My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091995
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCMIN091995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:54:18 AM
Creation date
5/20/1999 11:35:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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).
View images
View plain text
could look at it early on in the process. She would like to see it go to the Planning Commission, <br />have the public hearing, and then to Council only on appeal. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if this was not in the PUD approval, and it was a design review <br />matter, what would the City's process be? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it would go to the Planning Commission for any major building, <br />and to the Zoning Administrator for any minor things and for downtown seismic retrofit <br />buildings. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mayor Tarver closed the public hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked under Option 4, if Hacienda had a new proposal for a retail center, <br />how would that be handled? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that staff would review it administratively, give the Planning <br />Commission a copy of the plans and give Council the final disposition with the opportunity to <br />appeal. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mayor Tarver, to approve Option #4 which <br />delegates the review to the staff with copies of appropriate portions of the application to Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico commented that he has seen positive conditions and modifications on some of <br />these plans that come out of the Planning Commission and Council. Skipping the Planning <br />Commission process or the Council review process to shorten the time does not make a <br />significant impact. He felt the present process was working. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis commented that she felt Option #2 could work and was something to work <br />towards. There are major planning issues in Hacienda Business Park because of the change in <br />mixed uses. She wanted Council to retain more control over the process and have more input. <br />She felt uncomfortable giving up the review now before the issues are resolved, like what is <br />going to be around the residential area in the business park. Ms. Dennis prefers Option #1 now, <br />but would consider Option #2 in the future. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti preferred Option #2 because she trusted the Planning Commission. <br />Option #2 still provides the fight for appeal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr withdrew her motion. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Michelotti, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, to approve Option//2, <br />which allows the review to be done by the Planning Commission, with appeal to Council, and <br />to have staff supply information to Council before these reviews. <br /> <br />09119195 -23- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.