <br /> <br />Peter Ingram ~ <br />City Manager <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.