My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 020911
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 020911
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 4:01:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/9/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
Mr. Otto replied that it is not clear from the Map. He added that if the trees were <br />extremely close to the wall, the trees could not be saved due to impacts from the wall <br />footings. <br /> <br />Chair Narum requested that staff clarify this when the applicants return with a formal <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto replied that he would. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank commented that Question #6 should be answered prior to <br />answering Questions #1 or #2 because the answer to whether or not the Commission <br />supports the demolition of the existing house would lead to different kinds of issues that <br />would need to be addressed. <br /> <br />Chair Narum suggested that Question #6 be answered first. <br /> <br />The Commissioners concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the most important questions should be addressed first. He <br />added that the Commission should recognize that it has already answered all of these <br />questions, and if the Commission ends up in a different position, there would be specific <br />reasons for doing that. <br /> <br />noted that a study was done and a consultant was hired to <br />determine whether or not the existing house had significant value. He inquired what the <br />the recommendations of a consultant, generally accepted as <br />an expert in a specific field, who is hired to do a study to be paid for by the developer. <br />He also inquired if, from the City perspective, the City is willing to agree with the <br />consultant who says the house has no significant value so the house can be torn down; <br />or should the City still desire to save the house <br />recommendation, would the City then inform the applicant that he cannot tear down the <br />house. He further inquired if staff informs the developer up front that there are no <br />guarantees on conclusions would be and what the City would recommend. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto explained that while the developer pays , it is the <br />City that actually chooses, hires, and pays the consultant. He added that the consultant <br />works directly through staff and not through the developer, that the consultant answers <br />questions, and that staff then comments on work. He confirmed <br />that there are no guarantees on what the study findings would be with respect to <br />whether or not the house needed to be saved, <br />be. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan stated that when the City asks the applicant for additional funds for a <br />consultant to do a study, it is implied that the City is asking for an expertise that staff <br />cannot provide, that the study will have a certain outcome, and that staff will defer to <br />that expert. He indicated that it is reasonable for the applicant to understand that staff <br />PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MINUTES, February 9, 2011 Page 6 of 41 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.