Attachment 5 Minutes1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Community Development
Director:
Planning Manager:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Kendra Burch, Chair
Mary Badame, Vice Chair
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
D. Michael Kane
Tom O'Donnell
Laurel Prevetti
Joel Paulson
Robert Schultz
Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337 -1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item 44, Policies and Procedures Discussion
ATTACHMENT
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BURCH: The next item on our agenda is a
public hearing considering proposed updates to the Planning
Commission Policies and Procedures. Ms. Prevetti, were you
going to give us some information? Thank you.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Thank you. The item before you
is an update of the Planning Commission's Polices and
Procedures. This is a proposal from the Town Council Policy
Committee. This is work that was completed in late 2014 and
is now ready for your thoughtful consideration.
We included in your packet Exhibit 1, which is
the current Operative Policy. The last time it was updated
was in 2010, and the approach that the Policy Committee
took was essentially an overhaul, so that's why you do not
have a redline version. They thought it's really time to
modernize the policy, bright it up to standard with what
some other communities are doing, and so that's why you see
the reorganization.
Town Attorney Rob Schultz put a significant
amount of work into it. There is one policy issue in
particular that the Committee deferred to the Commission,
and that's regarding ex parte communications. So you do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
2
1 have some choices that are in the attachment on pages 10
2 and 11 of the second exhibit, and that's where particularly
3 the Policy Committee and Town Council wanted your input.
4
But the Commission, since these would become your rules
5
should the full Council approve them, we want to make sure
6
that if you have any additional comments that we're able to
7
share those with the Policy Committee.
8
9 I now defer to our Town Attorney for any other
to introductory comments. Thank you.
11 ROBERT SCHULTZ: Since Ms. Prevetti came in kind
12 of in the middle when the Policy Committee was taking this
13 over, I'll just add a few comments.
14 We did try to redline your current Polices and
15 Procedures and the redline was just becoming too enormous
16 to even understand the changes we were making. We really
17 Idid try to clean it up and take out all the irrelevant or
18 repetitive material that was done over the years, and stuff
19
that just really does not belong in your Polices and
20
Procedures, like the recycling program and other issues
21
22
23
that can be found in other policies that we're doing, and
the findings and other things are done by state law that
can be changing. So that was our purpose.
24
25 Then the issue that they really wrestled with and
wanted to bring it without really any guidance from the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
t3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Policy Committee to get feedback from you on one way or
another was this issue of the ex parte communications, and
I've given you three ways you can go about that.
In a nutshell, one way is just to have no ex
parte communications, which is as close as we are right now
to it. I'd probably want to tighten it up even more if
that's the way we want to go when we talk about no ex parte
communication.
The next step is when you have ex parte
communications that are allowed by all the community but
not by interested parties, and we need to define what that
interested party is so we know what that is. And like I
said, I'm just providing suggestions; you might have some
different take on that.
Then the third way is your typical way the
Council has it, that you're allowed ex parte communications
not only with members of the community but also by
interested parties, but you have to disclose those on the
record during the ex parte communication time.
So with that I'll throw it over to you guys to
decide, with the time, what you want to do with it, whether
you've had enough time to look at it, whether you want to
go page -by -page; whatever you want, it's the Commission's
prerogative.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Right. Before we start
comments, first off let me ask everybody, has everybody had
enough time to look at this to have this discussion? Okay.
What I would like to do to streamline this a bit
then is I do just want to go page -by -page. There may be
pages where we have no comments, and I do know that we've
got the big topic at the end, but I would like to go ahead
and go straightforward. That way Staff has a chance to get
all of our comments. For each page, what I'm going to do is
like, poor Mr. Kane, we are going to start on that end for
each page and just go down the line with comments just so
we make sure that everyone gets a chance to say their
comments. If there's any further discussion, we can do
that. But I think that that's going to give us each a
chance to address each page.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I just ask you
this? I, for one, have almost no comments except on the ex
parte issue. I mean I don't know how you want to do that.
If you want to start with Mr. Kane and he says I've got
four items I want to talk to or whatever, but I don't quite
understand how the Chair wants to do this.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Very simply, I would say all
right, we're on page one. Mr. Kane, do you have comments?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
He may give us his two comments. Mr. Erekson, and he may
say no. why would we not do that that way?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Because if I, for
example, if representative at all of anybody and even of
myself, and I've only got one comment and that's on ex
parte, I think it's silly to ask me on every page or every
comment; I just told you I didn't.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Then I won't ask you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Good. And I'd like to
find out whether anybody else is similarly situated.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Is anybody else similarly
situated?
COMMISSIONER KANE: Start with me and find out.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I happen to know a couple
Commissioners do have comments on other pages, so I would
like to go step -by -step to get those.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Skip me (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I will. Okay, so first page.
Mr. Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I have no comments on the
entire document except for ex parte.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Great, okay. I won't ask you
again. Mr. Erekson.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
2
1 I CHARLES EREKSON: I do have a couple of comments
2 Ion page one.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
4
CHARLES EREKSON: In Section 1.1 the last
s
sentence says, "A Commissioner may be removed prior to the
6
end of his or her term by a four - fifths vote of the Town
7
Council." So I assume, if I understand the sentence
a
9 correctly, that the intent of that is something like at the
to full discretion of the Council or for any reason, so it's
11 not for moral turpitude or whatever it is. So if that's the
12 intent, I might suggest for clarity ten or fifteen years
13 from now that one would put something in that says at the
14 full discretion of the Council or for any reason, or
1s something like that so there's no future confusion that it
16 was intended because we misbehaved.
17 Then my second comment is Section 1.2 says that,
19 The Chair assist staff in determining meeting schedule and
19
agenda items." Section 1.4 says, "The Chair shall set the
20
Agenda in consultation with the Secretary." So those two
21
things are saying something different, as practice has been
22
for the Staff to set the agenda, so I wasn't clear what the
23
intent was.
24
25 ROBERT SCHULTZ: That's another good point. This
was a change in it. Previously Staff always has set it and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Policy Committee wanted that to rest in the Chair, so I
think we do need to straighten up that language.
