Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 1 <br />RESOLUTION NO. 08- <br />RESOLUTION DENYING CASE PAP-127 BUT AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF <br />THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PAP-123, THE APPEAL OF GREG <br />AND LISA JOHNSTON OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF <br />STEVE JEFFREY'S APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, AS FILED <br />UNDER CASE PDR-715 <br />WHEREAS, Steve Jeffrey has applied for a design review approval for rear yard <br />improvements at the existing residence located at 927 Montevino Drive; and <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-1-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) <br />District; and <br />WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Greg <br />and Lisa Johnston submitted an appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval to the <br />Planning Commission; and <br />WHEREAS, at its meetings of September 10, 2008 and September 24, 2008, the <br />Planning Commission, having considered all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and <br />recommendations of City staff concerning this application, upheld the appeal but <br />amended the conditions of the Zoning Administrator's approval; and <br />WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, Steve <br />Jeffrey submitted an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to the City <br />Council; and <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of December 2, 2008, the City Council received a <br />report from the Director of Community Development, together with a copy of the staff <br />report to the Planning Commission, regarding this matter; and <br />WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 2, 2008, at <br />which time the appellant, the applicants, and any other member of the public were <br />offered an opportunity to present evident regarding the appeal; and <br />WHEREAS, projects of this nature are categorically exempt from the <br />requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under <br />Sections 15304(4)(a-c), Minor Alternations to Land, and 15305(5), Minor Alterations in <br />Land Use Limitations; and <br />WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and review of the materials <br />presented, the City Council determined that, as conditioned, the proposed rear yard <br />improvements would be appropriate for the site, would not detrimentally affect the <br />surrounding properties, and would be consistent with the zoning regulations for the <br />zoning district of the property. <br />1 <br />