1996 AGN SEP 03 I22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Appeal to the City Council July 11, 1996 File Index Number Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the authority to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, or overturn the decision and grant a Conditional Use Permit, Major Variance, and determine that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and approve the filing of a Negative Declaration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Financial impacts were not discussed by the Planning Commission, as their denial of the project was based on planning and zoning considerations. It is staffs understanding, however, that the applicant is willing to pay the City an undetermined amour}Lpf money to b used for graffiti abatement and youth oriented programs. R. ZAM01 A, Co ,r muni y Development Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Staff has determined that the proposed project will significantly create visual blight on the environment and does not warrant the filing of a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council accept public testimony on the proposed project, and after careful consideration, adopt the appropriate attached Resolution, R- 96, which upholds the decision of the Planning Commission, or adopt Resolution Number R- -96, which overturns the Planning Commission decision and which approves the filing of the attached Negative Declaration for the project. Report Prepared by: Andres L. Soto, Principal Planner DRZ/ALS/kd Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes of June 25, 1996 (A) Copy of Appeal filed by Oakridge Corporation (B) Planning Commission Staff Report (C) Negative Declaration (D) Resolutions (2)