The issue that Staff kind of has on that issue is
that you do have the Permit Streamlining Act requirements
and legal requirements, so I think we need to straighten
that up and make sure they're consistent.
CHARLES EREKSON: So the intent is to be similar
to what happens with the Council, and essentially the mayor
setting the agenda? Okay.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, Ms. Hanssen, do you have
anything on the first page?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Do you have anything on the
document until we get to the final topic?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a specific comment
(inaudible).
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Well, is it about page one?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: No. Ms. Badame?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I don't have anything on
page one either. I have nothing until the end.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
El
I Does anyone have a comment on page two? Mr.
2 Erekson.
3 CHARLES EREKSON: My comment is really going to
4
5
6
7
8
bridge pages two and three. Section 2.5 talks about basing
decisions on the best available information, et cetera, and
then in 3... Wait a minute. I got the number wrong. Someplace
later in the document used the term, "relevant
information." Anyway, here's my comment in general.
9
to I believe the procedures or guidelines for the
11 Commission should be very clear about when one is both
12 making a decision or discussing an issue in front of it,
13 that the questions asked, the discussion of the item and
14 decisions should be focused on and in fact limited to —and
15 II'll let the Staff and other people —what I might suggest is
16 relevant information so that the Commission stays focused
17 on those issues and those questions that pertain to the
18 issue at hand if
you understand what I'm getting at. So
19
strengthen the language in 2.5 in that way, and someplace
20
later, and unfortunately wrote down the wrong section, so
21
22
23
I'll try to find it, but anyway, you would use relevant
information later, and I guess I would expand upon that
consistent with what I'm suggesting
24
zs ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay, we can look at that,
especially with the consistency of both languages, just for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
clarification. So Section 2 and those 1 -7 come directly out
of the Council's Polices and Procedures. We wanted to make
those the same, but maybe we need to look at that to make
certain that we've got at least maybe the legal and ethical
standards, and I think the other one is in the evidence
that you look at, so we'll see how we can jibe those
together.
CHARLES EREKSON: But I would say I would want
the Council to be only considering relevant information
also.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Ms. Hanssen, do you have
anything on this sheet?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: On page 2?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: (Inaudible).
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I was going to hold
those till the end and just get through these pages and
this cleanup stuff and then fall back. You do have
something?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just wanted to say
when you get to three, contrary to what I said, I will have
a comment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Oh, no. No, no, no. Not going
to happen. Commissioner Badame, do you have anything on
page two?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. So on page three, Mr.
Erekson? Okay. Mr. O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just have a question
on 3.3. It isn't clear to me in the second paragraph when
it says, "The Commission will, except under exceptional
circumstances," et cetera, and then it goes on and says,
"unless the Commission votes to extend the meeting,"
whether it can only vote to extend the meeting under
exceptional circumstances or whether we can vote to extend
the meeting just because we want to?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That's a good question. This was
taken directly from your previous one, so we didn't change
the wording on this (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But we have always
treated that the law of the statute is that we can extend
it because we want to. I think this language causes a
problem however, so I would like to see it clarified that
we can extend if we want to.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Take out that (inaudible)?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah, please.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item 44, Policies and Procedures Discussion
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame, do you
have anything on page three?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I have a question about
Section 3.6, "The Commission may hold a workshop as part of
a regular or special meeting." As long as I've been on here
we've never done that, so I have a question on how that
would work. In one of our meetings could we just ask, you
know, we'd like to do a special meeting? Since I haven't
experienced this I'm a little...
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
VICE CHAIR BURCH: We have?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: In the past we have had
workshops. It's agendized, as I recall, as a workshop, and
what you're doing is also spelled out, but basically it's
for what you said. Either you or the Applicant wants to
deal with a fairly big issue, so you're not going to make a
decision that day, you're doing a workshop, so both sides I
think can get more information.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Actually we did it twice since
I've been here for field visit purposes. We held a special
meeting at the North Forty, and another one at Hillbrook
School to avail the Commission a chance to actually
experience both locations.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
12
1 VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
2 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, we have actually
3 had a workshop meeting in this room.
4
VICE CHAIR BURCH: That's what I was thinking of.
S
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Those are two good
6
examples, and obviously one that I remember should be
7
mentioned because it doesn't fit within that.
8
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Okay, that's what I was
9
10 wondered about, because I think those would be very useful.
11 Ms. Hanssen.
12 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That made me think of a
13 question, and the question is I've had prior experience
14 with workshop meetings, but it's generally the entire
15 meeting, and it's set as that, and then there's no need to
16 have a quorum and there's no action in the agenda. So is it
17 possible to have a workshop within a regular meeting? I
is mean I can see that being useful, because there are some
19
issues where you just might want to collect information for
20
making a decision in the future, especially with some of
21
these really complex items. But is that possible to have it
22
be a public meeting with decisions, and then one of the
23
items is a workshop, study session, or whatever you call
24
it?
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
13
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You usually don't do the one
item as a workshop. What you would do is just conclude your
regular meeting and then hold the workshop as a separate
meeting, so you don't have to worry about the (inaudible)
before. Usually we would do it before.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Would you not require a
quorum for that workshop?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We would always want a quorum,
but you're actually not required to because there won't be
any action that would be taken. But normally we always want
to have a quorum, and so would the Applicant want a quorum
because he's (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, but couldn't we
require that?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We could.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: okay, because there's no
use having a workshop if you don't have a quorum, because
then you're wasting your time.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Exactly. I agree.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: By the Brown Act, it says no
quorum is required, but that doesn't mean you couldn't make
it more stringent. Would that be something you'd want to
pass on to Council, that it should always be a quorum?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I think so, yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Mr. Erekson.
CHARLES EREKSON: This is a question for Mr.
Schultz. Are we legally obligated to allow public testimony
in a study session?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes, but only as to that... For a
special item there isn't anything that's allowed outside of
it, so it's only as to that item.
CHARLES EREKSON: Off line at some point over a
cup of coffee, I'd like to understand the logic of that.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, we're going to move
on to page four. Mr. Erekson? Ms. Hanssen? Ms. Badame?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, what about five? Anybody
have anything on five? Six? Mr. Erekson?
