15 - Laserfiche WebLink

commercial areas is not enough, that you should have them in more main stream areas and our ordinance has always tried to keep them in areas that they wouldn't have as much interaction near residences or parks or schools So we picked some areas as limited as possible to still meet the letter of the law in terms of providing a few options Commissioner O'Connor So the one glaring area that I saw out of the list was again the C-C area It means they're permitted downtown'? Beaudin Except they're not because the separation criteria related to it It's within 500 feet of any other adult entertainment business, 500 feet of any residential zone or use, or within 500 feet of any church, school, public park in the City, 500 feet of selling or serving alcohol So, we permit them, but then we have these very specific criteria I would imagine there's a patch of soil in Pleasanton where someone could meet this criteria but I couldn't identify it for you Chair Ritter But we've met our obligations Seto That's correct Commissioner Allen Well, thank you for clarifying Commissioner Brown Did we address the Hacienda letter from Mr Paxson'? He consistently called out there is no clear direction provided as to what happens in the event of a discrepancy between an approved PUD and direction provided by the table He points out the same point Commissioner O'Connor made earlier in that we have a lot of PUDs in this city and do we need to explicitly say that in the case of a discrepancy, the PUD takes precedent over the table I think this was his point Beaudin There are administrative sections and there are kind of rules of interpretation that exist in a lot of City zoning codes and so I would imagine us doing that in a future phase and creating that for the City of Pleasanton In the meantime, there's just what we do practically as practitioners in using the code on a regular basis and from a legal perspective So, you have the base zoning district and then you put a PUD on top of it and the PUD guides I understand Mr Paxson is interested in saying that We can add a footnote to say that, but the reality is, it's clear to everyone who uses the code from staff's perspective and I can see where he would want that to be clearer for people coming in and trying to identify this Commissioner Brown I think the point of the code simplification is to make it clearer for the public, so I think it's a useful point The other point he made was around the same point you made earlier in terms of we're going to go through a period of tweaking as we go through these learnings He was talking about a "publicly accessible record of interpretive actions" such that it be rolled back into those periodic code amendments as we go through these three phases And then also, he was talking about instituting a zoning code amendment adopted every two years, so I wasn't sure if you had any comment or thoughts on his points Beaudin I've had this conversation with Mr Paxson We kind of agree to disagree on a couple of things and it's still a public process I understand his desire to have that every EXCERPT DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 26 of 30