M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF
|
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 |
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS |
|
7:00 P.M. |
ROOM 213, CITY HALL |
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
7:08 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Clarke led the Pledge
of Allegiance.
3. ROLL
CALL: Present: Barbara
Brown, Chairperson
Darrell
Clarke
Julie
Lopez Dad
Jay
P. Johnson (arrived at 8:10 p.m.)
Terry
O’Day
Gwynne
Pugh
Absent: Arlene Hopkins
Also
Present: Kyle Ferstead, Commission
Secretary
Suzanne
Frick, Director of Planning / PCD
Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Kevin
McKeown, City Council Liaison
Stephanie
Reich, Urban Designer
Amanda
Schachter, Planning Manager
4. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
5. PLANNING
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chair Brown thanked Ms. Frick and staff for setting up the special meeting on October 9, 2004.
6. STATEMENTS
OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar
6-A. Conditional
Use Permit 03-012, VAR 03-024, 1001, 1009 and
Jonathan Lait, Acting Principal
Planner, informed the Commission of a typographical error, Condition #26 on
page nine, strike the words “in addition the generator.”
Commissioner Dad made a motion for
approval of the Statement of Official Action as amended. Commissioner O’Day
seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
6-B. Design Compatibility Permit 04-005,
Tract Map 04-013,
Commissioner
O’Day made a motion for approval. Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion. Chair
Brown and Commissioner Dad abstained, so there were only three Commissioners
voting, therefore this item was tabled and later considered between items 7-B
and 7-C.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion for
approval of the Statement of Official Action for
7. PUBLIC
HEARINGS:
7-A. Appeal
04-007 of Architectural Review Board Determination (04ARB-224),
The Commission made the following ex parte
communication disclosures regarding this appeal: Commissioner Dad disclosed
that she walked around the site at approximately 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October
20, 2004; Chair Brown and Commissioner Pugh disclosed that they also drove by
the site on October 20, 2004, prior to the current public hearing.
Commissioners Clarke and O’Day had nothing to disclose.
Urban Designer Stephanie Reich gave the staff report.
The appellants, Elan Glasser and Michael Wolf of the
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Glasser about the three-story
apartment building he resides in. Mr. Glasser stated that it is actually a
two-story building over a carport. Commissioner Pugh noted that Mr. Glasser’s
apartment building is taller than the proposed building. Mr. Glasser stated
that he just wants the roof deck removed.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Glasser about the separation
between the buildings. Mr. Glasser showed slides illustrating the problem with
the proposed carport opening and where the proposed building will be situated
in relation to
Commissioner Clarke commented that certain conditions can be
made on Design Compatibility Permits, such as setbacks for roof deck railings,
however the proposed apartment building was approved administratively. Mr.
Glasser stated that setting back the railings would help, but he would rather
have the roof deck removed.
Commissioner Dad asked Mr. Glasser when he first became
aware of the proposed redevelopment of the adjacent property. Mr. Glasser
stated that he first noted a pending demolition permit sign on the property,
which led him to call the City to find out more. He also stated that he never
received written notice of the development. Commissioner Dad commented that the
Administrative Approval was granted prior to the appellant’s knowledge of the
project. Mr. Glasser stated that he has no knowledge of an Administrative
Approval.
Commissioner O’Day asked Mr. Glasser if his major issue was
the roof deck, then the carport. Mr. Glasser stated that both issues are
important.
Commissioner O’Day asked about the assertion that the
carport will produce a great deal of noise. Mr. Wolf, a stated acoustical
engineer and resident at
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Glasser if there is a solid
wall between the properties. Mr. Glasser stated there is a retaining wall
approximately four feet from the property line on the northside. Commissioner
Clarke asked if there is a proposed wall. Mr. Glasser stated that he believes
there is a six foot wall proposed.
Commissioner Clarke asked if there are openings in the
carport for ventilation. Mr. Wolf stated that the space is ventilated, however
the noise problem comes from the movement of the vehicles. Mr. Glasser added
that the architect had recommended the northside of the carport be sealed,
however the Transportation Management Division (TMD) had denied the request.
The applicant and architect, Brent Eckerman, was present to
discuss the appeal.
Commissioner Clarke commented on the Ocean Park Neighborhood
Development Guide, then expressed concern that the proposed project design
includes a blank first floor wall facing the street. Mr. Eckerman explained
that the second floor balcony and window face the street and the stairs
break-up the front façade. He stated that the building is
“International-style.”