CHARLES EREKSON: Obviously Mr. Schultz figured
out that what I was talking about earlier was in the rules
of evidence when we would do those things.
The other thing that I wrote by 3.5 was, "Good.
Thank you," based on my experience.
Then I also wanted to know, under 3.6, if we
could consider when the speaker cards are figured out or
are turned in, if one could require the speakers cards be
turned in prior to the beginning of the public portion of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the public hearing? Let me tell you why. In the last
paragraph of 3.6 it says in part, "The Chair, at his or her
discretion, may allocate more or less time for speakers due
to the complexity of the issues and /or due to the large
number of speakers on a particular item." Before you start
the public portion of the public hearing you have no idea
how many there are. I mean hypothetically you could have
two cards and when the second person speaks then a hundred
people could come up with cards, and the Chair would not
have been able to make the decision to say oh, I'm going to
allow two minutes now rather than three minutes, so it's a
practical matter. It also helps us avoid gamesmanship by
people that want to try to be the last speaker, et cetera,
so would it be a reasonable procedure to require it prior
to the beginning of the public portion of the public
hearing as long as we notify the public of that at a
meeting?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Technically you're not even
required. You can't make people fill out speaker cards, so
until the public hearing is closed someone could come up
and say I'm not going to fill out a speaker card and still
be able to speak. Speaker cards are not actually mandated
to be required, and neither is an address. If you don't
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to have to give your address, the law does not require
YOU to.
CHARLES EREKSON: Given that, that's okay, that's
fine. There is no reason to have this sentence in that says
that the Chair at his or her discretion can change the
number, because I have no way to figure out whether I
should change it, because I have no concept of whether I'm
going to have two people speak, 20 people speak, 50 people
speak, 300 people speak; I have no way to figure it out.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: In jurisdictions we don't have
speaker cards; they just don't do them. When the mayor is
there and sees that the room is full, she tries to take a
count by just saying, "How many speakers are going to want
to speak on this item ?" and if there's a hundred, then they
have to make that judgment call on whether they're going to
allow three minutes, two minutes, one minute, and they're
allowed to do that. So the Chair has to be able to try to
do it, and we do get quite a few cards ahead of time, but
we wouldn't be able to say you have to have your speaker
cards in before the public hearing begins. Just legally we
can't do that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Some time ago we had a
person who styled himself as Citizen... Michael would
remember. And he always got up and said, "I am not filling
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out a card, and by the way, I'm going to have the grand
j ury..."
COMMISSIONER KANE: Don't want to use any names.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And he was absolutely
right. He didn't have to fill the card out. The Chair
hasn't seen that, but you have to be a little careful when
you say you're not going to speak unless you fill out a
card. I always like to say, "Please fill out a card before
you speak." So just a little history there.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Mr. Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Well, the citizen of whom we
are speaking was unique. I don't think that's really come
up in other cases, and when it got right down to it, the
Chair was able to handle it, and I think that's where we
should leave it.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Do we have any more
items on six?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I've got a question.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I've got a question. In
paragraph four of Section 3.6 it says, "Each applicant and
appellant shall be limited to a 10- minute presentation at
the start of the public hearing and a 5- minute rebuttal..." I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
FU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guess it's an age thing; I didn't remember ten minutes. Is
that what we've been doing?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That's Council's ten and five,
and I think the Policy Committee... Now, we did this over
months and I think they wanted it to be the same.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Now we're going to have
Isome feedback to them.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My feeling is I like
what we already have, the five minutes and three minute
rebuttal, but obviously whatever they decide is what it's
going to be.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Is it the consensus of the
Planning Commission to stay at the five and the three?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, page 7. Mr.
Erekson.
CHARLES EREKSON: I'll call the Staff's attention
to Section 3.1 and Section 5. Section 3.1 talks about how
you determine a quorum, which given that if in fact there
were two vacancies on the Planning Commission, and
(inaudible) would be five, a quorum would be three at that
point in time. And Section 5 specifies that a quorum is
four, so my sense is, if you would, the language in Section
3.1 is probably accurate and probably what one wants to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
19
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use, but one probably needs to make Section 5 consistent
with Section 3.1, I think.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Does the Commissioner mean
Section 3.1?
CHARLES EREKSON: Yeah, because this is a quorum,
"...to conduct business shall consist of a majority of the
total number of filled seats...."
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a comment earlier.
Since I used to chair the Transportation and Parking
Commission this was a huge issue, and my understanding was
it was resolved to be a quorum defined as the number of
people attending relative to the number of filled seats.
Because when I was on the Commission we had three
commissioners resign, and therefore we had to have a
hundred percent attendance of those seven seats, but we
later got the clarification that it was relative to the
filled seats, and it's a big, big deal if you end up having
some people that go off and do other things or something
happens, so I'm pretty sure that it is what's in Section
3.1, not what's in Section 5.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So here's the issue that really
the Council is going to have to resolve is yes, the
Resolution 20.14.01 said that it would be a majority of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
` it
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
total of the filled seats, so if there were vacant seats
you could have less than four.
But the Policy Committee was adamant about having
four Commissioners. No matter how many vacant seats, you
had to have four for a quorum. So they're either going to
have to adjust Resolution 20.14 or adjust the other one to
make it consistent. So I agree, those are a little bit
confusing as to consistency, but the Policy Committee was
really adamant about having no less than four at a meeting
no matter how many there was that were vacant.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Is that it on page seven? Ms.
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: It's a continuation of
paragraph four from the previous page. It was about the,
"Members of the public who wish to speak on any items will
be limited to up to 3 minutes each. No person shall be
allowed to speak a second time." I may have a question
about that, because supposing you have three public
hearings. Are you saying that a person couldn't come and
speak on the second item? I mean this literally says they
can't speak a second time during the meeting, and I don't
see why they wouldn't be allowed to speak at a separate
public hearing.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
21
1
2 item.
3
4
s
6
e
9
to
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAUREL PREVETTI: Yeah, it is intended to be per
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, well then I would
probably put per item in there just to make it clear.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Anything else on seven? No?
How about eight? Mr. Erekson, anything on eight? Ms.
Badame?
BADAME: No.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. And then nine? Mr.
Erekson?
CHARLES EREKSON: This isn't actually on nine,
but I assume that it's covered in the blank part of page
nine.
I think we need written clarification of an issue
which arose tonight, and that is how is the Applicant
defined? Mr. Schultz will know the issue that Commissioner
O'Donnell and I are raising. When is a person a part of the
Applicant and when are they a member of the public, so that
they get a separate three minutes to talk, and under what
circumstances do they become part of the Applicant and
therefore give up their "member of the public to talk"
status, so one needs to wrestle with that issue or one
allows the Applicant the possibility of having 20 people
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
speak pretending with a wink of the eye that they're not
fall the Applicant?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I doubt, because I've never come
across this situation, I'll find it in the Brown Act where
it limits it, but let's suppose we can limit the public
comment and the Applicant and the Applicant's
representatives all under the time period, is that
something that the Commission would want to do then?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me ask this
question. Sometimes these limitations are not reasonable if
we happen to have a gangbuster of a hearing and you may be
better served by hearing technical experts and all that
kind of thing. My experience has been that the Chair can
say we're going to have a different procedure this evening.
Instead of five minutes, we're going to allow the Applicant
15 minutes, or whatever it is. And then you have to
consider what are you going to do about the public, and
they're going to say wait a minute, we're getting three
minutes. Something can be done on that, but I don't know
what the position is as to the ability of the Chair and /or
the Commission as a whole to say notwithstanding a
limitation of, let's say, five minutes, because of the
nature of the hearing tonight we're going to give the
Applicant ten minutes or 15 minutes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Chair can always do that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Because if we can
do that, then we'll cover difficult situations, I think.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: But you want a definition of
exactly who that Applicant (inaudible).
CHARLES EREKSON: Right, right. So let's say that
there's an architectural firm that is essentially the
Applicant or representing the Applicant. There could be 20
architects for that firm that could have worked on the
project, so they could all 20 essentially turn in a card
and have —let me do my math -62 minutes to talk for the
Applicant, which doesn't seem to me to be consistent with
what our intent is. And then I could have four different
engineering firms, a mechanical engineering firm, a civil
engineering firm, and they could all address as if they
were (inaudible) to the Applicant, so we could be here for
an hour - and -a -half listening to the Applicant.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I've been doing it 27 years and
I really have never come across a situation where it's a
big worry. I think a good one to look at is Hillbrook, and
I think we would have a difficult time telling Hillbrook
the principal can't get up, the teachers can't get up, the
engineer couldn't get up during that three minute time, and
we're going to tell all the Hillbrook people that work for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that corporation or work for the nonprofit that they've got
to go within the ten minutes of the Applicant.
That's my initial reaction. I can do some
research. I'll bring that issue to Council on how we can
define it, but I've got trouble with... I mean most
applicants, yes, they definitely want more than their five
minutes, and sometimes you'll get the situation where they
might split it up between two or three, but I don't think
we get the abuses.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, whether right or
wrong, I've certainly participated in hearings and meetings
where the Chair and /or the attorney present said the
applicant, no matter how many of them there are, get's five
minutes, so figure out, ladies and gentlemen, how you're
going to break up the time. Now, that may have been wrong,
but I can tell you from many years, it's not uncommon,
which again doesn't make it right. I'm going to follow your
advice no matter what, but did discuss it to say just out
of interest we'd kind of like to know what is going on.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I would enjoy having that
due process violation by not being able to get to speak no
natter who I am in a meeting. That would have been my take
and that's the first thing. First Amendment rights.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I have trouble believing
anybody is going to sustain a guy waltzing in with a
hundred consultants all claiming they aren't the Applicant.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I didn't say that, but I don't
think we've ever had that many.
CHARLES EREKSON: But then we have the other
situation that happens, and that is if we make the
Applicant one person, and then we have a question which
they have technical expertise here with them, and that
person has also turned in a speaker card, then the
Applicant ought to answer the question for the Applicant
and maybe shouldn't be able to consult with that technical
expert to get the answer to a question that's directed to
the Applicant, because if that engineer or that attorney or
that architect is appearing as a member of the public, not
as a part of the Applicant, then they shouldn't be able to
advise the Applicant on answering a question, I wouldn't
think. Now, they can talk about it, but they shouldn't be
able to consult with them.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, the attorney got
up tonight, and I respect what he did, but first he said,
"I am the attorney for the Applicant," ergo as far as I'm
concerned he's just aligned himself with the Applicant. And
secondly, he said, "I'm only here to answer any questions
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
you might have on this one issue." From what you're saying,
he could have gone on for three minutes making whatever
argument he wanted to. I just find that a very unfair
thing. I hear what you're saying. So you're going to check
and see what other people do, and that's all we can ask you
Ito do.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: All right, so if that's all
settled, let's get into the ex parte communications.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I was going to suggest
to you that —and I think starting with Commissioner Kane is
a good idea —the longer you've served on these boards I
think perhaps the more occasion to see what these things
mean and what they do to your daily life would be helpful.
I know Commissioner Kane has spent four years on this
Commission in the past, and I'm only throwing that out
because whatever your opinion is at the moment, depending
on how long you've done it I think you do want to listen a
little bit if other people have prior experience.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: No, absolutely. That's why I
thought it would be good if everybody had a chance to give
their opinions so we can hear each other and then discuss.
So Mr. Kane.
KANE: We have three choices. No ex
parte, limited ex parte and full ex parte, and that's a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
good logic; it covers anything we want to do from some,
none, to all. Commissioner O'Donnell is correct insofar as
I'm going to speak about my experience, and sometimes it
was a tightrope and some times someone would say, "You
really shouldn't have done that," and perhaps they were
even a member of Town Council.
Because when I initially adopted my role as a
Commissioner I thought it was important to involve the
public in what we were doing, and when we would make onsite
visits the petitioner or Applicant would be emotional and
say, "This is changing my life and I want you to look at
this wall and I want you to look at that," and it was very
hard to just stand there and ignore them. I did work with a
Commissioner who did do just that and he or she would not
speak, handed over the card of Commissioner, and that was
one extreme. I may have been more toward the other side
where the compassion, or in involving them in the process,
or making them feel important or whatever, I may have
stepped over a line or two.
So I'm making a real case that we enlarge the
language on limited, that if you do have discussions or any
one of the five things that are listed, simply make a note
and advise the Chair at the appropriate time when the
application comes up. I think that's the wisest thing here.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'll defer to others, but I'm talking about my
experience. I'm very comfortable saying I ran into Bob and
Bob said you better vote my way and what I need here and I
said Bob, I can't talk to you about it. But I'd be very
comfortable saying that here, and there are two reasons for
that.
One, this limited ex parte protects us. It
protects us from somebody saying hey, hey, I didn't do
that. And what we do is disclose those involvements when we
get here. The other thing it does is it protects the Town,
because if we say or do something inappropriate, somebody
could go from here to the Council to the courts to overturn
something we did because we made a serious impropriety in
the capacity where we sit; we can do that.
And so I think holding our tongues but
interacting respectfully, it protects us, it protects the
Town, and it honors the Applicant, and I'd like to get to
some language about limited ex parte, that if we do it, we
disclose it when we get here.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Mr. Erekson.
CHARLES EREKSON: I'm of the opinion we only have
really two choices in front of us, because practically it
would be virtually impossible. I can't imagine being able
to figure out when I potentially would interact with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public, whether they fit this definition. It would be
virtually impossible for me to determine whether someone
was an interested party before I talked with them. I
wouldn't have any way to do that, so I don't see the
limited category as really an option.
Either one can interact with people or one can't,
it seems like to me, because I don't know how I would be
able to determine if someone was an interested party at
that moment.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So you're talking under the
limited ex parte communications the definition of
"interested party "...
CHARLES EREKSON: Yeah.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: ...and knowing that and a certain
status. Just to give you a background, that policy actually
comes from the Coastal Commission one, so that's where that
comes from, and yes, it can be difficult on knowing. It
pretty much is the Applicant, the Applicant's
representative, or like you said, some type of organized
group, but it can be very difficult. I understand where
you're coming from.
CHARLES EREKSON: Yeah, so I see that there are
only two options in reality, and I would favor changing it
to without the restriction for a couple of reasons.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
M
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One, most importantly, there have been
opportunities in the six -plus, seven years, whatever, that
I've been on the Planning Commission, where I felt I could
have gotten useful information to help inform a decision
from someone, but I couldn't talk with them, and so I
didn't have information that would have helped inform my
decision, because I couldn't talk with that person, and so
I was making less than a fully informed decision. That's
Mot:4l
Two, I don't believe that I or any other
Commissioner needs to be limited because they might do
something wrong. I mean I would assume that the Council, in
appointing Commissioners and when Commissioners get
oriented, that they act in good faith and act appropriately
and so forth, so one doesn't need to limit that in order to
protect the Town or insulate or protect that person, in my
opinion.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Ms. Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, I'm the only person
on the Commission that has no prior Planning Commission
experience, so I don't have a lot of experience to comment,
but I probably would lean more towards the full ex parte
communications, because just based on my first meeting when
we were looking at Super Duper Burgers. When I went over to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the property I kind of wanted to ask somebody some
questions about this and that, because no matter what a
wonderful job our Staff does on the Staff Report, there's
always something that you would like to know that you
couldn't find out, and for me it was just facts. Like for
me I'm all about bicycles and pedestrians, and so I was
trying to figure out how many bike racks they have and
stuff.
I didn't end up talking to (inaudible), but I
ended up talking to the construction guys at Philz Coffee.
But I was terrified because after we read the first
Planning Commission guidelines they're like don't talk to
anybody, and I was like, oh. And I asked him, I'm like,
"You're not with Super Duper, are you ?" So because of that,
with my limited experience, that's where I'd be leaning.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Mr. O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I like what we presently
have. I've never had any problem with it. You don't have to
be rude to say to somebody I can't discuss the matter with
you. That's not rude, that's just disclosure.
If there are a bunch of us out gathering facts
and evidence and we come in and make a decision, I won't
know what you're making your decision on. It's why we don't
let juries roam around figuring out the case outside the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
NPA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
courtroom. When the evidence is presented before us, we all
hear the same evidence. If you're going to go out and look
lup some facts, and I've seen people try to do that, then I
think the system gets all screwed up.
Now, the politicians do it, and God bless them. I
mean I wouldn't want that job. You're going to have people
calling you up and wanting to take you out and get a cup of
coffee, which you can pay for so there will be no ... and chat
with you, and then you get rude because you say I don't
want to do that, and I don't want to do that.
Our Council people do it all the time, and that's
their job, and that's a hard job. And we all know that
political decisions are made for reasons above my pay
grade. I don't question their ability or their honesty, but
one of the good things about this job is we sit here and we
listen to the facts and we make a decision.
If you're all out gathering facts, you're not
going to be able to disclose those facts to everybody, but
you're going to remember when we vote, oh yeah, now I
remember, to yourself, Charlie told me XY and Z. I will not
have heard from Charlie, particularly XY and Z.
I don't want people calling me up and wanting to
talk to me ex parte on this matter, because either I have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make a complete memo and circulate it with you folks, or
you're on your own. So that's two things I want.
One, I just don't want to have to deal with that.
I'd love to tell people I can't talk you about this. Then I
don't spend a lot of time getting stuff outside this room.
Two, I agree with Commissioner Erekson that there
are really only two choices, either nothing, which is what
we've been doing.
