PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

2.Whether the plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 3.Whether the plan is compatible with previously developed properties in the vicinity and the natural, topographic features of the site; 4.Whether grading takes into account environmental characteristics and is designed in keeping with the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, slides, or flooding to have as minimal an effect upon the environment as possible; 5.Whether streets and buildings have been designed and located to complement natural terrain and landscape; 6.Whether natural public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the plan; and 7.Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District. Ms. Decker noted that the applicant had worked diligently over the past three years, and that many suggestions, such as partially burying the home, had been previously addressed in meetings with staff. Staff recommended that the Commission find that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, find that the project has a de minimus impact, and adopt a resolution recommending approval to the City Council of the attached draft negative declaration; and find that the proposed rezoning and PUD development plan are consistent with the General Plan and PUD ordinance, make PUD findings 1 through 7 as listed in the staff report, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of PUD-51 to the City Council for a rezoning of .49 acres, a portion of a 3.54 acre site from P to PUD-MDR for a two-lot residential development shown in Exhibit A, subject to conditions of approval listed in the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Steve Black, 300 Neal Street, applicant, noted that he would like to move his family to Pleasanton and added that Generations Healthcare has made a significant investment and improvements to the property for the benefit of the Pleasanton residents who live in the facility. He described the background of this project’s various iterations and noted that they had complied with every request through this process, including changing the size and layout of the porches, garages, and house placement. The only request he could not agree with was not to build the homes. Steve Samuelian, owner, Generations Healthcare, reviewed the renovations they had made to the facility, totaling approximate $2 million. He noted that their facilities throughout the State were high-quality in terms of care and the physical plant. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, Suite 210, applicant’s attorney, noted that staff recommended approval of this project, which was consistent with the General Plan. He noted that the lot size of 10,000 square feet exceeded the typical lot sizes in the area and noted that it was within the 40-percent floor area ratio (FAR). He added that it met the R-1 standard for a porch, and added that the property line was eight to ten feet beyond the sidewalk; the distance from the curb to the porch was 26 feet, exceeding most of the setbacks in this neighborhood. He addressed the zoning criteria and added that letters PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 10 of 23