My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 040903
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
PC 040903
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:40:14 AM
Creation date
12/8/2005 10:05:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/9/2003
DOCUMENT NAME
PC-040903
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
He noted that unless the lease has been signed, and they have occupied the building, staff <br />iriay not Snd out until a complaint is filed or a Code violation discovered_ <br />Commissioner Maas suggested sending a form letter to the property owner, advising <br />them of the need of a conditional use permit prior to commencing the business_ <br />Mr_ Iserson noted that Mr. Zampierin probably believed that the existence of the other <br />uses in the building meant that his business would be an approved use as well. <br />A discussion of the lack of parking on Santa Rita Road due to cars for sale occurred. <br />Commissioner Maas noted that a session at the APA conference in San Diego dealt with <br />developers who would prefer receiving a streamlined permit approval process rather than <br />having fees waived. The developers stated that the interest payments and bank concerns <br />were a more important issue to them. <br />Commissioner Sedlak believed that there was a significant problem in town_ He noted <br />that builders generally did not want to build in Pleasanton due to high fees, the difficulty <br />in getting property, and the barriers to entry. He noted that Brentwood seemed to be more <br />amenable to builders, and added that Tracy was more stringent than any of the <br />surrounding towns. <br />In response to Commissioner Maas' inquiry about the General Plan Review, Mr. Iserson <br />confirmed that the Council generally accepted the Planning Commission's proposal in <br />terms of the process at the Commission level. The Council is still considering the <br />possibility of integrating citizen committees and input at certain points, but believed that <br />they agreed with the recommendation that the Commission would be the focus of the <br />General Plan. <br />C=ommissioner Maas noted that at the Commission meetings, public comment would be <br />taken. She believed that would be more efficient than a task force. <br />Mr. Iserson noted that the Council was considering ad hoc committees including citizens <br />at certain points of the process, but it was generally considered that the Commission <br />would drive the process. <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION <br />a. Future Planning C7alendar <br />Chair Arkin noted that he called the head of Eldercare Alliance to discuss his views <br />regarding the proj ect_ <br />Commissioner Maas noted that she spoke with Mr. Kernan, who expressed a desire to <br />return to the City. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 9, 2003 Page 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.