Laserfiche WebLink
There was a break at 9:56 p.m. <br /> <br />The meeting reconvened at 10:09 p.m. <br /> <br />Item 6b <br />PAP-59 (PAP-S6}, Bernl and Hermlne Hafker. (SR 04:035) <br />Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal, thereby <br />upholding the Zoning Administrator's determination that a three-lot subdivision of <br />the Hafker property located at 565 Sycamore Creek Way would require an <br />amendment to the North Sycamore Specffic Plan. Zoning for the property is PUD- <br />LDR (Planned Unit Development - Low Density Residential) District. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman recused herself from participating on this issue because Mr. <br />Hafker is a client of her husband's. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Mayor Pico mentioned that Council just approved a project this evening that <br />amended the Downtown Specific Plan. He asked what would be the process that the <br />Hafkers would have to take in order to amend the North Sycamore Specific Plan. Would <br />it be as simple as asking for an amendment to the North Sycamore Specific Plan as was <br />done with the prior agenda item, or would it entail an EIR? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated that the process would be to file an application and the <br />appropriate fee. He noted that the CEQA process would be the same for a three-lot <br />subdivision without Specific Plan changes. Projects that are consistent with the North <br />Sycamore Specific Plan do not require any subsequent CEQA review; whereas, if the <br />applicant were to ask for a modification to the Specific Plan, it would be subject to a <br />CEQA review. For one more lot, he did not believe it would be anything more than a <br />Negative Declaration. <br /> <br /> In response to an inquiry by Mayor Pico, Mr. Swift said that the application fee <br />would be $2,000 and $50 for the CEQA process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked legal staffifit had any opinion as to whether this project <br />required a Specific Plan change. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush believed it was a matter of interpretation as to whether this project <br />required a Specific Plan change, and Council had the discretion to make a determination. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if any precedent would be set if Council allowed the Hafkers <br />to have three lots instead of two? <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 22 02/17/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />