CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Decker said there were a total of five neighborhood meetings. She noted that staff was present at two out of the five neighborhood meetings; the December 2004 and January 18, 2005 meetings were hosted by the Planning Department. The applicant initiated the other three neighborhood meetings. The applicant invited the Homeowners Association to attend the first neighborhood meeting to discuss the project and 60 residents that were adjacent to the subject site were noticed and invited to attend the second neighborhood meeting with one family in attendance at this meeting. In December 2004 and January 18, 2005 City staff conducted its meetings and subsequent to that, the applicant held a third meeting. Mr. Sullivan asked staff to characterize the nature of the meetings staff held. Ms. Decker said staff conducted a community outreach in order to solicit comments and concerns of the neighborhood. Staff took this information and shared it with the applicant. The applicant either modifies its project or there is some type of facilitation with modifications so that the expressed concerns can be met, which was based on the December neighborhood meeting. When staff conducted the January 18, 2005 neighborhood meeting, staff and the applicant believed the concerns that were expressed at the December 2004 neighborhood meeting had been mitigated; however, there were additional issues that were expressed during the January meeting. Mr. Sullivan asked staff why it decided not to hold additional neighborhood meetings after the January 18, 2005 meeting. Ms. Decker pointed out that the applicant had responded to the concerns that were identified in both the December 2004 and January 18, 2005 neighborhood meetings. The last real issue that had surfaced from these discussions was the access off of National Park Drive, which had continued to be an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA). When staff met with the Fire Department and found a solution to this issue which entailed the creation of an on-site hammerhead turnaround and removing that particular access, staff understood that all of the neighborhood concerns had been met; therefore, staff did not feel it was necessary to conduct additional neighborhood meetings. Mr. Sullivan wanted to confirm that this project is a conditional use permit, which if approved by Council cannot be referended by a vote of the public. Mr. Roush said that was correct. If Council approves this project, Mr. Sullivan asked if there were any recourse of appeal by the public to its decision? Mr. Roush said the only recourse would be for the public to file an action in court to have a court set aside the Council's decision based on grounds that there was substantial evidence in the record to support Council's decision. There would no recourse such as what is involved in a General Plan, Specific Plan, or PUD ordinance change that would be subject to a referendum process. Ms. McGovern asked staff if it believed the public process was followed and that neighbors were notified in a timely fashion? Ms. Decker said yes. Pleasanton City Council 6 07/19/05 Minutes