My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082212
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 082212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:15:46 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:03:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/22/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
to resist the inevitable movement toward a more service and community support <br />orientation for the Business Park, and while it cannot please everybody, it endeavors to <br />do the best job it can to balance these forces. <br />Finally, Mr. Hodnefield stated that the Board of Directors has determined that given the <br />current set of circumstances and the fact that the Board has been informed and knows <br />the applicant, it believes the intended use will be beneficial to the community and will <br />not present an undue burden to the property owners. He encouraged the Planning <br />Commission to approve the application with the conditions that have been <br />recommended by staff. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Olson stated that by reading Exhibit E just by itself, one gets the <br />impression that there is a real problem here. He noted that he feels Condition No. 6 of <br />Exhibit A on page 13 of the staff report addresses any parking or traffic /circulation <br />problems that may arise. He inquired, assuming that staff would not be going out to the <br />site and study the situation on a regular basis, if the implementation of this condition <br />would be complaint- driven. <br />Ms. Stern said yes. She explained that if staff gets reports of people parking in wrong <br />places or on the other side of the street, staff will talk to them and, if necessary, send <br />Code Enforcement there to talk to them and try to resolve the situation. <br />Vice Chair Blank noted that this is a Conditional Use Permit and, as such, could be <br />ultimately revoked should that become necessary. <br />Ms. Stern said yes. <br />Commissioner Pearce moved to find that the proposed PUD Major Modification is <br />consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan and to recommend approval of <br />Case PU D-80-01 -1 2M; and to make the Conditional Use Permit findings as stated in <br />the staff report and to recommend approval of Case P12 -0841, subject to the <br />Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Narum seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Blank, Narum, O'Connor, Olson, and Pearce <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: Commissioner Pentin <br />ABSENT: None <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 22, 2012 Page 6 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.