PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

licensing, falconry, and other related matters, it had been a much more lengthy process than usual. Staff had wanted to ensure presenting a comprehensive report that would provide the decision-makers the information they needed to render a decision. Ms. Decker stated that there had been many scheduling conflicts with respect to trying to coordinate a Planning Commission meeting date with the applicant’s schedule and obligations; however, staff had been requested by the applicant to bring this item forward to the Planning Commission for consideration. She believed the staff report was complete and accurate. Chairperson Fox inquired whether the Commissioner’s Handbook addressed the absence of the applicant during a public hearing and whether this was the first time that an item had been heard by the Planning Commission without the applicant being present. She noted that in the past, projects with applicants who have not been able to attend have been automatically continued. She inquired whether this was the first time a hearing item would be heard without the applicant. Ms. Decker advised that applicants generally attended hearings and that they commonly requested a continuance if they were unable to attend. She noted that there had been no substitute representative available to attend the Planning Commission meeting for this item and that the applicant had informed staff that it was acceptable to go forward with this hearing. She noted that this may appear to be unusual but that staff had the appropriate direction and request from the applicant to proceed. Commissioner Blank indicated that he had quickly scanned the Commissioner’s Handbook and did not see specific guidance regarding this issue. She asked Ms. Harryman for clarification on this matter. Ms. Harryman noted that it is normal for an applicant who cannot appear to have the item continued, but in this case, she agreed with Ms. Decker that the hearing could be held and the item heard. Chairperson Fox asked the Commissioners how they would like to proceed. Commissioner Pearce noted that if the applicant had requested that the item move forward, she would like to see it move forward as well. Commissioner Olson concurred. The Commissioners indicated general agreement with Commissioners Pearce and Olson. Chairperson Fox noted that this was the first time she had seen an item go forward without the applicant and stated for the record that the Commission understood that it was acceptable to the applicant that the item be heard without the applicant present. Ms. Amos then presented the staff report and detailed the background, scope, and layout of the proposed application. She noted the email on the dais. She indicated that the subject site is in a PUD but that staff determined that this falls back to the R-1 district standards. She added that staff had further determined that a PUD minor modification is not required to process this animal use permit. She stated that information has also been provided on hawk attacks in other areas and are mainly in the East Coast and Great Britain. She noted that the California Raptor Center had indicated that this is unlikely to happen in particular areas such as the Bay Area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 4 of 19