I'm on I guess my 11th year. I've been doing this
for 11 years, and it's wonderful. It's wonderful to say I
can't talk to you about it, and people stop asking you, and
they understand it. You're not being unfriendly. But I'll
tell you, if you can and you won't, you're a bad guy, and
if you do and you make a decision based on that information
you obtained that I don't have, you're a bad guy, because
I'm making a decision, you're telling me, and I don't have
all the facts, and you forgot to tell me, didn't you? So
boy, you better keep complete notes when you sit around and
talk to people and figure out what you think is important,
because you really ought to share that with your fellow
commissioners, and I don't know why anybody would want to
do that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It sounds like so far I'm in the minority, but I
don't care what you guys decide, I'm not talking to anybody
about it.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Ms. Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I have a question regarding
wording on page 11, the third paragraph, the very last
sentence. Was it meant to read before Commission
deliberations, or is it supposed to be Council
deliberations? And the same thing would apply with the last
paragraph, the last sentence. Thank you.
To the conversation of the ex parte
communications, I'm really concerned about any perception
of impropriety, so I knew that #3 was going to be out for
me.
I was leaning towards #2. I believe that if we
talked to somebody and got information we would have to
disclose it if it's done properly, is that correct? So we
would be laying it on the line and that would be ethical.
But to Commissioner O'Donnell's point, it seems
it would avoid any problem at all, so I'm actually... You did
a good persuasion on me. That was pretty effective; I'm
actually leaning towards #1. I could live with #2, but I
think #1 would just keep it clean. So those are my
thoughts.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
35
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, you really did a good
job. Number 3 was out to me, but I was thinking of #2, and
really specifically I was thinking about something like
let's say a project comes in front of us and there are some
large questions about, I don't know, structural or
something. Like I know people that don't live anywhere near
here and that are structural, and so I wanted to ask them a
question, and then I would disclose it. I guess that was
along the lines that I was thinking.
But now when you've said that, you're right. I
actually like the fact that at the grocery store I can say
I can't talk about that. And you're right, it makes me not
a bad guy; I'm following the rules.
And I agree with you, how do I know that somebody
then wouldn't say oh no, I'm just a citizen when in fact
they're not, and they are an interested party, so it does
open us up to the liabilities, I think I'm going to lean
towards #1, so you're a good lawyer.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm lazy, that's all.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: So Mr. Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Well, Commissioner O'Donnell
did a good job until he said, "sit around and talk about
it." That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about
civility, appropriate exchanges, and I'm only talking about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
I on sites. I'm not talking about Gardino or Chicago. I'm not
2 talking about initiating conversations, I'm talking about
3 respectful responses, and I don't know that #1 allows me to
4
do that. I'm onsite and the lady says that bear keeps
s
jumping over my wall, and a bear jumps over the wall, now
6
that's going to have an affect on my discussing the case,
7
and that's what I would disclose here. That's what it means
8
to me. It gives me leeway to use my head and to not do
9
to anything dumb like initiate conversation or deal with
11 appropriate parties. I've had parties in the past say,
12 "Come on up to Palo Alto. I'll show you an identical
13 1project and we can have some lunch," and I said, "No, I
14 can't do that." "Well, what's..." "I can't do that."
15 You know, you use your head and you deal with the
16 situation. If we tie ourselves down to no, no, no, that
17 doesn't give me room to use my head and my judgment, and I
18 don't feel that we need to be tied down that way. It's
19
using your head and using good judgment. It's not
20
initiating these discussions with interested parties, but
21
it's a way to be civil onsite when you go look at
22
somebody's house.
23
VICE CHAIR BURCH: So would there be a way then
24
zs to have a... It's not a #1 and it's not a #2, so it's a #1.5
that pretty much said that it's not initiated?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Here's what I'm thinking on this
issue, because this is a great discussion. If you don't
know my background, I actually served on the Architecture
Review Committee for San Luis Obispo, so I've been in that
seat. They had the ex parte was allowed and I was more in
Mr. O'Donnell's field, that I didn't want to speak with
people, and I did that for about two years, but then you're
the bad guy because other people are talking. So I do
understand the dilemma that you have.
But I also know the dilemma that when you're out
at a site; there are times that your orientation is all
off. You're looking at the plans and you can't even figure
out what's happening here, and just one question could
resolve that. Maybe today you would have been able to
resolve the issue of the shadow if you had been able to be
out at the site and maybe be there at the right time and
know what the right time was.
Then the other one was Commissioner Badame. I
remember when we had the tree and she saw from the
neighboring tree where they had actually cut out, and she
saw that and she disclosed that, which was good, because
that helped her decision making process.
So there might be a way to take #1, the no ex
parte communications, but figure out a way that on site
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ivisits there is that limited ability to allow for
(communications to occur, to try to propose that, and I'll
Ilook at some other examples.
But I also think the thing to do is maybe we can
do a limited transcript of just this part for Council to
see all your ideas, because I think it was a great
discussion. All of you had great comments, and maybe we can
just do a limited so they know what each one of you has
said.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I've never had trouble
telling the guy onsite, Mr. Jones, thank you very much for
showing me your property, but we've got a rule that I can't
have a conversation. Nobody's ever been offended by that.
Now, if somebody goes out there and talks to somebody and
learns some things, that's fine, I guess, if we don't have
this rule. But then somebody else goes out there when the
guy's not there, so they don't get that story. Or somebody
else goes out there when the guy is there, but the story is
perceived to be different. Joe's story, I'm going to tell
you a story, you pass it down the line, by the time it gets
to the last Commissioner, it's a different story. We all
sit here and listen to the evidence, we may hear it
differently, but it's a lot less likely than if we all run
out to the four corners and then come back in and tell what
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you learned. Well, you're going to find out there's this
wide variation on what you learned.
If the only argument is you feel awkward when
you're out on the person's premises, when you can't be a
good guy, I don't see why you're not a good guy. Just say
the rules are I can't discuss this matter. I have never had
anybody say you're a jerk for doing that. Now they may have
thought I was a jerk, but I don't know.
CHARLES EREKSON: Yeah, I've done my duty and
played by the rules, and as Commissioner O'Donnell, I've
never had anyone say well you're a jerk because you won't
talk about it, you know, or whatever. They've always been
nice and so forth. There have been probably five or less
times where someone didn't pay attention to what I said, I
can't talk to you, and wanted to talk about it, so I have a
rule of three with everybody. If I tell you three times, I
don't tell you after three times, I just ignore you. That's
okay, so I don't have a problem with that.
