PC 032713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman stated that before she responds to Mr. Kimber's concern that the Planning Commission violated the Brown Act, and for the sake of the public who do not come to every meeting here, it is not uncommon for the Planning Commission, when it feels that a vote is going to be a denial, to ask applicants whether they want to go back and work on their proposal or whether they want the Commission to vote that night. She continued that it just so happened that, in this case, the Commission took a break, and then the same thing happened. She then read from the December 12, 2012 Meeting Minutes, which are just about verbatim: "Acting Chair Blank stated that there was some discussion between the applicant and staff during the break and informed the applicant that there are two options he would like the applicant to consider: (1) proceed with the Commission vote, or (2) request a continuance to a later date to give the applicant the opportunity to receive public input and make whatever changes that may or may not result from that input to the plan." Ms. Harryman stated that she was present for that meeting, and what happened was staff talked with the applicant and essentially said: "You can see where this looks like it is going. Do you want to go work with the neighbors more? Do you want to take another look at your application ?" And the applicant said "Yes, we do." Staff then told Chair Blank: "I believe the applicant wants to at least consider whether to bring it back or to have a vote." And Chair Blank came back on the record and asked the applicant the question. She reiterated that is not uncommon. Ms. Harryman explained that a Brown Act violation is not when a staff member and the applicant or members of the public speak; a Brown Act violation occurs when a quorum, which is three or more voting members speak behind closed doors. She stated that in this case, if three of the Commissioners were caucusing on what to do or how they were going to vote or about the project generally, that would have been a Brown Act violation. Chair Blank thanked Ms. Harryman for her explanation. He indicated that, for the record, it was Mr. Dolan who informed him that the applicant wanted him to ask that question, which he did. Commissioner Olson agreed with the comments that the current facility and state of that site is essentially unacceptable. He stated that he sees this project as an improvement and added that what is before the Commission tonight is an improvement relative to what it was looking at on December 12, 2012. He indicated that he was going to support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Olson. She stated that she hoped that some of the neighborhood concerns had been addressed with the additional conditions that she is going to propose that the Commission put in a motion. She indicated that she thinks this is an improvement and is pleased that no variances were requested. She added that she is also pleased with the downsizing of the facility's size and the alcohol prohibition, as well as the improved circulation on the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 27, 2013 Page 18 of 48