My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 94074
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
RES 94074
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2001 7:55:31 PM
Creation date
6/15/2000 9:45:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/21/1994
DOCUMENT NO
RES 94074
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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).
View images
View plain text
pertaining to these cities is only from the viewpoint of the businesses who <br />made presentations. <br /> <br />With the plan being to hear from the public and private sectors, an egost was <br />made to include businesses from throughout Alameda County. In some cases <br />a business worked with more than one local permitting agency and thus could <br />provide substantial comparisons between agencies. The Round Table also <br />wanted' to have both large and small businesses, minority businesses including <br />those run by women, and a variety of types of businesses. Referrals on <br />presemers came from many sources, such as members from specific titles, <br />EDAB members, and others who had heard about the project. <br /> <br />Since there were 15 local permitting agehales invited, (14 cities ned the <br />Unlncorporated Area), it was decided to hear from a similar number of <br />businesses working in various parts of the County. Six Round Table <br />meetings were scheduled with five, 30 minute presentations for each meeting. <br />Except for one meeting, businesses did not make presentations on the same <br />day that their local permitting agency was making a presentation (to avoid <br />getting into one-on-one discussions of particular issues). In concern for <br />keeping on track in a very large regulasory arena, businesses were asked to <br />focus on the following: <br /> <br />t) Local permitting issues. <br /> <br />2) The process and not the regularfobs themselves. <br /> <br />If they wanted to touch on other ragulasory issues not covered by the Round <br />Table, they could do so to provide a clearer picture. <br /> <br />Presentations were held every three weeks beginning July 15 and ending <br />October 28. Each meeting combined both business and local permitting <br />agency presentations. At the end of each meeting, Round Table members <br />discussed the key points from that day's presentations. Afzer more than half <br />of the presentations were made, it became dear there were several common <br />threads, but also some new and unique issues. In some eases, what appeared <br />to be a common thread on the surface was really something slightly different <br />than what had been presented ea~ier. Refinement of the key points <br />continued throughout the series of presentations. <br /> <br />As the presentations neared completion, the Round Table dixFxded into public <br />and private sector working groups. The intent in dividing iuso these groups <br />was to allow for different interpretations of the presentations, should they <br />exist. Findings and conclusions were developed by each group. The two <br />groups met and merged their products. A third group devdoped the model <br />program based on the consolidated findings and conclusions. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.