PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Allen and Pearce NOES: Commissioners Olson, Posson, and Ritter ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Commissioner O'Connor ABSENT: None The motion failed. Chair Pearce stated that she would be happy to accept a substitute motion. Commissioner Olson stated that if he were the emperor pulling the strings on the puppet, he would go through Mr. MacDonald's suggestions in detail. He noted Mr. MacDonald's points in his letter: Policy 8 deals with the FAR; use of the word "encourage" as opposed to "should"; have a more robust definition of demolition; and historic resource. He added that anyone who buys homes in this area that are definitely historic homes should not expect to tear it down; they should expect to have to maintain it. He mentioned again that this is an eclectic area. Chair Pearce stated that she hears the Commission and would be happy to have the conversation about FAR if everyone wants to. She indicated that she has significant concerns with regard to Mr. MacDonald's demolition definition and other recommendations that he's come up with which are in opposition to what the Task Force recommended. She added that she was not at that morning meeting but that it was her understanding that there was a significant conversation on this. She stated that she does not know if the Commission would support a modified motion eliminating the FAR discussion because she thinks that would get the Commission going. She also suggested that maybe the Commission can go through and have this conversation. She noted that obviously, the Minutes will include a discussion of Commissioner Olson's position with regard to Mr. MacDonald's recommendations. She stated that she does not know if any Commissioner is interested in making a motion which is essentially her motion but stripping it of the FAR recommendation, but her sense is that the Commission could get a majority of the Commissioners supportive of that. Commissioner Posson asked how that FAR language would read, if the 25 percent would just be removed, or what specific language would be changed. Commissioner Allen replied that the FAR would be kept the same as it exists today. Commissioner Ritter inquired what the rest of Pleasanton does. Chair Pearce replied that the problem is that the rest of Pleasanton does not have the Downtown Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines that indicate that they have to match and be compatible in terms of mass and scale. She asked Mr. Dolan if that would still be applicable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 40 of 50