Laserfiche WebLink
From: Anne Fox [mailto:anne_fox@comcast.net] <br />Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:41 AM <br />To: Matt Sullivan; Steve Brozosky; Cindy McGovern; jenniferhosterman@comcast, net <br />Cc: 3erry Iserson <br />Subject: Fw: PCUP-129 -- 336 St. Marys St--Crown Pub/Restaurant Pleasanton Weekly article <br /> <br />fyi-There was an error in the Pleasanton Weekly regarding the Crown Pub/Restaurant on Friday <br />where they indicated the Planning Commission approval was unanimous. There were several <br />neighbors who spoke in opposition and it was not unanimous. They are usually very accurate, so <br />I don't know if there is a mistake in the minutes or not. However, Heidi is on vacation until <br />January 3rd so I'm forwarding this to you and Jerry Iserson...and requesting that the <br />Planning Dept provide the minutes/staff report of the Sept 2003 PCUP-92 proposal presented to <br />the Planning Commission on September 10, 2003 as attachments to the staff report in the <br />upcoming appeal so that you can see the differences in the previous and current applicant <br />proposal as well as the previous minutes/discussions regarding the proposal. <br /> <br />Happy Holidays, <br />Anne <br /> <br />To: Heidi Kline <br />Cc: Jerry Iserson <br />Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:21 AM <br />Subject: 336 St. Marys St--Crown Pub/Restaurant Pleasanton Weekly article <br /> <br />Hello Heidi, <br /> <br />The Pleasanton Weekly <br />article ( http:llwvvw.pleasantonweekly.comlmorquel200412004 12 24.crown24.shtmlc <br />"Homeowners want new restaurant blocked-City Council will decide fate of Crown to open <br />downtown" ) on Friday reported that the Planning Commission's vote on the Crown restaurant <br />was unanimous. The sentence included: "Mad and Panl Kcrmard, who operate Thc Crown <br />British Pub and Restaurant in downtown Danville, won approval from the Planning <br />Commission in a 4-0 vote to open their new establishment next year." <br /> <br />Can you please ensure that the minutes are correct and that I opposed the approval of the <br />conditional use permit (the vote was actually 3-1 ) because of proposed late hours (closing at <br />midnight during weekdays and at 1 AM Friday and Saturday rather than earlier) given the <br />proximity of adjacent residential neighbors --- within 130 and 225 feet of the proposed location? <br />could not support its closing time being midnight on weekdays (I felt it should be no later than 11 <br />PM). <br /> <br />Also, please ensure that when this item is brought to the City Council meeting, that in the packet <br />prepared for the public, that the public and the City Council has a copy of the current minutes as <br />well as the minutes of September 10, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting when this <br />establishment was first proposed to the Planning Commission on 780 Main Street <br />http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/archive/pcminutes030910.html as well as the staff report <br />regarding the first proposed location on 780 Main Street. During the 2003 Planning Commission <br />hearing as reported in the Sept 2003 minutes, Chairperson Arkin noted that he would not support <br />this application because it would remain open past 10:00 p.m. next to a residential area and <br />Commissioner Sullivan was concerned about the late hours in a shared residential <br />area. Commissioner Sullivan in the 2003 hearing suggested a compromise regarding closing at <br /> <br /> <br />