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Eckerman if the chimneys still
need to be so tall since the fireplaces have been changed from wood-burning to
gas. Mr. Eckerman stated he would like to keep the chimneys’ height for
aesthetic reasons.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission
regarding the appeal: Margaret Mills and Carlos Pineiro.
The applicant’s architect, David Ross of Frederick Fisher
Architects, spoke in response to the public comment.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Ross to comment on the
proposed wall between 2220 and
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Ross about the reduction in
header height for the carport opening. Mr. Ross stated that the minimum opening
permitted is seven-feet in height and this cannot be lowered per TMD.
Commissioner Pugh asked Mr. Eckerman if he had considered
using a sound absorbing stucco, such as Pyrock, in the carport. Mr. Eckerman
stated that he had looked into “batts,” however they do not weather well.
The appellant, Mr. Glasser, spoke in response to public
comment.
Commissioner Dad commented that documents provided to the
Commission indicate that the property owner of record is Alison St.Onge. Mr.
Glasser stated that the City receives updated
Chair Brown closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Clarke asked Ms. Reich to comment on the
Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) discussion. Ms. Reich stated that the
project was reviewed for pedestrian-orientation standards and determined to
comply based on the front façade stairs and second floor openings. She also
stated that the proposed design is compatible with
Commissioner Dad asked Ms. Reich to outline the
Administrative Approval notification process. Ms. Reich stated that there are
no noticing requirements. Ms. Frick stated that lists of pending applications
are public record. Ms. Reich then cited the sections of the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Guide that pertain to pedestrian-orientation.
[Commissioner Johnson arrived at this point and recused
himself from voting on this item.]
Commissioner Clarke asked Ms. Reich about the parking
configuration for the proposed project and the two positions presented at this
hearing. Ms. Reich stated that at the first public hearing then ARB Chairperson
Howard Laks had recommended reviewing the parking configuration with TMD,
however the applicant was not amenable to this suggestion. At the second public
hearing, it was agreed that the approved plan meets the requirement.
Commissioner O’Day made a motion to deny the appeal and
uphold the ARB’s approval. He stated that he is sympathetic to the neighbors,
however the proposed project is a sensitive design and is consistent with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Pugh seconded the motion. He stated that the
staff report is convincing. He commented that the adjacent property is a
60-foot wide lot with 8 units and the property in question is a 40-foot wide
lot. He also commented on changes in the height requirements since the adjacent
building was built and noted the “lower scale” of the proposed project.
Commissioner Pugh commented on the front elevation, which has good composition,
and his preference for the front stairs over a large opening. He also commented
that the building has few openings facing toward the building to the north.
Commissioner Clarke stated he has a profound problem with
the building design as it does not, in his opinion, meet the Ocean Park
Neighborhood Development Guide as regards pedestrian-orientation. He commented
on the Commission’s history to reject such a design. He also stated that having
the parking at the front of property is not in keeping with the Ocean Park
Guide. He stated a preference for a redesign of the project.
Commissioner Dad commented that she likes the look of the
building, however, she also shares Commissioner Clarke’s concerns regarding the
Ocean Park Neighborhood Development Guide. She expressed disappointment that
the applicant did not return to TMD for a review. Commissioner Dad stated she
has two objections: (1) the violation of the
Commissioner Pugh commented that he does not see a violation
in this project and that the front stairs include a front entry and he likes to
see people using stairs. He also commented that the “rear gap” is an asset to
the project. Commissioner Pugh stated that a pitched roof, instead of the flat
roof, would obscure views more. He expressed the opinion that the project
design is interesting with its contemporary design and the project is very
small scale compared to other residential projects the Commission has been
reviewing.
Commissioner Clarke agreed about the scale of the project.
He asked if setting back the railing on the roof deck would be a favorable
compromise. Commissioner Pugh stated that it is not a big issue. There was
discussion regarding the railings. Commissioner Clarke suggested that the
railings be flush with the chimney projections.
Chair Brown commented that this is a difficult issue, however
the staff report is well done and clear. She also commented that the appellant
made an articulate presentation. On the other hand, Chair Brown commented that
staff asserts that the project meets the Ocean Park Neighborhood Development
Guide. She noted that there are not enough votes to either approve or deny the
appeal.
