PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman noted that Commissioner Fox was correct in that the Negative Declaration and the notice referred to two to three stories, and the title of the ordinance referred to two to three stories. She added that the body of the ordinance referred to conditions of approval which incorporate drawings, which depicted four stories. She added that the staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council discuss four stories, and the comments in the minutes included discussion of the four stories on the Planning Commission level being proposed for fire access, which was how the issue came up. She noted that Commissioner Fox was correct that there were documents that read two to three stories; she noted, however, that the whole record, particularly the drawings, indicated four stories. She added that an argument had been made that the statute of limitations to challenge the notice and the Negative Declaration ran out in 1985. She noted that the issue before the Planning Commission at this time is whether the project substantially conforms to what was approved in 1985. She noted that Commissioner Fox is making an argument that probably someone would have like to challenge it in 1985; however it did not happen, and consequently, the project was approved. Commissioner Fox noted that the motion made by Wood and Moore to approve the project and the Negative Declaration in the minutes spelled out two to three stories and inquired whether that did not count at that time. Ms. Harryman replied that they were not irrelevant but that in looking at the record as a whole and comparing it to the Generations Health Care project, she noted that the ordinance and conditions of approval for the latter project did not address open space being in perpetuity. She added that the neighbors had referred to the lawn area in front adjacent to Neal Street as being open space in perpetuity, but neither the ordinance nor the conditions of approval specified that requirement. She noted that staff examined the entire record, including the minutes and the staff reports, to make a determination and found that there was discussion of open space, but in staff's opinion, there was no requirement placed or indicated that this was the direction in which they were moving. She indicated that in this present case, staff looked at the big picture and not just at one or two items. She added that even if persons were to disagree with that conclusion, the statute of limitations has run out. Commissioner Fox noted that in the past, the City has approved projects such as the Pereira wall next to Hap's and then decided there was a noticing problem, or that there was another issue with the approval where it thought the City was in error. She noted that in that situation, although the appeal period had lapsed according to the Pleasanton Municipal Code, the City had that project redone and brought back with the correct process. She noted that today, if a member of the public requested a copy of these site plans, many times the Department would state that they were copyrighted and could not be handed out to the general public. She noted that during the Hap's situation, she went to the Building Division and requested the original site plan; she was told that she could not have it because it was copyrighted material. She noted that Mr. Fialho had to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 10 of 28