Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nerland advised that there were many times when staff brings major modifications <br />directly to the Commission. <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that she was disturbed by the timing of the notice, and the <br />holiday schedule made it difficult for people to respond to the City offices. <br />Commissioner Arkin suggested that the noticing policy be adjusted during the holiday <br />weeks. <br />Chairperson Maas noted that other functions of public life, such as jury duty, continued <br />during holiday weeks. <br />Commissioner Arkin inquired whether staff would like to see an ordinance or other <br />statement requiring an applicant to come back to the Commission after a major change to <br />a design. <br />Chairperson Maas noted that the Commission had previously required another <br />appearance if a major alteration to the design takes place. <br />Mr_ Pavan suggested sending notices directly to the Commissioners during the holiday <br />months. <br />Chairperson Maas believed that would be a good idea. <br />Mr_ Pavan noted that if a significant decision date fell on a holiday, it would <br />automatically be moved to the next business day_ He added that his office number and <br />e-mail address were on the notices and that he frequently picked up his office e-mail <br />while at home. <br />Ms. Nerland noted that there had been cases in the past few years where the Planning <br />Commission specifically stated in the PUD conditions that the project must return to the <br />Commission if a certain item changed. She believed that direction could be built into the <br />PUD better than an ordinance could because the PUD is very case-specitic_ <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin whether the City guidelines regarding <br />major versus minor modifications could be clarified, Ms_ Nerland noted that she would <br />retrieve the language when possible and report back to the Commission. <br />Ostrich Farm on 225 Hannv Vallev Road <br />Ms. Nerland noted that the December 20, 2004, hearing on the ostrich farm on <br />255 Happy Valley Road was continued to February 7, 2005, before the Alameda County <br />Plai~iiing Commission. She added that County staff is currently recommended denial of <br />the application. She advised that the County has not completed its initial environmental <br />study of the project, which begs the question of how the staff could recommend denial of <br />---- the application. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 2005 Page 17 of 21 <br />