PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Maas' comment that public/private recreation uses were usually booked up fairly quickly. She expressed concern that it would become an 18-hour open recreation facility and requested the applicant's comments concerning not having any activities during the summer. Father Danielson noted that because of insurance requirements, the Church cannot have drop-in centers for anybody. Only people attached to a specific parish-sponsored or run programs may use the facility. The only other groups that can also use the facility aze other non-profit groups that have their own insurance. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that the Commission had received an email from on the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) trustees. She asked whether the Church had been in discussion with the School District regarding having the gymnasium used for school activities. Fr. Danielson indicated that there had not been any discussions but that they would not be opposed to that if scheduling allowed. He noted that the Church would not host wedding receptions, which were booked six to eight months in advance, and wanted this facility to be available to the needs of the community. He noted that the Church would be able to accommodate funeral receptions. Commissioner Blank asked whether he could confirm if there would not be activities occurring concurrently in the parish building and the main building and asked if there was a condition that stated this. Mr. Otto replied that it was not a condition but part of the applicant's submittal document as the narrative. Acting Chairperson Fox indicated that staff has not processed this application with a conditional use permit that would have conditions incorporated but has processed this only with a design review. Mr. Otto indicated that there was a previous conditional use permit attached to the original Master Plan that covers all Church uses. Ms. Decker noted that there aze no overlapping activities in the applicant's narrative. Commissioner Blank expressed concern for future yeazs such as twenty yeazs from now when there may be other property owners not as cooperative. He indicated that it was his understanding that narrative shows intent, but as it has been explained by staff and in written City materials provided to the Commissioners, the narrative shows intent; however, if it is not spelled out in the actual written conditions of a conditional use permit or in recommended conditions of approval, it is not binding. Commissioner Blank noted that the narrative of the application was acceptable to show intent and inquired whether any language outside the recommendation conditions of approval was binding. Ms. Decker confirmed that it was binding because it was part of Exhibit A, which encompassed all the plans and narrative with which the project must comply. Commissioner Blank asked for clarification that if an applicant is not in compliance with something in the stated narrative, the City can enforce that equally even if it is not stated as an actual condition of approval. Jerry Iserson, Planning Director, confirmed that Condition No. 1 referenced the written narrative, which would be linked in that way and thus be enforceable. Acting Chairperson Fox asked if alternatively, the City could process this application as a conditional use permit in an A (Agricultural) District for a private recreational facility. She indicated that private recreational facilities are conditional uses within an A District, thus having an actual conditional use permit with conditions. Mr. Iserson replied that there is no need to do that because a master use permit controls the site and this is a Church-related use. Acting Chairperson Fox noted that in the 1998 Master Plan staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 11 of 28