My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082703
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
PC 082703
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2017 9:41:30 AM
Creation date
12/8/2005 10:17:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/27/2003
DOCUMENT NAME
PC-082703
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 />8_ JVlATTE~S FO~ COJVIJVIISSIO:N'S :RE~IEVV/ACTIO:N <br /> <br />a. Future Planning Calen.da.r <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts V\Tas pleased to see that 325 Ray Street V\Tou.ld come forvv-ard -v.rith <br />a. commercial office building. <br /> <br />b. ~ctic>ns of the City Council <br /> <br />Commissioner Kamen.y believed that the last paragraph vvith respect to Northstar <br />Construction V\Tas incorrect:. He noted that Northstar vvc>uld pay for the vvater lin.e and the <br />5/8-inch meter to the Brozoskys'" property". a.nd that the Brozoskys vv-ould take it from <br />there to their house. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts concurred vvith Commissioner Kameny"'s interpretation of the <br />proceedings. <br /> <br />Chairperson ~rkin added that the developer V\Tould pay the connection fee. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin noted that he vvas disappointed that the City Council spent' less than. a <br />minute discussing the issues that: the Planning Commission had vvit:h the Northstar <br />project" especially vv-ith respect 1:0 grading". visibility". a.nd the retaining vvalL He noted that <br />the Council spent most or their time discussing the V\TelL He added t:hat the Commission <br />denied the tentative map because of a number of issues. He V'Vould have liked to see more <br />attention given to the issues discussed by the CommissiorL <br /> <br />In response 1:0 ar1 inquiry by Commissioner Kameny". Chairperson Arkin confirmed that <br />he vvould support drafting a letter to Council stating the Commission"s concems. <br />Commissioner Kameny noted that because of his conflict of interest". he vvould be unable <br />to draft that letter- <br /> <br />Commissioner Ka.rneny noted that if the Planning Commission holds a lengthy discussion <br />about ar1 issue" a..:nd it draV'Vs no comme:n.t from the Council". he believed that it V'Vo-uld be <br />appropriate to draV'V attention to the Commission"s concems. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts concurred v.rith Commissioner Ka.rn.eny"'s assessment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sulliva..:n :noted that "t.he Commission.ers took their jobs sericH.1.sly". and <br />vvould like to see that commitment reflected in Council'" s discussion. <br /> <br />~ discussion. conceming nn appropriate time to broach the matter during the Joi:n.t <br />Cormcil/Plann.ing Commission meeting ensued. <br /> <br />1'v1:s. "Nerlan.d suggested t:hat: 1:he issue be raised durin.g discussion.s ofPla.rming <br />Commission issues in the cont:ext: of the General FInn. <br /> <br />PLANNING CC>lVllVlISSIC>:N lVllNUTES <br /> <br />August 27,2003 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.