PC 011205 - Laserfiche WebLink

with the regional housing needs. She inquired whether either bill addressed that issue. it seemed do her that aState-Mandated Claims Fund was supposed to help cities comply with State mandates, but she sought further clarification. Ms. Nerland advised that she would look into that information and report back to the Commission. Letter from Peter Bailcv G'ommissioner Roberts advised that the Commissioners received a letter from Peter Bailey on Happy Valley Road, and she called him to suggest that he send the same information to the Alameda County Planning Commission. She noted that they discussed the plan for septic systems in more houses. Neighborhood Noti£cation During the Holidavsc Maior vs. Minor Modification Issues Commissioner Roberts advised that she had several notices from the City over Christmas, including one concerning the Chrisman/Berlogar property. Because of time constraints, the Planning Commission had not been noticed, and she would not have been aware of it had she been out of town. She noted that was the most visible parcel. Mr. Pavan noted that with respect to the buildout of the Chrisman/Berlogar PUD development plan, which was originally to be developed by Centex, there had been no changes made until this proposal to that development plan. He did not recall a condition that any changes must go through the Planning Commission. In lieu of building houses, the applicant proposed to replace them with design guidelines based upon the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan design standards. Staff told the applicant that the Commission wanted to look at the properties under the auspices of a public hearing. The applicant stated that they would try to do the minor modification, and it had been appealed. He emphasized that nothing had been approved by staff and that they were in the initial noticing period. He stated that if one individual submitted an objection to a minor mod, it would become a major modification, triggering a public hearing. If the noticing period had passed without any objections and if the minor mod was supportable, staff probably would have approved it and notified the Planning Commission as an action of the Zoning Administrator. He noted that the months of November and December were difficult times for noticing because of the holidays and reduced schedule of Council and Planning Commission meetings. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin whether staff had the discretion to determine whether an application is a major modification or a minor modification, Mr. Pavan replied that an applicant may insist on a public hearing even if staff believes the Planning Commission will not support it. With respect to this application, the applicant requested. that it be processed as a minor modification, and staff supported the processing as such. Because of the objection by the neighbor, it will be processed as a major modification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 2005 Page 16 of 21