Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VI. PUBLIC NOTICE <br />Notices of the City Council's public hearing on this item were sent to the property owners lo- <br />cated within I,OOO-feet of the subject property and within the entire Happy Valley Specific Plan <br />area. <br />VII. FISCAL IMP ACT <br />There would be no fiscal impact to the City with this appeal. <br />VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br />The original appellant, Jerry Wagner, states that the development of this site will negatively im- <br />pact the groundwater reserves by infiltration of pollutants derived from the new landscape and <br />vehicles parked on the site. Staff notes that environmental review for the proposed project was <br />undertaken with the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approved by the City Council for <br />the Happy Valley Specific Plan (HVSP) in conformance with the standards of the California En- <br />vironmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIR examined impacts to groundwater resources. The <br />EIR for the Specific Plan also covered the Golf Course PUD based on findings made by the <br />Council that the PUD conformed to the Specific Plan and its EIR. <br />The proposed project is the design review of a single-family home in conformance to the PUD <br />development plan and its design guidelines, which were originally approved in conjunction with <br />the Callippe Golf Course PUD development plan found by the City Council to be in conformance <br />with the HVSP and the FEIR. The approval of this home would not constitute a substantial <br />change to the Specific Plan or to the circumstances under which the Specific Plan is being under- <br />taken that would involve new significant environmental effects or that would substantially in- <br />crease the severity of previously identified effects. Furthermore, there is no new information of <br />substantial importance which was unknown at the time that the FEIR was approved by the City <br />Council regarding the project or its effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives. Therefore, no <br />new environmental document accompanies this staff report. <br />x. CONCLUSION <br />In staff's opinion, the proposed building design represents an excellent implementation oftlte de- <br />sign guidelines for this development. The home would comply with the size and height limita- <br />tions of the PUD and is designed to reduce its mass. Therefore, staff supports the proposed <br />house design. <br />SR 05:320 <br />Page 70f8 <br />