SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

1. Make the finding that the proposed project will have a De Minimus impact on the site's wildlife, will not have a significant environmental impact, and adopt the draft resolution approving Exhibit "C", the Initial Study/Negative Declaration; 2. Find that the proposed PUD development plan conforms to the Pleasanton General Plan and the purposes of the PUD Ordinance; 3. Make the PUD Development Plan Findings 1 through 7 as stated in the attached Planning Commission staff report; and, 4. Introduce the ordinance approving Case PUD-50 for a PUD Development Plan approval for a 27-lot development shown on Exhibit "A", dated "Received March 24,2006" subject to Exhibit "B", Draft Conditions of Approval. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at two work sessions and at a public hearing. Prior to the work session, staff conducted a neighborhood meeting. Based upon these meetings, Ponderosa revised the project decreasing its density; revised the building designs; and agreed to rebuild Cameron Avenue with a curvilinear alignment and a public sidewalk. However, there remains neighborhood concern and opposition fo- cused on density, traffic, access, and the proposed public sidewalk. The Planning Com- mission recommended approval of the proposal with additional conditions, which were incorporated into the draft ordinance. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I. BACKGROUND The proposed project is a request by Ponderosa Homes for PUD development plan approval to subdivide the 19.83-acre Lehman-Selway property into 27 lots for 25 new single-family homes. In response to the neighbors' interest and concerns, the Planning Commission conducted two public workshops; staff conducted a neighborhood meeting; and Ponderosa met with the neighbors individually and at a series of neighbor-sponsored and Ponderosa-sponsored meet- ings. Based upon feedback from the Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors, Ponderosa re- vised its proposed development plan, which is now presented to the City Council for its review and decision. Although the proposal has been substantially revised over the course of its review, there remains neighborhood concerns and opposition focused on the following issues: SR 06:182 Page 2 of 14