Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 1001 CC REG ITEM 09AMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM 9 . A. T C"I"", TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk DATE: September 25, 2003 (CC Meeting of 10/1/03) SUBJECT: Consider City Council Policy on Commenting on Development Projects before the Planning Commission BACKGROUND The following information has been provided by the City Attorney to allow discussion of a City Council policy with regard to issues associated with Councilmembers providing comments on development projects prior to the Council's consideration of those projects. DISCUSSION When providing input on a development project prior to the Council's consideration of such project, the greatest concern is to avoid an appearance of bias prior to the council's consideration, such that comments made prior to the council's consideration indicate that the applicant will not receive fair consideration of their entitlement at the council stage. California Environmental Quality Act: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth a statutory and regulatory scheme for the review of the environmental impacts associated with a project. Under those regulations, public comment is solicited and must be responded to in writing by the City - -if the comment is received during the comment period. Under the City's own CEQA guidelines, the City may (but is not required to) elect to respond to late comments in writing. Nothing in CEQA or the City's own guidelines requires that a councilmember submit or make comments at any particular point in the process; however, the City is only obligated to respond to such comments in writing if they are received during the noticed public comment period. 000074 Honorable City Council October 1, 2003, Regular Meeting Page 2 Given these requirements, to the extent a councilmember wishes to ensure that his or her comments are responded to in writing (and thus made a part of the public record for the project) , the comments should be submitted in writing during the public comment period. With regard to the bias issue here, a councilmember does not give up his or her rights (First Amendment, or otherwise) simply by being elected. Nor are council members precluded from having opinions. What is problematic, is a disposition (evidenced by comments, statements or actions) that indicates a commitment to a certain outcome on a project, regardless of the information presented to the council at the time of the council's consideration. Thus, during the CEQA process, written comments raising environmental concerns and issues would be appropriate. Other comments concerning a project, not pertaining to environmental issues, would be inappropriate - -at least until the matter is before the council. Non -CEQA Comments: CEQA sets forth a very defined process for obtaining public comments, as described above. Outside of the CEQA process, councilmembers still have rights as members of the public to provide comments on projects. However, outside of the CEQA process, the potential for a demonstration of bias becomes greater. Thus, a councilmember speaking before the planning commission on a project could raise an issue of bias -- especially where that project will come before the council anyway. Also, even where the project would not normally come before the council, per Moorpark Municipal Code section 17.44.090, a councilmember has the right to bring any decision of the planning commission or community development director before the council for its review, provided the request for a review is provided to the city clerk within 10 business days of the decision. Accordingly, to the extent a councilmember feels strongly about a project and wishes to make comment on that project outside of the CEQA process, there is less potential for the appearance of bias if the councilmember waits to make such comment until the City Council's consideration of the matter, or calls the matter up before the council for review and makes comment at that time rather than attempting to influence the decision of a junior body. 000075 Honorable City Council October 1, 2003, Regular Meeting Page 3 The City Attorney has suggested the City Council may wish to consider a council policy. To summarize, the City Council could consider adding a new policy to the City Council Policies Resolution that would generally state: It is the Council's policy to avoid any attempt to influence the recommendation or decision of the Planning Commission. Excluding written CEQA comments, where a Councilmember intends to participate in decisions affecting a project at the Council level, comments on a project will not be made before the Planning Commission and will be provided at the time of the Council's consideration of the matter as the decision - making body; or in the case of the Planning Commission acting as the final decision - making body, a Councilmember may act to call the matter up before the Council on appeal consistent with Section 17.44.090. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff as deemed appropriate.