01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vice Mayor Brown asked if the revenue is put into a general fund with Visit Tri-Valley or dedicated specifically to hotel marketing. Ms. Ott explained that the district requires that the funds be used to market and support the lodging businesses which pay the assessment. Mayor Thorne opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Pentin to introduce and wavie first reading of Ordinance No. 2119 amending Chapter 5.36 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code; adopted and waived full reading of Resolution No. 15-746 modifying the management district plan; and approved and authorized the the City Manager to execute an agreement with Visit Tri-Valley to administer the district. Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Brown, Narum, Olson, Pentin, Mayor Thome NOES: None ABSENT: None 15. Public Hearing: P15-0008, Wayne Rudick, Appellant; Social Vocational Services, Inc., Applicant — Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit at 6602 Owens Drive, Suite 100, to operate a vocational training center for adults with developmental disabilities Planning Manager Weinstein presented the staff report, stating the item relates to the appeal of a Condition Use Permit (CUP) approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant, Social Vocational Services (SVS), is seeking to operate a vocational training facility for adults with developmental disabilities at 6602 Owens Drive, Suite 100. The proposed project site is a 5,200 square foot portion of a 1.9 acre parcel situated at the southwest quadrant of Owens and Johnson Drives. Adjacent suites are occupied by insurance offices to the west and a general contractor's administrative offices to the west. The applicant proposed to implement interior tenant improvements to create rooms for offices, exercise and various classes including art, music and skill building in areas such as interviewing, communication and personal appearance. A media room, including a television and non-amplified music, is planned as an interior room and does not share any common walls with adjacent tenant spaces. The proposed program would operate on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and serve no more than 30 clients on site at any given time, which would require approximately 13 staff members on site. As SVS clients do not drive, SVS would pick up and drop off clients using a fleet of 8 vans which would be parked on the south side of the building. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the CUP application, finding that the proposed location of the use was consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and would not adversely affect adjacent uses with the recommended conditions of approval. Wayne Rudick, a property owner and tenant of an adjacent suite to the west, filed an appeal expressing concerns related to safety and liability, parking and traffic, noise impacts, and negative effects on property value. The appellant has expressed concern about the potential for violent behavior among the occupants of the training facility as well as the potential liability should a client leave the facility or damage the common open space, noting that the suites are under condominium ownership. Staff finds that clients of this particular type of facility would tend not to have behavioral problems, which are better addressed by behavioral programs than vocational training programs. Consistent with SVS policies as well as state licensing requirements, clients are supervised continuously. The proposed project design includes door alarms on all exterior doors to notify program staff of arrivals and departures and staff has recommended that these door alarms be added as a condition of approval. Lastly, staff believes that City Council Minutes Page 5 of 13 May 5,2015