My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 111412
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 111412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:18:43 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:07:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/14/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Pearce stated that she does not think this needs to be widely noticed <br />because the Guideline has been widely noticed. <br />Commissioner Narum agreed. She noted that she thinks it is positive to actually have <br />businesses into these Guidelines. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if staff is comfortable with recommending a larger <br />Transition Area and keeping the 74 dBA as opposed to reducing the level to 70 dBA <br />and having a smaller Transition Area. <br />Ms. Ott said yes. <br />Acting Chair Blank brought up the issue about the use of "may' versus "shall." <br />Ms. Harryman stated that the PMC amendment before the Commission says: "A <br />re- review of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission shall only occur if <br />there is a violation verified by enforcement staff." <br />Acting Chair Blank stated that page 16 of the Guidelines says "The use may be <br />presented to the Planning Commission for subsequent review and public hearing if a <br />violation verifiable by enforcement staff such as Code Enforcement or the Police <br />Department." <br />Ms. Harryman stated that staff will update the Guidelines and have it say "shalt' so it is <br />consistent with the Code document. <br />Acting Chair Blank stated that there is still the issue of what is a "verifiable violation. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she is still a little uncomfortable with the <br />implementation of a verifiable violation and its coming before the Planning Commission. <br />She noted that everybody can make a mistake, and the Commission could be having <br />multiple meetings dealing with verifiable violations. <br />Commissioner O'Connor suggested having a repeat offender — two or three times as <br />opposed to only once — coming before the Commission, especially if violators are not <br />going to be let off the hook without a warning. <br />Acting Chair Blank stated that in that case, a more robust measurement and <br />methodology is needed, not in terms of the decibels, but in terms of issuing a warning <br />for a first violation and a second one getting referred to the Commission. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she was not initially in favor of the flexibility but she <br />now thinks that she would like to have a conversation about first -time business <br />offenders of, say, 75 dBA for a short time or 100 dBA for a really long time. She <br />indicated that she would like to be able to keep the flexibility in the document, but the <br />Commission needs to get the information, like it has done with other businesses. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 14, 2012 Page 15 of 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.