My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012804
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 012804
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:43:11 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 12:35:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/28/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 012804
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
_ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the City would be <br />able to use other architects for peer review. He added that as part of his contract, Mr. Cannon <br />was unable to represent an applicant before the City as the project architect. Peer review <br />architects are paid by the applicant through the City; the City administers his contract and <br />controls his work, not the applicant. <br />Use of City Letterhead <br />Commissioner Maas noted that a letter written <br />packet and had no objections to the comment. <br />was generally appropriate. <br />by Commissioner Sullivan was included in the <br />She inquired whether the use of City letterhead <br />Mr. Iserson replied that the City Manager made that decision and noted that the use of City <br />letterhead was appropriate if he expressed his views as a member of the Planning Commission <br />but not as representing the views of the Commission as a whole. <br />Ms. Nerland advised that this situation was not addressed at all in the City Council and Planning <br />Commission handbook and added that there was no violation of any existing regulation. She <br />suggested that this situation may be addressed. She noted that the use of the letterhead suggested <br />a consensus of opinion regarding the contents of the letter. <br />Commissioner Sullivan advised that this issue was brought up at the last Energy Committee <br />meeting and that several members who were employed by PG&E objected to his use of the City <br />letterhead in that manner. He noted that the letter he wrote was contrary to PG&E's position and <br />added that the Committee requested clarification on that matter. <br />Historic District <br />Commissioner Fox inquired whether Pleasanton had a historic district and inquired whether there <br />was an ordinance defining the type of business that may be operated within it. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that while there was not an official historic district, there were historic <br />structures that were identified. The Downtown Specific Plan started the framework of a Historic <br />Preservation Ordinance, but there was no specific district at this point. <br />Downtown Planning Process Survey <br />Chairperson Roberts inquired whether other Commissioners had received a survey from Michael <br />Blake Roberts regarding the Downtown planning process. Commissioner Arkin advised that he <br />had received one. <br />Chairperson Roberts advised that Mr. Roberts (no relation) was a Ph.D. candidate and researcher <br />at the Department of Planning Policy and Design at UC Irvine. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 2004 Page IS of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.