PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker summarized Acting Chairperson Fox's November 28, 2006 email which requested feedback in the event that the Commission might have some difficulty in rendering a decision after hearing the presentation and public testimony, what opportunity may be available to have a mediator become involved in the process, and how the City might pay for that mediator. She had noted that previous projects used mediators when there were significant disputes between an applicant and the surrounding neighborhood. Two projects were used as examples: St. Claze's Episcopal Church and the Knights' residential additions. She noted that the use of a mediator to be paid for by the City was a budget issue and that only the City Council had the authority to provide funding. She indicated that the mediation for St. Claze's was authorized by the Council and that with respect to the Knights' case, former Planning Commissioner Mary Roberts had volunteered her time to conduct the mediation as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Decker reiterated that there was no funding for mediation as a condition for any project that would come before the Planning Commission. She emphasized that the chazge of the Planning Commission was essentially to approve, conditionally approve, deny, or continue various projects by a majority vote. Ms. Harryman explained the Brown Act, which required government business to be held in the open for the public to observe. A meeting is considered to take place any time there is a quorum of a legislative body; in this case, three of five Planning Commissioners would constitute a quorum. A meeting also takes place when that quonun discussed or considered a matter or took action on a subject that was within its subject matter jurisdiction. She noted that the subject a-mail to staff and to the entire Commission discussed what may or may not happen at this meeting with respect to the possibility of mediation. She advised that the a-mail could azguably be construed as being in contravention of the Brown Act. She noted that a potential violation could be cured or corrected by including the item in the open discussion and action for the public to heaz. She noted that would be the course of action to be taken for this item. She advised that when the a-mail was received, staff did not respond, did not copy any of the Commissioners, and none of the Commissioners wrote back or responded. Acting Chairperson Fox advised that she was contacted by a local newspaper regazding this item several weeks ago and that the reporter had indicated talking to staff and the applicant. She was asked some fairly detailed questions about the proposal, and she stated that she did not usually comment on matters coming before the Commission. She was concerned that because the newspaper contacted three parties, it may be construed as a Brown Act issue. She also disclosed that she spoke with Bazbaza Dawson, the Pleasanton Village Homeowners Association manager, and had likewise spoken and met with the applicant as well as with Shazrell Michelotti and several neighbors. She also spoke with the City of Livermore planning staff regazding a similaz project called the Cedaz Grove Church project. Commissioner Blazilc disclosed that he had met with the applicant's representative the previous month. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 5 of 28