I guess my sense is if I understood the language
in #3, if we were to choose that option I have a duty to
disclose those things that might have a potential to
influence my decision. So I can tell you that there is
public testimony here that doesn't influence my decision on
a regular basis, because people from the public, and this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
40
1 is not a criticism, but people from the public will want to
2 testify about issues that we cannot take into consideration
3 when we're making our judgment. I'm happy to listen to
4
them, because that's not a criticism of them, they don't
s
0
7
understand the nuance of all that. I'd be happy to listen
to listen to someone in the grocery store for a limited
period of time, depending on whether I had ice cream or not
8
and it was beginning to melt or not, but depending on what
9
to they were saying, I wouldn't assume that I would either
11 have a duty to disclose it or not have a duty to disclose
12 it, because if for me it wasn't going to influence my
13 decision, then I wouldn't have a duty to disclose it, but I
14 would have been courteous to the person to listen to them.
is But, and I guess I would not be supportive of
16 having a limited one and limit it to when someone else
17 initiated something, because I think there are situations
18 where I would have wanted to initiate something with
19
someone to get information that would have better informed
20
my decision. I'm happy to disclose that. I mean I can tell
21
22
23
you I would have asked questions as a Planning
Commissioner, but we couldn't do that as a member of the
North Forty Specific Plan Advisory Committee, so that I
24
25 could have been better informed, but I was one of the only
members of that committee who couldn't do that. So that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everybody understands, the only people on the Housing
Element Advisory Board who can't talk to Don Capograce
(phonetic) are the members of the Planning Commission, as
an example, who can't talk to Wendy Baker from Summerville
Homes are the people on the Planning Commission. Everybody
else can talk to them. Everybody else could have called
Wendy today and asked her the question that I asked Joel
today. So I don't see the harm in my having today the
ability to have called Wendy and asked her the question.
She may have been able to answer, she might not have. I
would have been happy to disclose that to everybody on the
House Element Advisory Board.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That brings up a real good point
that we haven't even put in the rules, and I think we can
basically give a little bit of guidance on that too is that
yes, that's the way I've interpreted it, that even if
you're sitting on the General Plan Committee, if you're
sitting on the Housing Element Board, you're still a
Planning Commissioner and you still apply to these rules.
Do you think there should be an exception that
when if you're sitting on the Housing Element, if you're
sitting on North Forty, a separate committee, that for that
specific issue you should be in the same seat as your
other... I mean how many are there on the Housing Element
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
42
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
JAdvisory Board? There are 12. Three Planning Commissioners,
abut those other eight can go and ask questions. But you
(three, your hands are tied, and that's because we don't
address it, so I took the more restrictive approach and
said it still applies to you. If Council goes with keeping
it no ex parte communications, should there be an exception
for those committees?
CHARLES EREKSON: I have a really quick, simple
answer to that question. I think either you are a Planning
Commissioner or you're not a Planning Commissioner. So in
the Housing Element Advisory Board their recommendation
will come to the Planning Commission. If you use the
example of the North Forty Specific Plan Advisory
Committee, their recommendations comes to the Planning
Commissioner. So to ask me as a Planning Commissioner to
forget everything that I learned when I didn't have the
rules applying to me because I was, ha ha, not a Planning
Commission at that point in time, I mean is just opening
the door for me to try to think about every question that I
would ask and every person I want to talk to when I'm on
that other Committee when, ha ha, I'm not a Planning
Commissioner, because I can't ask them, then so I'll spend
all my time running around on that Housing Element Advisory
Board doing that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The difference is that
as a Planning Commissioner sitting on that Commission, you
are being exposed to all kinds of ex parte. If you're going
to say it as a Commissioner it is ex parte to your function
as a sitting Commissioner, so I'm not sure there shouldn't
be an exception. In other words, you act sometimes as a
Planning Commissioner, and that would be defining your
role. But sometimes you get appointed to a committee where
basically we're out there gathering evidence, and you may
be gathering evidence from testimony to the committee, but
the rest of us are not being exposed to that. But clearly
you can do that, that's part of your role, so to that
extent, yes, you're still a Planning Commissioner, but now
you have a different duty than the rest of us. Then you say
well but if I carry it one step further and I get to pick
the phone up and call Wendy, at what point can I do that?
I'm just saying I think that's a very, very
interesting question. I don't think it's easily answered,
because if it were easily answered, you'd almost say you
shouldn't be on that committee, and we all want you to be
on that committee; that's the whole point of it. So I don't
know. I'm not suggesting that I have an answer to it, but
I'm saying there may be a difference there, that's all.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
44
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a comment. Okay, so
then I'm going to throw this on top of it. I was a citizen
Imember of the Housing Element Advisory Board, and before
that even happened I got sort of adopted by these nonprofit
housing developers; they have like an advocacy group and
stuff and I've been going to all of their meetings and
hearing everything they have to say, and this continued
after I was on the Housing Element Advisory Board. So now
that I'm a Planning Commissioner, do I just forget
everything that I talked about for the last year? Where do
I stand on that? Am I in violation on my ex parte
communication?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: My interpretation of that is
that from this point forward, now that you're a Planning
Commissioner, you can't meet with them and you can't go to
those group meetings anymore. But as you sit on the Housing
Element Advisory Board, and if when it comes forward to the
Planning Commission, anything that you learned in any of
those meetings that you're relying on that is not in your
Staff Report and not available to the public, you have to
disclose that as an ex parte communication.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. I
actually also wanted to say that I'm sort of in the camp of
the no ex parte communication given all that I heard now
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
B91
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that I've heard everyone talk, because I think it offers
the most production, unless there's a limited exception for
if you happen to go on an onsite visit and run into
somebody you know. I mean I don't know how you do that
though.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I know it might be late, but
just real quickly, if you look at the No Ex Parte
Communications the third paragraph talks about the
incidental contacts that do not address the substance of
any project are not prohibited. Incidental contacts are
those that are not reasonably understood to influence a
Commissioner's decision and include speaking with an
interested party to obtain approval or to enter property or
to obtain information intended to orient the Commissioner
about the physical aspects of the property or the project.
what other could you see that might help you in
that ability to understand the project when you're out
there that you wouldn't consider to be the ex parte
communications, or do you like the way it's worded?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I like the way it's worded.
