Laserfiche WebLink
It was moved by Mr. Thorne, seconded by Ma. McGovern, to approve the Phase I <br />expansion and approve the square footage and use and not approve the massing of the <br />buildings at this point; to direct staff to try and find a suitable parking configuration that <br />minimizes the impact to neighbors adjacent to the major neighborhood thoroughfare; to <br />remain silent with respect to Phases II and III, which would come before Council at some <br />point in the future; to direct staff to discuss what seems to be the primary point of <br />concern, which is parking, with the neighborhood and St. Clare's in trying to minimize <br />the impact to the neighborhood. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan believed this motion limited what input the community could have as Council <br />is locking in the location of the buildings in Phase I and further limits where the parking could be <br />located. He believed this motion also locked in the square footage so any discussion on the <br />size of the project and where some of the buildings are located is removed and out of the hands <br />of the neighbors in terms of having any influence, which is not the type of process that he wants <br />to see. He clarified that a conditional use permit cannot be referended. He stated that he could <br />not support this motion as it is not good government and public policy and not the direction that <br />he believed Council should follow. He could support the first option as suggested by Mr. Fialho. <br />He believed the public process should be independently facilitated, as there is a perception from <br />some of the neighbors that staff has been somewhat of an advocate for this project. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mayor Hosterman, to <br />continue this item and direct staff to develop a consensus building public process <br />facilitated by an independent professional facilitator that includes the applicant and the <br />neighborhood to develop a mutually agreed project by both parties. <br /> <br /> In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Fialho said that assuming a professional <br />facilitator was retained, staff could provide an updated report with recommendations by the <br />September 6 Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan reiterated that the facilitator be an independent professional facilitator. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern said she is willing to consider the substitute motion if it could include that <br /> there would be an updated report on the Council's September 6 agenda with the possibility that <br /> action could be taken. Council needs to be prepared to take action at that time if it comes to the <br /> fact that by September 6 after facilitated meetings there can be no bringing together of this <br /> process in a way that the Church's needs and the community's needs are met. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said between now and August 16, staff could inform Council in a report format <br /> how the process is going and provide an indication of whether or not there will be anything <br /> meaningful to report in terms of how the facilitation process works out. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern expressed her concern related to the time period for when this matter <br /> would return to Council for it to make some type of resolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho suggested that the motion reflect that there is a time frame associated with <br /> this process and that Council would give the facilitated process a chance but not extend it <br /> beyond September 6. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern said she would support the substitute motion if it included the time frame <br /> associated with this process. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 17 07/19/05 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />