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
ATTACHMENT 1 <br /> RESOLUTION NO. <br /> A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DENYING THE <br /> APPEALS OF MICHAEL AND DARLENE MILLER, AND CHABAD OF THE TRI-VALLEY, <br /> THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL <br /> USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR CHABAD OF THE TRI-VALLEY <br /> LOCATED AT 3370 HOPYARD ROAD, AS FILED UNDER CASE NOS. P16-0288 AND P16- <br /> 1883 <br /> WHEREAS, Chabad of the Tri-Valley applied for a Conditional Use Permit and Design <br /> Review approvals to operate a religious institution with a childcare/preschool, and for site <br /> modifications including a playground and an outdoor terrace, for its site at 3370 Hopyard Road <br /> ("Project"); and <br /> WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-M-2,500 (Multi-Family Residential) District and <br /> the proposed Project is subject to Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Pleasanton Municipal <br /> Code ("PMC") §18.36.040 and Design Review per PMC §18.20.010.A.1; and <br /> WHEREAS, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, <br /> Existing Facilities, Class 1; and <br /> WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 25, 2018, the Planning Commission <br /> took public testimony, requested additional information to be provided, suggested the applicant <br /> conduct additional outreach to neighbors, including a neighborhood meeting, and continued the <br /> public hearing; and <br /> WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 27, 2018, the Planning Commission <br /> considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and recommendations of the City staff <br /> concerning this application; and <br /> WHEREAS,the Planning Commission approved Case Numbers P16-0288 and P16-1883, <br /> a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for Chabad of the Tri-Valley to operate a religious <br /> facility and childcare facility/preschool — including a playground and an outdoor terrace at the <br /> property subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by the Planning Commission; and <br /> WHEREAS, neighbors Michael and Darlene Miller submitted a timely appeal dated June <br /> 29, 2018 of the Planning Commission's approval generally alleging that: (1) the Planning <br /> Commission's approval violated the conditions of approval originally placed on this site when it <br /> was constructed, in terms of outdoor activities/uses; (2) noise impacts from the playground and <br /> from events were not properly analyzed, and that the noise will be detrimental to neighbors; (3) <br /> the Planning Commission's approval should not have included non-religious outdoor events; and <br /> (4) that the Planning Commission should not override the past decision of the City Council to <br /> prohibit outdoor events and activities at this site; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Chabad of the Tri-Valley also submitted a timely appeal of the Planning <br /> Commission's approval stating that: (1) the restrictions applied through the conditions of approval <br /> are a substantial burden on the Chabad's religious exercise; (2) the conditions of approval are <br /> not consistent with restrictions applied to other religious institutions; and (3) the conditions of <br /> approval are a violation of the federal Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act <br /> (RLUIPA); and <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.