15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown I don't know where it fits in these questions but the on page 8 when you have, the planning division occasionally receives requests from prospective owners opening a business type which is not specifically identified in the zoning code as a permitted or conditionally permitted use, you're essentially suggesting that the control moves away from the Planning Commission and goes to the Zoning Administrator unless they feel it's necessary to bump up I'm not sure if I'm particularly comfortable with that Beaudin We're looking at people who own property in the room, so when you come in with a business what happens right now, and I feel comfortable saying this publicly because I've only been here for a year, for years what's happened is the Community Development Director or Zoning Administrator, someone at the City has been deciding if somebody comes in and says I want to put in a laser tag facility, that's substantially similar to an indoor community recreation use or an indoor public recreation use and those uses have gone forward without coming to a broader public hearing with a staff report explaining the rationale for that I mean, this is the first time that I've seen a City have it come to a public hearing to make those kinds of determinations in the code and just practically it hasn't happened that way in a very long time And so what we're trying to do here is just daylight the whole thing These decisions get made all the time People come in and try to figure out whether their business works or not in Pleasanton and then somebody makes the call that it's substantially similar or not to an existing use And in the case of the categories, you couldn't leave everything as vague as let us take it to the Planning Commission to make sure it fits into one of these broad categories It just wouldn't work for us It's just like too much glue in a process that's already cumbersome Commissioner Balch Having been a person who just did a PUD Minor Modification for the business park that I mentioned in town in 2014, you know, it amazes me the number of uses we have explicitly and painstakingly detailed out that just are burdensome to even find out if you can facilitate anything And just a few nuances in your use versus that can cause such delay for nothing So I know this is going on and I personally think it's got to make the process work, and I think the nuances the business park that I'm talking about is 40 years old or so, or getting close to it, and it has smelting on it It has the blacksmith It has some of these uses that are permitted uses and to get that off in this case a PUD Minor Modification, and that's where I kind of come back to this When I look at this, I think this is much better, and that's why a Minor CUP process that we kind of shot holes in a little bit earlier, I do want to say I support the idea as he was saying, how do you get that segue to do what I'm going to say which is, I don't want it to be a serial approval And what I mean by that, like I mentioned earlier, I don't think a serial approval of a Zoning Administrator action to change a condition and then on top of it a Minor CUP mod to get it through staff level at both levels, I don't think that should be allowed I think that is where just like on Brown Act items, how is a serial meeting conducted'? How is serial approval conducted'? So you get one and then you get your second without going up again, that's where I get concerned more so than trying to clarify laser tag is the same as indoor recreational I hope staff understands what I'm trying to point at Beaudin Can I paraphrase that a little bit just to make sure I'm clear'? So what you're saying is, if you need to amend a PUD to enable a use and then a couple of weeks later EXCERPT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 31, 2016 Page 18 of 25