My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Minutes_February 20, 2019
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
03-27
>
Minutes_February 20, 2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2019 1:03:47 PM
Creation date
3/20/2019 4:43:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/27/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Commissioner Brown asked if it was not now technically feasible to conceal. <br />Mr. Williams clarified there are products where they can color match and do a proprietary film, <br />so there are some concealment options. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Commissioner Balch asked if the Commission was comfortable with the City Manager as the <br />person giving the approval authority vs. an elected official or body for appeals. <br />Commissioner Brown said given the shot clock it would be hard to comply without a staff <br />position opining on the initial decision, handling the appeal process and scheduling meetings. <br />Mr. May said the City Manager's role would be to ensure nothing is overlooked through an <br />objective set of criteria; the question would not be a matter of taste or opinion but whether <br />there was a more preferred technically feasible alternative. <br />Commissioner Brown asked if the City Manager would have the authority to request locating it <br />on the street lamp, to move it to the corner and locate it on top of the overhang for the traffic <br />light, or he asked if it was just a technical feasibility requirement stating they have met all <br />requirements of the application. <br />Mr. May said if the City Manager is presented with an appeal stating there is a technically <br />feasible option that is more preferred based upon the criteria set out in policy, the City <br />Manager's options would be to approve the application for the other location or to deny the <br />application for the less preferred application approved by the Director. He said it also depends <br />on what the applicant wants to do but the carrier could always toll it and re -file another <br />application for the more preferred site and get their approval. <br />In response to Commissioner Ritter, Mr. May clarified that the City Manager's decision would <br />be final, with no further appeal to the City Council. <br />Commissioner Ritter noted that the Commission delegates authority often to the Director of <br />Community Development. <br />Mr. Beaudin likened this to an example in the Municipal Code for water rate appeals which are <br />handled by the City Manager. And, while there is not a timeframe, it is an effective way to deal <br />with an issue that gets raised by a ratepayer. In this case, staff has laid out the timeline and it <br />is tight, and they may actually not be able to fully comply with the shot clock on a regular basis <br />given the regular meetings for City Council and the noticing requirements and appeal <br />timeframe. <br />Commissioner Balch stated the qualification states, "the City Manager or designee" and he <br />asked if the City Manager's designee thought to be a different department head or the <br />Assistant City Manager. <br />Mr. Beaudin replied it could be either/or and it would not be the Community Development <br />Director as the original decision maker, but others would be eligible for that assignment should <br />Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 20, 2019 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.