My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
25
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2019
>
041619
>
25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2019 2:12:01 PM
Creation date
4/10/2019 1:02:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
25 ATTACHMENT 2e
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\041619
25 ATTACHMENT 4
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2019\041619
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
ALTERNATIVES <br /> As noted above, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council deny the two appeals, <br /> and approve the project subject to modified conditions of approval. The following <br /> alternatives could also be considered by the City Council: <br /> 1. Uphold either or both of the appeals, and deny the project, without prejudice. <br /> This option would require Chabad of the Tri-Valley to submit a new, modified <br /> application. <br /> 2. Continue the public hearing to a date uncertain, and refer the item back to the <br /> Planning Commission for additional discussion and recommendations to address <br /> matters raised in the appeals. Following any additional recommendation from <br /> the Planning Commission, the City Council would take action on the appeals at a <br /> future public hearing. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE <br /> Notice of this appeal was sent to surrounding property owners within Valley Trails <br /> neighborhood and within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. At the time this report was <br /> published, staff has not received the comments. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California <br /> Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, Class 1. <br /> Therefore, no environmental document accompanies this report. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> Staff believes the Planning Commission action to approve the project with modified <br /> conditions is appropriate. In particular, the modified conditions have responded to the <br /> concerns expressed by the neighbors. Adherence to these conditions will ensure that <br /> the safety and general welfare of the surrounding area is maintained. Staff believes that <br /> the proposed uses and site modifications would provide a service to the community and <br /> that the proposed location is appropriate, and therefore recommends the City Council <br /> deny both of the appeals. <br /> fitted by: Approv-d by: <br /> /k"N Gerry Beaudin Nelson Fialho <br /> Director of City Manager <br /> Community Development <br /> Page 13 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.