15 - Laserfiche WebLink

believes that a substantial detrimental effect on value and insurability would be speculative. As described above and in the Planning Commission staff report in Attachment 4, City staff believes that the proposed project would be compatible with office uses and would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the properties and improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, the appellant states that the broker representing the Suite 100 owner described the potential vocational training center tenant as a service that would provide job and other training off-site only and would store the vans at the subject site, but would not provide services to clients on-site. While it is unfortunate that the programming of the proposed training center was not more clearly communicated between owners, communication between property owners is not an issue that the City regulates and therefore is not discussed further herein. PUBLIC NOTICE Notices of this appeal were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. Staff verified that a notice was sent to each owner and tenant space within the subject building for the City Council hearing, including the recently leased tenant space in Suite 50. Staff has provided the location and noticing maps as Attachment 4, Exhibit C for reference. At the time this report was published, staff received one email in opposition of the project included in Attachment 7. Public comments received in response to the Planning Commission public hearing notice have been attached to this report (Attachment 5). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, Class 1. Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION With the Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1, which includes the conditions approved by the Planning Commission, plus two additional conditions to mitigate noise and safety concerns, City staff believes that the surrounding uses would be protected from adverse impacts and that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. Therefore, staff recommends adopting the resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. Submitted by: Approved by: 541- Lo-V Steve Kirkpatrick Nelson Fialho Acting Director of Community Development City Manager Page 6 of 7