Others present:  City Attorney Sterling Solomon

Mayor Daggett excused herself from the meeting at 3:07 p.m.

Planning Manager Alaxandra Pucciarelli, Zoning Code Manager Tiffany Antol, Comprehensive and Neighborhood Planner Sara Dechter, Community Development Director Michelle McNulty, and Communication and Civic Engagement Division Director / City Clerk Stacy Saltzburg provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: 

JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TRAINING
DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OPEN MEETING LAW REMINDERS
RELATIONSHIP TO STAFF
WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN
WHAT IS A SPECIFIC PLAN
ZONING CODE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 
ETHICAL PRINCIPALS IN PLANNING
PUBLIC INTEREST
EX PARTE CONTACT
HOW TO DEAL WITH EX PARTE CONTACT
DUE PROCESS
COMMISSION MEMBER PARTICIPATION AT COUNCIL MEETING
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
MAKING A DECISION/FINDINGS
RELATIONSHIP TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Councilmember Matthews asked whether the Planning and Zoning Commission has the same access to legal counsel during meetings as the City Council does. 

Mr. Solomon confirmed that the Commission does have legal support and identified Senior Assistant City Attorney Christina Rubalcava as the attorney currently working with the Planning and Zoning commission.

Ms. Pucciarelli added that staff typically keeps Commission discussions focused by structuring them around findings and official reports.

Vice Chair Norton raised concerns about the lack of communication when items move from the Commission to the Council. She pointed out that when projects initially denied by the Commission are later approved by Council, it can create confusion and reduce transparency. She expressed the importance of conveying not only votes but also context and discussion, particularly when votes are split. Vice Chair Norton mentioned she had advocated for a Councilmember to attend Commission meetings for better continuity of information.

Vice Mayor Sweet explained she initiated the idea for this meeting months ago to revisit the concept of a liaison. She acknowledged staff’s position against appointing one but reaffirmed that she watches Planning and Zoning meetings online. She also reiterated Mr. Solomon’s advice about having legal counsel present when speaking to developers. Mr. Solomon stated that both staff and legal counsel should be involved in any such meetings.

Councilmember Matthews sated she echoed Vice Chair Norton’s concerns about transparency. She requested that staff provide summaries of denial rationales to offer more clarity, especially when the reasoning is vague or buried among many project components.

Vice Chair Norton acknowledged that this could place staff in an uncomfortable position but suggested a separate summary might alleviate that pressure.

Ms. McNulty stated that such summaries could be included in reports moving forward and that staff could also note changes or address concerns as part of the process.

Councilmember House emphasized how valuable it is for Council to understand the discussions behind dissenting or split votes. She has seen instances where staff have shared insights as private citizens, which helped fill in the gaps. She noted that when developers revise plans following Commission input, it is helpful to understand how those changes might have affected prior votes. Councilmember House expressed support for coordinating that feedback more formally.

Councilmember Matthews asked for clarification on whether commissioners who speak during Council meetings may do so in their official capacity. Mr. Solomon clarified that commissioners may only speak as private citizens, not as representatives of the Commission.

Councilmember Matthews asked whether a commissioner could email information to the Council directly. Mr. Solomon stated that any such input should be part of the staff summary or submitted as written comments through staff.

Councilmember Spence asked whether a developer whose plan is denied by the Commission could return with changes before the matter goes to Council. Mr. Solomon explained that a developer would need to submit an amended plan and go through the process again. Ms. Pucciarelli added that an applicant could withdraw the proposal, revise it, and then reenter the process.

Councilmember Spence and Commissioner Maher asked whether this puts the developer at the back of the line. Ms. Pucciarelli said that while they would not start entirely from beginning, the item would still need to go through proper public noticing and scheduling.
Mr. Solomon clarified the distinction: if Council remands a case, it stays in the queue, but if the applicant withdraws it, they go to the back of the line.

Commissioner Sheehy shared a past experience where she did not disclose a prior professional relationship with a developer. She asked whether such relationships should be disclosed. Mr. Solomon advised that disclosing any relationship that would be considered new information to the public is best practice.

Vice Mayor Sweet thanked staff for organizing the meeting.

None

The Joint City Council / Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held June 30, 2025, adjourned at 4:05 p.m.