CCMIN040505 - Laserfiche WebLink

are subjective decisions as to whether the tenant is violating the peace of his or her neighbors. A landlord could rely on the information that had been generated from a City to see if the lease could be terminated. Ms. McGovern asked if there is a possibility of removing the wooden fence? Mr. Iserson said the Specific Plan recommends that properties with parking lots be combined. In this case, the property owners would need to decide to form a parking assessment district and create a public lot, or on there own accord, remove the fences and combine the lots. The City cannot make this requirement. The Specific Plan lists incentives to encourage consolidation and to encourage parking assessment districts. In response to an inquiry by Ms. McGovern, Mr. Iserson said that the people who constructed the fence are responsible for its maintenance. In this case and from the information that staff received, the damage to the fence was largely a result of the patrons of the Union Jack Pub, and therefore, staff asked the property owner to contribute to the maintenance of the fence. With the Union Jack Pub no longer in business, Ms. McGovern believed that this issue should be reconsidered and the owners of the fence should be held responsible. She was concerned that the City cannot revoke a conditional use permit unless the tenant fails to pay rent. She asked staff for clarification. Mr. Iserson said that this issue was in reference to a lease between a landlord and a tenant. The City Attorney was mentioning that it is difficult to have a property owner evict a tenant for reasons other than not paying rent. If the City finds that conditions are being violated, it has the right to either modify or revoke the use permit. Ms. McGovem was hopeful that the City learned from this experience. She noted that a conditional use permit is in place and the City needs to have cause and effect and come up with a plan that addresses a number of complaints about a business, and that the use permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Iserson noted that staff tries to work with the business and property owners to try and get them to adhere to the conditions and to be a good neighbor. When that fails, the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, which has been done for other establishments in the downtown. Ms. McGovern wanted the process to be more clearly defined and to be used. She believed staff was doing the right thing by trying to work with the businesses, but when there is a business that continually does not adhere to the conditions of the use permit, she wanted the City to have a strong process that states that the use permit would be subject to review. It puts the property owner and tenant on notice that if it cannot control the activities of its patrons in such a way that the business is determined to be a nuisance to surrounding uses or to the City in general, the Planning Commission may review and, if necessary, revoke the subject conditional use permit. She believed a stronger process and a structure needed to be implemented and the Police Department should report to Council on a yearly basis if there are problems associated with any of the businesses in town that need to be rectified instead of allowing the problems to occur for a long period of time. She asked staff to implement a stronger process by which use permits are reviewed. Mr. Brozosky asked if it possible for the City to have conditional use permits sunset when property owners and/or tenants change and have reapplied for a use permit? Pleasanton City Council 16 04/05/05 Minutes