Laserfiche WebLink
timeline instituted by the City Council for the project; however, he noted that the applicant has stated <br />that addressing the Commission's concerns is more important than maintaining a timeline. He noted <br />staffis in support of allowing the continuance of the hearing and that it will be reagendized as <br />expeditiously as possible. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to the City Council's timeline for the project, the City Council instituting a <br />timeline for the project per the applicant's request, the City Council being the ultimate decision makers <br />for the project, and the project being on the November 1999 ballot. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kumaran noted he is reluctant to allow a continuance of the hearing due to the possible <br />negative effects on the timeline that the City Council has requested be met. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush noted that a special meeting could be held July 7, 1999, and that the City Council's timeline <br />can still be achieved if that was the desire of the Council. Further, that the Council can provide further <br />direction to the Commission at the July 6, 1999 Council meeting. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Maas, that the hearing <br />relating to the San Francisco Bernal property be continued to July 7, 1999. <br /> <br />ROLL CALLVOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Kameny, Maas, Roberts, Sullivan, and Chairperson Kumaran <br />None <br />None <br />None <br /> <br />5. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />6. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />7. COMMUNICATIONS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />8. REFERRALS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />9. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 June 28, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />