Loading...
PC Min 05/11/2004 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 11,2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 2004, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Acting Chair Francois and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Acting Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Tom Francois Bob Alderete Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: George Doorley Elizabeth Gibbons Joseph D. Hernandez Staff Present: Senior Planner: City Attorney Reporting Secretary: Geoff I. Bradley William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission minutes of April 27, 2004, were approved as submitted. (4-0-3; Commissioners Doorley, Gibbons and Hernandez were absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Outline from City Attorney re Agenda Item No.2. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REOUESTS There were no oral requests. Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2004 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING *** Acting Chair Francois read Agenda Item No.1 into the record. 1. PLN2004-32 Gamble, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Russ Gamble, on behalf of Casa di Mir Montessori Elementary School, for a Modification (PLN2004-32) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 98-15) to allow a minor addition to an existing school facility with an expansion in the number of students from 90 to a maximum of 120 per an original Condition of Approval requiring review of this use following at least one year of operation at an enrollment of 90 on property owned by Ms. Angela Zambetti located at 90 E. Latimer Avenue in an P-F (Public Facilities) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Geoffl. Bradley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to a previously approved Use Permit to enclose an existing loading dock at the rear with a small amount of new space for a total of approximately 1,100 in new square footage. . Reported that the new space would accommodate new classrooms, restrooms, water fountains and a reconfigured entry. . Said that the original Use Permit was approved in 1998 with a Condition allowing a maximum of 90 students allowed during the first year to increase to 120 after one year following review. The applicant appealed that condition in 1999 and the appeal was upheld, allowing the maximum of 120 students immediately. . Stated that the only physical expansion is the building and not the student body or staffing of the school. . Pointed out a typographical error in Finding No.6 whereby the hours of operation should be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. rather than the incorrectly listed 8 p.m. . Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving this Modification. Commissioner Rocha asked about Condition of Approval No. 19, regarding removal of a existing substandard streetlight. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that this is required as part of the Public Works Department Conditions. Commissioner Rocha asked if the surrounding neighbors have been notified of this application. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that the normal City notification has occurred. He reminded that with the original application, there was a lot of neighborhood comments and Planning Commission Minutes of May 11,2004 Page 3 concern. Since that time, there have been no issues and/or complaints raised in association with this school. Commissioner Rocha asked if the building materials for the addition would match existing materials. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes, the materials would be matched stucco to blend with the existing building. Commissioner Roseberry presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . SARC reviewed this project on April 27, 2004. . Said that some discussion occurred about the previous use of this area as a place for students to eat their lunch. The students now eat in their classrooms. . Stated that a good traffic management plan is in place. . Expressed general agreement with this request. Acting Chair Francois opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Mr. Russ Gamble, Project Architect and Representative: . Assured that the exterior materials would be matched for this addition. . Added that it is a smooth surface and will be painted to match. Acting Chair Francois closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3568 approving a Modification (PLN2004-32) to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (UP 98-15) to allow a minor addition to an existing school facility on property owned by Ms. Angela Zambetti located at 90 E. Latimer Avenue, and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under cEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Francois, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Doorley, Gibbons and Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Acting Chair Francois advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. *** MIScELLANEO US Acting Chair Francois read Agenda Item No.2 into the record. 