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

Browse Search

7A Page 92 This statement is misleading- This statement implies the General Plan permits development in R2 at a denSity of 8-20 family units per acre. The General Plan specifies permitted development density in R2 based on dwelling type, and is consistent with the maximum density standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance. From the 2004 Housing Element of the General Plan, R2 density is specified as: . Single-Family: 8.7 family units per acre . Two-Family; 11.6 family units per acre . Three-Family: 12.9 family units per acre Page 3: "Therefore, the proposed amendment would be. well wIthin the existing General Plan density limit and would not substantially increase the permitted density from that allowed under the existing zoning ordinance." This Is a false statement as detailed in the ILLEGAL PAST PRACTICE section. The 2004 Housing Element clearly limits the maximum density for the three permitted dwelling buildings In R2: 8.7 units/acre for single family, 11.6 units/acre for duplex, 12.9 units/acre for triplex. The recommended density change would increase density to 17.4 untts/acre for all three permitted dwelling buildings. 17.4 units/acre exceeds the General Plan density limit for R2. 17.4 units/acre is a significant increase in the permitted density . Page 3: 'tln addition, all development on lots larger than 10,000 square feet within the R-2 district must proceed pursuant to the City's Planned Development Permit (PO Permit) procedure, which is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA) requirements. Consequently, all development that would be permitted under any of the three alternative density standards would be required to comply wIth CEQA requirements before it could be approved./I This statement is misleading as defined in the CEQA EXEMPTION section ~bove. Page 3: "The proposed minimum lot siles for lots greater than 10,000 square feet were selected based on the City's past interpretation of the R-2 zoning district as applied to lots greater than 10,000 square feet, and on the dty's past implementation of the R-2 zoning ordinance provisions for lots greater th~n 10,000 square feet. 4' this (s a misleading statement and there Is Insuffldent Information to validate this statement. The statement does not frame the time period associated with "past interpretation" and "past implementation". At public hearings, the City Staff testimony frequently references projects built before the current density standards were established as comparable projects. While is has been repeatedlv pointed out that.such a practice Is misleading and inappropriate, the City Staff continues this practice. 18