CCMIN040406 - Laserfiche WebLink

were less significant in scope, the changes could be approved at the staff level. If the changes were substantial and required public review and comment, staff would bring the changes back through the process, which would delay and increase the overall cost of the project. Mr. Sullivan asked if the peer review process and proposed changes would be made at the Zoning Administrator level. He asked if the drawings would be distributed and an appeal process available in case someone objected. Mr. Iserson said this decision would be up to Council. Mr. Sullivan preferred to see an extensive reworking of the proposed design. Absent of Council support, he supported retaining Larry Cannon's services as a part of the motion. He acknowledged the fact that the overall cost of this project is an important consideration but he did not want this to be the only consideration, as this building will exist for a long period of time. Mr. Brozosky disagreed. He did not see how changes could be made at this point without increasing the overall time-line. If Council approved the proposed design and staff made subsequent changes, he would want Council to review it again to ensure that the changes were reflective of what the Task Force wanted. Mr. Iserson said it would depend on how much process Council wanted to incur after changes were made. The degree to which the public would have the opportunity to comment and be involved or appeal after that could stretch out for months. Mr. Brozosky believed the outside faQade of the building seemed to be the major point of contention. He asked if the design work could begin today including the structure without including the material for the exterior of the building which would provide the Task Force several months to review the exterior of the building to soften it. Mr. Schindler said the schedule is set for a five-month period to produce documents. When ELS Architecture designed the building, it designed it as a whole to include the structure, the skin of the building and mechanical systems which are inherent in the design. The Architects would need to see a period of revising the concept design prior to the five-month period. A primary amendment was made by Mr. Sullivan to approve staff's recommendation as outlined in the staff report with the addition of retaining the services of Larry Cannon to work with staff and ELS Architecture to review and consider modifications to the exterior of the building that would reflect the Downtown Specific Plan and how the design could fit in the downtown area that would not result in significant modifications to the structure or size of the building. The proposed changes would be subject to the Zoning Administrator approval subject to an appeal process. Mayor Hosterman did not understand the idea of going in and adding another architect to the mix to make design changes. Mr. Sullivan clarified that his primary amendment included a peer review. The peer review would take into consideration the Downtown Specific Plan Guidelines and the comments made by the Planning Commission, the PDA Design Committee and the comments expressed Pleasanton City Council Minutes 18 04/04/06