PC 052108 Special Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

would be present, or that if he were unable to attend, the project could move forward as planned. Staff received the signed document from the applicant and noted that the applicant had called several days ago, indicating that they would probably arriving into San Francisco Airport at about 5:30 p.m. the day of this hearing. Staff placed this item later in the agenda with every intention of the applicants being able to attend for this item. She did not know where the applicant was at this time. She noted that the Planning Commission could vote on whether to hear this item or to request that staff continue this item until further communication with the applicant to ensure they could attend. Commissioner Fox inquired whether there was any legal ramification if the Planning Commission chose to move forward and whether this item would go to City Council Ms. Decker stated that this is a PUD maj or modification and that the Commission would not be approving this item but would make a recommendation to the City Council. She added that if there were a maj ority vote to recommend approval to the City Council, the applicants would have an opportunity to attend the City Council hearing as well; however, should the Planning Commission determine and recommend to the City Council to deny this request, the applicant would need to appeal the decision to the City Council. Chair Blank inquired whether it was the will of the Commission to proceed. There was a consensus among the Commissioners to proceed with the item. Ms. Decker presented the staff report and summarized the background, scope, and layout of the proposed project. Commissioner Fox requested confirmation that staff recommended Option 2, requiring the pond to be moved to the original setbacks. Ms. Decker noted that staff intended to provide options to the Planning Commission, and then provide a recommendation. She noted that this particular item was sensitive in that staff recognized that a great deal of investment had been made in this project. The applicants originally valued the project at $12,000 and permits were obtained, based on that estimate; however, the prof ect cost them $32,000. She added that the City was sensitive to the request that someone remove constructed improvements and that City staff tried to work with people to make their projects work. Ms. Decker noted that in this particular situation, staff would recommend that the applicant meet the setbacks because of the concern; there was a 4- to 4.5-foot-depth for the Engeo Geotechrucal Report. She noted that in retrospect, it was too close to the side yard setback of five feet; staff believed it should be moved back to 10 feet and that the 20-foot setback should be held as well. Staff's recommendation was that the applicant meet the setbacks. Chair Blank believed that already with evidence of leaking, the Commission in the past has taken a dim view of people who start projects without any contact with the City. It was clear to him from the record that the City went overboard in trying to help the applicant and to educate them. He noted that the evidence trail was very clear, given that there now appeared to be a safety issue and that in order to meet the Technical Report, it would have to be torn out anyway. He stated that he believed that there was no other option but to adopt the staff recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 21, 2008 Page 20 of 26