Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A motion was made by Commissioner Horan, but failed for lack of a second that the Plan A <br />and B that the Commission reviewed could be approved, and could ake the CEQA findings <br />that comply with the General Plan, and approve a 51 lot project tha complies with the <br />WFRCOD guidelines and direct the applicant to redesign the projec . <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Horan, and seconded by Co missioner Wright that <br />the application is in compliance with CEQA; the Commission has iewed and considered <br />the information contained in the SEIR prior to making the CEQA dings; that the <br />application would be in conformance with the General Plan with th condition that the plan <br />not exceed 54 lots and with the finding that, due to proximity of th project to the EBRPD <br />and Pleasanton's Augustine Park there is adequate open space and ature trails to permit the <br />extra three lots. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Horan, McGuirk, Wright and Acting Chairman Michelotti <br />None <br />Commissioner Hovingh and Chairman Mahem <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-92-15 was entered and adopted recommending pproval of the CEQA <br />findings prepared for Case PUD-89-17 as motioned. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commi sioner McGuirk that the <br />Commission finds that no versions of the development plan are in mpliance with the <br />WFRCOD guidelines and that the project should be redesigned to' corporate compliance <br />with the WFRCOD guidelines as prescribed by the City Council 0 the date of Council <br />approval of the project. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Commissioners Horan and McGuirk <br />Commissioner Wright and Acting Chairman Michel <br />Commissioner Hovingh and Chairman Mahem <br />None <br /> <br />Motion failed because of a tie vote. <br /> <br />General discussion ensued as to whether staff's recommendation s uld be approved or <br />whether the number of lots needed to be modified from 54 lots. <br /> <br />At this time (8:00 p.m.) Chairman Mahem arrived. In response Commissioner <br />Michelotti's question, Mr. Beougher replied that even though C an Mahem had not been <br />privy to the discussions, she could vote at this point because she is familiar with the <br />application. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Minute. Planning Commi..ion <br />Special Meeting of Fcbmaf)' 20, 1992 <br /> <br />Paae S <br />