CCMIN033004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Hosterman said most of the property has been zoned Public and Institutional, which meant many uses need a conditional use permit. The quarry area was later acquired by the EBRPD and added to the Master Plan. That portion of the property was then rezoned from Commercial to Public and Institutional. That portion of the park is actually the overflow parking area of the project. While the project is currently not referendable, were Council to change the zoning on the property, it could become referendable. It would give the community the power to actually have a say should the Council decide to make a decision that the community was unhappy with. If she was not mistaken, Council needed to deny the appeal and rezone the overflow parking area to allow the community to weigh in. She asked if her understanding of this was correct? Mr. Roush said that in order for this project to be subject to the referendum process for the voters, Council would need to deny the project and then initiate either a rezoning of the property or zoning regulations that would be applicable to the property, to require this type of use to be subject to a PUD plan as opposed to a conditional use permit. By taking this action and adopting either different zoning or different zoning regulations, if another similar plan came forward, it would be under the zoning regulations much like any other PUD plan that Council looks at, and any decision it then makes would be subject to a referendum. Because this particular project is under the umbrella of a conditional use permit as opposed to a PUD Plan, it is not subject to referendum. Ms. Hosterman said this is the direction she would initially like to take. She would like to entertain discussion about what this project may or may not look like, and whether a majority of the Council has an interest in having that discussion. She did not have an interest in seeing what this project would look like as she had a number of concerns. She believed it was important for the community to be allowed the opportunity to weigh in on this project as it is in the City, and she wanted to protect the community's ability to have a say about the project. It was moved by Ms. Hosterman, seconded by Ms. Ayala for discussion purposes only, to approve Option 4 as stated in the staff report, to deny the appeal and to initiate a rezoning of the property. Ms. Ayala was proud to live in a City where residents feel comfortable enough to address the Council. There was no doubt in her mind that if this entire plan went to a vote of the people, it would be voted down. Knowing that, she could not see why Council would entertain the idea of trying to rezone the property. For further discussion, she was interested in pursuing a first phase that is significantly scaled back beyond what was presented for the first phase. Mr. Brozosky said that he was not ready to deny the appeal. He would like to entertain discussions to see if there is a compromise plan that can be worked out. He believed the current water slide park would close if the appeal were denied. The existing water park is an amenity in the community that is used by the community. He would not Pleasanton City Council 3 03/30/04 Minutes