Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL VSIS <br /> <br />The proposed ordinance that modifies the various sections as noted of the City's Zoning Code is <br />exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to <br />Public Resources Code section 21065. This is based on the finding that this Ordinance is not a <br />"project" within the meaning of Section 15378 or the State CEQA Guidelines, because it has no <br />potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. This <br />Ordinance does not, in itself, allow the construction or any projects and therefore, has no <br />potential for resulting in physical changes in the environment, directly or ultimately. <br /> <br />PUBLIC OUTREACH <br /> <br />Legal requirements for notification of this meeting included posting of the meeting agenda at <br />City Hall a minimum of 72 hours in advance of the meeting date. In addition, a legal ad was <br />placed in the Daily Review and courtesy notices were sent to all associations listed on the City's <br />Neighborhood Association Roster (dated May 2006). <br /> <br />BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS COMMENTS <br /> <br />At their December 7 regular meeting, the Board of Zoning Adjustments had the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />Hoardmcmher Eliason - Asked if the floor area was to be calculated as gross floor area or <br />conditioned space. Staff responded as gross floor area. Boardmember Eliason commented her <br />preference for gross floor area, as it is easier for staff to calculate and verify on the applicant's <br />plans. Boardmember Eliason continued that she was in favor of the amendments related to the <br />residential condominium conversion. With regards to the proposed parking standards <br />amendments, Boardmember Eliason commented her desire to keep tandem parking, at least as an <br />option. <br /> <br />Buardmembcr Pearson - indicated his preference for the two covered parking spaces. <br /> <br />Boardmembers Raposo and Goldl - Both indicated their agreement with Boardmembcr <br />Eliason about allowing tandem parking. At this point staff asked for clarification as to whether <br />this applied to just the RO district or was the desire to have this option for all R districts. <br /> <br />Boardlnembcr Eliason ~ Clarified that tandem, if allowed, should be exclusive for the <br />individual unit if multiple units on a single propelty, and commented that narrow lots warrant the <br />need for a tandem option. <br /> <br />Hoardmembers Raposo and Goldt - Nodded their consent with Boardmember Eliason's <br />comments. <br /> <br />Boardmember Marl' - Remarked on her concern with only requmng one additional <br />parking space for large homes. She noted specifically the recent Darius Court home that had <br /> <br />Planning Commission Staff Report <br />Residential Development Standards <br /> <br />December 14,2006 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />