PC 041107 - Laserfiche WebLink

7.MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Names and Addresses on Public Communication Commissioner Narum requested clarification on why on emails from the public, sometimes the names are blocked out and sometimes they are not. Ms. Giffin replied that it was her understanding that residents no longer needed to state their names and addresses when speaking in public and so she blocked out the names and addresses of those who sent comments on Staples Ranch. She added that some of the Commissioners had earlier asked for clarification on this and requested some consistency. Commissioner Blank indicated that he had talked to staff earlier about this matter. He noted that people who come to the podium to speak are sometimes asked to state their names and addresses and sometimes they are told that that is not necessary; yet the Minutes contain the names and addresses. He stated that it would be all right for a member of the public to not want to give his or her name and address; however, it would be helpful for the Commission to know if the speaker is a Pleasanton resident for purposes of putting a value or weight to put on the testimony. He requested that staff provide some guidelines for consistency. Brown Act Clarification Commissioner Narum commented that in connection with the Oak Grove item at the last Commission meeting, there was some confusion regarding when the Brown Act comes into effect and how much time is needed to have items on agenda and staff reports available to the public. She requested staff to clarify this issue. Ms. Harryman replied that the only legal requirement is that the agenda be posted 72 hours before the meeting; there is no requirement for when packets should be out and materials be ready. She noted that staff strives to get the materials out at the same time that the agenda is posted, if not earlier. Chairperson Fox commented that when the RMC Asphalt Granite Plant item was discussed sometime in the past, an issue went to the City Council because the attorneys claimed that the lawyers’ letters were not given to them within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Harryman apologized that she was not familiar with the Asphalt Granite Plant issue. Commissioner Narum inquired if, should a resident request that an item be continued because he or she did not get the information packet 72 hours ahead of time, the Commission is not obligated to continue the item. Commissioner Blank noted that technically, ten residents can ask for an item to be continued and the Commission is under no obligation to continue the item; this is left to the discretion of the Commission. He referenced the Commissioners’ Handbook that stated that the practice is if two residents request a continuation. He added that in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 11, 2007 Page 15 of 18