3 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC NOTICE Notices for this hearing were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. Staff has provided the location and noticing maps as Exhibit G for reference. The public notice was also published in The Valley Times. At the time this report was published, staff did not receive any comments. Any public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) (Exhibit E) has been prepared for the proposed project, and reflecting the number and configuration of lots proposed by the applicant. The draft IS/ND was circulated for public comments between December 18, 2019, and January 10, 2020. Zone 7 provided comments to ensure groundwater quality is maintained and permit is obtained if the existing well is to be abandoned. Based on the draft IS, staff believes that the project would not have any significant environmental impacts. Staff, therefore, believes that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration can be adopted in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Planning Commission concurs with this environmental assessment, it must make the finding that the IS/ND adequately evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the project prior to taking action on the project. Since the impacts of a four-lot subdivision would be the same or less than the five-lot project analyzed in the IS/ND, staff believes the findings and conclusions of the IS/ND would remain valid, even if the project was revised. CONCLUSION There are important factors weighing both for and against the proposed NSSP amendment and density increase. There is some logic, as the applicant suggests, to allowing the now- established development pattern along Sycamore Creek Way to continue onto this property. However, in and of itself, amending the Specific Plan is a significant request, not least because granting the amendment may encourage or be seen as setting precedent for other similar requests. Staff does not support the specific plan amendment for the density increase for this project. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the project. Primary Author: Jenny Soo, Associate Planner, 925-931-5615 or jsooacityofpleasantonca.gov. Reviewed/Approved By: Steve Otto, Senior Planner Julie Harryman, Assistant City Attorney Ellen Clark, Community Development Director PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission 990 Sycamore Road 23 of 23 is most supportive of Alternative 1, a 4-lot project, since it is the next most consistent with the existing Specific Plan, and with some rationale to support an additional lot along Sycamore Creek Way to infill this area with development similar to that found in the adjacent Bridle Creek Development, alongside the other factors listed on Page 15 of this staff report . PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission 990 Sycamore Road 22 of 23 s limited to review of its consistency with the approved PUD development plan and compliance with State-mandated findings. As noted earlier, staff does not support the proposed five-lot residential development, and thus does not support the Vesting Tentative Map as proposed. However, should the Planning Commission support a version of the PUD that would increase the allowable density on this project site, a conforming Vesting Tentative Map (for 5 lots), or Parcel Map (for 4 or fewer lots) could also be recommended for approval, subject to the necessary conditions of approval. PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission 990 Sycamore Road 21 of 23 .+� s1. i� 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36. ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k 3S 94 '@ g 'via R T3 1:5,300 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _ January 7 2020 `( �� ""�� 0 330 660 Feet I Y I , I I