20 Staff Report - Prohibiting Planning Commissioners From Meeting With ApplicantsMEETING DATE: 10/19/98
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 15, 1998
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, ESQ. TOWN ATTORNElc,
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DIRECTING TOWN ATTORNEY TO DRAFT FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
A POLICY PROHIBITING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM MEETING WITH
APPLICANTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING
PROCESS
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider directing Town Attorney to draft for Council approval a policy prohibiting Planning Commissioners from
meeting with applicants and other interested parties outside the public hearing process.
DISCUSSION:
This item was introduced during the joint Town Council/Planning Commission study session held on September 28,
1998. The point was made during the ensuing discussion that such meetings, while not prohibited, might cause some
people to conclude that the public hearing process is being subverted by back room negotiations. Members of the
Council requested that this item be placed on a future agenda for further consideration.
There is no formal policy prohibiting members of the Planning Commission from meeting with applicants outside of the
public hearing context. The Commission has adopted a rule regarding evidence obtained outside formal hearings, found
at section 4.0 of the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures, a copy of which is attached to this report. That rule
provides that decisions in quasi-judicial matters must be based on evidence introduced at the public hearing. However,
property visits are encouraged and "Commissioners should introduce at the public hearing any evidence observed at the
property, including the nature of any discussion held with applicants, neighbors, or other interested parties." Finally,
State law neither mandates nor prohibits a policy barring meetings between Planning Commissioners and applicants
outside of the public hearing process.
In considering the adoption of a policy prohibiting outside contacts with applicants, Council should discuss whether to
prohibit contact with all interested parties including neighbors, the point in time when the prohibition would take effect,
whether the prohibition would be absolute or would accommodate incidental contacts, and whether the prohibition would
extend to ad hoc committees formed by consensus of the Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
Attachments: Section 4.0 of Planning Commission Policies and Procedures
PREPAR
RRY P. KORB, ESQ., TOWN ATTORNEY OPK:LMB/wp
Review
by:` ( `.tv1anager ✓ Finance Revised: 10/15/98 2:48 pm
Reformatted: 1d�/23/95 File# 301-05
PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES — 4
June 29, 1983 - Revised 5/8/85; 11/18/87; 9/22/93
Commissioners when they need to listen to tapes. The individual Commissioner will then be
responsible for making arrangements with he Planning Department secretary to listen to the
appropriate tape(s) and for stating for the record at the continued hearing that he or she has (or has
not) listened to the tapes and is (or is not) eligible to participate and vote.
4.0 Field Trips and Evidence Outside Formal Hearings:
4.1 On quasi-judicial matters California law requires decisions to be based on findings, and findings to
be based on evidence presented at the hearing. Accordingly, a Commissioner may not be
disqualified for discussing an issue outside of the hearing, but the actual decision of the Commission
must be supported by evidence presented at the hearing. Accordingly, a Commissioner may not state
or predetermine his or her decisions on an application prior to the hearing. Decisions must be based
on evidence presented at the hearing, i.e. the staff report, testimony given during the hearing and
comments from other commissioners.
4.2 Property visits by individual commissioners are encouraged before the Commission meeting. If it is
important to the decision, Commissioners should introduce at the public hearing any evidence
observed at the property, including the nature of any discussion held with applicants, neighbors, or
other interested parties.
4.3 The Brown Act dearly applies to any field trip where a quorum of the Commission is present. It would
also apply if separate trips were pre -arranged for groups of Commissioners representing less than
a quorum. Accordingly, the best way to conduct a field trip is for the Commission to formally adjourn
one of its meetings to a specific time and place for that purpose, thereby dispensing with the
requirements for special notice to the media or neighbors.
4.4 If a Commissioner misses a regular meeting, the rule is that he/she may still vote on matters
discussed at the meeting, provided the tapes are listened to. If the Commissioner misses the official
trip, he/she may not vote. Attendance at a field trip is mandatory to be eligible to vote.
5.0 Consent items:
5.1 The Planning Commission acts on all items on the consent calendar in one motion.
5.2 Requests for discussion made after action has been taken on the consent calendar will not be
considered.
5.3 If at all possible, each commissioner should discuss concerns on consent Items with staff before the
Commission meeting.
5.4 Before the Commission acts on the consent calendar, any person wishing to have a consent item
discussed may request Commission to remove ft from the consent calendar and hear it in normal
agenda order.
5.5 It is not necessary to remove an item from the consent calendar under the following circumstances:
a. Clarification regarding the recommended action, proposed conditions, or suggested findings
is requested, and the Chair determines that the discussion will be noncontroversial or minor.
Town Council Minutes October 19, 1998
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS (20.20)
Council considered a policy which would have commissioners refrain from meeting with
applicants outside the public meeting process.
Council Consensus was to draft a formal policy for the Planning Commission that says: the
Commission should refrain from meeting with applicants and interested parties outside the public
process (defined as a properly noticed meeting); that the Council still encourage them to visit
the site, but discourage speaking to people while at the site; if Planning Commissioners do talk
to someone they must disclose it in the public meeting; and encourage the Planning Commission
at their discretion (should they feel the need to do so to further the public process) to have study
sessions with the applicant, the public, and the entire planning commission, to work on discussion
points concerning an application, and that this should happen only at the discretion of a simple
majority of the planning commission.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM (21.39)
Council considered the report on neighborhood traffic calming program and provided some
positive comments for staff.
ANNEXATION OF FERRIS AND LOMA PROPERTY (22.11)
Council considered the report and asked that staff explore the possibility of annexing property
in the vicinity of the intersection of Ferris Avenue and Loma Street. The consensus was that
at least a group of four lots should be annexed at one time.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL VIDEO VEHICLE DETECTION SYSTEM (08.28)
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, that Council authorize an increase in the
street resurfacing program by $124,730 to include video vehicle detection system funded from
prior year road impact fees, and authorize a budget of $22,940 for video vehicle detection system
at Los Gatos Boulevard and Nino Avenue funded from prior year road impact fees. Carried
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lubeck adjourned this evening's meeting at 10:03 P.M.
A'1't'EST:
Marian V. Cosgrove
Town Clerk
TC:D10:MM101998 6