One of the few things the Code Enforcement Task Force managed to agree on at Monday evening’s meeting, without debate, is the city should complete a Local Coastal Plan to get the Coastal Commission out of the city’s business.
But ironically, the decision is late-coming, given the recent signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 988 by Gov. Gray Davis, giving the California Coastal Commission authority to develop a Local Coastal Plan for the City of Malibu.
Otherwise, the meeting went on in the usual manner, except for the fact that city officials were absent for the first time.
As task force members attempted to diplomatically agree on ways to improve code enforcement policies, one member handed out copies of the Commissions and Boards and Committees Handbook with a section highlighted in pink.
The highlighted section states: “It is not appropriate for individual members to present their personal views or recommendations as representing the commission unless such body has voted to approved such action.”
Some members did not agree with the highlighted statement.
“I don’t think it’s right to gag people from speaking out their own opinion,” said task force member Judy Decker, who believes members should be able to express opinions individually, as long as they don’t say their opinions are representative of the entire task force.
In prior meetings, the group has grown increasingly frustrated with dead ends encountered on issues, and some had expressed their personal opinions on possible solutions. After passing its targeted September deadline to bring finalized recommendations to the council, some members of the group seem to feel the issues are dragging on uselessly once more.
“We could be here for months,” said a task force member.
Debating on code enforcement policy and procedures, the task force tried to minimize additional costs incurred by residents when the city requires additional testing as an applicant attempts to obtain permits for additions and unpermitted structures.
A third and last recommendation packet the group is working on includes policy and procedure recommendations which touch on geology requirements.
To minimize costs, some suggested the city keep a database of areas that have already been surveyed geologically.
But others contended this would not be feasible since homeowners, who initially paid for a report, own it, and may not want to let the city have it.
The city is trying to protect itself from litigation by requiring property owners to provide geology reports, but the task force is attempting to minimize the necessity of these requirements to reduce costs to applicants.
Geology issues are like a “big can of worms,” said a task force member.
“The idea is to tell council to leave small projects alone,” said Dusty Peak, task force member.
The task force also re-affirmed the city should not make a profit on planning costs. Since residents were complaining about the cost of obtaining permits, the task force wants to send a message to the City Council about their concerns in that regard.
No cost imposed by the city should exceed 10 percent of the total cost of the proposed project, the members said.
As members talked about the lengthy application process still in existence, Marissa Coughlan reminded the group the city already has a pre-application process in place.
For a fee of $250, homeowners can sit down with a planner and review their plans ahead of time to avoid costly expenses. The planner steers them in the right direction. Once the applicant actually begins the process, the cost of the consultation fee is applied toward the cost of the permit application.
In the end, the task force reviewed a few more items, agreeing an easy and quick method in working on anything with the city does not exist.
Task force members did agree that acceptance of already existing studies and reports for the database should be the first priority.