CCMIN100405 - Laserfiche WebLink

She was concerned about the M-80's being set off which occurred three times and other incidents, which the neighborhood is uncomfortable with. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Mr. Brozosky asked if a daycare provider was required to reduce the amount of children to twelve if it had two children of their own? Mr. lserson said a daycare provider's own children would count. Mr. Sullivan mentioned he met with the appellant and several of the Paseo Navarro neighbors this morning. He understood the value and importance of family daycare centers and did not want to take away the Sutton's ability or anyone else in the neighborhood to have a family daycare. This application is a balancing act and similar to other neighborhood issues. In addition to the ability for the Suttons to have a daycare and to run a business, there are also direct impacts to the neighborhood such as traffic and safety. He believed the cumulative impacts stood out in this neighborhood and if there were one daycare that wanted to expand it would not be an issue; however, there are a total of three that directly affect the neighborhood. He believed that three daycare centers within the Paseo Navarro neighborhood were enough and would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. He believed the neighbors were willing to compromise to agree to reduce the number of children to twelve. Based on the impacts to the neighborhood, the cumulative effects and the fact that the City is not taking anything away from the Suttons, he supported upholding the appeal. Mr. Thorne said he met with several Paseo Navarro neighbors and the Suttons. He indicated that he spent two mornings between the hours of 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. directly observing both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. He was disappointed that a compromise solution could not be reached, as it is difficult for Council to make a decision in this type of environment. He approached this matter from a systematic approach and the first question he asked is what is the breath of the impact of this particular decision and does it have a community-wide impact and does it have an impact outside the immediate neighborhood. While a case could be made because of the overall shortage of daycare centers that this does have an impact beyond the immediate neighborhood, given the numbers and nature of the matter, he believed it was safe to say that this is a neighborhood issue. The next step he took was to review the appropriate codes and make personal observations. He also discussed this matter extensively with staff and met the neighbors and anyone else that was directly impacted by this matter. Having gone through this process, it was his opinion that the appeal should be upheld based on the cumulative impact of having three small family daycare centers within the Paseo Navarro neighborhood. He did not observe enough traffic to believe it was excessive but he could envision a few more vehicles making it more difficult. He supported upholding the appeal and was disappointed that the Suttons could not reach some type of agreement with the neighborhood. He would support leaving this matter open ended to allow the Suttons and the neighborhood additional time to work together to try and reach a conclusion that would be acceptable to all parties; however, he would not support a meeting between the appropriate City representatives, the neighborhood and the applicants every 45-days of the first year of operation as it would not accomplish anything. Mr. Brozosky mentioned that he met with the applicant and many of the neighbors. He concurred with comments made by Councilmembers Sullivan and Thorne. He believed residents were more concerned about their own respective neighborhoods and wanted traffic calming devices in their neighborhood but not in someone else's neighborhood because it would Pleasanton City Council 10 10/04/05 Minutes