My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 021104
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 021104
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:43:30 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 12:38:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/11/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 021104
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 Sullivan inquired whether the Commissioners would prefer to have a <br />substitute motion. <br />Commissioner Maas noted that she would not support any motion to the Council. <br />Commissioner Arkin noted that he was uncomfortable with Commissioner Sullivan's <br />objective of outlawing big stores that sold food at a low price. He understood the <br />negative impacts that were cited but indicated that he would rather address the impacts <br />than outlaw the stores themselves. <br />Commissioner Sullivan believed that was an oversimplification of the issue. He <br />suggested that Wa1Mart's PUD be reopened so that the percentage ofnon-taxable to <br />taxable items may be re-examined. <br />Chairperson Roberts believed that the Planning Commission could not unilaterally <br />modify a PUD. <br />Commissioner Fox advised that she would like to hear the Chamber of Commerce's <br />opinion and noted that Pleasanton was the headquarters of Safeway. She believed it was <br />an economic vitality issue. <br />Commissioner Maas agreed that the Chamber of Commerce should address this issue. <br />Ms. Nerland advised that it was never the role of the City Attorney to say that a public <br />policy position cannot be pursued. However, it was the role of the City Attorney's office <br />to point out the possible legal risks that may involve. While the staff report stated that it <br />may not be prudent to pursue such an ordinance, that did not preclude the Council or the <br />Planning Commission from pursuing it. <br />Commissioner Maas suggested that the Economic Vitality Committee address this issue. <br />Mr. Iserson did not know whether they were inclined to discuss this issue but he would <br />request the new Economic Development Manager to determine whether the Committee <br />wished to discuss it. <br />Jack in the Box SienaQe and Canony <br />Commissioner Arkin inquired what had happened with the Jack in the Box sign. <br />Commissioner Maas believed the sign had gotten worse. <br />Commissioner Arkin noted that the plans showed two signs and added that there were <br />four signs. <br />Mr. Iserson believed that the plans that the Planning Commission saw were basically <br />conceptual and that some price signs turned into Jack in the Box signs. Staff had <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 11, 2004 Page 16 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.