Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1992/12/02 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday. December 2, 1992 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vi~l~ ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Fuller, Commissioners Carson, Martin, Moot, Tarantino, Tuchscher, and Ray COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Lee, Principal Planner Howard, Principal Planner Griffin, Senior Civil Engineer Ullrich, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - SILENT PRAYER The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Chair Fuller and was followed by a moment of silent prayer. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Chair Fuller reviewed the composition of the Planning Commission, its responsibilities and the format of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSC (Carson/Tuchscher) 4-3 (Commissioners Moot, Tarantino and Ray abstained) to approve the minutes of September 9, 1992. MSUC (Carson/Ray) 7-0 to approve the minutes of November 18, 1992, with clarification on page 5 to read "The first five of the following speakers gave a prepared group presentation." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PC Minutes -2- December 2, 1992 ITEM 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-90-02, RANCHO SAN MIGUEL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ITEM 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-90-10, PCZ-90-M: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED COMMUNITY pRE_ ZONE FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SWEETWATER RESERVOIR, WEST AND SOUTH OF MOTHER MIGUEL MOUNTAIN AND NORTHEAST OF PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD - San Miguel Partners ITEM 3. CONSIDERATION OF CEQA FINDINGS, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAN MIGUEL RANCH EIR-90-02 MSC (Carson/Martin) 6-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) to continue Items 1, 2 and 3 to December 16, 1992. ITEM 4: PUBLIC HEARING: PCC-93-11; CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRING THE RECONVERSION OF A LIVING AREA BACK TO A GARAGE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME AT 537 OTIS STREET - Alicia Munoz Principal Planner Steve Griffin gave the staff presentation and stated that a petition had been received with eight names supportiNG and four letters opposing the original application. No written communication had been received regarding the appeal. Staff recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the appeal. Commissioner Carson asked if the individuals who had objected to the original hearing had been given information regarding the appeal. Mr. Griffin answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Carson questioned whether the ones in favor would be using the daycare. Mr. Griffin did not have that information. Commissioner Ray asked if there were to be another 2' of cement added to the driveway, would that adequately cover the concern of the City for the drop-off and pick-up zone. Mr. Griffin answered that it could be a condition of granting the appeal, if desired by the Commission. The garage, if reconverted, would probably only accommodate a single vehicle. Commissioner Ray noted that Girard M. Donavon, the owner of the property, was against the use of the property as a daycare center. The applicants (the residents) were in favor of it. He asked if that made a difference, as far as the City was concerned. Principal Planner Griffin PC Minutes -3- December 2, 1992 stated the owner or tenant was considered the same in terms of the application for a large-family daycare home. They were considered as two parties of interest in the property, where the owners were opposing and the tenants supportive. Commissioner Ray questioned on-site versus off-site parking, City policy regarding enforcement, and the rights of the residents. Mr. Griffin said that staff was trying to create desirable circumstance; regarding a CUP, the City could require that the garage be used for parking, but in terms of enforcing that, it would probably be up to neighborhood observation or a complaint. Commissioner Tarantino asked if there was a small daycare center license. Mr. Griffin said daycare centers with six children or below were exempt by State law from any local zoning regulation and were allowed as a matter of right in single-family dwellings without any special discretionary permit. They only require a State license. Commissioner Tarantino asked what would happen if there were noise complaints regarding children playing in the yard. Principal Planner Griffin said the Zoning Administrator could readdress the perimeter fencing or walls around the property to see if they could be supplemented to decrease the noise, or place further conditions on the permit to monitor the number of children who could be outside at any one time. Normally noise did not become a problem. In reply to Commissioner Moot, Principal Planner Griffin said staff had not heard directly from the owner. His impression from the applicant was that the owner was not opposed to expanding the daycare operation, but would not be favorable to converting the garage to accommodate it. Chair Fuller asked if the notice indicated that this was an expansion from an existing daycare facility, since several of those in opposition seemed to have no idea there was already an existing small family daycare center in their neighborhood. Mr. Griffin stated that it did not. Chair Fuller noted they had responded as though they were unaware that Ms. Munoz was operating a daycare center in the neighborhood. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Alicia Munoz, 537 Otis Street, CV 91910, the applicant, said the garage had been legally converted in 1983. She was appealing the decision because she was not the property owner; she believed the 500 block of Otis Street was not a busy street; most of the homes had a two-car driveway so there was plenty of parking on the street; she only owned one vehicle and there was a two-vehicle driveway which was available during business hours for clients and served as temporary parking for safe loading and unloading of children. She submitted a roster of the children which showed the times of their arrival and pick-up. She had retained a small-family childcare license for five years and had no problems with parking. The 8' high pipe trellis located in the front yard had been lowered to meet City requirements. PC Minutes -4- December 2, 1992 Commissioner Ray asked if Ms. Munoz had contacted the owner. Ms. Munoz answered affirmatively, and said the owner had agreed. He had not complained about parking in front of the garage. Commissioner Ray questioned whether the owner would move the fence and cement part of the yard. Ms. Munoz had not spoken with the owner, but felt he would be against it. Commissioner Carson, referring to Mr. Skinner's letter, asked about the condition of the back yard. Ms. Munoz said everything had been cleaned up, but there was no grass. Answering Commissioner Carson, Ms. Munoz stated she had moved in the house in March 1992. Commissioner Moot questioned her tenancy, whether it was month-to-month or a year lease. Ms. Munoz answered that it was month-to-month and she was required to carry $500,000 liability on the property. Commissioner Tarantino asked if most of the children were present in the afternoon hours and when she would have all nine. Ms. Munoz said most of the day there were only four, excluding her own children. The license would include her own children. Chair Fuller said she was under the impression that she had been working for the last five years with the six-children license at that address. Ms. Munoz confirmed that she had lived at that address since March 1992. Chair Fuller asked if the neighbors were aware that she was operating a small-family daycare center. Ms. Munoz said the neighbor across the street and at 541 Otis Street knew she was in operation. No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chair Fuller stated she had gone by the facility; she had noted there were two cars in the driveway which was wide, and she felt there was possibly room for three cars. There were very few cars on the street at the time she had gone by and it was a wide street. Commissioner Carson said she had been by between 2:30 and 3:00 and there were very few cars. She suggested the following changes to the conditions: Delete No. 4 "the applicant shall obtain a building permit to reconvert the garage back to a parking structure." Revise No. 7 as follows: "At the time the noise impact and parking circumstances would be reviewed, and if there is a noise or parking issue, additional mitigation measures may be imposed." PC Minutes -5- December 2, 1992 MS (Carson/Martin) to grant the appeal with a modification omitting Condition No. 4 and revise Condition No. 7 as modified. Commissioner Carson clarified that this would not require building additional cement. Commissioner Tuchscher questioned the City policy regarding converted garages in these types of facilities. Principal Planner Griffin answered that he did not believe staff had encountered an application where the garage had been legally converted; there had been applications where there were illegal conversions and in those cases, either the person had not pursued it or the reconversion had been made a condition of approval. Assistant Planning Director Lee explained the historical variances regarding the Code parking requirements for single-family houses and the reasons staff had recommended conversion. By adding approximately 3' to the west side, the driveway would be 27' which could accommodate three vehicles without adjusting the curb cut. Commissioner Tuchseher was concerned about setting a precedent, with on~street ingress and egress from cars. Mr. Lee noted there were several daycare centers in the City, some with off- street parking and some with very limited or no off-street parking. Staff had not received any negative feedback on any of the facilities presently operating. Commissioner Martin noted this was a wide driveway and there was plenty of room. He was voting for the project, and wished the applicant luck in her business. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf clarified the motion as follows: To grant the appeal and change Condition No. 7 to read "The large-family daycare center home permit shall be reviewed within six months and, at that time, the noise and parking impact circumstances will be reviewed and if there is a noise or a parking issue, additional mitigation measures may be imposed." Also, change Finding No. 4 to read "Not reconverting the garage to a parking structure will still provide sufficient off-street parking." Commissioner Moot clarified whether the conditional use permit ran with the property or the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf answered that it generally ran with the property. The six-month review would add potential additional conditions. Chair Fuller stated that even with a different resident, a license would have to be obtained to run a daycare facility. The license did not go with the conditional use permit. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said that once they got the license, the conditional use permit would be in place and they could use it. VOTE: 6-1 (Tuchscher voted against) IN FAVOR OF THE APPEAL PC Minutes -6- December 2, 1992 RECONSIDERATION OF (~ONTINUANCE OF ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 Chair Fuller said that apparently Mr. Robert Thompson had requested to speak to the Commission with regard to the continuance of Items 1, 2 and 3, not with regard to the project itself. Since the meeting had started late, he was out of the room when the items came up. Robert Thompson, 6503 San Miguei Rtl., Bonita 91902, believed there were several problems relating to the continuation of this project. It was listed as a consideration of a final EIR report; which the Commission had already done; the Commission had already closed the public comment period with regard to the final consideration of the EIR; there was at that time an appeal pending with the City Council; the appeal was continued, and no vote was taken. Consequently, there was an appeal pending, and a reconsideration on an item on which the Commission had already acted. Mr. Thompson was also concerned that this was two specific parcels made into one, but separate, and not contiguous between the two of them. Therefore, if an annexation was requested, it could not be done since the LAFCO requirement that it be contiguous could not be fulfilled. It seemed that the Commission acted in good faith, that the appeal process went forward because the applicant disagreed with the Commission, and that the City Council was trying to turn the project back to the Commission, when in fact the appeal process should go forward. He did not think it should be a consideration of a final EIR, it might be a reconsideration of an EIR; the Commission had already acted on this item and it was up for appeal, the Commission could not re-act on this item until it is resubmitted by the applicant and it goes through the process again; and with an appeal pending, that appeal should be followed through to its conclusion with the City Council (1) upholding the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; or (3) modifying the decision of the Planning Commission; or that the applicant withdraw the appeal. Mr. Thompson said none of those things had been done, and it was Mr. R ' ' · udolf s consideration that it would be too expensive to renotice this. Mr. Thompson believed it would need to be renoticed because this was not a consideration of an EIR, but a reconsideration and a reopening of public comment which the Commission closed. He asked that the item be taken off the agenda rather than continued. Commissioner Ray said the Council had referred the item back to the Commission, based on some irregularities in supplying the Commission some of the information they reviewed. He had requested clear direction from the Council to both the applicant and staff about some specific issues, and some of the members on the Planning Commission felt that as a result of some of those irregularities justice or due process was not being served 100% accurately. Mr. Thompson noted that it was not up to the City Council to refer it back, but through the appeal process, to correct whatever confusion had generated within the Planning Commission, to correct that in the decision the Council made. The Council should have indicated that the new meeting would be renoticed because they did not know exactly how long it would take, and at that time they would vote, that they wanted to go back to the Planning Commission for additional information to be supplied to them so they could take that into consideration when they voted, that this was not sent back to the Planning Commission to be re-voted on, to have PC Minutes -7- December 2, 1992 public hearing redone, or to have a reconsideration of the EIR, therefore, vacating whatever appeal process was in progress. Chair Fuller asked the Assistant City Attorney to comment. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf did not wish to comment on Mr. Thompson's statement but noted that the Commission had the opportunity to reconsider the motion for continuance. They could reconsider and grant it, and then have the item on the agenda to consider on the merits, but, staff was not prepared to present anything on the merits or the combined factual and legal arguments raised by Mr. Thompson. Mr. Rudolf suggested that, because of the inability to address that, the Commission deny the request for reconsideration. He assured the Commissioners that both the legal staff and other staff would be addressing those before the project came back to the Commission on the 16th, and would advise the Commission as to their opinion regarding the facts as to what took place before the Council and the law with regard to what the Commission was considering or reconsidering, a new notice or a notice of reconsideration. Commissioner Moot asked if there would be a public hearing on the 16th on this matter, pending the legal group's final opinion. Principal Planner Howard answered affirmatively, and said that if Mr. Rudolf found that Mr. Thompson was correct, plans could be changed. Mr. Thompson stated that he had spoken with Mr. Rudolf previously and had brought his attention to those points. As soon as he was noticed on the hearing, he called Mr. Rudolf and told him what his concerns were. Commissioner Carson noted there had been a similar situation several years before regarding EastI.ake when the Planning Commission had voted the project down and the City Council appealed it back, and sent it back to the Commission. They did not take public testimony. They only clarified to the City Council the reasons for their decision and then it went back to City Council. Commissioners Tarantino and Moot were concerned about being new Commissioners, not having time to read the material, and whether they should participate in the proceedings on that project. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf said it depended on whether it was a new hearing or a reconsideration. If it was a new hearing, the new Commissioners would not need to do any historical preparation; it would be a new process. If it was a reconsideration and just a clarification, and the motion for reconsideration was granted, it would be considered on the merits and, in that case, the Commissioners who did not sit before would have to have read and reviewed the tapes and materials to be able to participate. Chair Fuller asked if the new hearing would be conditioned on the fact that the applicant revised the project and was presenting it as a new project? Mr. Howard said that it may be that as a result of the review process, the project was changed. PC Minutes -8- December 2, 1992 Chair Fuller thanked Mr. Thompson for bringing those points to the Commission's attention. MSC (Ray/Moot) 6-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) to reconsider the continuance of Items 1, 2, and 3. MS (Ray/Moot) to continue Items 1, 2, and 3 to the meeting of December 16, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Moot asked that the comments which occurred after Mr. Thompson spoke be incorporated. VOTE: 6-0-1 (Tuchscher abstained) ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-93-07; CONSIDERATION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF OTAY LAKES ROAD TO TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION OF OTAY LAKES ROAD AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD TO WUESTE ROAD - City Initiated At the Commission's suggestion, there was no formal presentation. Commissioner Tuchscher asked if there would be some confusion further east in the County portion of Otay Lakes Road. Principal Planner Griffin agreed that it could, but the County had been contacted and they were not interested in changing the name of that section. If the Otay Ranch proceeded as scheduled, the City would have jurisdiction over a further portion of that in the future and would change the name at that time. The demarcation between Telegraph and Otay would occur at Wueste Road and there would be a sign there. At Commissioner Tuchscher's request, Assistant Planning Director Lee stated staff would contact the County again regarding renaming the eastern portion of Otay Lakes Road. This being the time and the place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Ray/Tuchscher) 7-0 to adopt Resolution PCM-90-07 changing the name of Otay Lakes Road to Telegraph Canyon Road between Telegraph Canyon Road and Wueste Road. ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF GPA-93-03, SUBAREA 3A ONLY, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ANITA STREET EAST OF BROADWAY - City Initiated Principal Planner Howard noted that the Planning Commission had taken action on this item on November 12. Mr. Luecht, the owner of the Farmhouse Trailer Park shown as Subarea 3A, through some misunderstanding, did not attend the previous Planning Commission hearing and PC Minutes -9- December 2, 1997 requested a reconsideration. Staffrecommended the reconsideration be granted in order for Mr. Luecht to give his public testimony on this item. MSC (Tuchscher/Ray) 6-0-1 {Moot abstaining) to reconsider GPA-93-03. Chair Fuller opened the public hearing and noted there was a request to speak from Mr. Steven Luecht. Steven Luecht, 523 Anita Street, CV said the reason he had not come to the meeting before was because of his lack of understanding of the process. He had gone to the Montgomery Planning Committee meeting and thought that was the final decision. He noted the name of the property was the Farmhouse Motel and Trailer Park. Mr. Luecht was concerned about the noise emanating from the Sommerset Plaza; a permit was given to a company who installed burglar alarms for cars and high-powered stereos which have to be tested, the doors are roll-up doors which face his trailer park. Zoning Enforcement had done a decibel reading on his property, which was 89 decibels. Another problem was with the muffler shop which was also noisy. Nothing had been done about the noise level from the alarm/stereo shop. Mr. Luecht said the property which was there was not compatible with his property zoned as residential because of the noise problem. He felt it should be changed to an industrial use. Commissioner Martin believed the area should be residential and asked Mr. Luecht if the noise- emanating businesses were moved, would he not agree that it should be residential. Mr. Luecht said the noise was not only from the two places, but from all of them with trucks unloading, people listening to their burglar alarms, etc. Commissioner Ray asked if the subject area was looked at to be rezoned for limited industrial. Principal Planner Howard replied that was the existing General Plan designation in zoning, so it was always an option. Commissioner Ray wanted to know why the whole area was not considered as one piece and rezoned at one time. Mr. Howard said that at the time the Montgomery Specific Plan was adopted, the commercial development was not on the corner, and the idea was to perhaps combine the whole area into a unified industrial development. However, in 1988, approval was given for a CUP to allow a limited commercial use in the area although it was limited to uses allowed in a light industrial