6 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD-148, 2207 Martin Ave. Planning Commission 13 of 14 PROJECT SITE ALTERNATIVES As outlined in the above analysis, staff believes the proposed development standards, as proposed and conditioned, would be compatible with the other parcels in the neighborhood and not create adverse impacts, and recommend the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD development plan to the City Council as proposed and conditioned. However, alternatives to the proposal that could be considered by the Planning Commission include: 1. Recommend denial of the PUD development plan to the City Council; 2. Recommend approval of the PUD development plan but with modifications, e.g., the Planning Commission can have more (or less) restrictive setbacks, height limits, etc. than those proposed by staff; or 3. Approve the PUD development plan as proposed by the applicant and without staff’s recommended modifications. Staff believes the PUD development plan, as conditioned, will not adversely impact any surrounding properties or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends none of the alternatives above be pursued. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS The Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purpose of the Planned Unit Development District and considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These purposes and considerations are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A and includes whether the development plan is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. As described in Exhibit A, and based on the information and analysis provided in this Agenda Report, s taff recommends the Commission make the required findings to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. At the time this report was published, staff received neighbor concerns regarding the existing tennis court. One of the public comments was sent via email and included in Exhibit C. Noticed neighbors expressed concerns regarding potential tennis court’s lighting impacts to homes and light pollution, proximity of the tennis court to adjacent residences, height of existing poles, and requests for assurance the tennis court would obtain proper permitting. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental review for the proposed project was undertaken with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council for RZ-97-2 in conformance with the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There are not substantial changes to the project or 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. Furthermore, there is no new information of substantial importance which was unknown at the time the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was adopted by the City Council regarding the project or its effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives. Any previously identified effects or