My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121416
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 121416
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:57:43 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:50:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/14/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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 Nagler: Too complicated, too many words, so let's just leave it the way it <br />is. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: In paragraph B are they talking about retail only on the <br />ground floor? I know that came up years ago. They're not inferring anything in there <br />about the continuity...? <br />Beaudin: I wasn't around for the intent discussion on this, but that's not how we use it <br />and it's not how any of the regulations are written in that section of the code. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: Well, it just reads as continuity of commercial frontage. So <br />you know, it's like trying to... <br />Beaudin: I like it, but that's not how we interpret it. <br />Chair Ritter: So are we good on that point? Okay <br />Commissioner Allen: What happens in terms of fees if a Minor CUP gets bumped to <br />Planning Commission? Does the applicant then pay a higher fee? I'm assuming yes. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: If it doesn't change from minor, I would say it's the same fee. <br />Commissioner Allen: But if it comes to us; if it comes in as Minor and it comes to us in <br />terms of our cost structure that we've done all of the fee restructuring for, we now have <br />a lot more involvement and work by staff. <br />Beaudin: We would not change the fee with the caveat that if something is appealed, <br />then the appeal fees get paid. If the reason changes, if it's beyond something where <br />staff bumped it up, then it stays the same. <br />Commissioner Allen: Okay, and then my other process question had to do with the <br />timing of when you will be doing an audit for this. I know the staff report was a little <br />loose. It said maybe six months we do an audit. My recommendation is that we pick a <br />date and put it on the schedule; otherwise, I'm afraid it won't happen. Just think about <br />the DSP that was done 10 -15 years ago said, a lot of things would happen and nothing <br />happened because people moved onto other projects. So I'd say, let's make a <br />commitment whether it's a year, whether it's six months, and let's build a schedule. <br />Beaudin: Can I make it an "if then" for you all to consider because I hear the point and I <br />think what you're going to find is you're going to see zoning from us for at least the next <br />year and a half and possibly two, so what I'd like to do is as we come back with the <br />pieces of the zoning. We may bring you things that need to be cleaned up along the <br />way so you're going to see us a lot unless the Council Work Plan changes. If that <br />happens, then what I would say is we should put a timeframe on it because then you <br />may never see us again, right? That's the possibility, but between now and when we're <br />done with the comprehensive update, you going to see us I'd have to imagine every <br />nine months at the most. <br />Commissioner Allen: Well, let's just say that. Let's say a minimum of nine months we'll <br />be back in our commitment. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 27 of 49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.