13 - Laserfiche WebLink

had conditional use permits would still have conditional use permits, because if the C ity Council ultimately adopted them as a right over the counter and the City later changed its mind and amended the Code, the uses would be non-conforming uses. She did not believe that it would change anything. She noted that the paragraph entitled Existing t'acilitics stated that the proposed Code amendment would supersede those approvals versus facilities that met the size conditions defined by the new language per Attachment 1. Chairperson Pox inquired whether some of the uses continued as conditional uses could come to the Planning Commission if a special condition were to be added. She noted that safety issues such as proximity to an arroyo or asphalt kettles brought this to mind. She further inquired whether R-1 residential uses were unable to have rivo children come to the house per day for tutoring without a home occupation permit. Ms. Decker replied that home occupation permitted uses must follow the requirements. She added that neighborhoods varied and that what may be unacceptable in one neighborhood may be acceptable in another neighborhood as anon-exempt home occupation. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to Chairperson Pox's inquiry whether the Zoning Administrator could add additional conditions, the over-the-counter process is a Loning Administrator action. She noted that stalk suggested that any facilities that cannot meet the standard conditions would be brought to the Planning Commission to evaluate those impacts. Chairperson Fox wanted to ensure the cumulative effects of the numbers of students were taken into account. She noted that at the Pump It Up facility near the Valley [3usiness Park, neighbors have had to put up signs stating "Absolutely No Pump It Up Parking" on their streets. She was concerned about this possibility and inquired whether the applicant would have to check a box regarding that level of parking. Ms. Decker replied that each facility would need to show how parking was being met. Ms. Harryman advised that an email was sent out by Chairperson Pox ou Thursday, March 8, 2007. The email sent by Chairperson Pox to the City Council and copied to all the Planning Commissioners discussed sigh-ins and sign-outs, licensing requirements, and other related items. She noted that it was somewhat related to the current item, but related more to the Council's discussion at their last meeting. She noted that because it could be construed as a violation of the Brown Act, which was created to ensure that discussions, deliberations, and decisions are made in public, she wished to remind the Planning Commission of this fact and did so in public to remedy any potential violation of the Brown Act, giving the public an opportunity to see or hear what may have been discussed outside the public forum. She provided copies of the email to the Planning Commission and the audience and reminded the Commission that anything within this Commission's subject matter needs to be discussed, whether in person, on the phone, by mail or by email, in the public forum. She cautioned the Conunissioncrs to take care not to hit "Reply All" in emails and stated any questions on agenda items should be scat to Principal Planner, Donna Decker, who can then distribute them to the Commission in the packets so the public also has the opportunity to see it at the same time. She noted that it PLANNING COMMISSION MINiTTF,S March 14, ?007 Page 3 of 7