25 - Laserfiche WebLink

participation in overall kindergarten readiness within a group environment involving group story time, cooperative learning, working with colors and shapes, and sitting quietly. David Wensky, newest member of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) of Valley Business Park, stated that he has lived in Pleasanton for 25 years and owns two properties in VBP. He indicated that there are two other Board members in the audience who will speak about the issue brought forward earlier by Commissioner Blank regarding why the applicant is before the Commission tonight. Mr. Wensky stated that about a year ago, he was in the same position as the applicant with respect to a tenant who wanted to locate his business in VBP and needed a Conditional Use Permit from the City. He noted that the tenant went through the process and received approval from the ARB prior to going to the City for a Conditional Use Permit. He pointed out that that is not what is happening with this applicant. He added that the other reason he is here tonight is because things have occurred in VBP that the Board is not happy with in terms of who has been allowed to establish businesses in what is considered to be a Light-Industrial business park. Chris Studzinski, Vice President of the VBP Association and a member of the ARB, stated that he has copies of the VBP CC&Rs, which he distributed to the Commissioners, that are different from what is attached to the staff report as Exhibit D. He referred to Uses and Operation on page 18, which states that if either of this declaration [CC&Rs]or set ordinance [Pleasanton Zoning Code] is more restrictive than the other, the more restrictive of the two shall apply. He pointed out that the City approved the CC&Rs as part of the 1980 conditions. Mr. Studzinski then directed the Commission to Section 3.2, Subsection N, which lists the conditionally allowed uses if specifically approved by the Architectural Review Board. He noted that this is what is different from what staff included in the report as Exhibit D, which is really Exhibit A, as noted on the bottom of the page, which was used in another session as the original PUD-80 conditions, and which skips the section about the ARB. He added that ARB's first reaction was that this is not a trade school, the kind of school allowed and listed on p. 21 of the CC&Rs. Mr. Studzinski emphasized that this application is in violation of the VBP CC&Rs and, as a member of the Board, he needs to uphold them because other people complain if the Board does not do its job. He asked the City to respect this provision of the CC&Rs. Chair Narum asked Mr. Studzinski how long he has been a member of the VBP Board and the ARB. Mr. Studzinski replied that be has been in both for one year. Chair Narum stated that she senses that there is opposition to having businesses that include children's activities as part of the PUD and CC&Rs. She asked Mr. Studzinski why VBP has not considered applying to the City to have the PUD modified. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 8, 2011 Page 4 of 15