2. Update on requirements of the Brown Act (Open Meetings Act). Planning Commission Minutes of May 11,2004 Page 4 City Attorney William Seligmann presented the report as follows: . Stated that it is a pleasure to present a brief overview of the Brown Act. . Added that he would focus his discussion on issues or constraints that specifically apply to Planning Commissioners. . Clarified that the Brown Act is an Open Meetings Law that mandates that the public's business should be conducted in public. Meetings must be conducted in an open and public manner. These meetings must be noticed 72 hours in advance or 24 hours in advance for Special Sessions. The press must be notified. Secret ballots are not permitted. . Explained the importance of the agenda. The Commission is not allowed to discuss anything unless it is included on the agenda. There are limited exceptions to that requirement, such as instructing staff to agendize something for future consideration. Acting Chair Francois asked the difference between speaking as a quorum or with less than a quorum. City Attorney William Seligmann: . Replied that Commissioners can discuss issues amongst themselves as long as they consist ofless than a majority. . Stated that there are other exceptions to unagendized discussions at meetings such as providing brief reports on special tasks assigned. The Council members do this at their meetings when they report on the activities of those community committees on which they serve as Campbell's representatives. Another exception would be for emergency situations. This exception would again be more applicable to Council than the Commission. A third exception could be an item that has come up after the 72-hour posting has occurred. With a three-quarters vote, the Planning Commission could place such an item on the agenda for discussion, if the need for it arose after the posting requirement. . Reported that all meetings are required to take place in the City. . Advised that every agenda must provide the public with an opportunity to discuss items of interest with the Commission. This is usually handled under Oral Request. . Explained that the Planning Commission is not allowed to use direct communication, intermediaries and/or technical devices (such as email) to develop a consensus of the Commission prior to a meeting. . Added that if a teleconference is to occur, each site must be posted where a participating member is located and each location would have to be open to the public to allow their participation. Additionally, there must be a quorum in one location in the City. . Said that he did not see teleconferencing as the wave of the future as it is such a cumbersome process to facilitate. Commissioner Rocha asked about meetings organized by the City whereby the Planning Commission is there simply attending on a fact-finding mission. He gave the example of the Kohl's Project Neighborhood Meeting at which a quorum of the Commission arrived. Therefore, staff sent the last Commissioners to arrive, who created a quorum, away from the meeting. Asked whether a quorum of the Commission could have stayed in that situation. City Attorney William Se1igmann: Planning Commission Minutes of May 11,2004 Page 5 . Replied that the Brown Act applies for a meeting at which a majority of members will hear, discuss or deliberate items under their jurisdiction, as the Kohl's project was. Added that a congregation of a standing committee, such as SARC, with continuing subject matter, also falls under Brown Act requirements. Explained that there is an exception for community meetings that are not organized by the City. In those cases, a majority of the Commission can attend open and publicized meetings of local community concern as long as a majority of the Commission does not discuss business that is under its purview. Gave conference attendance, such as the League of California Cities Planners Institute, as an example of something that is not applicable to the Brown Act provisions, as it is open to the public and considers issues of general interest. However, the Commissioners cannot discuss the City's specific business. Stated that meetings of other public bodies, such as the City Council or County meetings, can be attended by a majority of the Commission. However, the Commissioners cannot discuss specific City business except to answer questions. Said that social occasions are permissible as long as the majority does not discuss any City business that falls under its jurisdiction. Added that other Commissioners, in addition to the two that serve as members of SARC, could attend SARC only as an observer. Explained the means of enforcing the Brown Act. Violators can be subject to misdemeanor criminal prosecution; civil action can be taken to void any action that resulted from the Brown Act violation and/or an injunction can be sought. Stated that this discussion provided a quick overview and said that he is available for specific questions. . . . . . . . . Commissioner Alderete: . Stated that the City Attorney had answered his first question with his definition of a meeting. This definition gave clarification. . Said that the recent situation with the Kohl's Neighborhood Meeting was a confusing situation. . Added that he had previously been unaware of any criminal liability as a result of any Brown Act violations. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the violation was avoided since a quorum did not remain for that Neighborhood Meeting. Commissioner Alderete asked if the City Attorney is saying that it would not have been a violation ifthe majority had stayed for that Neighborhood Meeting. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the violation was avoided when the majority did not stay. Commissioner Alderete asked if the Brown Act prevents gatherings of the Commission even if no discussion of business of the Commission occurs. Commissioner Rocha added what if items discussed were issues that would not come before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2004 Page 6 City Attorney William Seligmann said that any items that would and/or could come before the Planning Commission cannot be discussed by the Commission outside of a properly posted meeting. Commissioner Roseberry asked when the Brown Act was enacted. City Attorney William Seligmann, after review of his materials, replied 1953. Commissioner Rocha asked if the Federal government must abide by the Brown Act. City Attorney William Seligmann replied "of course not." He added that State government