My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032713
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 032713
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:38:29 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:31:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/27/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
project goes to the City Council regarding what those fees would be, and they would like <br />to substitute that agreement for this condition. <br />Development Agreement: <br />Section 3.05.School Fees — this is the same as the PUSD condition of approval. <br />They would expect that to be modified by the time the project gets to the City <br />Council. <br />2. Section 3.03.Traffic Mitigation Measures: Traffic Impact Fees — This project is in the <br />North Pleasanton Improvement District (NPID), and reference is made to paying a <br />non -NPID fee. They would like the ability to do an accounting exercise and verify <br />what that fee is and how much has to go back if, in any, because this property has <br />changed ownership a couple of times since that credit got accounted for. <br />Chair Blank stated that he may have misunderstood the clarification regarding the <br />universal design and asked Mr. Inderbitzen if what he mentioned was that they were <br />fine with a visual doorbell unit but not with an audible one. <br />Commissioner Narum corrected that it is the other way around; they want the audible <br />and not the visual. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen replied that was correct. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that staff has had some dialogue on all of these conditions and that he <br />would be happy to continue that dialogue with the applicant. He suggested that, if the <br />Commission wishes, the phrase "or as otherwise approved by the Director of <br />Community Development' could be added to the conditions, as written, and the <br />Commission would not need to go through the details of the conditions. <br />Mr. Inderbitzen indicated this would be fine and that they could work it out between now <br />and when it goes before the City Council. <br />Commissioner Pearce thanked Mr. Dolan and asked if he is suggesting this simply for <br />Condition No. 88 or for Conditions Nos. 55 and 40 as well. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it would be for all the conditions. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if that would also include the PUSD condition. <br />Mr. Dolan noted that Mr. Inderbitzen made a specific suggestion that this condition be <br />ultimately replaced by the agreement and that staff does not oppose that as part of the <br />Commission's recommendation. He added that if the applicant has an agreement with <br />PUSD, the condition would be moot. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 33 of 48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.