Commissioner Clarke agreed with Chair Brown that a technical
denial was probable. He then offered the following amendment: that the roof
deck railing be setback on the northside an additional distance so it is flush
with the chimney projections. Commissioner O’Day accepted the friendly
amendment.
Commissioner Pugh suggested the use of “pyrock” for the
interior walls of the carport to reduce sound. Commissioner O’Day accepted this
amendment.
The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the ARB
determination was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Dad*, Johnson, O’Day, Pugh; ABSTAIN:
Johnson; ABSENT:
* Commissioner Dad stated for the record that this will be
the last time she votes for a project in
[The Commission took a break from 8:42 p.m. to 8:53 p.m.]
7-B. Conditional
Use Permit 04-009,
The Commission made the following ex
parte communication disclosures regarding this project: Commissioner Pugh
disclosed that he drove by the site on Wednesday, October 20, 2004. There were
no other disclosures.
Urban Designer Stephanie Reich gave
the staff report.
Chair Brown asked Ms. Reich why this
application is on the agenda if it so incomplete. Ms. Reich stated that the
application is running up against its Permit Streamlining Act deadline even
with its 90-day extension. She stated that staff has been working with the
applicant, however necessary information has not been provided.
Commissioner Johnson stated that
there seems to be three issues of contention: (1) where alcohol will be served;
(2) lack of Police Department recommendation due to omission of type of alcohol
license being applied for; and (3) whether there is adequate parking on-site.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
what type of alcohol license the applicant has applied for. Ms. Reich stated
that the application does not contain this information.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about analysis on the separation of uses in the project and flow of alcohol
use. Ms. Reich stated that staff was focused on resolving the parking issues,
so the interior uses had less focus.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff if
there will be dual uses. Ms. Reich stated that no appropriate responses have
been received from the applicant regarding this issue.
Commissioner Johnson asked staff
about deeming an application complete and what is precluded. Mr. Lait stated
that applications are deemed complete at the public counter, however staff may
still asked for additional information for clarification of the application.
Commissioner Dad asked if there is
an architect connected with the project. Mr. Lait stated that there is only the
property owner who is also an attorney.
Commissioner Clarke commented that there
is no dimensioned floor plan. Ms. Reich stated that this is correct.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff to
explain the formula used to determine that 28 parking space are needed. Ms.
Reich explained that the square footage provided for each use was used as the
basis for determining that 28 parking spaces are required.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff if
there is currently required parking for the property. Ms. Reich stated that 11
spaces are required.
Commissioner Clarke asked staff
about the current uses on the property. Ms. Reich stated there is an attorney’s
office, the property owner’s office and possibly a bakery. She commented that
three of the five storefronts are vacant. Mr. Lait stated that staff evaluated
the existing uses, reviewed old codes for the site and regulations pertaining
to abandoned uses.
Commissioner Pugh asked staff about
the parking layout and the review by TMD. Ms. Reich stated that the parking
plans shows 22 parking spaces, which causes concern for TMO due to requirements
for the opening to the parking lot. Per TMD, the driveway opening must be 20
feet wide for adequate ingress and egress, the current opening is only 14-feet
wide.
Commissioner Dad asked staff when
this application was filed. Ms. Reich stated it was filed on June 3, 2004.
Commissioner Dad commented that she understands staff’s problem with this
application.
The applicant, Anthony Kling, was
present to discuss his application.
The following members of the public
addressed the Commission: Arthur Turney, Anita Badostain, Joel Sender, Michelle
Thompson, Louisa Fish, Nina Yagi, Pejman Partiyeli, Bohdan Futala, Okema Owens,
Joon Hyon Yang, and Joey Minervini (who also spoke for Rosita Bastow).
One member of the public, Doug
Newton, submitted a request to speak form, but was not present when his name
was called.
Mr. Kling and Mary Kling spoke in
response to the public comment.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling
about the floor plans and the use of the middle storefront. Mr. Kling stated
that on July 7, 2004, a bakery was approved for
Commissioner Clarke commented on a
similar mixed use restaurant recently before the Commission (Gotham Hall on the
Third Street Promenade) and how the submission differed from the one presented
tonight. He explained staff and the Commission’s frustration with this
schematic plan rather than architectural drawings. Mr. Kling stated that
staff’s opening statements had false information and that his original
submission did include a floor plan with seating and scaled with dimension. He
also stated that staff only met with him once and never provided a list of
requirements.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling
if there is an architect involved with the project. Mr. Kling responded that
there is no need for an architect since there is no structural renovations to
the building except for the three openings between the units. Commissioner
Clarke commented that it would customary to have an architect or design
professional, especially since the use will require additional restrooms, new
electrical wiring and possibly other things. He stated that this application is
not a complete submission.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
staff states 28 parking spaces are required and the current plan shows 20 –22
parking spaces. Mr. Kling stated that “the staff report is incorrect” and
referred to TMD’s letter from Michelle Glickert dated October 12, 2004, which
states that 23 parking spaces are required. Commissioner Johnson asked if this
includes the loading zone. Mr. Kling answered in the affirmative and that the
letter says the application is “close to approval.” He also stated that the
applicant has agreed to reduce the size/square footage of his business to meet
the parking requirements.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kling
to respond to the Police Department’s concern regarding “the area requiring
much attention.” Mrs. Kling stated that she spoke personally to Vice Officers
Flores and Rodriguez, showed them the premises and they were thrilled to have our
business coming to
Chair Brown asked Mr. Kling what
type of alcohol license is being applied for. Mr. Kling stated it is the one
required for dining, perhaps a Type 48. He did not know the exact type number.
Chair Brown asked where alcohol will be served. Mr. Kling stated alcohol
service will be at 3115 and 3119.
Commissioner Clarke asked Mr. Kling
where the required parking spaces for the other units is provided. Mr. Kling stated
there are no parking requirements for the existing units, but he is willing to
provide the spaces required by TMD.
Chair Brown asked Mr. Kling how many
seats are proposed for the restaurant. Mr. Kling stated that initially he
proposed more seats, however
Chair Brown closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Pugh stated that he is
having a problem with the inaccurate plans and is unable to make a rational
judgment on the application. As an example, Commissioner Pugh cited the plan
for
Commissioner Johnson made a substitute
motion to continue.
Commissioner O’Day seconded
Commissioner Pugh’s motion to deny.
Commissioner Clarke asked if a
continuance is an option. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum commented that it
is not clear whether the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) applies because there
are cases where an applicant is not seeking development changes, then PSA does
not apply. On the other hand, PSA does address changes in intensity, which this
project may bring about. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum further commented
that the applicant contends that PSA does apply in a letter submitted to the
Commission. He noted that a PSA extension, which the applicant alleges he was
coerced into granting. The new PSA deadline is November 20, 2004. He
recommended that the cautious path to take would be to act on the application
at this hearing.
Commissioner Johnson withdrew his
substitute motion.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that the applicant has made additional allegations regarding when the
application was deemed complete, issues with the submittal information and
whether there was sufficient notice to the applicant regarding required
information.
Commissioner Clarke expressed
support for the motion. He advised the applicant to retain a design
professional to create clear plans to meet Code requirements and meet required
parking for the revised proposal.
Chair Brown commented that for
whatever reason this lack of clarity exists, it has rendered the Commission
unable to act on the application.
Commissioner Johnson stated that
successful projects meet the requirements and present clear plans, have
neighborhood support and, for alcohol permits, have Police Department approval.
He encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors. He then expressed support
for the motion. He stated that if the applicant chooses to reapply, the plans
needed to rendered by a professional, as well the parking plan, and mitigation
of noise and trash also needs to be addressed.
The motion to deny the CUP was
approved by the following vote:
AYE: Brown, Clarke, Dad, Johnson,
O’Day, Pugh; ABSENT:
[Item
6-B was voted on at this time, then the regular agenda was resumed.]
7-C. Resolution Amending the
Commission’s Rules of Order 3(b), 3(d), 17(b), 17(e) and 31, and Adding Rule 30 to Clarify
the Procedures to Place Items on the Agenda, Modify the Time Allotment for
Applicants, Appellants and the Public; Specify the Hour at Which New Items May
Not Be Considered, Address the Consideration of Late Written Submittals, and
Clarify the Circumstances Which the Commission Can Consider Not on the Agenda;
Consideration of Modifications to Agenda Policies Consistent with These
Amendments to the Commission’s Rules of Order. [Staff:
The Commission discussed whether to
postpone this item until the full Commissioner is present. The Commission
decided to move forward as two Commissioners will be absent at the next
meeting.
