PC 031407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker noted that she was correct. She noted that staff considered the question whether the particular use permit required State licensing, and in all cases required that the applicant provide the necessary State license. She noted that the State no longer issued letters, but staff always contacted them by phone. She noted that if a use fell under the day care guidelines, it must have the appropriate licensing. She noted that there was a variety of checks and balances. Commissioner Pearce questioned how the buffer was established around schools as 300 feet and wondered if the City had the location of all of the tutoring schools at that time. Ms. Decker clarified that the wireless buffer was a requirement per the Pleasanton Municipal Code related to State-licensed schools. Commissioner Narum noted that several years ago, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended cutting the 300-foot buffer back to 200 feet; the City Council did not agree and wanted it left at 300 feet. She believed it was a safety concern. Commissioner Blank believed that the wireless company wished to stay in the good graces of the City and did not want to challenge it. He supposed that at some point, someone could bring forth a Federal pre-emption challenge, which would be an interesting situation to observe. Commissioner Pearce inquired whether all tutoring facilities with prior approvals would be grandfathered into the Code amendment. She further inquired whether they would have to comply with the Code amendment. Ms. Harryman believed that the facilities that had conditional use permits would still have conditional use permits, because if the City 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 Facilities 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 Fox 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 two 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 a non-exempt home occupation. Ms. Decker noted that with respect to Chairperson Fox’s inquiry whether the Zoning Administrator could add additional conditions, the over-the-counter process is a Zoning Administrator action. She noted that staff suggested that any facilities that cannot meet the standard conditions would be brought to the Planning Commission to evaluate those impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2007 Page 13 of 21