19 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUD FINDINGS Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report, pages 8-11, for a discussion of the considerations needed to approve the proposed PUD development plan. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the proposed PUD application was mailed to the surrounding property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, staff received an email from Mr. Michael Magnano, 5813 Corte Mente, indicating concerns with late-night traffic, noise, and possibly "trouble" if a fast-food establishment or convenience store would locate in the building (see Attachment #7.a.). He also expressed concern that traffic from afast-food operation would increase safety concerns when school children cross the Hopyard Road/Valley Avenue intersection in the morning and afternoon. In a second email, Mr. Magnano indicated that he had no concerns with the Peet's Coffee use. An email was also sent by Mr. Dick Borchers, 5824 Corte Mente, requesting that whatever is built at the site be a benefit to the community and not be an eyesore. After the Planning Commission hearing, staff received an additional email from Mr. Magnano (see Attachment #6) indicating that he supported the Planning Commission's action on the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In urbanized areas, the construction of a new commercial building of 10,000 square feet or less in area is categorically exempt (Section 15303, Class 3) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, in-fill development projects on sites of five acres or less that have no habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, that are consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations, and would have no significant effects on traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality are also categorically exempt (Class 32) from CEQA. Staff believes that the project meets the conditions of the Class 3 and 32 exemptions. Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION Staff believes the project will be a positive change to this underutilized site. The project's proposed uses and building and site design, as proposed and conditioned, are appropriate for the subject site and the surrounding area, conforms to the purposes of the PUD Ordinance, and merits a favorable decision by the Council. Submitted by: Fiscal Review: Approved by: ,~ ~_ ~ ~. ~ ~• Jerry Iserson Director of Planning and Community Development David P. Culver Director of Finance Nelson Fialho City Manager Page 4 of 5