Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Mr. Iserson noted that a review of the flag <br />ordinance would be brought to the Commission next month. <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin, Ms. Nerland replied that the appeal <br />process by Commissioners was on her desk, and that the appeal by Conunissioner Roberts <br />begged the question- She would go to the City Council for policy direction with respect to <br />distinguishing between an appeal by the Planning Commission as a body versus when an <br />individual Commissioner initiates an appeal. She noted that the ordinane~ was not clear as <br />written, and that the inconsistencies regarding the time frame for appeals needed to be <br />addressed. She added that with respect to appeals by individual Commissioners versus the <br />Commission as a body, it was very important to maintain the appearance of fairness and <br />due process. <br />A discussion of the various appeal scenarios ensued, and G'hairperson Arkin noted that he <br />would oppose amajority-only Commission appeal requirement. <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION <br />a_ Future Planning Calendar <br />No action was taken. <br />b. Actions of the City Council <br />No action was taken. <br />c_ Actions of the Zoning Administrator <br />No action was taken. <br />9_ COMMUNICATIONS <br />There were none. <br />10. REFERRALS <br />There were none. <br />11. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br />Mr. Iserson advised that the West Las Positas report update would be agendized for the <br />second Cotmcil meeting in February. <br />in response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson advised that he would <br />provide a copy of that staff report. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 22, 2003 Page 27 <br />