Chair Brown asked the Commission how
they want to address the amendments, as a whole or by Rule change. Commissioner
Dad stated it should be moved forward as a whole, despite there being parts she
does not agree with. She stated her prior comments are already on the record.
Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
clarified the issue of the special time limitations which apply when a certain
number of people are present for either one or a variety of items (page 17). He
stated that the Commission had asked for the time limits to parallel the City
Council time limits. He further stated that the City Council limits speakers to
two minutes if they wish to speak on multiple items. Additionally, the number
of people speaking is a different trigger figure. The Council is 15 or more
people on one item or 40 or more on any combination of items. For the Rule
amendment, it now reads 7 or more for one item or 20 or more for any
combination of items.
Chair Brown asked to change the
sentence structure on Rule 17(e), third line up from the bottom paragraph,
instead of “members of the public’s remarks” to “remarks of any member of the
public.” The Commission and Senior Land
Use Attorney Rosenbaum agreed.
Chair Brown asked about new Rule 31,
regarding late submittals, and whether the Commission really set a “five page”
limit. The Commission did not recall. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
responded that this was the proposal, however it can be changed. There was
further discussion on who this pertained to, either applicants or public, and
the discussion resulted in the retention of the original language of Rule 31.
Commissioner Pugh commented that it
is his opinion that the amendments being discussed this evening are friendly to
public participation and that people can speak in the two-minute time limit.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that
Rule 22 add the term “technical denial.” Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum
stated that this is not part of the Rule changes being discussed tonight.
Commissioner Clarke commented on
Rule 3(d)(2) as regards adding “emergency items” which is already provided for
in this Rule.
Chair Brown stated that the result
of the Commission’s discussion is to accept the changes to all Rules noted in
the staff report except new Rule 31 (eliminate proposed amendment).
City Council Liaison McKeown noted a
change that should be made on page 19, second paragraph, regarding reference to
“persons authorized to be within the rail.” He noted there is no rail in
Chambers. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that can be addressed the
next time the Rules are amended.
The six Commissioners present
unanimously approved the amendments to the Rules of Order.
8. DISCUSSION:
Public Input Permitted
8-A. Discussion
of “soft-story” retrofit property identification, compliance requirements and
methods, potential escrow sign-offs, and possible improvements in additional
earthquake preparedness requirements. Requested by Commission Johnson on
October 6, 2004.
Commissioner Johnson expressed
concern regarding the soft-story retrofitting process in the City and that
there is no sign-off done when escrow closes on properties. He stated that
making sure identified buildings have completed the retrofitting process should
be done pro-actively and as part of on-going earthquake preparedness. He also
stated that he wants to know where the City stands in regards to compliance to
this issue.
Commissioner Pugh asked if this is
an issue which can be searched for with the Permits Plus system to find
outstanding violations. Ms. Frick responded in the negative. She stated the
Code Enforcement information is kept in a separate database. Commissioner Pugh
asked if such information can be specifically asked for. Ms. Frick responded in
the positive.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he
aware that many problems arrive at the close of escrow because of the
requirement to have the soft-story retrofit completed. Ms. Frick commented that
Code Compliance will be at the next meeting for the quarterly update and this
issue can be addressed to them. She further commented that if a building is in
the plan check process, staff will require the retrofitting, however if someone
is applying for a lesser permit, such as for installation of a water heater,
the requirement would not be caught.
Action:
Discussion held. Continued to November 3, 2004.
8-B. Review and
comment on Chair Brown's summary report of the October 9, 2004 Special Planning
Commission Meeting pertaining to the Land Use and Circulation Elements and
Zoning Ordinance Update. Develop Recommendations to forward to the City Council
regarding the Public Participation Program, Planning Commission Involvement,
Data Collection Strategies, and Resource Allocation Enhancements, related to
the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning Ordinance Update.
Chair Brown commented on her draft
memorandum to the City Council regarding the discussion held on October 9,
2004, at the Commission’s Special Meeting. She asked the Commission to comment
and offer revisions.
Commissioner Johnson commented that
the consultant should be required to come up with a Mission Statement part way
through the process. Commissioner Pugh questioned what such a statement would
achieve. Commissioner Johnson responded that it would be signal to the City by
the residents as to the direction the process should take. Commissioner Pugh
expressed concern with the use of a Mission Statement and suggested an interim
report instead. Commissioner Johnson suggested calling it a “Statement of
Goals.” Commissioner Dad expressed concern that this idea of Mission Statement
would elongate the process and stated that the goal is to create a vision for
the City and how it can be accomplished.
