Loading...
PC MINS 20120424 Approved May 8, 2012 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tetreault at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Leon led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Gerstner, Leon, Lewis, Nelson, Vice Chairman Emenhiser, and Chairman Tetreault. Commissioner Tomblin arrived during item No. 2. Absent: None Also present were Community Development Director Rojas and Deputy Director Pfost. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Commission unanimously agreed to hear agenda item No. 2 ahead of agenda item No. 1. COMMUNICATIONS Director Rojas reported that the City Council was scheduled to hear the proposed project at 10 Chaparral Lane at their April 17ih meeting, however the item was continued to the June 5th meeting. Director Rojas distributed four letters regarding agenda item No. 2 and one item of late correspondence from May Pro Tern Campbell related to agenda item No. 1. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items): None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan update — review proposed changes to the existing Land Use map Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report, explaining what is before the Commission is three City owned parcels that have been used as open space or trail since the City purchased these properties. All three properties have a designation that is either Residential or Commercial and it is staff's proposal to change the land use designation to a Recreational Passive to more coincide with the open space use that they are being used as. He explained that staffs proposals are draft proposed changes that will eventually be brought to the City Council's attention for adoption when the full General Plan goes to the Council. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Norbert Nastanski stated he lives near the Island View development and has seen some landslides near the development as well as severe water runoff. He was concerned about the danger of people in the area, and unless a fence is erected someone may fall. Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked if staff was recommending the hazard designation be changed on any of the properties. Deputy Director Pfost answered that staff was not making any such recommendation. Director Rojas added that the City Geologist has been tasked to look at the OH zone citywide, and if there are any proposed changes there will be a notice that is sent to the neighbors. He also noted that this particular property has been identified for possible inclusion in the NCCP Preserve, and there is an item going to the City Council in May asking the Council to affirm its inclusion in the preserve. If that is approved, staff will be recommending changing the designation on this property to Open Space Preserve. Chairman Tetreault noted an item of correspondence regarding appeal fees and whether or not such fees can be waived in regards to public land issues raised by the public. Deputy Director Pfost noted that appeal fees are fees set by the City Council for any appeal to an application. He noted that all of these decisions are Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council and it is therefore not necessary to file an appeal as the City Council will be hearing these items as part of the approval process, Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Approved, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Tomblin abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 2 CONTINUED BUSINESS 1 Discussion of the proposed City Council Rules of Procedure and 'Commission and Committee Protocol Director Rojas noted that the proposed Rules of Procedure included with the staff report are the same Rules of Procedure that were distributed to the Commission at the last meeting on April 10th. He also noted that there will be an item on the City Council's May 1St agenda to consider the Planning Commission's request for a joint meeting. Chairman Tetreault discussed the adopted motion from the previous Planning Commission meeting in regards to inviting the entire City Council to hear the Planning Commission discussion of the proposed Rules of Procedure and Protocol. He noted the proposal from the City Council was that their subcommittee attend the Planning Commission meeting. He asked the Commission to clarify if the motion that was passed meant the Planning Commission did not want to be visited by and consult with the subcommittee and only discuss the item in a joint meeting with the City Council, or was the Commission making an invitation to the City Council and if they chose not to accept the invitation the Planning Commission would then hear from the subcommittee. Commissioner Lewis stated he voted in favor of the motion with the understanding that the Commission wanted the full City Council to consider the invitation but was not meant to exclude the subcommittee from coming forward to discuss the subject with the Commission. With that being said, he could not imagine why the subcommittee members would want to hear this item twice, once as a subcommittee and once again with the entire City Council. Commissioner Nelson stated that, as the maker of the motion, that the motion was made to protect the minority. He explained that he was troubled with the fact that two members of the City Council would report to the entire City Council the opinions and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. He thought it would be better if the entire City Council heard directly from the Planning Commission rather from their designated representatives. He added that it was important the Council understand how serious the Commission is about this question. He stated the motion was not about whether the subcommittee should come to the meeting by themselves, but that the items be discussed during a joint meeting with the entire City Council. Vice Chairman Emenhiser thought the motion was a gracious invitation and would be a bit presumptuous for the Planning Commission to dictate to the City Council. He felt it would be great to have as many members of the City Council as possible to participate in the discussion, and felt the idea of a joint meeting was a wonderful idea. Chairman Tetreault stated his understanding of the motion was similar to the Vice Chairman's in that it was not intended to exclude the subcommittee. He also noted that it was the Planning Commission's right to set their own agenda, and if the Planning Commission chooses not to agendize the subcommittee that is their prerogative. Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 3 Commissioner Leon also voted for the motion with the idea that it would be a gracious invitation to the City Council. He also understood that protocols and procedures are important and it is important to make sure they don't violate the First Amendment. He felt the Commission could probably communicate their recommendations to the City Council in writing. He stated the City Council has very important things to do and he felt there are certain issues where it could be very productive and significant to have a joint meeting with the City Council. However, he would hate to see the Commission waste a joint meeting with the Council on this particular issue. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioners Nelson and Lewis in that an invitation was made to the entire City Council, and that obviously the Council could decline that invitation. Commissioner Lewis referred to the letter distributed to the Commission from Brian Campbell suggesting language and ideas for Section 5. He noted that in the letter he identifies himself as the Mayor Pro Tem. He questioned if the City Council voted to authorize Mr. Campbell to come before the Commission as the Mayor Pro Tem. Director Rojas answered that he did not recall that specific discussion at the previous City Council meeting, however the City Attorney did inform him that any Council member can attend tonight's meeting and submit information or speak to the Commission on this topic. Commissioner Lewis agreed that under the current rules and protocols that is correct, however he pointed out that under the proposals being reviewed he did not think Mr. Campbell would be allowed to submit the letter where he identifies himself as Mayor Pro Tem. Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Sharon Yarber felt the rules should be revamped and changes are needed. She felt that paragraph 5 of the rules has created the most controversy and communications to the staff and City Council. She asked the Commission to focus on paragraph 5 in respect to what items are on the agenda so that the City Council can chart the course of the City. She felt that getting things on the agenda so that the public has time to weigh in and comment is critical. She recommended that if an individual Council member has a suggestion for an agenda item, that item can be considered by the Mayor for inclusion on the agenda. If the Mayor chooses not to include it on the agenda, the proposed item can go before the entire Council for consideration. She felt the current rules prohibit a minority view from ever being raised by the City Council and for the public to have the opportunity to have input on the subject. Joe Locasio felt the proposed rules and procedures and the protocol deserve very serious consideration. He did not think that, as currently proposed, they are in the City's best interest and greatly appreciated the time the Commission gave in reviewing the Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 4 proposed changes. He also felt that the City Council should hear the Commission discussion in a joint meeting. Chairman Tetreault noted Mr. Locasio is the Chair of the Traffic Safety Commission. Mr, Locasio acknowledged he is the Chairman, however noted he was speaking as a private citizen, Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Locasio if he felt the Rules and Procedures in general were not in the best interest of the City, or if it was one particular procedure that is proposed. Mr. Locasio clarified that to suppress public input on certain items that affect the residents of the City is a travesty of the system. He did not think there should be any direct implementation of procedures or policy to suppress those inputs that the City Council should hear before deciding on any issue. In his opinion, to transfer that responsibility or to subjugate those sorts of things is not why the Council members have been elected to their positions. Chairman 'Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gerstner asked if the proposed rules say that if the Mayor wants to have an item added to the agenda, and the City Manager feels it shouldn't be agendized, then the item will not be put on the agenda. Chairman Tetreault responded that was the way he read the proposed rule. Commissioner Gerstner was concerned that the City Manager would have the authority to solely, under certain conditions, decide what is or is not placed on the agenda. Commissioner Emenhiser was concerned with the major principle that was implied in paragraph 5. He was concerned with the protection of the minority view and that paragraph 5 may have the affect of suppressing the issues of the minority, Commissioner Lewis stated that for many years it seemed as though the City was operating under the rule that two Council members could place a matter on the agenda. That seemed to present a problem in that one Council member could abuse the agenda power with items that would never have the possibility of concurrence of the majority, but preserved the rights of the minority at least having the ability to place the item on the agenda. He would like to see the return of the ability of two Council members having the right to place an item on the agenda. He was concerned that the issue of section 5 may not go back to the City Council again before the next election, as it can only go back to the Council if three Council members vote to hear it again. He also discussed the comments submitted by Mayor Pro Tern Campbell. Specifically, Mr. Campbell commented that the City Manager not be allowed to develop any policy with the intent of placing it on an upcoming agenda without the prior written approval of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 5 He felt that it was an interesting idea, but very difficult to implement both by City Council and by staff. He had First Amendment concerns in regards to the next item in the letter, that both the City Manager and the staff should not be permitted to lobby either for against any policy that is on or proposed to be on the City Council agenda. Finally, he stated he would like to hear from the City Attorney on the last item proposed by Mr. Campbell, that the City Manager and staff are subject to the Brown Act. Chairman Tetreault stated he had talked to the Mayor Pro Tern about the items on his handout. He clarified that Mr. Campbell's concern was that if a member of the City Council wants to have an item put on the agenda, and discusses it with the Mayor and the City Manager, he can then not discuss it with another member of the Council without violating the Brown Act. Commissioner Tomblin liked the idea of two Council members having the ability to suggest something be placed on the agenda, and encouraged the City Council to readdress this issue. Chairman Tetreault agreed with the comments from his fellow Commissioners. He understood the purpose of the proposed language was to address either a real, perceived, or theoretical threat of some type of misconduct on the part of one or more members of the City Council with respect to putting nonsense items on the agenda. In creating this language, however, he felt that an opportunity has been opened for another problem, that of the tyranny of the majority against the minority in their ability of the majority to silence or marginalize one or more members of the City Council. He did not think it wise to create potential new problems while finding a solution to a problem and there has to be ways that this potential problem can be addressed without opening up new avenues for misconduct or abuse. Commissioner Lewis agreed, He also thought it would be interesting to hear examples of instances, over the past six months, where the agendas had abused by one or two City Council members. Commissioner Leon felt a non-elected official should not be the person in charge of the agenda. He cautioned, however, that the City Manager needs to work the mechanisms of government in setting up the meetings, writing the agenda, etc. He hasn't seen a problem with the current system and felt one Council member should be able to add something on to an agenda. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if one Council member persistently placed frivolous items on the agenda, and they were resolved at Council, the frivolousness of the items would become apparent over time. He felt that a Council member puffing frivolous items on an agenda and having that debated publically may do as much harm to the person putting them on and could become a self-correcting problem. Chairman Tetreault agreed, noting that eventually the public may tire of this if the items are truly inappropriate. He also felt there are other things in the rules which will help to Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 6 mitigate any problems this creates, such as the 11.00 curfew, He felt that this is a significant change in the rules and is a significant matter. Commissioner Nelson agreed with the comment that any two Council members may request an item of concern be put on a future agenda. However, he also agreed with one member of the Council being able to do that. He was very concerned that the minority was protected through rules and regulations. Commissioner Lewis noted that staff time is a limited commodity. If one Council person is given the unlimited ability to put something on the agenda then a staff report has to be prepared and staff hours have to be spent on that item. If that Council person cannot get one colleague to join in that request he felt that was demonstrative that no concurrence is possible and there will never be a majority on that item. He felt that during the section of the agenda marked as items to be placed on future agendas, that Council member should be able to ask to put an item on a future agenda, but if he doesn't get a second then it should end. He felt that strikes a proper balance between the finite time of staff time and still protecting minority views, Commissioner Gerstner agreed. Chairman Tetreault asked the Commission for comments regarding other sections of the rules of procedure, Commissioner Lewis referred to Section 5.2 and the discussion about distributing the agenda. He noted the proposal to distribute the agenda and staff reports by the end of the day Thursday, which would mean the first opportunity for the public to review the material would be on Friday morning before the meeting. He did not think one business day before a weekend was not sufficient time for the public to get up to speed on important topics. He stated he would encourage the City Council to leave Section 5.2 as it is currently written, without change. Commissioner Nelson agreed, noting that with some very large staff reports it is almost impossible to read and comprehend the report when distributed on Wednesday evening. Commissioner Tomblin agreed with Commissioners Lewis and Nelson. Commissioner Nelson referred to Section 5,9, noting the Government Code cited in the text. He did not think anyone in the room knew that Government Code and questioned if it would be clearer to add an example to the description for clarity, Commissioner Lewis referred to Section 8.3.3 regarding time limits and donating speaking time, and his support for the proposed change to the language. He noted that he has said in past Commission meetings that he does not think speakers should be allowed to have time from other speakers donated to them to allow them to speak longer on a topic. He felt that the Mayor and the Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 7 always have the discretion to give more time to a speaker when needed. He stated he has never been present at a Planning Commission meeting or City Council meeting where the Chairman or Mayor denied an organized group the time they need to get