My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/30/1992
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
PC 11/30/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/29/2017 4:29:10 PM
Creation date
5/25/2005 3:52:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/30/1992
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/30/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
<br />City plans to do them. If he is still the occupant at that time, he wo <br />for them. However, this is not to be expected within the next two y <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahem asked if the applicant would have to reimbur Spieker Partners for <br />the storm drainage at this time. Mr. Swift agreed that the applicant oes have to reimburse <br />Spieker Partners as they will be tieing into that storm drain. <br /> <br />mE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />James Butts, 3768 Old Santa Rita Road, represented the application. He stated that he has <br />read the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. H wever, he had some <br />concerns about Conditions 14 and 15. Inasmuch as the process has n longer than he <br />anticipated, he expressed concern that he may not have time to fin. the paving and <br />drainage system before the rains come. He requested that occupancy of the building be <br />approved before these improvements are complete, and that he be all wed a certain amount <br />of time to make those improvements. <br /> <br />Vice Chairman McGuirk asked staff if the improvements must be m e before occupancy <br />takes place. Mr. Swift replied that normally staff would like for im ovements to be <br />complete prior to occupancy, because that way they are sure to be d e. However, the <br />Commission can state their preference. He noted there are not a lot f improvements to be <br />made; some grading will take place; a shed needs to be removed; an the paving material put <br />down. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Mr. Swift said <br />improvements within 15 days, if not appealed. <br /> <br /> <br />applicant could begin <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright asked the applicant if 90 days would be suffici nt to make the <br />improvements. Mr. Butts felt that this would probably be sufficient, eather permitting. He <br />stated that additional time would also help him spread the cost of the improvements as the <br />total improvements are estimated to be around $12,000, including th grease trap of around <br />$4,000. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Mr. Butts felt t if the rainy season <br />does not come that he should be able to get the storm drain installed at least a month. He <br />further stated he would like to take immediate occupancy, because h needs to vacate his <br />existing building as someone else is leasing it. <br /> <br />Commissioner Finch questioned Mr. Swift about the need for a grea trap. Mr. Swift <br />explained that the laws in the Bay Area require that any storage facil ty of this type must <br />have a grease trap. This is to prevent any seepage into the storm .n. Mr. Higdon added <br />that this is a new requirement in California. Existing facilities that d not have such a grease <br />trap or drain improvements are "grandfathered" in; however, new f ilities or different <br />owners at a facility must have them installed. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />November 30, 1992 <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.