Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-21-1983 r ~ • ~ Regular Meeting - March 21, 1983 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 21, 1983, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Cm. Tenery, Chairman. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Alexander, Mack, Vonheeder, Tenery, and Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director. ABSENT: Commissioner Woy. Staff was requested to follow up on Cm. Woy's condition, and send some flowers, as soon as possible. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cm. Tenery led the Commission, Staff and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the regular meeting of March 7, 1983, were approved as written. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATION None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A written invitation was extended to each Commissioner to attend the grand opening ceremony of the new Ross Store. A copy of the minutes from the City Council Regular Meeting of February 14, 1983, was also included in the Commissioners' packets. * * * * UNFINISHED BUSINESS BROWN ACT DISCUSSION Mr. Tong introduced a memorandum written by the City Attorney, dated April 30, 1982, regarding "Legal Procedures and Requirements for Commission Meetings; Suggested Rules of Procedure", which related to the Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950, et seq.) . • . He suggested that the Commission review the memo, discuss the matter, and develop a list of specific questions which would be referred to the City Attorney for his research and response. The Commissioners shared some of the information gathered from the League of California Cities conference for Planning Commissioners which was recently attended. There was a discussion regarding the appropriateness of Commissioners discussing a planning matter together unless within the context of a public meeting. It was also noted that according to the seminar, no member of the Planning Commission may appear before the City Council, even as a private citizen, on any matter. Mr. Tong indicated that to his knowledge at this time there are no restrictions regarding Commissioners discussing a project, or visiting a site, or researching a topic, or soliciting responses from constituents. In fact, it is appropriate, in order to make an informed decision on certain matters. It is, however, necessary to state what has been done, and what has been learned "on the record" and clearly stated that the information is a basis for his/her decision. It was also clarified that Commissioners should direct their questions to the City Attorney through the Planning Director. Specific questions which shall be referred to the City Attorney are: 1) Is it appropriate for two Planning Commissioners, or a Planning Commissioner and a City Councilman, to discuss a planning issue or application? 2) Is it appropriate for a Planning Commissioner and an applicant to discuss a planning application or issue? 3) Is it appropriate for a Planning Commissioner to participate in a group that makes recommendations to the City regarding planning matters? (For example: The Chamber of Commerce has an Economic Development Committee that makes recommendations to the City regarding economic development.) 4) Is it appropriate for Planning Commissioners to lobby the City Council on planning applications or issues? What about a City Councilman lobbying the Planning Commission? 5) Is it appropriate for a Planning Commissioner to inspect a site and discuss an application or an issue with residents, property owners, neighbors? Would the Commissioner need to state at a public meeting who they met6 with and what was said? Is it appropriate to listen, in the field, at the Planning Commissioner's home, or office? Would it be more appropriate to defer all such discussions to the Planning Commission meeting? • ~ 6) Would it be appropriate for a Planning Commissioner to appear before the City Council on a planning issue? What about as a "private citizen"; as a representative of a different group, wearing a "different hat"? In the Commission's rules of procedure, the Chairman represents the Commission before the City Council. Is that still appropriate? 7) Is it appropriate for a Planning Commissioner to appear before the City Council on an issue not directly related to planning? (For example: On a Parks and Recreation matter?) 8) Is it solely Staff's responsibility to present dissenting Planning Commission opinions, either in detailed minutes or in a Staff Report, to the City Council? 9) What is the most appropriate way for discussions to occur between the Planning Commission and City Council: In work sessions and in study sessions? 10) If there is a potential conflict of interest, is it necessary for the Planning Commissioner with the potential conflictto leave the room to avoid even "eye contact"? * * * * RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS DISCUSSION Mr. Tong indicated that this would be a good opportunity to begin a discussion regarding Residential District Regulations. He described the exhibits included in the Commissioners' packets, which were: a General Plan Diagram from Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit General Plan; a Zoning Display Map; and Zoning Ordinance Regulations. The discussion covered the designated residential districts, their interrelationships, and their relationship to the previous general plan for the unincorporated area. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS A letter, plans, and color pallet from Bill Englund & Associates were distributed to the Commissioners to familiarize them with a sign project currently underway at the Heritage Park Corporate Center. It was agreed that Staff should bring the Planned Development historical,information regarding the existing sign program to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, so that a decision could be made, at that time, whether to treat this new project as a minor alteration or a major change requiring a public meeting before the City Council. * * * * . ' ~ ~ Cm. Vonheeder suggested that it may be in the best interest of Dublin and the surrounding communities for the Dublin Planning Commission hold a joint dinner meeting with the Pleasanton Planning Commission for the purpose of exchanging ideas and opinions regarding the growth and development of our cities, and other topics of mutual interest. The meeting should take place after April 15, 1983. It was agreed that this topic should be an agenda item for the next meeting. * * * * Cm. Alexander questioned the status of the City Limit Sign which has not been replaced at the corner of San Ramon Road and Hwy 580. Mr. Tong indicated that CalTrans has stated that the sign was misplaced by the contractor and is now being refabricated for delivery within the next two months, approximately. * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~ ~ " / „ Laurence L. Tong, « Planning Co ission Chairm Planning Director