zone. Assistant Planning Director Lee noted that this property was zoned residential when it was in the County; when the City looked at the Montgomery Specific Plan, the depth of the industrial area was expanded with the anticipation of combining properties. Since that had not occurred, the remaining property faced Anita Street and, in staff's judgment, residential development was best for that area. Noise issues had to be solved between properties regardless of where the boundaries end. PC Minutes -10- December 2, 1992 Commissioner Ray asked if the City had initiated anything further to try to alleviate some of Mr. Thompson's concerns regarding noise. Mr. Lee answered that zoning enforcement is handled through the Building Department, and felt Mr. Thompson should contact the Building Department and follow-up on that, possibly meeting with the Director or Assistant Director. Chair Fuller clarified that the property was zoned residential in the County, then brought into the Montgomery Specific Plan as limited industrial, along with the other two properties. Assistant Planning Director ~ concurred. Chair Fuller asked the Montgomery Planning Committee's reasoning for supporting the limited industrial use. Associate Planner Herrera-A said the area would be expanded in order to facilitate the development of the industrial area for that parcel in combination with the property at the northeast comer of Main and Broadway. The property to the east was zoned multi-family residential. Associate Planner Herrera-A noted the action taken by the Montgomery Planning Committee was a non-action since their vote on the Negative Declaration was 3-1. By not having a fourth vote, the motion failed and the public was not heard. Their straw vote, however, had been forwarded to the Planning Commission. At Chair Fuller's request for the density allowed under medium-residential, Mr. Herrera said it would be 6-11 dwelling units per acre for a total ~f approximately 28 dwelling units. If it was a new development, they would be allowed 20-25 units under the General Plan, which was staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tarantino asked the status of the mitigation for the students that would be generated out of the 22-28 dwelling units. Mr. Howard answered that there were existing units, and if the area was built to the maximum density, there would only be an additional 10 units over what was existing. The student generation rate was only three additional students and could be accommodated by the existing schools. ~ No one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tuchscher said his opinion had not changed; it was important to consider the area east of Sub-area 3 as well as the areas west. In light of the development that was currently to the west and planned to the south, he did not feel it was appropriate to leave a pocket of industrial between some commercial and residential. He felt it was appropriate for medium- density residential. MS (Carson/Tuchscher) to recommend to the City Council that Sub-area 3A be redesignated and rezoned for residential use. PC Minutes -11- December 2, 1992 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION An affirmation of the action taken previously that Sub-area 3 be redesignated and rezoned for residential use. Chair Fuller noted that two Commissioners were not part of the original action, so both Commissioners would need to abstain from voting. Chair Fuller said she did not like the idea of piece-mealing the property, but was not comfortable with her original support to rezone back to residential. She asked if there was ever any consideration of allowing the property to be part of the commercial as in Sub-area 2. Mr. Howard said their had been no consideration in the environmental documentation. If the Commission directed it to be reviewed, the Initial Study would have to be redone and the Negative Declaration readvertised. Commissioner Ray stated he was comfortable with the decision made previously and would vote to go ahead and rezone back to residential. He suggested a secondary motion to recommend that City Council direct staff to help Mr. Luecht get some enforcement for the noise and other Code violations occurring as a result of the conditional use permits granted at the time the businesses opened. Commissioner Martin concurred. Assistant Planning Director Lee advised that the applicant follow-up his initial contact with Building and Housing by contacting the Director or Assistant Director, if he was not getting results from the Zoning Enforcement Division. At Chair Fuller's request, Principal Planner Howard said Sub-area 1 was applicant initiated; Sub-areas 2 and 3 were both City initiated. Chair Fuller asked if the owner of Sub-area 3 had requested a change for commercial at the time of initiation of this change, it could have been considered the same as Sub-area 2. Mr. Howard concurred, but did not know if the owner had an opportunity; he did not come forward at that time. Commissioner Tuchscber felt Sub-area 3 had three problems from a commercial standpoint--no visibility, no frontage, and too much depth. If it were zoned commercial, there would be nothing positive coming from it; he thought medium-density residential would be a viable land use and a good buffer to properties further east. Commissioner Ray did not believe there was good access to the property for commercial businesses, except for Anita Street. PC Minutes -12- December 2, 1992 RESTATEMENT OF MOTION To reaff'lnn the action taken by the Planning Connnission to reconunend to the City Council that Sub-area 3 be redesignated and rezoned for residential