PC 031407 - Laserfiche WebLink

the neighbors often created fights between neighbors. He supported this simplification which would not require a business to pay rent for six months before commencing business. Michael O’Callaghan, 125 West Neal Street, Pleasanton Downtown Association, Economic Vitality Committee, Design Review Committee, Streamlining Development Task Force, spoke in support of this item. He noted that the Commission was an advisory commission appointed by the City Council and was not a legislative committee. He noted that the Brown Act was meant to prevent a quorum of legislative members from meeting and privately discussing matters that would be heard in public hearings. He strongly disagreed with the Commission’s direction as well as the direction taken by staff to instruct any public or private citizens to direct their comments to staff before they may be inserted in a package. He believed the Commissioners had the right to solicit on a one-on-one discussion any matter coming before the Commission in advance. He believed City government was already over-regulated and that as long as staff was “beat about the head and shoulders” by a Council, neighborhood politics governed and staff would be operating on a zero-risk mentality, which caused overregulation out of fear. With respect to this particular topic, he supported the item and did not believe that Item G on the application for Application for Zoning Approval form should be there. He believed that measuring a “sound level over a period of time” was an ambiguous statement in terms of measurements. He believed the current occupancy standards for this kind of business was broad and overregulated. He agreed with Mr. MacDonald’s comments. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding a threshold of 25 children, Mr. O’Callaghan replied that if a zoning ordinance allows a specific business in a certain location, that in advance of the business opening, he did not believe the parking should be as much of a consideration because the commercial business site itself would already be vested for parking requirements. He noted that in-lieu fees may be the best solution and that he was not in favor of overregulating such issues. Commissioner Olson did not believe the Brown Act prevented an applicant from talking to him offline, one on one, and getting his opinion. He noted that it did prevent the Commission from discussing his application as a group and out of the public eye; they routinely met with applicants within the limits of the Brown Act. Kurt Kummer, 4456 Clovewood Lane, noted that he was a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Ad Hoc Committee but was speaking as a private resident. He supported the streamlining of the process and noted that at the previous City Council meeting, he had requested that an item about the math tutoring center be removed from Consent in order to be discussed. He asked City Council if it thought it was appropriate if such Planning Commission-specific conditions requiring that children be escorted into and out of the facility were appropriate. He noted that if his children needed such a private instruction service and that if he had looked at various facilities around town and done his own due diligence, that should be his decision. He added that if he wished to sit in the facility for the entire time, that was also his decision. He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2007 Page 15 of 21