Ms. Frick stated that staff
envisions the following: joint meetings with City Council; workshops and
information collection; a document called a Working Principals report agreed to
by the Commission and Council; then after more meetings, an Opportunities and
Challenges Reports; then later an Alternatives Plan; then a Preferred Plan and
Guiding Principles, which provides information for the implementation of the
vision. Eventually there will be draft plans. She suggested that some of these
documents may help the Commission identify for the Community the direction to
take.
Commissioner Johnson asked when the
first document would be available. Ms. Frick stated this would be in the first
third of the process and will be reviewed by the Council and Commission in a
joint meeting. Commissioner Johnson commented that this sounds like what he is
looking for as a signpost for the community. Ms. Frick reminded the Commission
that no one knows what the community wants yet and that flexibility needs to be
maintained. She stated that there will be a great deal of information gathered.
Commissioner Johnson asked that the “working principle” be included on the flow
chart. Ms. Frick answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Clarke commented that
this is an excellent summary of the Commission’s meeting and thanked Chair
Brown for putting it together. On page two, item 2d, fits with what
Commissioner Johnson was suggesting.
There were no request to speak forms
submitted for this item.
Commissioner O’Day concurred with
Commissioner Clarke regarding the summary. He then offered the following
comments: page one, last paragraph, line five, change “would” to “may;” and on
page two, second paragraph, remove “the front line” in favor of “becoming an
expert…” He expressed the opinion that
this would be descriptive of the Commission’s discussion and role. Or “The
Commission considers it responsibility to become an expert for the City
Council…” Commissioner Pugh expressed the opinion that “experts” is too much to
ask.
City Council Liaison McKeown
commented that this issue dealt with establishing a line of communication, so
perhaps “as additional eyes and ears for the City Council” process.
Commissioner Pugh expressed the opinion that “front line” was more accurate as
the Commission will be out in the community and available to receive comments.
Commissioner Dad commented that “front line” is a little casual, then suggested
“initial responsibility” instead. Chair Brown suggested “taking the lead and
having the initial responsibility…” This phrase was agreed to by the
Commission.
Commissioner O’Day continued with
Item 2b and 2c, which he felt should include some sort of quantifying numbers
for evaluation purposes, i.e. how many members of the public were educated. He
suggested that this could also become a new subset of the list. He also
suggested that item 2e include “a significantly significant sample of the
entire community.” Commissioner Pugh expressed concern that this was being too
specific. Commissioner Clarke suggested that it be both quantitative and
qualitative.
Commissioner O’Day suggested that
Item 2f be revised as follows: “The goals of the
Commissioner O’Day concluded his
suggestions by recommending that the last paragraph be deleted.
Commissioner Pugh expressed the
opinion that the Commission needs to discuss how the Commission will operate in
this process while creating the vision. He stated that the Commission needs to
work at the level that will be most effective while relying on staff to review
the small issues. Commissioner Clarke agreed that there needs to be some
oversight set on materials produced and that they are fulfilling the policy
direction created. He referenced an e-mail from Ellen Brennan. He then
suggested that Item 2d include something about “survey instruments and
educational materials’ for oversight purposes. Commissioner Clarke concluded by
saying he did not want to micromanage, just have oversight on the process.
Commissioner Pugh stated that in
terms of policy direction, he wants to make sure that the Commission is not
predicting the end result, but rather seek out what the community wants.
Commissioner Clarke agreed that things should not be prejudged, however
materials need to be reviewed by the Commission.
Chair Brown asked Ms. Frick a
procedural question regarding revisions to the memorandum and dispersal to the
City Council. Ms. Frick stated that this memorandum is to be an attachment to
the staff report, so the revised copy needs to get to staff early Thursday
morning.
Chair Brown asked Ms. Frick about
the meeting on October 26, 2004, specifically the format and whether a
presentation by the Commission is expected. Ms. Frick explained that staff and
the consultants will be doing an educational presentation, then there will be
discussion of recommendations and direction to staff
There was discussion regarding the
set-up for joint meeting..
9. FUTURE
COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: None.
10. PUBLIC INPUT: None.
11. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:31
p.m.
APPROVED: November 17, 2004