My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 5
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
06 ATTACHMENT 5
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:07:49 PM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:40:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
¢ � c <br />Mr. Fred Shwartz <br />November 5, 2008 <br />Page Two <br />Additionally, the City has concerns related to those improvements recently constructed that have <br />no active building permit. The expiration of that permit alerted the Planning Division via a code <br />enforcement review of the file. The improvements are not consistent with the conditions of <br />approval for your existing conditional use permit (UP- 77 -13). The process for a modification to <br />the conditional use permit needs to be reviewed by the Planning Division with action taken by <br />the Planning Commission. <br />UP -77 -13 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1977 under Resolution <br />No. 1562. Design review was approved by the Design Review Board on November 29, 1977 <br />under Resolution No. R- 77 -62. Copies of the Conditional Use Permit, Staff Reports, and <br />Resolutions are available to you at 200 Old Bernal Avenue for review. <br />A review of the related staff reports and resolutions made it clear that there were concerns related <br />to potential noise generated at the site and the negative impact that noise could have on the <br />residential properties to the north. The staff reports referred to ways to minimize noise and <br />conditions of approval addressed the issue by restricting the uses in that area. Condition no. 1 is <br />specific to the design of the building so that activities will be focused toward the southern <br />portion of the subject property, and Condition no. 20 required the applicant to provide an <br />effective buffer between the development and the surrounding residential area. However, the <br />buffer was not defined nor it does not appear to exist in any topographic or landscaped form. <br />In 2004, the Pleasanton Lodge applied for, and received, building permits to remodel the kitchen, <br />remove an emergency exit in the kitchen on the north side of the building, and install new double <br />doors in the connected dining hall, also on the north side of the building. It received an over -the- <br />counter Planning Approval in August 2003, but was Iimited to the removal of a kitchen exterior <br />door, and did not address the installation of new dining hall double doors. Nine months later a <br />building permit was issued which included the new double doors in the dining hall. The lodge <br />had several inspections, but failed to have some required inspections including the final <br />inspection. The permit has since expired, although all the work was completed. The new dining <br />hall doors are made of glass and have side window panels and do not provide mitigation from <br />interior noise generated by the events held at the Lodge. <br />The City initiated contact with representatives in order to discuss the issues of your site. To date, <br />we have been unsuccessful in finding a time that suits your schedule. If we are unable to discuss <br />the issues related to the noise complaints and the installation of the doors that are located in <br />direct conflict, with your conditional use permit, other actions may be necessary. <br />The City has begun a code enforcement action that is currently active. An alternative to the <br />continuation of the code enforcement action may be that the City would submit your original <br />project use permit to the Planning Commission for consideration and discussion. This may result <br />in the placement of additional conditions that meet today's stringent operations requirements, or, <br />the Planning Commission may consider a revocation of the original use permit- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.