As long as we disclose that when we went to the particular
residence we disclosed that we made contact, who we spoke
to, and the address, and as long as we don't talk to them
about the project details.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It's interesting that
you said you could get orientation, because one of the
Ithings that was raised is you might be looking at a map or
something, and for whatever reason you want to orient
yourself. Well, apparently you could say to the owner or
whoever is working there where in the heck are we on this
map, and the person says you're here, and I think we're
saying that as an innocuous contact that would fall under
the other thing. I don't think you could say and now that
you've told me why I'm here, what's the problem? That goes
beyond it.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I have to share this. Many
years ago, serving on the Historic Preservation Committee,
you have some binary issues when somebody wants to tear
down a house. You could require them to do a restoration as
opposed to tearing it completely down. So there was a man
who wanted to do some major work on this house and we went
out there, Chairperson Burch and I went out there. And we
ended up crawling in a two -foot crawl space yelling at this
guy, "Where's the rot? Where's the rot ?" He showed us the
rock. I came back and said, "I saw the rot." I don't know
that everybody would have crawled under that house.
Commissioner Burch did, and I admire her tremendously.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
47
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But I mean that's what I'm thinking about. Use
your head. Don't do anything that's going to hurt you or
hurt the Town, but try to find out what's behind the
application, give us the right to do that, and then
disclose it, and I'll come back and tell you where the rot
is.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don't think that's
prohibited under this particular draft that you've got,
because that's orientation. But that means it doesn't have
to be changed.
CHARLES EREKSON: May I ask a question? So if the
no ex parte communication were adopted, does one... So it
doesn't say in here I don't think, that one has to
disclose incidental contacts.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I've got down a note that I
would even add to that. Under No Ex Parte Communications is
your exact language that you list right now. I would add
another paragraph to that that talks about disclosures; any
incidental contacts result in a material fact that you're
relying on should be disclosed.
I mean I think about the shadowing today. If it
happened to be that someone was out there at 3:30 and you
saw something different, that's something you'd want to
disclose, and that could have been through some incidental
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
EE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contact that happened. Or the tree situation from the past
time that was disclosed. So I think we do need a little bit
more in there, and I put that note in.
CHARLES EREKSON: But if there's no substance to
the incidental contact, except when they tell us oh yeah,
you are at 207 Howes Court and here's the back gate and the
backyard, happy to have you do that, watch out for the dog,
I don't need to disclose that.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Well, wouldn't it be
advisable to?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: In your ex parte disclosures
your first comment would be yes, I visited the property,
and that's all that would need to be.unless something
happened on that property that you saw or did, or something
was said inadvertently that actually was the situation that
is materially affecting you. Otherwise it's not required,
because you're not taking... And it goes back to the
evidence. We all want to be on the same playing field
evidence -wise, so if there's nothing that was disclosed
other than he let me into the property, all you have to say
is yes, I visited the property, not who and what time and
what was said between.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: So that's not incidental
contact?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
BL]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Is it.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: But we don't have to
disclose it under the first one?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Okay.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Do we need to do anything past
all those comments?
LAUREL PREVETTI: Yes, thank you very much. It
was a great conversation and I think we will try to get the
full transcript so that way the Policy Committee and
ultimately the Council will have the benefit of your
thoughtful comments.
I also want to just add that there are sometimes
information needs that you might have, and so if for
whatever reason Staff hasn't anticipated an information
need, you're always welcome to contact either Joel or
myself. We'd prefer you go down to the project planner, but
certainly contact either of us if you feel there's
additional information that you need to make an effective
decision, and then we would provide it to all of the
Commissioners.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Right, of course.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Commissioner
IHanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Actually to that point,
that was my general comment. When I compared the two
documents, and this is particularly since I'm new at this,
there was some really helpful stuff in there about some of
the things that are very specific to this type of role,
such as not just generally handling a meeting, but like
making findings and things like that, and that's not going
to be in this new document. So is the other one going to go
away? Because I thought that was helpful. I would still
retain some of that content for people to refer to; that
would be my recommendation.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And if you want to give me those
specifically now that you've gone through the one. You
know, they did want to shorten it, and so there was some
stuff that was removed, but if there's any other comments
you have, if you look at it and you think you know, I
really thought this shouldn't have been eliminated, please
pass that on to me, and that's something that I'll bring up
to Council.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I don't know if it's
appropriate in the Polices and Procedures. I think it might
be appropriate in a training document or something like
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
51
I
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. I mean I'm fine with it. It was just if the
(inaudible) was just going to disappear into thin air, then
I would say there should be some home for it, but I don't
know that it needs to be in this document.
JOEL PAULSON: And that's something you can pass
along to Mr. Schultz, and then maybe that's something that
gets added to the Commissioner Handbook or some other
document like that.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Kane, did you
have something.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Just in full agreement that
that should be written out somewhere: the findings, the
making of a motion. Not everybody knows how to do that, and
when you're new you certainly don't have a clue.
Would it be helpful if we had anything in there
on the Brown Act, Ralph Brown Act, regarding us talking to
each other? Because in the past we've had smoke and
mirrors. You can talk to two people, but not if Bob called
you on Sunday. You've got to find out everybody's life
history to see whom they've talked to. If we could spell
that out in just one paragraph, because I think I
understand it. You can only talk to two people provided
they haven't talked to two people, and that would be
helpful.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAUREL PREVETTI: Right, and we did include that
in your Commissioner Handbook, so that is available to you.
The current composition of the Policy Committee is
concerned about being redundant with items that might be
elsewhere in the law, either state or federal, so I think
there are other ways, and certainly we've been talking
internally about setting up a training workshop for the
Commission, so that way you'll have an opportunity to have
more dialogue on the issues that can make you a more
effective body.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/28/2015
Item #4, Policies and Procedures Discussion
6%]
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK