CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern said this option seemed to address the needs of what community members have addressed about the parking area and criminal activity. She was hopeful that if there is an adequate working relationship with St. Clare's and Harvest Valley Church as it related to shared parking, the parking lot could be reduced. Mr. Fialho mentioned another option short of a full public review process for the entire master expansion plan including the buildings and the parking lot, which was a variation of Option 2 whereby Council would approve the Phase I expansion, approve the square footage and use and not approve the massing of the buildings at this point and direct staff to try and find a suitable parking configuration that minimizes the impact to neighbors adjacent to the major neighborhood thoroughfare. This option would provide St. Clare's what it is looking for in terms of use and square footage while remaining silent with Phases II and III, which would come before Council at some point in the future. This option could also include directing staff to discuss what seems to be the primary point of concern, which is parking and trying to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. Mayor Hosterman wanted Council to discuss the approval of Phase I, which would include both the use in square footage and allow for a conditional use permit for this portion only. Council could direct St. Clare's to return to Council with future Phases II and III and apply for a new conditional use permit, which would safeguard the community's inability from being to allowed to referend what it perceived to be a bad project. Included in the approval would be a collaborative effort to get all parties together to have discussion and hammer out a class plan. Mr. Fialho noted that his option was slightly different. He noted that he is hearing a consensus option to direct staff to go out to the community and work collaboratively with the neighborhood and St. Clare's which would be facilitated by staff and an independent professional facilitator to address the real issues. The other option is a variation of Option 2. Option 2 calls for approval of the uses and square footages in aggregate for Phases I, II, and II1. The location of the buildings would have to come back for Council approval at some point. Ms. McGovern asked how Council would not approve parking, as parking is included in one of the three phases and it seemed this was the real issue. Mr. Fialho said the parking expansion is part of Phase II, and Council would have the opportunity to revisit the parking as part of the Phase II expansion. He reiterated the option which is a variation of Option 2 whereby Council would approve the use and square footage in aggregate for the buildings and not approve parking until Phase II came before Council for a determination of where Phase II would be located, and to approve the expansion of Phase I. Mayor Hosterman asked if the conditional use permit would relate to the approval of the use and square footage of ail three phases or only the first phase? Mr. Fialho said the use and square footage of all three phases is what he was suggesting and parking would be addressed as part of Phase Ii when it returned to Council in terms of location. Mr. Thorne wanted Council to add to that by making sure that staff addresses all of these issues with the community and St. Clare's, particularly the parking issue, before Phase II. Mr. Fialho said that was correct, which is an option. The consensus option that he is hearing is different. Pleasanton City Council 16 07/19/05 Minutes