Laserfiche WebLink
of approval. Specifically, the letter states the applicants' belief that the restrictions <br />placed on the project are unfair and not consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods <br />or the Downtown as a whole. Additionally, the applicants are requesting that PUD-61 <br />be reviewed by the Council. <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 />This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the <br />California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 32, Section 15332(a-e). Therefore, <br />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 General Plan. The proposed PUD provides the <br />foundation for future creative design solutions to achieve the balance required of an infill <br />development in this area: provision of higher density, single-family housing that <br />incorporates the design and development standards of the surrounding area while <br />respecting the concerns of, and minimizing the impacts on, nearby residents. Staff <br />believes that the recommended conditions of approval will best serve the future <br />development of the site allowing for additional review and input from the surrounding <br />neighbors at the time specific design plans are provided to the City. Alternately, the <br />Council could approve the project with more restrictive conditions related to height, <br />FAR, and process as recommended by the Planning Commission. <br />Submitted by: Approved <br />G~- <br />/`-- l <br />Brian Dolan Nelson Fialho <br />Director of Planning City Manager <br />and Community Development <br />Attachments: <br />1. Draft Ordinance, with Exhibit B, Draft Staff-Recommended Conditions of <br />Approval <br />2. Planning Commission-Recommended Conditions of Approval <br />3. Location Map <br />4. Exhibit A, Site Plan, dated "Received, February 21, 2008" <br />5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 23, 2008, with Attachments 4 <br />and 7 <br />6. Excerpts of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated April 23, 2008 <br />7. Letter from the applicants, dated May 19, 2008, in objection to the Planning <br />Commission's modifications to the Conditions of Approval <br />Page 6 of 6 <br />