PC 022702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan asked if this motion passes is there a way to bring this project back to the r Planning Commission or City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit, to allow a discussion about ordinances and policies that are in effect at that time, and for consideration to apply these to the project so that the buildings are equal to the other buildings that are being constructed at that time. Discussion ensued regarding the types of modifications that might be necessary and the potential impacts on the structural design ofthe building. Commissioner Kameny moved to make the finding that the proposed modification to the previously approved PUD Development Plan is consistent with the Bernal Avenue Specific Plan and, therefore, with the Pleasanton General Plan; and recommend approval of the modification to the PUD Development Plan subject to the conditions of approval stated in Exhibit "A," with the additional requirement that the site be hydro seeded or other options considered to address visual aspects of the vacant site. Commissioner Roberts seconded the motion. Commissioner Arkin stated that he would like to find some way to allow the developer some extra latitude, but he has difficulty with closing the door to anything for the next eight years. He advised that he would like to be able to allow the review of the building approvals at periodic intervals in the limited areas that they can look at. He stated that he is comfortable with closing the issues of the actual color and design of the buildings forever. He advised that the areas he feels would be open to periodic review would be issues such as waste management. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 9:25 p.m. ,-- Chairperson Maas reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Ms. Seto stated that she feels the difficulty is in trying to define what is a policy or practice in the community and what would impact a design issue. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the policies could be limited to specific things, such as energy-related items. Ms. Seto noted that this is possible, but the Commission would need to consider if an energy-related policy had a design impact would they would still at that point want to review the design. Commissioner Sullivan asked ifit would be possible for staff to prepare some language that would accomplish what three of the Commissioners are saying if they had some time to do so. Ms. Seto advised that she is hearing different things about the types of policies that the Commission would like to have included. Commissioner Harvey noted that the Planning Commission does not enforce ordinances; the City staff enforces ordinances. He stated that the Commission's job is to fill in between the ordinances and look at things on a case-by-case basis. He advised that he has a problem with the current motion as it tells him that in the past two years they have not learned anything that they feel would improve the building, and he is really troubled that they would be saying that for the next eight years they will not be able to apply anything they have learned unless it happens to become an ordinance. ,,- Commissioner Sullivan advised that he would like to make a substitution motion based on Commissioner Harvey's comments. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he thinks in the last four PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 27, 2002 Page 12