Laserfiche WebLink
Downtown District or elsewhere in the city. Staff notes that it is possible for a deed <br />restriction placed on a project at the time of approval to be subsequently removed due <br />to changed circumstances. Staff also reiterates that the project, as proposed, does not <br />consist of any new development and, therefore, density at the site will not increase. <br />Any additional communications received by staff after the publication of this staff report <br />will be provided to the City Council under separate cover. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br />Projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California <br />Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 15, Section 15315 Minor Land <br />Divisions. Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Staff believes that, as conditioned, the proposed PUD is in keeping with the themes, <br />policies, and requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan and the surrounding area. <br />The proposed site development standards have been created in accordance with the <br />intent of the Specific Plan. The development of this PUD would therefore be carried out <br />in a manner that preserves the unique mixed-use character desired for Downtown Area. <br />Submitted y: Approve~d~'by: / <br />~'"" t~/ <br />Jerry Iserson Nelson Fialho <br />Director of Planning City Manager <br />and Community Development <br />Attachments: <br />1. Draft Ordinance, with Exhibit B, Draft Conditions of Approval <br />2. Location Map <br />3. Exhibit A, Including Site Plans, Photographs, and Narrative dated "Received, <br />January 22, 2007" <br />4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 9, 2007 <br />5. Excerpts of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated May 9, 2007 <br />6. E-Mail Opposing the Project from Linda and George Garbarino, dated May 21, <br />2007 <br />7. Public Comment received before the Planning Commission Hearing on May 9, <br />2007 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />