CCMIN111902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell was proud staff, the Planning Commission, the Council, the Chamber, the Downtown Association, and everyone involved in helping Pleasanton to be a leader in Alameda County on this issue. Ms. Michelotti agreed this is a positive step and she encouraged the workshops to occur as quickly as possible. With regard to the amendment to the section regarding historic structures, did that apply to ail historic structures or just those in the downtown. She asked if the planning staffhad a problem with that change? Mr. Swift said his interpretation of the request of the Downtown Association was that the ordinance would not apply to ail historic buildings and any building within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Ms. Michelotti restated her desire to have the ordinance reviewed in a year and amended if necessary, at that time. She preferred to get all the bugs out first and then adopt the ordinance, rather than adopt the ordinance and then amend it. She commended the Chamber for wanting to be involved in this. Mr. Swift said the staffrecommendation was for one year, but the Chamber has requested a two-year review period with a review at the end of each year. He had no doubt there will be many occasions to review this ordinance. There was a break at 9:38 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Item 6b PAP-40 (PADR-643, Philip Ciesielski Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval to allow the construction of a flagpole in the rear yard of an existing residence located at 4160 Stanley Boulevard. Zoning for the orooer~_ is R-l-20 (Single-Family Residential) District. (SR 02:259) Mayor Pico indicated the attorney for Mr. Ciesielski had requested that the mayor abstain because he had received campaign contributions from some of the neighbors to this property. Mr. Pico acknowledged that was tree, but he had also received contributions from several hundred others in Pleasanton and he did not believe that colored his judgment. The second reason for the request that he abstain was that he may have akeady taken a position against Mr. Ciesielski because of comments in local newspapers. Mr. Pico said he did say that there has been contention within this neighborhood and this is a continuation of that. In no way did he place blame on any individual. Mr. Pico said he was quoted as saying if Mr. Cielsielski would only cut the pole down and not light it, he would probably get approval. Mr. Pico clarified that his comment was that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended that the height of the pole be reduced and that it not be illuminated and that he thought that could be accepted Pleasanton City Council 18 11 / 19/02 Minutes