My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041509
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 041509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:40:00 PM
Creation date
9/23/2009 8:44:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Mr. Dolan stated that for the purpose of procedure, if the Commission is interested in <br />a straight vote and is recommending approval, he proposed that the item be <br />continued so staff can prepare findings for the Commission as well as a CEQA <br />document. He noted that if the item were continued, this meeting could essentially <br />function as another workshop. He added that there would be no need to continue <br />the item if the Commission is recommending denial. <br />Chair Pearce asked the Commissioners what they wanted to do. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that as the project stands today, he cannot support it as <br />he does not have sufficient information. He added that there may be ways of <br />redrawing the lines, eliminating one property, or other alternatives. He noted that he <br />likes the idea of a continuance because it gives staff and the applicant time to <br />determine whether or not anything else can be done. He indicated that he did not <br />want to force a vote for its own sake. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that the applicant would have the opportunity to <br />appeal the Commission’s decision. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she agreed with Chair Pearce’s suggestion to ask <br />the applicant. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE-OPENED. <br />Mr. Babbitt stated that he would be amenable to returning. He noted that staff had <br />asked him to submit an application rather than return as a workshop. <br />Commissioner O’Connor asked Mr. Babbitt if staff had indicated to him that they <br />would also not support six lots. <br />Mr. Babbitt replied that he knew that staff was not in favor of supporting six lots. He <br />asked the Commission for more explicit direction regarding what it wanted to see <br />when the project returned to the Commission. <br />Chair Pearce suggested that a motion to continue be made and then provide <br />detailed direction to the applicant. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that any Commissioner can request to continue the <br />item as long as there is no motion on the floor. <br />Commissioner Blank clarified that when an individual Commissioner continues the <br />item, it is automatically set for the next meeting. <br />Mr. Dolan added that it could also be set to a date agreeable to all the <br />Commissioners. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 15, 2009 Page 14 of 24 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.