“Government of the people, by the people, and for the people”
City Council Reviews of Planning Commission Actions and Appeals
Background: Looking back at past City Council Meeting Agendas over the years, significant time is devoted to the City Council reviews of Planning Commission actions related to new builds, remodels, tree and landscaping changes (and appeals of those actions), especially when there are contentious issues related to neighborhood compatibility, views, privacy, size of homes, grading, etc. These reviews typically involve public comments from numerous neighbors either in support or opposition to the subject project as well as the comments from the homeowner(s), their architect and potentially other subject matter experts. Thus, a single review can sometimes utilize two or more hours of a meetings’ agenda.
Question: What are your thoughts on how to balance Council time considerations with the importance of getting these reviews “right” both in terms of the homeowners’ interests as well as that of neighbors, other interested parties and the City as a whole? What ideas do you have for streamlining this process?
Responses:
Gayne Brenneman
“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”The city council does appear to sometimes spend an inordinate amount of time, reviewing appeals, not only from the ‘neighborhood compatibility/planning/fence height/landscaping reviews, from the PVHA, (and/or the PVE Building and Planning commission), but also from the ‘traffic calming’ committee decisions, that impact the neighborhood.
We currently have an ownerous system, via the PVHA ‘Art Jury’, and quite a few new homeowners or ‘remodelers’have asked for a more streamlined process. It is hoped that the new elections in 2020, (moving forward), for 5 PVHA Board Members, will be able to address this problem, and hence, the city would have fewer and fewer ‘appeals’ to the city council, for review.””
Sanford Davidson
“SANFORD DAVIDSON (incumbent)
(Councilmember Davidson declined to supply answers to any of the questions posed)”
Dawn Murdock
“DAWN MURDOCK
”First, we must determine why the rate of appeals of the Planning Commission decisions are increasing. Is there ambiguity that can be clarified? This requires identifying causes of past reviews and interviewing those overseeing these activities to determine where the problems lie.
Implementing the improvements I recommended in Question #6 would reduce the number of reviews coming to Council, and thus reduce Council time spent on these matters.
For appeals or reviews requiring Council attention, we need a more efficient process that provides residents a voice while allowing Council to focus on priority issues identified via the strategic plan. Ideas (needing legal review) include:
• Reducing the time spent on reviews during Council sessions by encouraging residents to submit letters (e.g., 250 word limit);
• Limiting which council meetings can place reviews on the agenda;
• Setting up separate sessions for reviews;
• Creating a council sub-panel to hear reviews in separate session and make a recommendation.””
Jim Roos
“JIM ROOS
”In my time on the Planning Commission only three applications have be appealed to the City Council. The importance of these issues is proportional to an individual’s proximity to the project. Construction is permanent and planning issues are among the most important issues in a community like Palos Verdes Estates. In consideration of people’s time, the City Council may adjust the order of items on the agenda. However, because Planning Commission appeals attract significant interest from the public, it is often appropriate to consider these early in a City Council meeting.
I support the right of appeal both for applicants and their neighbors. Understanding how to apply our Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance is a critical skill for any candidate for City Council. If elected, I would be the only member of the City Council with prior experience on the Planning Commission.””
Bill Sewell
“BILL SEWELL
”Having been a part of a large A&E firm for much of my career, I understand the importance of these reviews. Based on that experience I would recommend pushing the initial approval au-thority to the Planning Commission and let the contentious issues be solved at that level. The Council would only hear appeals.””