My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06 ATTACHMENT 6
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
092016
>
06 ATTACHMENT 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 11:37:54 AM
Creation date
9/15/2016 3:50:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
9/20/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\092016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
Stuart Flashman: Good evening Commissioners and I really appreciate your spending <br />the effort and time on this issue. It is a serious one for my clients and it's been a long- <br />standing one and it's been very frustrating for them to have to live with this for as long <br />as they have. As I indicated in my recent letter to the City, when the City allowed the <br />Mason's to go ahead and landscape the backyard and put in the glass doors and put in <br />the patio, they basically literally opened the door to a whole new range of problems for <br />my clients, and those problems should not have been there because the use permit that <br />was granted in 1977 was pretty specific about saying that the uses are supposed to be <br />concentrated on the southern side of the property. Well, all those glass doors, the patio, <br />the landscaping in the backyard, that's all on the north side where there's not supposed <br />to be activities going on. That's supposed to be on the southern side, and the City just <br />went ahead and let that all happen and essentially since then has turned a blind eye to <br />it and continued to let that sort of stuff happen. And I want to talk a little bit about what <br />that use permit was about because when a use permit is granted, as you know, it has <br />conditions attached to it and you also have to make findings. One of those findings <br />specifically says that the use, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to public health, <br />safety or welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That's exactly <br />what's happened here, is that things that have gone on at the Masons are injurious to <br />the property improvements of the people in the vicinity —of the neighbors, and yet the <br />City has basically said we don't care. And you should care because when you approved <br />the findings, you are saying that as conditioned by the conditions you're putting in that <br />use permit, this isn't going to cause problems. You're basically promising the City and <br />the people of the City that when you approve something like this, it's going to work. If <br />the City doesn't enforce those conditions it isn't going to work, so you shouldn't be <br />making those findings if you can't say these conditions will be enforced. If the conditions <br />can't be enforced and you know the conditions can't be enforced, you can't make those <br />findings. Staff may tell you can. They may want to make those findings, but they're not <br />you. You're the people who are the decision - makers. You're the people that the <br />decision rests with and if you can't, in good faith, make those findings, you can't <br />approve the permit. So, it's important to you that when conditions are attached that they <br />be enforced because otherwise, you can't do your job. <br />So, again, the condition says it's supposed to be designed so the activity is focused to <br />the south side of the property. What's happened is that they put a building entrance in <br />the south and actually in fact, one of the things they said in the staff report that <br />accompanied that was they said, the building entrance should be on the south. There <br />should be no windows facing the residential frontage and any other access should be <br />for emergency use only. Well, staff just blew that all off and put in the glass doors and <br />let them use that to go into the backyard and in spite of the fact that the staff report, <br />which is the basis for what the use permit that was approved basically said, don't do <br />that. So, what are we going to do at this point? Well, I think staff has given you a way <br />out of this basically saying let all of the things that are going on, make them all legal. Put <br />them in the CUP so that they're okay and then we won't have a problem. Well, you will <br />have a problem. It just won't be something you can't do anything about. But the <br />neighbors are still going to have a problem and you still have to make findings if you're <br />going to approve changes to the use permit. Can you make those findings when you <br />know what that's going to do to the neighbors? I don't think you can. I think there's a <br />real problem for you. Maybe not for them but for you, about making the findings for the <br />changes that they're proposing. <br />EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 13 of 52 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.