PC 122706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Blank indicated that there were other issues such as reviewing the recent approvals shown on Exhibit B of the staff report. He noted that there were public testimonies given on some of those applications, and he would not know which had special conditions or considerations under this Code amendment as they would have been approved without discussion. He added that there are other Code amendment items that the Commission had prioritized before this one. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, O'Connor, Olson, and Pearce. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: None. The motion carried. In response to Acting Chairperson Fox request that staff provide some history on this Code amendment, Ms. Decker replied that she did not have this at hand but that she could bring the matter back to the Commission at a later date. Acting Chairperson Fox recalled that for about a yeaz, there were numerous applications that came before the Planning Commission for tutoring facilities in the Downtown area that required a conditional use permit. She added that at one point, Michael O'Callaghan of the Pleasanton Downtown Association had requested the Commission to consider tutoring facilities as a permitted use. Commissioner Blank stated that he was in favor of this amendment but that staff had previously indicated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to have staff work on projects that were not prioritized by the City Council. He noted that he does not recall any advisory vote by the Commission or direction from the City Council to consider this Code amendment, whereas there aze other Commission items that aze on the Council's priority list. He indicated that he would like to see the staff reports for at least the ten most recent applications from the list on Exhibit B to give the Commission a good background on applications that may have had controversial issues or public testimonies. Ms. Decker indicated that the minutes would be more informative in terms of discussions and motions made as well as testimonies given. She added that the vast majority of the applications were heating items until the Consent Calendaz was effected fairly recently, which then included a very brief staff report and moved the process very quickly. She noted that for Exhibit B, staff looked at recent approvals and the number of students at any one time; and cognizant of the impacts brought about as the number of students increased, staff determined that 25 students would be a reasonable number which would not likely have any impact on pazking, traffic, and noise. She added that staff has required pazking and project analyses for any application with over 25 students, and this would require another process. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 27, 2006 Page 13 of 19