PC 061108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Blank noted that it was impossible to determine the state of the neighborhood in 1985 based on the minutes from the 1985 Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He inquired whether, in the event the Planning Commission believed the building architecture was not appropriate, it could make any judgment on it, or, alternatively, whether the only item to be determined was whether the building was in substantial conformance. Mr. Dolan confirmed that the only item to be determined was whether or not the building was in substantial conformance. Chair Blank noted that he was not on the Planning Commission in 1985 and did not know what the intent was in 1985 nor what would have been acceptable at that time. He noted that no criteria had been identified for making that decision other than numbers on a chart. He inquired whether Negative Declarations expired on their own. Mr. Dolan replied that they did not and that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not come into play here because the determination is not considered a project as defined under CEQA. He noted that the project was approved, and this hearing covered the determination of conformity with that approved project; it was not discretionary. Commissioner Fox noted that she had printed out Resolution 85-402 approving the Negative Declaration, signed by Ken Mercer, James Walker, and Peter MacDonald, with three Ayes votes. She noted that Moore, Wood, and Mercer voted to approve the item and that the Negative Declaration resolution stated: "Whereas at the meeting of August 20, 1985, the City Council received a proposed Negative Declaration for development plan approval to construct atwo- and three-story 132-unit retirement hotel complex." She added that later in the document, it read, "Therefore, the City Council resolves ...Section 1: Approves the Negative Declaration for development plan approval to construct atwo- and three-story 132-unit retirement hotel." She noted that if this CEQA approval contained a Negative Declaration that did not include the fourth story, and the 1985 resolution included wording stated it was two to three stories. She inquired whether that meant the complex should be two to three stories. She inquired why, if the resolution included a CEQA document for atwo- to three-story complex, regardless of what was in the staff report or the exhibit at the time, if the PUD ordinance stated two to three stories and the notice stated two to three stories, and if the resolution approving the CEQA document stated two to three stories, the City refer to only the plans to determine how many stories were approved. She expressed concern that in accordance with the CEQA, only two to three stories, and not afour-story building, was approved. She noted that there have been similar projects in the past, such as that of 300 Neal Street, wherein the Commission believed that there was a requirement for perpetual open space at the street front although it was not spelled out in the conditions and ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2008 Page 9 of 28