Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_04_17MINUTES OF nm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF nm CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRil., 17, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. ROIL CAIL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Ingell. Ketz. Peirce. Moore, Chmn. Ingell None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White. Recording Secretary Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Commission that it had come to his attention that this meeting of the Planning Commission is in violation of the Brown Act, in that there was a failure to meet the 72-hour posting requirement. He explained that because of the potential criminal and civil sanctions which could be imposed for violations. the Planning Commission should neither conduct business this evening, nor should it hear any of the matters on this evening's agenda. Mr. Lee stated that the only action he would suggest at this time would be to continue the matters to a date certain. Mr. Lee gave background information on the Brown Act, explaining that there are provisions requiring that public hearing agendas be posted in a conspicuous public location 72 hours prior to the date of the meeting. The requirement is to provide public notice not only to property owners who may be directly affected, but also to the general public, who may wish to come and give testimony to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee continued by explaining that there is a possibility of sanctions available against the Planning Commission should it decide to take action on any of these matters. There could be criminal penalties as well as civil penalties. Any decisions made at this time could be overturned and held to be null and void by a court oflaw. since there has not been a due process given in accordance with the requirements of the Brown Act. Mr. Lee stated that, in order to accommodate members of the public who have come tonight to give public testimony. there is a possibility that the public hearing could be opened and testimony could be taken; however, no final decision could take place by the Commission, and the hearing would need to be continued to a date certain. The Commission was advised against such a course of action, however, in that there would still be a potential for civil liability, in that a citizen could claim he was denied his due process in terms of having an opportunity to listen to the testimony and provide rebuttal. Mr. Lee offered several options: to continue the entire meeting to a date certain by way of holding a special meeting; or to continue the items to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. In any event, h e advised that the agenda be posted 72 hours prior to the date of the meeting. Mr. Le e . in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell r egarding opening the public hearing, taking testimony. and continuing the public hearing to a date certain, explained that he would advise against such an action since any deliberations which could be construed as an action taken would still be subject to criminal sanctions and could be overturned in a civil lawsuit. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the agenda was posted in the newspaper and in the public library, as well as within the required 300-foot radius. However, the required 72-hour posting was not done at City Hall. 1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 17 /90 Comm. Rue felt that in the interest of holding a fair public hearing. these matters should be continued as suggested by the City Attorney. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that it would not be appropriate to jeopardize any of the actions taken by the Commission. Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding background history of the Brown Act, stated that he is not aware of many instances where there has been a failure to comply with the 72-hour requirement. He continued by giving background information on the Brown Act, stating that when the requirements were amended, the attorneys present were very clear in their issuance of directives regarding the posting requirements. He again explained that any action taken could be subject to criminal as well as civil liability. Comm. Moore, after hearing the attorney's explanation, agreed that the meeting should be continued. Mr. Lee, in response to a comment from the audience, explained also that no action should be taken on matters which are not public hearings and which have been continued from previous meetings. All matters which are to be considered by the Commission must be posted on the agenda under the terms of the requirements. Mr. Lee, in response to comments as to what course of action to take, stated that there could even be a possible risk in moving to continue this agenda to a date certain; however, he felt that it would be an acceptable risk in that the public would be given notice as to when the matters would be heard and when testimony would be taken. He recommended that the agenda be noticed and posted in the nonnal locations 72 hours prior to the date of the meeting. Comm. Moore noted that there is an opportunity to hold three meetings in May. if necessary. He therefore favored continuing this entire agenda to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. In this way, all hearings could just be moved up. This agenda could either be combined with the agenda for the next meeting; or. if necessary, an additional meeting could be held. It was agreed to continue this entire agenda to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission, May 1, 1990. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M. CERTIFICATION Date 2 P.C. Minutes 4/ l 7 /90