Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING CUMMISSIUN C17~Y OP YLEASANTON <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />KIiSOLLJTION NO. PC-2005-57 <br />RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR <br />THE APPLICA"i'lON OF LYNN JANSEN, AS FILED LTNDER CASE PLJ D-38 <br />WHEREAS, Lynn Jansen has applied for= ~1~ rezoning o£two existing parcels totaling <br />approximately 4.19 acres from Plaruied LTnit Development (PUD and <br />Agriculture ~A~ District to Planned Unit Development Medium Density <br />Residential (YUD-MDR) District; (2) PLTD development plan approval for <br />1 1 buildable parcels and two remainder parcels ranging front <br />10,000 square feet to 13,000 square feet; acid (3J Development Design <br />Guidelines for a siuglc-£axnily detached residential development. The <br />prof act site is located on a 4.3-acre parcel at 1635 and 1777 Rosa Avenue; <br />and <br />W HEIZEAS, the Planning Commission received and reviewed the Initial Study, dated July 5, <br />2005, and received the reconvr~endation o£ staff; and <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting o£November 16, 2005, the Planning Commission received a <br />proposed Negative Declaration for Case PUD-38; and <br />WHEREAS, the public was given the opportunity to comment on the environmental i~r~pacts of <br />the proposal; and <br />WHEREAS, the P1am~Iing Commission has reviewed the potential impacts in accordat~ce with <br />the applicable state and local guidelines governing the preparation o£ Negative <br />Declarations; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission t3nds that approval o£the proposed project would not <br />have aciy significant adverse effects on the site's wildlife_ <br />NOW, "THEREFORE, TI IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OP PL.EASANTON <br />RESOLVES 7'I-1F FOLLOWING= <br />Section 1 _ Recommends approval of the Negative Declaration prepared for Case PUD-38, <br />the application of Lynn Jansen for the construction of ten new hoiries, one custom <br />parcel, and two common ownership parcels on a 4.3-acre parcel located at <br />1635 and 1777 Rose Avenues. <br />S_ ection 2. Finds that the proposed project will have a de ~z~inin-ius iiripact on the site's <br />wildlife- <br />