Laserfiche WebLink
<br />STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and approve Case PUD-37 by <br />taking the following actions: <br />1) Find that the proposed PUD development plan is consistent with the <br /> General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and the purposes of the PUD <br /> ordinance; <br />2) Find that there were no changes to the environmental circumstances and <br /> impacts from the time that it certified the Environmental Impact Report for <br /> the Downtown Specific Plan area in December 2004 and that a high density <br /> residential project would be located on the site therefore no other <br /> environmental documentation is required; <br />3) Introduce the attached draft ordinance approving PUD-37, for a rezoning <br /> from RM-1500 to PUD-HDR and for a development plan approval for a 6- <br /> unit residential development as shown on Exhibit "A" subject to the <br /> attached conditions of approval, Exhibit "B". <br />SUMMARY: <br />Staff finds that the proposed project is in keeping with the intent, goals, and policies of the <br />Downtown Specific Plan related to density, use, site design, and architecture. The project <br />will provide six new housing opportunities for residents, creating built-in Downtown <br />Pleasanton 'consumers' to support the Downtown. The project will be within walking <br />distance of the Downtown Commercial area, thus allowing additional residents to enjoy <br />the Downtown ambience without increasing vehicular traffic or parking demand. The <br />housing product supports the City's "affordability by design" concept and is in keeping <br />with the philosophy of providing a housing niche for first-time buyers looking for housing <br />close to the Downtown. The project was also unanimously supported by the Housing <br />Commission. <br />Staff believes the applicant adequately addressed issues raised by some residents and the <br />Planning Commission; however, the Commission continued to have concerns related to <br />the loss of on-street parking, architectural design, density, actual affordability, and the <br />loss ofthe 44" black walnut tree, and thereby denied the project. <br />SR:05:258 <br />Page 2 <br />