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
Commissioner Olson noted that there is no timing or certain date available for this <br />remediation and inquired if the reason for that is because it is not known at this time <br />how far the contamination has gone. <br />Ms. Fraser replied that the applicant has mentioned to staff that this is being done in <br />conjunction with the project and that if the City approves the project, the applicant will <br />go back to the RWQCB with its final design. She added that the timing is really <br />between the applicant and the RWQCB. She noted that the applicant might be able to <br />speak better about what the specific timeline is and what agreement has been made <br />with the RWQCB. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that one of the conditions of approval calls for no <br />alcohol to be sold at this location, and that has been one of the major concerns from the <br />neighborhood. He indicated that he knows this is just a condition of approval and that at <br />a later date, somebody could actually ask for that to be modified. He inquired if there is <br />a way for this approval to somehow make that condition permanent so it cannot be <br />modified. <br />Ms. Stern replied that it would not be allowed under the zoning district in which the <br />project is developed, and, therefore, it would require a rezoning, which would then have <br />to come before the Planning Commission for consideration. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if it would be more than just asking for a modification <br />of the conditions of approval. <br />Ms. Stern replied that was correct. <br />Commissioner O'Connor noted that on page 15 of the staff report, it states that the <br />proposed project has been modified to address most of staff's concerns. He inquired if <br />there were other concerns staff has that have not been satisfied. <br />Ms. Stern replied that there is still a one -way circulation around the site which is not <br />usually necessary in most sites; however, this is a constrained site in terms of its <br />physical layout. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that it still is not ideal circulation -wise, but it is better now. He added <br />that when staff considered the trade -offs of having new improvements in the site, it was <br />enough to tip the balance on staff's recommendation. <br />With respect to Condition No. 6 regarding signage for loitering, Commissioner Posson <br />stated that it is one thing to put a sign up saying no loitering is allowed, but people can <br />still hang out in the area. He inquired if there is any type of condition that can be written <br />which would require the operator to actively prohibit loitering that may go further in <br />resolving some of the concerns of the community. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff could add such a condition. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 4 of 48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.