My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
121713
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2013 1:21:52 PM
Creation date
12/9/2013 12:47:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
DRAFT <br /> ROLL CALL VOTE: <br /> AYES: Commissioners Allen and Pearce <br /> NOES: Commissioners Olson, Posson, and Ritter <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> RECUSED: Commissioner O'Connor <br /> ABSENT:None <br /> The motion failed. <br /> Chair Pearce stated that she would be happy to accept a substitute motion. <br /> Commissioner Olson stated that if he were the emperor pulling the strings on the puppet, <br /> he would go through Mr. MacDonald's suggestions in detail. He noted Mr. MacDonald's <br /> points in his letter: Policy 8 deals with the FAR; use of the word "encourage" as opposed to <br /> "should"; have a more robust definition of demolition; and historic resource. He added that <br /> anyone who buys homes in this area that are definitely historic homes should not expect to <br /> tear it down; they should expect to have to maintain it. He mentioned again that this is an <br /> eclectic area. <br /> Chair Pearce stated that she hears the Commission and would be happy to have the <br /> conversation about FAR if everyone wants to. She indicated that she has significant <br /> concerns with regard to Mr. MacDonald's demolition definition and other recommendations <br /> that he's come up with which are in opposition to what the Task Force recommended. She <br /> added that she was not at that morning meeting but that it was her understanding that there <br /> was a significant conversation on this. She stated that she does not know if the <br /> Commission would support a modified motion eliminating the FAR discussion because she <br /> thinks that would get the Commission going. She also suggested that maybe the <br /> Commission can go through and have this conversation. She noted that obviously, the <br /> Minutes will include a discussion of Commissioner Olson's position with regard to <br /> Mr. MacDonald's recommendations. She stated that she does not know if any <br /> Commissioner is interested in making a motion which is essentially her motion but stripping <br /> it of the FAR recommendation, but her sense is that the Commission could get a majority of <br /> the Commissioners supportive of that. <br /> Commissioner Posson asked how that FAR language would read, if the 25 percent would <br /> just be removed, or what specific language would be changed. <br /> Commissioner Allen replied that the FAR would be kept the same as it exists today. <br /> Commissioner Ritter inquired what the rest of Pleasanton does. <br /> Chair Pearce replied that the problem is that the rest of Pleasanton does not have the <br /> Downtown Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines that indicate that they have to match <br /> and be compatible in terms of mass and scale. She asked Mr. Dolan if that would still be <br /> applicable. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/13/2013 Page 26 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.