CCMIN090605 - Laserfiche WebLink

link fencing located along the pre-school area. The details of the landscaping and the fence design are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. He mentioned that Condition 66 also states that landscape buffers shall be installed adjacent to National Park Road and the boundary adjacent to the residences at the time the Phase II improvements are constructed. He did not recall if there was specific discussion regarding the corner of National Park Drive; however, there was general discussion regarding the landscaping along National Park Drive and enhancing the area directly in front of the preschool. To clarify, he believed the landscaping condition, specifically for the corner of National Park Drive, might be adequate to include if Council believes it is important; otherwise, it could be considered in the overall requirements of Conditions 12 and 66. Mr. Fialho believed it was generally the understanding that the intention was to try and maximize the landscaping on the property and the Church has agreed to submit a landscaping plan to the City for its review and consideration, which typically occurs with most developments; the Planning Director reviews it and the landscaping agreement is attested by the City Attorney. Mr. Thorne asked if there any changes to Phase I? Mr. Iserson said no. Mr. Thorne asked if the Church could proceed with Phase I without any further delays? Mr. Iserson said yes. Mayor Hosterman declared the public hearing open. Carl Pretzel, appellant, believed that Conditions 12 and 66 adequately addressed landscaping for this project as long as the landscaping buffer is maintained as designed. He noted that during the facilitated discussions, the neighborhood residents were focused on landscaping the northern corner on National Park Drive. He did not believe the architect and the Church would object to additional shrubbery on the southwest corner of National Park Drive. He noted that it was clearly pointed out to the nearest neighbors that what is contained in the agreement would not abate the noise. He supported the revised master expansion plan and asked Council to approve it which would allow the Church to move forward with its project. Phillip Sayre, appellant, thanked Council for allowing the facilitated building public process to occur which has resulted in a revised master plan for the design of the St. Clare's site that mutually benefits the neighbors and the Church. Dave Willmore, representing St. Clare's Episcopal Church, thanked Ms. Willits and staff for conducting the consensus building public process. He believed the break through was in the Church's understanding of the neighbors' needs and priorities. He wished the consensus building process had been in place months ago, which would have saved the Church a significant amount of money in architect and building fees. He noted that the Church would make it a priority and address the repair a nonfunctional sprinkler located on the corner of its property. Chuck Wiedel, a Pleasanton resident, supported the revised master expansion plan and looked forward to seeing progress for the expansion of St. Clare's. Pleasanton City Council 6 09/06/05 Minutes