Laserfiche WebLink
4~$~S"~~°y C TY of P EASA TO <br />I L N N <br />~~ ~~!• <br />`~ ~~:o. Planning Commission <br />..o <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Data February 13, 1975 <br />Time : s: oo P.M. <br />PIaCe: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />was provided with the EIR, but did <br />not act on it. Furthermore, he <br />alleged that the "Grandfather clause' <br />of CEQA was applicable to Dr. Long s <br />project due to assessment district <br />work. <br />He next referred to the provisions <br />of the Subdivision Map Act and the <br />findings which the Planning Com- <br />mission must make in order to deny <br />a map. He read the six findings <br />and concluded that none of these <br />findings apply. <br />City Attorney Scheidig asked if the <br />Commission would wish to put this <br />matter over to a special meeting <br />in order for further staff review of <br />the project to be undertaken - apart <br />from the EIR question. The Commis- <br />sion did wish to do so. <br />Commissioner Carrigan reviewed with <br />the City Attorney the alternatives <br />they had. <br />City Attorney stated that if the map <br />is denied that evening, he would <br />assume that Dr. Long would allow the <br />50 days to expire then proceed to <br />prepare a final map for City Council <br />review. After that, they would <br />seek legal redress. <br />Mr. Maines corrected him to state <br />that if the map were denied, the <br />applicant would appeal that de- <br />cision to Council and if Council <br />upholds the position of the Planning <br />Commission by writ of mandate, the <br />matter would be appealed to the <br />Courts. <br />Design configuration of the tract <br />was then discussed, and Mr. Harris <br />-12- <br />