Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, ALAMEDA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 05-078 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF CASE PAP-SI, THEREBY <br />DENYING THE APPLICATION OF PATRICIA SUTTON FOR CONDITIONAL <br />USE PERMIT, AS FILED UNDER CASE PDUP-7 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Patricia Sutton has applied for conditional use permit approval to expand an <br />existing small family daycare facility for up to eight children into a large family <br />daycare facility for up to 14 children; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, zoning for the property is R-I-6,500 (Single-Family Residential) District; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of May 25, 2005, the Planning Commission, after having <br />considered the staff report, all public testimony, relevant exhibits, and <br />recommendations of City staff concerning this application, approved the <br />application on a 3-2 vote subject to conditions of approval including the condition <br />that the applicant be encouraged to work with the neighborhood regarding the <br />number of children in the daycare to mitigate parking, traffic, noise and safety <br />issues and that regular meetings be held with the applicant, neighbors and City <br />during the first year of operation to address any traffic, parking, noise and safety <br />issues; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, within the time specified by the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the decision of the <br />Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council by a neighbor, Beverly <br />McWilliams; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting on August 16,2005, the City Council continued the matter to allow a <br />neighborhood facilitation process to occur with the consent of the applicant and <br />appellant; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a neighborhood facilitation process did occur but failed to reach a consensus on <br />mitigating the traffic, parking and safety impacts perceived by the neighborhood, <br />primarily with a self-imposed limit of twelve children at the daycare, causing the <br />appeal to proceed; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 4, 2005, the City Council received a report from the <br />Director of Planning and Community Development, together with exhibits, a copy <br />of the staff report to the Planning Commission and minutes of that meeting, and a <br />petition signed by 51 neighbors opposed to the project; and <br />