AgdaPkt 2013-10-07 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.B. - Page 4 The Appellant also claims that the City never acknowledged or responded to the letter by Lori Burnett (Attachment 10). On March 13, 2012, the City received the letter. A copy of the letter was included in the Planning Commission packet and was considered by the Planning Commission during the April 3, 2012 public hearing. The Appellant further claims that Ms. Burnett requested that the City notify her of future meetings regarding the Project, which the Appellant claims never happened. On April 26, 2012, Engineering and Planning staff inet with neighbors Greg Burnett (husband of Mrs. Burnett, the neighbor who submitted the letter (Attachment 10), and neighbors Niegel and Barbara Stacey, to discuss the neighbors' concerns regarding traffic safety. 4. The Appellant challenges the aesthetics, air quality, and noise impacts evaluated under CEQA. These environmental factors were evaluated in the adopted 2012 IS/MND (Attachment 2), which did not receive a legal challenge. To the extent the Appellant seeks to invalidate the decision based on the analysis of the 2012 IS/MND, this is extraneous. For purposes of this proposed approval, the City needs to determine only whether any of the grounds for additional environmental review exists; it does not need to re-adopt the IS/MND. An IS/MND is conclusively presumed to be valid if it has not been set aside by a court. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1130.) This presumption precludes reopening the CEQA process on the previous IS/MND. As to the new PD Permit approval under consideration, because the Project is identical to the project evaluated last year and because there are no changes to the environment, there is no need to conduct additional CEQA evaluation. The specifics of the Appellant's concerns are listed below. Staff's analysis and response follow each concern. a. Aesthetics: The Appellant states concerns about the look of the Project, and claims that there is no proof that the Project will not degrade the visual character of Valota Road. The Project is consistent with Article 46 of the Zoning Ordinance and the community goals established in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by one- and two-story single- family residences as well as multi-family residences on parcels that are smaller than the project site parcel. The subdivision of the lot into five parcels and the construction of five single-family residences would make the lot sizes of the new homes more consistent in size with the lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. To minimize bulk and scale, the proposed residence fronting Valota Road (Lot 1) is designed such that it faces the street with the four other homes to be constructed behind it (Attachment 11). A range of architectural styles are proposed to avoid monotony and to create interest, and new landscaping and trees would be installed along the frontage and throughout the property. The IS/MND did not identify aesthetic issues with the Project and the Planning Commission concurred.