Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS , <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />different or previously unknown evidence was alleged <br />to exist by applicant which could not have been pro- <br />duced at the public hearing; and <br />at the conclusion of the public hearing the City <br />Council deliberated upon the application, the evidence <br />presented and their own experience, and knowledge <br />regarding the property in question; and <br />the City Council was aware that findings permiting a <br /> <br />conditional use permit must <br />required by Section 2-11.08, <br />Ordinance Code; and <br /> <br />specifically be made, as <br /> <br /> Chapter 2, Title II of the <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council could not make the required findings <br /> for approval since sufficient justification had not <br /> been presented for converting and expanding the exist- <br /> ing noncomforming use into an approved conditional use. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES <br />RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />Section 1. The appeal by Grafco Petroleum from an adverse decision <br /> <br /> by the Planning Commission regarding UP-75-24 is denied. <br />Section 2. The contents of Planning Commission Resolution 75-1366 <br /> <br /> (attached hereto as Exhibit A) are incorporated herein <br /> <br /> by reference as the findings of the City Council. <br /> <br />Section 3. The City Council further finds and determines that the <br /> proposed plans for modification to the site will not <br /> alleviate the traffic congestion problems at and <br /> adjacent to the site; the proposal will continue to <br /> perpetuate existing traffic problems, as well as con- <br /> tribute to a worsening of the situation. This deter- <br /> mination is based upon the proposed expansion of gaso- <br /> line pumps and dispensers beyond prior useage and the <br /> applicant's statement that the station would attract <br /> additional traffic to the downtown area. The City <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />