PC MINS 199402012/8/94APPROVED
1P
�VA
#A
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNED MEETING
FEBRUARY 1, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm by Chairman Alberio at
the Hesse'Park Community Building Fireside Room, 29301 Hawthorne
Boulevard.
PRESENT: Commissioners Ferraro Hayes, Vannorsdall, Wang,
Whiteneck, Vice Chairman Mowlds and Chairman" Alberio.
ABSENT: None.
Also present were City Attorney Carol Lynch, Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement Bret Bernard, and Planning
Administrator Carolynn Petru.
COMMISSIONER ORIENTATION (continued from the January 25, 1994
regular meeting)
City Attorney Lynch presented an overview of those portion of the
law that effect the Planning Commissioners and the execution of
their duties, focusing primarily on the Political Reform Act, State
Government Code Section 1090 and prevailing case law.
Conflicts of Interest
• If a Planning commissioner receives from or makes a payment or
contribution of $250.00 or more to an individual or group
within the last twelve months (including campaign
contributions), they must abstain from voting on any matter
before the Commission pertaining to that individual or group.
• If a Planning Commission lives within 300 feet of a proposed
project site, they are assumed to have a conflict of
interested with the project and must abstain from voting on
the matter. If the Commissioner lives between 300 feet and
2,500 feet of the subject property, they must abstain from
voting if the proposed project would effect their property
value (either up or down) by more than $10,000.00. If the
Commission lives more than 2,500 feet away, they are assumed
not be have a conflict and may vote on the matter.
• If a commissioner feels that they may have a conflict of
interest for any other reason (i.e. they know the applicant
well, have had a business relationship with one of the
interested parties in the past, etc.) , the decision to abstain
is left to the discretion of the individual Commissioner.
However, the City Attorney advised that when in doubt about a
particular situation, the Commissioner should feel free to
call the City Attorney directly to discuss the matter and/or
may chose to abstain from participating on the project.
Government Code Section No. 1090
This law prevents city officials and appointees from entering
into contracts with the City for which they are empowered in
a decision-making role.
Conduct at Meetinas and Site Visits
The Commission should refrain from discussing the upcoming
case with the applicant or any interested parties outside of
the public forum. However, if a Commission should be told
anything that may affect their feeling about the project or
their eventual decision, they should disclose this fact to the
Staff before the meeting, if additional research or
information is required, and disclose their concern at the
public meeting.
• During the public hearing on a project, the Planning
Commission should refrain from discussing the merits of the
case or stating their opinions until all of the public
testimony has been received and the public hearing has been
closed. This will ensure that the Commission has heard and
considered all of the facts and testimony of the case, before
rendering a decision.
The Ralph M. Brown Act
The City Attorney stated that several new or clarified provisions
to the Brown Act will go into effect in April 1994:
• "Serial meetings" (i.e. where Commissioners call each other in
secession to discuss an upcoming project) are expressly
prohibited.
• Meetings or retreats cannot be held outside of the City's
boundaries. However, professional conferences and social
events are excluded from this provision, provided that the
Commissioners do not discuss upcoming cases.
• Any subcommittee meetings, regardless of their size, must be
publicly noticed.
• The Commission is barred from discussing issues that are not
specifically included on the agenda. However, if a
Commissioner or a member of the public raises an issue at a
hearing that the Planning commission would like to discuss,
the Chairman can direct the Staff to schedule the item for a
future meeting agenda.
• If the Planning Commission were to hold a closed session with
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 1994
PAGE 2
the City Attorney, an agenda must be prepared and the meeting
must be followed by an oral report on any actions taken by the
Commission, including the composition of any votes.
City Attorney Lynch mentioned that on March 3, 1994, her firm of
Richards, Watson and Gershon would be presenting a seminar on the
new changes to the Brown Act. She indicated that an announcement
flyer would be forthcoming.
Chairman Alberio voiced his concern that at the January 25, 1994
meeting, a member of the public would not speak to the issue at
hand when they addressed the Planning Commission. Ms. Lynch
responded that the Chairman should try to keep the speaker on the
topic at hand. She cautioned that, if the person is not preventing
the continuation of the meeting, they should be given their
allotted time to speak. However, if the person is being
disruptive, the Chairman should recess the meeting and contact the
Sheriff to escort the person from the premises. In addition, if
the person is consistently disruptive at the Planning commission
meetings (i.e. for three meetings in a row) , they can be barred
from attending future meetings.
The Commission discussed the history of the three minute vs. five
minute time limits given to speakers. The City Attorney discussed
the technique of giving each side a specific block of time in which
to present their case and allow them to divide the time up among
themselves. Ms. Lynch also indicated that the Planning Commission
may amend their Rules and Procedures to limit the Audience Comments
portion of the agenda to less than five minutes per speaker.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Mowlds moved to adjourn the meeting, which was
seconded by Commissioner Hayes. Approved by acclamation (7-0).
Adjournment: 6:46 PM.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled
for February 8, 1994 at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community Building.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 1994
PAGE 3