My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 021308
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 021308
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:36:29 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 1:33:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/13/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 021308
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Fox suggested striking that sentence and requested that staff substitute <br />language regarding the violations in Dublin that had not been immediately corrected. She <br />also requested that the City of Pleasanton letters be included as well Mr. Roush noted <br />that could be done, including referencing Code violations in Dublin that were not <br />immediately corrected. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that if the application was being denied without prejudice so <br />that the applicant may have the opportunity to get a daycare license, she wanted to know <br />what the remedy would be to cure the third finding. She noted that if the occurrences <br />went back five years, the applicant did not have a remedy to fix those issues. <br />Chair Blank noted that the applicant may return with the current issues having been <br />remedied. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired what would have changed regarding the applicant's prior <br />history with the City of Dublin. <br />Commissioner Fox suggested that the City of Dublin may be able to produce a letter <br />stating that they lost Mr. Pfund's application, confirming Mr. Pfund's explanations.. <br />Commissioner Narum expressed concern about this line of reasoning if the Commission <br />would allow the applicant to return with the daycare license and did not see how Finding <br />No. 3 could be made based on past history. <br />Commissioner O'Connor believed that the applicant was also being asked to return with a <br />new narrative, which would be another change. <br />Mr. Roush acknowledged the dilemma experienced by Commissioner Narum and did not <br />know whether it could be resolved other than to make a substitute motion to deny the <br />application based on Finding No. 2. He advised that the Commission could vote on the <br />motion on the table or that a substitute motion may be made. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Fox and Pearce. <br />NOES: Commissioners Blank, Narum, and Olson. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />RECUSED: None. <br />ABSENT: None. <br />The motion failed. <br />Commissioner Fox moved to deny PCUP-200 without prejudice based on the <br />inability to make Finding No. 2. <br />Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2008 Page 36 of 42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.