is also governed by other, less stringent rules. Acting Chair Francois asked about the Kohl's project Neighborhood Meeting and whether a violation would have occurred if a quorum of the Commission had stayed for that meeting. City Attorney William Seligmann replied yes. Commissioner Alderete asked how does hearing information at a neighborhood meeting constitute a violation of the Brown Act. Commissioner Rocha added to the question by asking how attending that meeting would work towards creating collective concurrence. City Attorney William Seligmann: . Stated that there are a couple of things at work here. . Clarified that the Commission does not need to be working at achieving collective concurrence for a violation but just be a quorum at an improperly posted meeting. . Reminded that the policy behind the law of the Brown Act is the concern that this meeting was not noticed as a meeting of the Planning Commission. It is to ensure that the Planning Commission is not getting together when no one knows. Commissioner Alderete asked if this is a rule of order rather than of substance. City Attorney William Seligmann said that a Neighborhood Meeting could be noticed as a meeting of the Planning Commission to avoid any violation. Commissioner Alderete asked how the Commission can be held liable when they are attending this Neighborhood Meeting as the invitee of staff. City Attorney William Seligmann said that under the law, each Planning Commissioner is responsible to be sure that they are not improperly attending any meeting as a quorum. If there is any reason to believe a meeting is not proper, tell the City Attorney. Commissioner Roseberry asked if it is the last Commissioner to arrive, who creates a quorum, that is in violation. Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2004 Page 7 City Attorney William Seligmann replied that all Commissioners in attendance would be in violation not just the last to arrive. Acting Chair Francois reminded that the City staff had invited the Commissioners to attend this Neighborhood Meeting. City Attorney William Seligmann reiterated that all in attendance would be liable. The City itself could not be prosecuted. Acting Chair Francois asked for further clarification so that in the future the Commissioners would know what not to do. Commissioner Rocha asked if a failure to understand is an excuse. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the intent to deny public participation is necessary. Commissioner Alderete: . Said that he is still struggling a bit to understand the Brown Act. . Stated that this information is a bit late in the game. . Added that while no violations are going on, one could sneak up somewhere along the line. . Suggested the provision of written information with clear instructions on how to avoid any Brown Act violations. Commissioner Rocha agreed that this written information would be good action guidelines to have. Acting Chair Francois joked that this would be a great project for the Senior Planner. He thanked the City Attorney for this update, which was very informative and educational, and said that the Commission would have to be cautious. Commissioner Alderete asked if this written material is possible. City Attorney William Seligman said that it could be done. He added that there are some publications out there but that they may represent more than the Commission is looking for. Commissioner Alderete said that he was interested in scenarios that apply specifically to this Planning Commission. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley said that the League of California Cities might have information available. Commissioner Alderete said that he checked the League's website but that he felt that what they need is "homegrown" information that is tailored to our City. Acting Chair Francois added that the information need not be lengthy or involved but more specific. Planning Commission Minutes of May 11, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Roseberry added that the pitfalls should be outlined. Commissioner Alderete agreed that the information should tell them what not to do. Commissioner Rocha added, in order to avoid problems. City Attorney William Seligmann said that this project could be added to his work plan but that he was not certain when this information could be pulled together. Acting Chair Francois asked whether the absent Commissioners should be consulted first. City Attorney William Seligmann replied that this is not necessary. Commission has stated what it wants. A quorum of the Acting Chair Francois stressed that they do not want a recurrence of the Neighborhood Meeting situation. Commissioner Roseberry added that emotions run high because people got blindsided at this Neighborhood Meeting. They did not know that they were doing something wrong. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions by Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner: . Advised that Council took action on May 4th on the three-unit townhome project at 243 W. Rincon; the Planned Development at 1865 S. Winchester and the Kohl's project at 525 E. Hamilton Avenue. The City logo was returned to the top of the freeway-oriented sign that was approved by Council. . Announced that Item 1 from the next Planning Commission meeting, 32 S. Milton Avenue, will be treated as a Fence Exception at staff level rather than as a Variance request before the Planning Commission. This decision follows the discussion held at this evening's SARC meeting. The second item for the May 25th Planning Commission is a Use Permit to allow the establishment of an Internet café at 68 E. Campbell Avenue. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at Commission Meeting of ay 25, 2004. SUBMITTED BY: to the next Regular Planning ,.---/ APPROVED BY: .--' ATTEST: