My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
25
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2011
>
081611
>
25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2011 1:54:51 PM
Creation date
8/10/2011 1:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/16/2011
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
25
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Blank moved to make the required conditional use findings as <br /> listed in the staff report and to approve Case PCUP-296, subject to the conditions <br /> listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with the addition of verbiage, as determined <br /> by Counsel, to Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 7 requiring adult employees to <br /> pass criminal background check and to obtain first-aid and CPR certification, <br /> respectively. <br /> Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. <br /> Commissioner Blank encouraged the applicant, rather than taking the approach of just <br /> opening the business, to go back to the association to determine what can be worked <br /> out. He stated that just as the City does not get involved in private affairs, he does not <br /> want the applicant to use the City's approval as a leverage with the association. He <br /> indicated that what changed his mind in supporting the matter was Counsel's <br /> explanation of the distinction regarding not being involved in private affairs as well as <br /> the issue regarding the wireless facility, which was important to him although it was not <br /> brought up by any of the speakers. <br /> Commissioner Pearce supported the motion and stated that it would be good to talk <br /> about the CC&Rs and the PUD as to whether the use is appropriate; but she cannot get <br /> involved in private contractual agreements and must look to the City's zoning ordinance. <br /> She noted that the property owner supports the request and has indicted that there are <br /> similar uses in the Park, and she believes the adjacent uses are compatible. She <br /> added that the Commission attempts to mitigate the safety impacts in the conditions of <br /> approval, and she would appreciate knowing if and when any conditions are being <br /> violated. With respect to the wireless facility, she stated that she does not recall an <br /> instance where the Commission has not permitted an application because of a potential <br /> future use, and therefore, she could not deny the application based on this future use. <br /> Chair Narum indicated her support based on Commissioner Pearce's comments. She <br /> stated that the Commission has approved a number of these CUPs in this Business <br /> Park and has included specific conditions dealing with child safety. She noted that part <br /> of the reason for this is to make children safe, and if they are not safe, the Commission <br /> should hear about it and review the CUPs. She suggested that the Board contact staff <br /> about violations, and if staff cannot resolve the issue, it would come back to the <br /> Commission for reconsideration of the use. She indicated that she finds that <br /> Mr. Hodnefield's comments were appropriate that the economy is evolving and uses are <br /> changing whether we like it or not. She added that the Commission does the best it can <br /> in conditioning these applications, whether they be a distributor or manufacturer or a <br /> summer school program. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JUNE 8, 2011 Page 14 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.