PC 060904 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ Commissioner Fox did not want the facility to leave Pleasanton and would like the City to write a letter stating that they may stay until the situation was resolved. She would like them to have a grace period to allow them to find a new location within the City. She believed this was a grave situation and that there were needy children in crisis. She noted that the facility was in compliance with the small day care guidelines but had two employees that did not have an updated TB test. She would like the Planning Commission to give the Sigmans some breathing room so they do not need to leave the City so quickly. She would not want to see this business leave Pleasanton because of mistakes or misinterpretations. Mr. Iserson noted that he would not want to jump to the conclusion that the City Code Enforcement Officer told the facility to leave immediately. He noted that this was not the City's policy at any time, and he could not recall the City ever shutting a business down immediately. He noted that businesses were given an opportunity to remedy any violations and file the appropriate applications. He noted that with respect to the property owner's position, he had heard that given the remedy of submitting an application, the property owner was reluctant to sign it. He noted that a business in a residential neighborhood may raise concerns when a formal application was made, ofren due to parking issues. Mr. Iserson advised that it would be difficult legally for the City to write a letter stating that they may stay. He noted that no enforcement proceedings would be taken if the City knew that an application would be filed or if they were looking For another location. He -' believed that Mr. Swift's email to Commissioner Fox listed a number of alternative locations for the facility. He noted that the business would need to appear before the Planning Commission because it did not meet the conditions in the Code for a home occupation, which had strict limitations for traffic generation and visits. There was a provision stating that if a home occupation did not meet those conditions, the Commission may have the option of waiving conditions. He added that a public hearing would be necessary and believed that it would be helpful if the facility were able to own the building so landlord involvement would not be necessary. Ms. Nerland reminded the Commission that this item must be agendized as an urgency matter under the Brown Act if further discussion were to take place. An urgency determination may be made if the Commission believed that the matter came to its attention after the agenda was posted, and two-thirds of the Commission believed that immediate action must be taken. Commissioner Fox believed that the applicable Brown Act provision was an emergency such as a "work stoppage or other activity which severely impairs public health." Ms. Nerland respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Fox's assessment of the application of that provision. She added that the language and legislative history suggest that it was meant to address major emergencies occurrences such as earthquakes, floods, and public strikes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2004 Page 16 of 19