My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 052604
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 052604
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:24 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:04:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/26/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 052604
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
- Ms. Nerland advised that it has been the traditional practice of the Planning Commission <br />to consider a tie vote as the maintenance of the status quo, and the action may be <br />appealed to City Council. She noted that within the past year, the City Council <br />re-examined the procedures for each Commission and made them subject to City Council <br />procedures. In the case of a 2-2- vote where there was an absence rather than a conflict <br />of interest, City Council procedures provide that the matter would be continued. She <br />noted that action made sense for the City Council, which was the body of final action. <br />She noted that it may make less sense for the Planning Commission, where a continuance <br />would be a delay of an action in moving the project forward. She noted that the <br />Commission had been given incorrect information by staff and that the matter should <br />have been continued to the next meeting, where five Commissioners could have taken <br />action on the matter. She noted that the applicant had been told that the matter could be <br />appealed to City Council and that it would not be continued. In the future, staff would <br />advise the Planning Commission to comply with City Council procedures. She noted that <br />Cor-O-Van would not come back to the Planning Commission and that the matter had <br />been appealed in a timely manner to the City Council. <br />The minutes were approved as corrected. <br />3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO <br />ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS <br />NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. <br />June Blanchette, 393 W. Angela, Citizens for a Caring Community, noted that they had <br />worked diligently to promote affordable housing, senior housing, and low-income <br />housing. She expressed concern about the upcoming June 30, 2004, deadline for the <br />Housing Element to be in compliance with State law. She was pleased that State Senator <br />Tom Torlakson supported the housing coalition and planned to form a collaborative in <br />the East Bay to relieve the housing crisis. <br />Commissioner Arkin encouraged Ms. Blanchette to look at the General Plan process <br />carefully. He noted that the General Plan was going forward as quickly as possible. <br />4. REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA <br />Mr. Iserson advised that Item 6.e., Civic Center Master Plan Workshop, would be <br />continued to the June 9, 2004, meeting. <br />5. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br />There were none. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2004 Page 2 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.