PC 022019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Brown asked if it was not now technically feasible to conceal. Mr. Williams clarified there are products where they can color match and do a proprietary film, so there are some concealment options. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Balch asked if the Commission was comfortable with the City Manager as the person giving the approval authority vs. an elected official or body for appeals. Commissioner Brown said given the shot clock it would be hard to comply without a staff position opining on the initial decision, handling the appeal process and scheduling meetings. Mr. May said the City Manager's role would be to ensure nothing is overlooked through an objective set of criteria; the question would not be a matter of taste or opinion but whether there was a more preferred technically feasible alternative. Commissioner Brown asked if the City Manager would have the authority to request locating it on the street lamp, to move it to the corner and locate it on top of the overhang for the traffic light, or he asked if it was just a technical feasibility requirement stating they have met all requirements of the application. Mr. May said if the City Manager is presented with an appeal stating there is a technically feasible option that is more preferred based upon the criteria set out in policy, the City Manager's options would be to approve the application for the other location or to deny the application for the less preferred application approved by the Director. He said it also depends on what the applicant wants to do but the carrier could always toll it and re-file another application for the more preferred site and get their approval. In response to Commissioner Ritter, Mr. May clarified that the City Manager's decision would be final, with no further appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Ritter noted that the Commission delegates authority often to the Director of Community Development. Mr. Beaudin likened this to an example in the Municipal Code for water rate appeals which are handled by the City Manager. And, while there is not a timeframe, it is an effective way to deal with an issue that gets raised by a ratepayer. In this case, staff has laid out the timeline and it is tight, and they may actually not be able to fully comply with the shot clock on a regular basis given the regular meetings for City Council and the noticing requirements and appeal timeframe. Commissioner Balch stated the qualification states, "the City Manager or designee" and he asked if the City Manager's designee thought to be a different department head or the Assistant City Manager. Mr. Beaudin replied it could be either/or and it would not be the Community Development Director as the original decision maker, but others would be eligible for that assignment should Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 20, 2019 upertino, San Francisco, Sacramento and Palo Alto. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 20, 2019 sponders for the fires. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 20, 2019 is. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 20, 2019 missioners to describe what parts of the review process have worked well. Commissioner Balch stated that staff has done a great job asking applicants to bring their project to the Planning Commission as a workshop before they invest heavily in a design. He Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 January 23, 2019