My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 091008
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
PC 091008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:38:03 PM
Creation date
11/26/2008 1:14:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/10/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 091008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Dolan replied that staff would like the Commission to consider the application <br />independent of that directive and see if the issue can be resolved. He noted that <br />there is a possibility that the item will end up with the City Council regardless of what <br />happens at the Commission level. He stated that staff brought the application before <br />the Commission because staff's decision was appealed. He added that the <br />Commission could take the position that it believes the application should have gone <br />directly to City Council and that it does not want to consider the application. He <br />indicated that staff could take this approach if this is what the Commission desires. <br />Chair Blank noted that even though the Council meeting minutes are not available, <br />there is indirect evidence in the Planning Commission meeting minutes that <br />reference this particular item, which includes a significant discussion on grading. <br />Commissioner Pearce indicated her appreciation for the research staff has thus <br />performed. She inquired if it were possible or likely that the documents being sought <br />are still out there. Ms. Amos replied that she looked at all the records from 1986 to <br />1992, both in the City Clerk's Office and in boxes from the archives and was unable <br />to find anything on the matter. <br />Commissioner Fox inquired if staff looked at both the Design Review Board meeting <br />and Planning Commission meeting files. Ms. Amos said yes. <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired if staff was simply looking for files relating to <br />re-grading or for conditions of approval for the development which might be <br />contained in other documents. Ms. Amos replied that she looked at landscaping and <br />grading files as well as any type of conditions of approval. <br />In response to Chair Blank's inquiry if the search done was both electronic and <br />manual, Ms. Amos replied that she did both. <br />Commissioner O'Connor expressed concern that staff has not been able to find this <br />information and is not certain that what is at the site is in substantial conformance to <br />Exhibit A. He inquired whether staff is leaving the determination of substantial <br />conformance to the Commissioners who have visited the site. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that this was not the question that was before the Commission. <br />He stated that the applicant went ahead and implemented his plan; he was then <br />informed that the application was still an open issue and that no resolution had yet <br />been reached. He noted that the applicant had a plan that was approved by the <br />Zoning Administrator, but the decision was appealed; hence, the applicant does not <br />have an approved plan at this time. He added that from this perspective, the <br />application is a blank slate. <br />Commissioner O'Connor requested clarification that the substantial conformance of <br />the work the applicant has started and completed is not at issue because there is no <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 10, 2008 Page 7 of 33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.