CCMIN051512 - Laserfiche WebLink

second Safeway in Pleasanton would result in the loss of 10% to 20% of sales for an existing grocery store in town. Less than 6 months after a second Safeway opened, Gene's grocery was sold because it could not sustain the loss of business. He agreed with her comments regarding walkability, but did not see the benefit if the opening of Walmart meant someone else's walkable store would close. He also disagreed with the Mayor's position regarding litigation, stating that if the Council caved every time someone threatened a lawsuit, it would be afraid of its own shadow. He said there has been considerable discussion of free enterprise. Walmart, with its massive taxpayer subsidies, shifting of healthcare costs into the public sector and unfair business practices is not a good example of free enterprise. MOTION: It was m/s by Thorne/McGovern to waive full reading and adopt Resolution No. 12-539 denying the appeal by Councilmember Sullivan of the Planning Commission's decision denying the appeal of Angela Joe-Willmes and Linda Martin, thereby upholding approval of a zoning certificate to operate a supermarket as a permitted use within the existing building located at 3112 Santa Rita Road, and within the hours of operation and delivery limits as set forth in the existing Conditions of Approval for PUD-84. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman Noes: Councilmember Sullivan Absent: None Councilmember Sullivan moved that the Council agendize, at the earliest availability, a discussion of an ordinance requiring an economic impact study, environmental review, public hearing, and City Council vote prior to the approval of any new grocery stores in Pleasanton. The motion failed. BREAK Mayor Hosterman called a brief recess and reconvened the regular meeting at 8:02 p.m. 16. Public Hearing: P11-0731, Carl Pretzel (Appellant); Robert Baker (Applicant) — Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving an Administrative Design Review to construct an approximately 74-foot long fence, varying in height from 72 inches to 83 inches between 3647 and 3633 Glacier Court North Community Development Director Dolan presented the staff report, stating that the issue revolves around the height of an existing side-yard fence between the Pretzel and Baker residences located on Glacier Court North in the Valley Trails neighborhood. He reviewed several site photos showing the relation of each property to the fence as well as the Fink property located to the rear of the two properties in question. The City's Code Enforcement Officer discovered the over-height fence when on site to examine another fence issue previously on the Council's agenda. Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel, who both constructed and paid for the fence, were then advised that an over-height fence would require both planning approval and a building permit. Mr. Baker and Mr. Pretzel subsequently filed a joint application for the existing fence. Following notice of the application, Mr. Deike, located to the rear of the two properties and abutting the Fink residence, requested a Zoning Administrator's hearing. Mr. Pretzel subsequently requested that his name be removed from the application. The Zoning Administrator held a hearing, determined that all required findings could be made and approved the application. Mr. Pretzel then appealed the matter to the Planning Commission, who concurred with staff and upheld the Zoning Administrator's ruling with a 5-0 vote. Mr. Pretzel subsequently appealed the matter to the City Council. Since the Planning Commission hearing, staff has worked with Mr. Pretzel, Mr. Baker, and interested neighbors in an attempt to resolve their differences regarding the appeal. Staff continues to support its City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 May 15, 2012