07 - Laserfiche WebLink

9. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision would not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No violation currently exists and sewer capacity is available for this subdivision. The project would not discharge any waste other than domestic sewage and all sewage would be discharged into the City's sanitary sewer system for ultimate treatment. Urban stormwater runoff is required to meet the City's RWQCB permit requirements for urban development. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT Notices for this hearing were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. Staff has provided the location and noticing map as Exhibit G for reference. At the time this report was published, staff received three public comments via email, attached as Exhibit H for reference, and one verbal comment. Two of the three emails sought clarification and the third email and verbal comment were a specific project change. Rick Congdon, the occupant of 746 Peters Avenue, emailed staff and requested confirmation that the "vacant parcel" in the location description of the notification card was the land directly west of the property he is renting. Staff informed Mr. Congdon that the vacant parcel was directly behind his property and part of the proposed development plan. Scott Raty, Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce President/CEO, emailed staff requesting information on the number of parking spaces proposed for the 11 total units. Staff informed Mr. Raty that each unit has two parking spaces and the overall site contains two on -site guest parking spaces. Steve Maestas, one of the owners of the adjacent apartment complex to the west of the site at 568 St. John Street, emailed staff to request an 8 -foot block wall along the shared property line. Mike Carey, the other owner of the apartment complex and owner of one of the three residents south (rear) of the project site, requested an 8 -foot redwood fence on the western property line and an increase in the height of the proposed 6- to 7 -foot rear precast wall to 8 feet on the shared south /rear property line. Staff does not support an 8 -foot tall precast wall along the western property line due to the massing and walled -in effect that it will create. Furthermore, the proposed western fence is adjacent to the apartment's driveway and an 8 -foot precast wall would not enhance privacy or noise attenuation beyond that achieved by the 6 -foot fence. Staff believes that an 8 -foot precast wall on the rear property line is excessive and believes the maximum height allowed should not exceed 7 feet. The applicant agrees with staff's recommendation and would like to move forward with the application as proposed (i.e., 6 -foot redwood fence along the western shared property line and a 6- to 7 -foot precast wall along the rear property line, as conditioned). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to Government Code Section 65457, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA because the project complies with the certified EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, no additional environmental document accompanies this report. P16 -1201, PUD -120, & TRACT 8326 Planning Commission 31 of 32