their point across. Commissioner Nelson referred to Section 6.3, enforcement of decorum. He noted that this section gives the Mayor the power to control the City Council meeting, but questioned if there should not be language added to control the Mayor if necessary. Commissioner Lewis recalled language in either Roberts Rules or Rosenberg's Rules, that any order of the Mayor can be overturned by a majority of the Council. Before the next meeting he would research that, as he felt it was an interesting issue. Commissioner Leon referred to the Protocols and the language referencing Commission and Committee members representing themselves to another City government. He felt that particular protocol should be rewritten to not prohibit any member of the City's commissions, committees and staff members from identifying themselves as being part of the commission or staff. He felt that particular paragraph should direct the member to give a disclaimer that they are not representing the opinion of the City. Commissioner Lewis felt that point has merit, but would refine it slightly. He noted there have been instances in the past where a City Council member or a Commission member has been directed to go to another City to speak with the full support of the City Council majority. Therefore, the person should qualify that they are either speaking on their own behalf, or have been authorized by the full body to speak on behalf of that body. Commissioner Gerstner recalled that particular protocol not only included speaking before an organized body, but also included speaking with any member of an organized body. He stated there are many instances where members of a Commission or Committee will speak with members of other cities that is not part of an organized presentation or part of a hearing. The did not think that to attempt to require some sort of disclaimer every time a Commission member spoke to a member of another City was practical or realistic. In reference to Commissioner Nelson's comment regarding the possibility of added language to enforce decorum in terms of the Mayor, Commissioner Lewis referred to Section 12.2 of the proposed rules states that any ruling of the Mayor can be appealed at the request of a Council member and the Mayor must call for a roll call vote to determine if the ruling is upheld on appeal. He thought that rule is in the current rules as well. Commissioner Leon suggested adding a protocol stating that members of a Commission or Committee are integral members of the operation of the city government and should, as a matter of protocol, work with the Council and staff towards that end. Planning Commission Minutes AprR 24,2012 Page 8 This would set up a goal that everyone works together as a team to get positive action done. Commissioner Lewis suggested that would be fertile ground for abusing the First Amendment rights of Commission and Committee members. The Commission discussed possible meeting dates with the Director, based on the availability of upcoming agendas, agreeing that May 8th was the first available date, The Commission then discussed the status of their invitation to the City Council for a joint meeting. Chairman Tetreault asked the Commission if they wanted to invite the full City Council to the May 8th meeting, or did they want to take an alternative action and not agendize the ad-hoc subcommittee to attend the May 8th meeting. Commissioner Lewis disagreed on the appropriateness of the Commission setting their own agenda and telling the City Council to either show up in full or don't show up at all. He would be in favor of voting on a date and letting the City Council choose to appear either as a full Council or via a subcommittee, having been fully made aware that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to express their interest to meet with the full Council. Commissioner Gerstner requested that if the City Council would like to meet with the Commission and May 8th does not work for them, they give the Commission enough time to adjust their agenda and notices to the community such that the Commission can accommodate whatever schedule the Council may have. Chairman Tetreault asked the Commission, in the event that the City Council declines the Commission's invitation for the full Council to meet with the Planning Commission, whether or not the Commission wants to agendize the meeting with the ad-hoc subcommittee. He noted that he has been told by both the City Manager and the City Attorney that the Planning Commission has the power to put this on the agenda or to keep it off of the agenda. Commissioner Gerstner felt that if the City Council would like the Commission to agendize having the subcommittee meet with the Commission, the Commission has a certain responsibility to accommodate whatever request the City Council might make. He was not inclined to tell the City Council that the Commission did not want to meet with the ad-hoc subcommittee. The Commission agreed, without objection, that if the City Council does not accept the Commission's invitation to a joint meeting, that the Commission agendize a meeting with the City Council subcommittee on May 81h. Commissioner Lewis moved to have the Director provide written notice to the City Council of the Commission's desire to have a meeting with the full City Council, but if the City Council chooses not to come the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes April 24,2012 Page 9 would be very happy to meet with the ad-hoc subcommittee on May eh, seconded by Vice Chairman Emenhiser. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Minutes of March 13, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. 4. Minutes of March 27, 2012 Commissioner Gerstner noted a typo in the communications section of the minutes. Commissioner Gerstner moved to approve the minutes as modified, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-agenda for the meeting on May 8, 2012 Director Rojas noted that there is a fifth Tuesday in May which has been identified as a possible joint meeting date. The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Apri124.2012 Page 10