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 95 <br /> <br />for triplex. The recommended densIty change would increase density to 17.4 units/acre for all three <br />permitted dwelling buildings. 17.4 units/acre exceeds the General Plan density limit for R2. <br /> <br />Page 11: liThe code amendment would permit a slight increase in density in the R-2 distrIct (less than <br />one-half of one percent)/ which increase would be consistent with the City's existing practice for <br />implementing the R-2 zoning provisions, and any new development permitted by the project would be <br />subject to compliance wIth CEQA requirements.n <br /> <br />This Is a false ,statement. Even by ~he I nitlal Study incomplete and Inadequate density analysis, the <br />projected density increase is 5.2% not less than 0.5%. <br /> <br />There is insufficient Information to validate the numerical results as detailed In the DENSITY ANAL VSIS <br />NOT ADEQUATE section. <br /> <br />ThIs statement is misleading as defined in the CEQA EXEMPTION section above. <br /> <br />Page 11: "As noted above/ any such construction would be preceded by the issuance of a PO Permit and <br />accompanied by the requisite CEQA compliance/I <br /> <br />This statement Is misleading as defined In the CEQA EXEMPTION section above. <br /> <br />Page 12: ((Nonetheless, subsequent CEQA compliance undertaken in connection with the Issuance of the <br />PO Permit required for future development under the proposed ordinance amendment will ensure that <br />any biological resources affected by such future deveJopment are adequatelv protected on a slte-bv-slte <br />basis." <br /> <br />This Is a false statement. CEQA compliance cannot ensure anything since there is an exemption for <br />infill projects as defined in the CEQA EXEMPTION section. <br /> <br />Page 17: U"fhe project is a text amendment to the City's R-2 zoning ordinance that would permit a slight <br />increase in residential development density ..." <br /> <br />There Is Insufficient information to validate the numerical results as detailed In the DENSITY ANAt YSfS <br />NOT ADEQUATE section. <br /> <br />Page 19: '1"he proposed project is a text amendment to the CitYs existing R.2 zoning district ordinance <br />to permit a slight increase in density (less than one-half of one percent).JJ <br /> <br />This is a false statement. Even by the Jnitial Study Incomplete and inadequate density analysis, the <br />projected density increase is 5.2% not less than 0.5%. <br /> <br />21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.