Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Harryman noted that it would have been required for Planning Commission <br />meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that a 300-foot notice would have been acceptable under Planning law <br />but that those agendas were handled under Parks and Community Services law. He noted <br />that the Planning Department exceeded noticing requirements. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor requested that staff clarify this issue with respect to Planning <br />Commissioners attending outside meetings and making comment as a resident. <br /> <br />Ms. Harryman noted that if Commissioners wished to speak as residents and planned to <br />recuse themselves from the Planning hearing, that would be fine. She added that she <br />would follow up this matter with a memo to the Commissioners. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that they wished to avoid any appearance of prejudicial actions. <br /> <br />Chairperson Fox stated that she had requested a copy of the staff report for that meeting <br />and had not received it by email or online. <br /> <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION <br /> <br />a. Future Planning Calendar <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />b.Actions of the City Council <br /> <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />Actions of the Zoning Administrator <br />c. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor noted that the Colliers International item contained a misprint <br />regarding the total number of acres, and it was short about 7 acres. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that was common open space, which was a commercial condominium <br />project. He noted that there were separate parcels required to be commonly owned by the <br />owners and added that it should have been worded more precisely. <br /> <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION’S REVIEW/ACTION <br /> <br />No discussion was held or action taken. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2007 Page 26 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />