Good morning, Chair and Commissioners –
I am speaking for Citizens Planning Association regarding some changes CPA members have been noticing in regard to Planning Department procedures and we would like to make 3 suggestions.
We were very surprised when we first heard about the over the counter approval of the Sentinel oil trucking proposal. Considering current county policies, we immediately found the MND to be wholly insufficient for a project of this magnitude, sending 100,000 oil tankers 250 miles round trip for 50 years and approving this with a one paragraph statement regarding traffic impacts. Fortunately, this approval was appealed.
Then at the appeal hearing, the Commission continues the hearing to have staff create an adaptuve management plan. This the first time most of us have heard about this additional step in the planning process. Usually if a MND is deemed inadequate, the project would be denied.
With the creation of this additional step, does this mean that any MND that is found insufficient will subject the project to further review. In the past, the County would consider conditions of approval and if that did not satisfy the commission, the project would have to be sent back for further environmental review. We would like to ask that the commission request some kind of educational session so the public can learn more about these AMPs.
Recusal policy questions manifested themselves with the Miramar project. One Mont. PC had to recuse himself because he ia a member of the nearby church. His wife serves as a ward. I can’t remember a church member being denied a voice before. Then at the MPC hearing, another commissioner had to recuse herself after the lunch break. I have no problem about the reason for recusal but I do question the procedure. Staff and the applicant’s lawyers all knew the document in question had been submitted days before the hearing. Why wasn’t this discussed at the beginning of the session when ex parte was given? To pulll it out right before the break after dozens of people had given comment seemed unfair to the public.
We would suggest a public discussion of what determines grounds of a recusal. We are old school….it is all based on the appearance of conflict. For another hearing, A commissioner has a decades- long public record of supporting oil projects. He insults an appellant about what has gone on before. That surely gives the appearance of bias and conflict. Focus on the project in front of you. . If you are bringing decades of history in the oil industry into the discussion, recuse yourself.
Secondly, CPA is concerned about what we see if a break in protocol The Montecito Planning Commission was created to deal with projects in the Montecito area. Now we learn that the PD can bypass this decision-making board when there are affordable units being considered. We feel this drastic change in procedure merits a much closer look and a full explanation in front of this board for the public’s opportunity to comment.
Lastly, we think the commission needs to take a closer look at its policy regarding the use of story poles. CPA asked for story poles for a project in VV but we were told by staff and a commissioner that they were not needed. The commissioner repeatedly said he didn’t need story poles. The chair had to remind him that story poles were to help the public get an idea of height and breadth of a project. Story poles were also rejected for the Miramar project. We feel the computer generated simulations do not give the real life perspective and the department needs guidance to make sure the public is fully informed.
Thank you staff and commissioners for consideration of our recommendations. We wish you all a happy holiday.