Residential units in downtown commercial zone contrary to Comm. Plan
Another section of the proposed Village Specific Plan, which is contrary to the adopted Community Plan, is the allowance of 140 residential units in the downtown commercial zone. There are only approximately 42 properties in the C-Zone.
The Community Plan Goal 3 (E), on page 57, states “Encourage and facilitate provision of lower cost housing for low and moderate income households.” It goes on, in item 2, to state
where that housing should be:“Implement a floor area bonus provision to encourage private owners to provide low-income rental units in the R2, RM-East, RM-West, RM Central Zones.” It says
nothingabout the R1-10, industrial, or commercial zones! So, why provide bonuses to put it in a zone that is completely incompatible with
housing?Provision for low-income housing is a mandate from the State, but our adopted CP tells us where it should be, if we’re going to provide it, and it is not the C-Zone. In my opinion, housing is really not compatible with the primary uses of commerce in a small neighborhood village. There is a conflict with parking, children, loud noises of residential life, etc.
This is another section of the Village Specific Plan which is contrary to our adopted CP, and should therefore be voted “NO” on in November.