|
Resolution No. PC-2020-04
<br /> Page Two
<br /> WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial
<br /> Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) prepared in accordance with Sections 15070
<br /> and 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
<br /> WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after review of the land use designation
<br /> and zoning category of the NSSP concerning the project site, the Planning Commission
<br /> cannot support the NSSP amendments related to the requested density increase, nor
<br /> determine that the amendments to the NSSP are consistent with the City's General Plan
<br /> and the NSSP.
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
<br /> of Pleasanton, based on the entire record of proceedings, including the oral and written
<br /> agenda reports and all public comment and testimony:
<br /> Section 1: Findings for Denial of Applications
<br /> With respect to the applications the Planning Commission makes the following findings
<br /> and determinations with respect to each of the considerations for approval of a PUD
<br /> Development Plan as required by Section 18.68.110 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code
<br /> (PMC):
<br /> 1. Whether the plan is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and
<br /> general welfare:
<br /> The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project would not meet all
<br /> applicable City standards concerning public health, safety, and welfare.
<br /> Specifically, PMC Section 18.04.101 sets forth objectives for all projects to
<br /> promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity and
<br /> general welfare. The Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed
<br /> does not meet all of those objectives since the proposed requires land use
<br /> changes and modifications to the allow increased density. Since the NSSP must
<br /> remain in conformance with the General Plan, and the proposed amendments,
<br /> by definition, would be necessary to avoid a conflict between the proposed
<br /> project and the NSSP, the proposed project would not meet the following PMC
<br /> objectives:
<br /> • To provide a precise guide for the physical development of the city in such
<br /> a manner as to achieve progressively the arrangement of land uses
<br /> depicted in the general plan adopted by the city council; and
<br /> • To promote the stability of existing land uses that conform with the general
<br /> plan and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful
<br /> intrusions.
<br /> As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed development would
<br /> not be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
<br />c hearing where it considered the written agenda report, public
<br /> testimony, related project materials, and staff recommendations; and
<br /> found in the adjacent Bridle Creek Development, alongside the other factors listed on Page 15
<br /> of this staff report .
<br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission
<br /> 990 Sycamore Road
<br /> 22 of 23
<br />s limited to review of its consistency with the approved PUD development plan
<br /> and compliance with State-mandated findings. As noted earlier, staff does not support the
<br /> proposed five-lot residential development, and thus does not support the Vesting Tentative
<br /> Map as proposed. However, should the Planning Commission support a version of the PUD
<br /> that would increase the allowable density on this project site, a conforming Vesting Tentative
<br /> Map (for 5 lots), or Parcel Map (for 4 or fewer lots) could also be recommended for approval,
<br /> subject to the necessary conditions of approval.
<br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 Planning Commission
<br /> 990 Sycamore Road
<br /> 21 of 23
<br /> .+� s1.
<br /> i� 'Y a 0421 0 0 �I ,�� r •u"' - 36.
<br /> ,`a yy�� n2+a /'�. oM 'le' k� W, k
<br /> 3S 94 '@ g 'via
<br /> R T3
<br /> 1:5,300
<br /> 0 0.05 0.1 mi PUD-89-06-08M, Gabriela Marks, 4210 Rosewood Drive Planning Division _
<br /> January 7 2020 `( �� ""���
<br /> 0 330 660 Feet I Y
<br /> I , I I
<br />
|