My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 111214
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 111214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:24:07 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:21:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/12/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
Chair O'Connor inquired, assuming the Commission had a discussion, and after that <br />discussion, decided it wanted to agendize a review of the CUP, which would in turn <br />prompt the submittal of an application to change those Conditions of Approval, if the <br />Commission would be able to talk about all of that at a follow -up meeting. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the Commission cannot talk about one without talking about the <br />other. He indicated that the action before the Commission that would be most pressing <br />is what to do with the CUP application. <br />Chair O'Connor inquired if these would be two separate items. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the reconsideration of the old CUP would have to be agendized <br />because the Commission would answer all the questions with its answer to the new <br />CUP. <br />Chair O'Connor asked Mr. Dolan if what he is saying is that both items would be <br />considered at the same time. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes, essentially; the dialogue would all be in one night with all issues on <br />the table. <br />Commissioner Balch noted that it might put an end to the discussion. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that sometimes when one party in the audience gets a feel that <br />they will win or lose this one, they get the impetus to come back with something else <br />such as a compromise, even if it has not worked for five years. <br />Commissioner Piper commented that she did not think so in this case. <br />Commissioner Ritter commented that if this is not agendized, the Commission would <br />just hear more about it, either from one or both sides. <br />Chair O'Connor noted that the Commission would hear for sure from one side. <br />Commissioner Piper inquired if the only way this can come before the Commission is for <br />the Commission to move to agendize it, and if the parties cannot apply to do so. <br />Commissioner Ritter stated that the Masons could submit a CUP right now if they <br />wanted to, but it appears they do not want to. <br />Commissioner Piper commented that she cannot imagine why they have not done that. <br />Chair O'Connor stated that the Masons like it the way it is. He indicated that he just <br />thought it would save some staff time from doing two reports. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that he would love to save staff time, but he does not see how the <br />Commission can do it without a two -step process. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 12, 2014 Page 33 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.