CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern believed staff had stated that after the January 18, 2005 neighborhood meeting, it continued to work on the concerns that had been expressed by the neighborhood and changes were made as requested, which is why staff did not believe another neighborhood meeting was necessary. Ms. Decker said that is correct. Ms. McGovern believed there were three major changes in the process: (1) clu~tering of the buildings; (2) removing the court; and taking the EVA or any entrance off of National Park Road; and (3) creating the on-site hammerhead turnaround. She asked if there were any additional changes? Ms. Decker confirmed that there were three major changes in the process. She noted that through the Planning Commission process, fencing and landscaping mitigation measures were required for the play area. Ms. McGovern referred to Conditions 10 and 12 and believed there was a discrepancy between the two. Condition 10 seemed to be more definitive in what it is asking for and states "in any event the applicant shall replace the fence around the playground area with a solid fence and shall provide landscaping on the National Park Road side." Condition 12 states that "the said mitigations may include but are not limited to, the construction of a solid fence." She said that the wording "may include" does not lead her to believe that the two conditions are consistent. Ms. Decker said it appeared that the two Conditions seemed to be inconsistent. Condition 10 lays out the concerns for the buffering of the noise from the preschool play area, and Condition 12 is suggesting that prior to building permit issuance, the applicant needs to provide evidence that it is in compliance with the noise ordinance and if it is not, adequate mitigations would be provided and a solid fence may be on of those conditions. She noted that a solid fence is required at any rate and other mitigations would need to be considered. Both conditions require a noise study and prior to issuance of the building permit, she believed the applicant would conduct this study and find what is the appropriate mitigation prior to building a fence. Ms. McGovern wanted to remove the wording "may include" from Condition 12 as it pertained to the requirement of a solid fence, as this is a requirement in Condition 10. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. Carl Pretzel, appellant, believed there were several important operatives reflected in the General Plan in terms of words that were ignored by the process and planning staff. The operatives of character of the neighborhood and minimizing the intrusions as noted in Policy 1.1 and 1.2 of the General Plan have not been met. He disagreed with the timeline regarding the neighborhood meetings. The meeting held on February 8, 2005 was a meeting of the Valley Trails Homeowners Association and not a City meeting nor did the Planning Commission sponsor it. He noted that staff did not attend any of the meetings. The Valley Trails neighborhood held a community potluck in May 2005 and invited members of the Church who did not attend. He noted that this is a medium density residential neighborhood and St. Clare's wanted to triple its square footage, which dictates that such an expansion should be done carefully to be considerate of the surrounding neighborhood. Unfortunately, the process was dictatorial and the interests of the neighborhood were held in Iow regard. He noted that staff's presentation included a comment that stated that after one of the neighborhood meetings sponsored by the Planning Commission, the Valley Trails neighborhood was promised that Pleasanton City Council 7 07/19/05 Minutes