HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 1119 CC REG ITEM 09BMOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
ITEM 9 - a -
NT
FROM: Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk
DATE: November 13, 2003 (CC Meeting of 11/19/03)
SUBJECT: Consider City Council Policy on Commenting on Development
Projects before the Planning Commission
BACKGROUND
At the City Council's regular meeting on October 1, 2003, the
Council discussed whether a policy was needed regarding commenting
on development projects before the Planning Commission. (Attachment
1 is the October 1 staff report with further background
information.) The City Attorney was directed to return with draft
policy language.
DISCUSSION
The City Attorney has provided the following draft policy language
for City Council consideration:
"It is the Council's policy to avoid any attempt to
influence the recommendations or decisions of the
Planning Commission. Accordingly, Councilmembers shall
refrain from making or submitting comments on a project
while the matter is before the Planning Commission and
shall instead make such comments 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
wishing to make comment on the matter may act to call the
matter up before the Council on appeal consistent with
Section 17.44.090 of the Municipal Code, rather than
comment on the matter while it is before the Planning
Commission.
000159
Honorable City Council
November 19, 2003, Regular Meeting
Page 2
Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Councilmember may make
or submit a comment on a matter while it is before the
Planning Commission, if the Councilmember does not
participate in consideration of the matter when that
matter is before the City Council. In such a situation,
the Councilmember shall make clear at the time of any
comment that the Councilmember is making or submitting
such comment as an individual, rather than in his or her
capacity as a Councilmember.
Additionally, a Councilmember may submit written comments
on a project during the CEQA comment period for an EIR,
if the Councilmember wishes written responses to be
generated by the City to such written comments. If the
Councilmember submits such comments, the Councilmember
need not refrain from participating in consideration of
the project at the Council level, provided that such
written comments must be limited to the environmental
issues associated with the project."
STAFF RECOMMNDATION
Direct staff to incorporate the City Attorney's draft policy
language in the next update of the City Council's Policies
Resolution.
Attachment: October 1, 2003 Staff Report
000160
.ATTACHMEN1
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TTFM 9. A.
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.
000161
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 councilmembers 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.
000162
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
13.44.090.
STAFF RECOL- 1ENDATION
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
000163