The Planning Commission Monday night continued a small variance request, a water treatment facility application, and a bed and breakfast environmental impact certification at the request of city staff, which needs more time to finalize its recommendations.
The commission reviewed a number of policies it currently uses, starting with ex-parte communications.
These communications take place when a commissioner meets with an applicant or with an opponent of a particular project pending review by the panel. The problem is these discussions, done outside of formal city governmental meetings and without any form of record keeping, may not be fully disclosed at meetings but can influence the way a commissioner votes. Thus, the commission wanted to clarify how these ex-parte communications should be handled and disclosed.
Planning Commission Chair Richard Carrigan believes these communications are important and informative.
“You are better informed with ex-parte communications,” he said, “even if they carry a risk, like failure to disclose.”
Carrigan recommended that commission members should take notes of discussions they may have to remember what was said. Everything should be disclosed about possible influences, he said.
“Information is the lifeblood of the commission and you can get that information on site visits and in speaking with the public,” Carrigan explained. “As chairman, I am willing to accept the responsibility for the entire commission if they choose to engage in ex-parte communications. All I ask is complete disclosure.”
But even if it is legally permissible to have ex-parte communications, as long as they are completely disclosed and everyone is given an opportunity to respond at public meeting, City Attorney Christi Hogin recommended that commissioners should be wary.
She noted these communications could become a burden for decision makers, as they would have to remember and actually report every contact with an applicant or opponent.
“It’s a potential risk,” she said, because if they don’t disclose everything then the public is robbed of an opportunity to respond.
Written comment guidelines were also clarified.
While the public is allowed to submit written material right up to meeting time, the commission suggested that any such materials should simultaneously be submitted to city staff. The commission also requested that materials should be submitted 48 hours prior to a meeting whenever possible so that matters of concern can be properly considered.
The commission also clarified some procedural matters that have been confusing in the past. Historically, when an applicant goes to the planning director and the director denies an application, the matter may be brought to the commission on appeal. But often, the appeal that ended up in front of the commission contains changes that were made after the initial denial, and this creates confusion for the commission and the director.
Thus, the commission established it would only hear the exact same projects that were approved or denied by the director with the initial application.
If an applicant hears comments that he or she wants to act upon when their case is before the commission, they can ask for a continuance so that changes can be implemented. But if the commission voted on a particular item and the item is brought to the City Council on appeal, again, no alternations will be allowed so the council is looking at the same project that was denied by the commission, not a modified one.
At Monday night’s meeting, the commission continued the following items:
A variance request for a 250-square foot beach storage shed was continued because it needs to be reviewed by the Environmental Review Board as the project may impact an ESHA (environmentally sensitive habitat area).
A request by the Malibu Bay Company to construct a new, 1,900 square foot wastewater treatment facility in the Civic Center area was continued to Nov. 20, because staff wanted additional time to prepare a report that addresses new concerns raised by the company, the Regional Water Quality control Board and Winter Canyon neighbors.
A 32-unit bed and breakfast Forge Lodge project was also continued to Nov. 18 to allow staff to gather more data and respond to questions raised by the commission and the public.