use. VOTE: 5-0-2 (Commissioners Tarantino and Moot abstained) Chair Fuller noted that the Commission had reaffirmed their action taken at the November 12, 1992, meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Assistant Planning Director Lee distributed the Planning Commission calendar for the next three months. COMMISSION COMMENTS 1. Developers contacting Commissioners at business or home. Commissioner Carson was concerned that during the last six months, developers had been calling the Commissioners at their businesses or homes. It was difficult at times to get to the phone to return phone calls, the developers' businesses were closed on the weekends, she got calls at work and at home, along with letters from the developer. She felt they should not harass her. Commissioner Tarantino, since he was a new Commissioner, commented that he did not know if that was part of the process. He was confused because he got calls from the developer to see the property. He wanted to be as informed as he could before making a decision, but did not know what was protocol. He had access to a phone, but would like guidelines. Commissioner Martin shared the confusion. However, he did not have a problem with developers contacting him at any time. He felt if anyone was harassed, the developer should be put in his/her place. Commissioner Martin said he learned a lot from the developers. Chair Fuller concluded that possibly some ground rules or policy should be established. She asked Assistant Planning Director Lee to comment. Mr. Lee said there had been no policy through the years; it had been left up to the individual Commissioners; the City Attorney had advised the Commissioner(s) if a project was coming up as a hearing to identify the fact that the Commissioner(s) had met with the developer(s) or had conversations with them. A policy had not been set by the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Carson had been informed from the beginning that she should disclose any contact with the developer. She preferred not being contacted unless it came through the PC Minutes -13- December 2, 1997 Planning Department. The Planning Department could relay the message to her, but she did not want to talk with the applicant. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf discussed the various solutions which could be implemented by the Commission. In absence of an ordinance prohibiting contact, the Commissioners should be aware that it affects the public perception of the fairness of the process if the Commissioners were giving access, and the Commissioners must reveal they had that contact and generally describe the information given in that contact in a public heating. Chair Fuller noted that the Commissioners' field trips are noticed to the public. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that they are in the context of a public hearing, and the public is allowed to attend. It is already a matter of public record. In a private visit, without making contact with the person, it should be noted on record as to what is seen and observed so both the applicant and other Commissioners would have the information. Commissioner Moot suggested that staff give the Commissioners some written recommendations so they could consider making a Commission-wide policy. It would be helpful for it to be included at some time as an agenda item. Commissioner Tuchscher felt the Commissioners had possibly gotten away from stating that they had met with the developer or had telephone conversations. He personally believed his conversations with the developers or applicants had been beneficial. He was concerned about having a formal policy, which might hinder an individual from getting all the information he/she needed to make a decision. He felt that from a legal standpoint it was very important to disclose the information, but would like to leave it up to the individual as to whether he/she should be contacted. There was further discussion relating to the procedure to be used; the Commissioners noted that they had not wished to appear rude to the developers by not returning their calls; they needed a respectable buffer that everyone could agree was not intrusive on an individual Commissioner's right to discuss the issue. MS (Moot/Martin) that the Planning Department, in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, give the Commissioners a report or a proposed procedure by which individual Commissioners can handle contacts by developers or applicants, in written form, what the legal significance of a contact would be and what should be disclosed. Commissioner Ray asked if a statement could be included on applications that any contact with Commissioners should first be through Planning Department staff. Commissioner Tuchscher asked that the motion be modified to read "that the new procedure for meeting with developers will be coordinated through the Planning Department." The maker and second concurred. PC Minutes -14- December 2, 1992 RESTATED MOTION That a new procedure for contacting Planning Commissioners will be coordinated through the Planning Department and included in the initial paperwork to be completed by the applicants/developers. VOTE: 7-0 Assistant Planning Director Lee commented that possibly Assistant City Attorney Rudolf could prepare a one-page report for the Commissioners to clarify the legal aspects of declaring any discussions the Commissioner(s) would have with the applicant. ADJOURNMENT at 9:30 p.m. to the Special Business Meeting of November 18, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. /Nahcy Rip~ey, S~cretai~ Planning Commission (pc 12-2.mm)