22 - Laserfiche WebLink

There are three possible site layouts for the two new homes: Berlogars' proposed layout, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. Staff recommends Alternative 1 which locates the upper lot's building pad at a lower elevation than the proposed site layout thereby minimizing visibility of a future home from off-site areas. Staff notes that the proposed site plan or the alternatives would result in no loss of heritage oaks trees and less disturbance of the natural topography than placement of homes within the "blob". Please refer to the February 12, 2014 Planning Commission staff report for details regarding the alternatives. PUD FINDINGS Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, pages 20-22, for a discussion of the considerations needed to approve the proposed PUD development plan. PUBLIC NOTICE Notices regarding the public hearing were mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. At the time this report was prepared staff had not received any additional comments or concerns. Previous concerns are included in the Planning Commission Minutes or in the Attachments. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental review for the proposed project was undertaken with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approved by the City Council for the VACSP in conformance with the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA specifies that residential development projects that are prepared pursuant to the requirements of an adopted specific plan for which an EIR has been prepared and certified are exempt from additional environmental review provided when: 1) there are no substantial changes to the project or to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that involve new significant environmental effects or that substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects; or 2) that new information of substantial importance which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR. Staff believes that there are no substantial changes in the project or circumstances and there is no new information causing new significant environmental effects. Thus, staff recommends this project be reviewed without any additional CEQA review or process. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the Alternative 1 site layout is a better plan than the proposed site layout plan or Alternative 2 site for the reasons given in the Planning Commission staff report (attached). Staff finds that Alternative 1 is appropriate in the number of Hillside Residential lots, pad locations for the new homes, and that it addresses the issues and concerns that staff normally has regarding hillside development, and conforms to the intent of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. Further, staff believes the design guidelines take into consideration the site's sensitivities and constraints. Therefore, staff is requesting that the City Council approve the proposed Alternative 1 development plan. Page 9 of 10