My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 060904
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
PC 060904
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:45:32 AM
Creation date
3/16/2005 1:11:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/9/2004
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 060904
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 Fox moved to agendize this discussion as an urgency matter. <br />Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Fox, Kameny, Maas, Roberts, and Sullivan. <br />NOES: None. <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Arkin. <br />The motion carried. <br />Mr. Iserson was not aware that any staff member told the facility they must leave <br />Pleasanton by Friday, June 11, 2004. He understood that the property owner would not <br />allow the use to continue, which is why the owner would not sign the use permit <br />application. <br />Commissioner Fox noted that she would like the Planning Commission to allow the <br />facility to continue operations in that facility for 90 or 120 days. <br />Chairperson Roberts expressed concerns about the Planning Commission taking such <br />action. <br />-- Ms. Nerland advised that the City would not immediately close a business down in this <br />kind of situation without an opportunity to remedy the violations and cautioned about <br />interfering with the property owner's rights to allow uses of his or her property. <br />Commissioner Kameny suggested that the Code Enforcement officer explain to the <br />facility owners that the City could not allow them to stay but that the City was not forcing <br />them to leave so quickly. <br />Mr. Iserson advised that the facility could not be classified as solely a day caze center <br />because it also functioned as a speech therapy business. He would speak with the Code <br />Enforcement officer upon his return and would ensure that he was awaze of City policy. <br />He noted that staff would contact the business and inform them that the City was not <br />requiring that they vacate their building by June 11, 2004. <br />There was consensus that Mr. Iserson's suggestion was the appropriate action to take. <br />Kottineer Hills Oak Grove EIR <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted that the City Council agreed to proceed with the scoping <br />session for the EIR for Oak Grove but took the unusual step of saying that they wished to <br />participate in the scoping session along with the Planning Commission. He noted that in <br />the past, the EIR scoping and certification took place with the Planning Commission and <br />-- then moved to the Council for its consideration. He noted that in reading the Council <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 9, 2004 Page 17 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.