Mayor Pro Tem Andy Stern says project appeals are “a huge drain on the planning staff.”
By Jonathan Friedman/Assistant Editor
The City Council Monday night requested a staff investigation into how much project appeals cost the city.
Mayor Sharon Barovsky and Mayor Pro Tem Andy Stern suggested that the city staff time needed to address appeals costs more ($292 for the initial finding, $159 for each additional finding) than the amount of money an appellant pays to bring administrative project approvals before the Planning Commission, or Planning Commission approvals before the City Council.
If city staff confirms their suspicions when it presents a report at the April 27 council meeting, this could mean the council would look into raising the price of filing an appeal to cover the cost to the city.
“It’s a huge drain on the planning staff,” Stern said. “And I think we’ve got to look at the cost. Otherwise we just subsidize everything. And I don’t know if that’s fair to everybody.”
Barovsky said she knew of one appealed project that cost the city “tens of thousands of dollars.” She said after Monday’s meeting that she was speaking about two projects: the Lou Adler/Bill Chadwick conflict over Chadwick’s construction of a home on Carbon Beach, and Arthur and Kimberly Silver’s project to build a home on a coastal bluff above Pacific Coast Highway. Although both of these projects cost the city in the range Barovsky mentioned, neither were straight appeals. One was a court case rather than an actual appeal and the other was an appeal that led to litigation.
The Planning Commission granted Adler an appeal request in December 2003, but the decision was reversed just two weeks later after two commissioners were fired for granting the appeal. The issue then went to court and no actual appeal was heard. The Silver project was appealed from the Planning Commission to the City Council in 2002, but it, too, went to litigation.
John Mazza, who is a frequent critic of city project approvals and has appealed projects as part of different groups, said the ability to appeal a project is important and should not be made difficult.
“When there’s some principal that comes along, you should be able to afford to come to court, [which is] the Planning Commission, City Council, and state your case,” Mazza said.
Barovsky said raising the price of administrative costs for appeals would not be a strain on those wishing to file them because there is still the option to appeal a Planning Commission-approved coastal development permit to the Coastal Commission, avoiding the City Council and thus the cost to the city. However, Councilmember Jeff Jennings pointed out that not all projects are eligible to be appealed to the Coastal Commission, only those within what is called the “appealable zone.”
Film issue close to done
The council continued its discussion from December on revising the city’s motion picture film permitting laws. Like last time, heated debate took place among council members, film professionals and residents who are paid for their homes to be used for filming. But this time, the council was able to give city staff more specific recommendations, and City Attorney Christi Hogin is expected to return with an ordinance proposal at a future meeting.
The most contentious part of the discussion involved the number of days filming can occur at one place.
Hogin had proposed to the council that a person be able to obtain a permit for more than the current maximum allowed, 14 days within a 12-month period, if the resident can get written consent from all neighbors within a 500-foot radius. But an attorney representing residents using their homes for filming said that was unconstitutional because a neighbor could then extort the resident in exchange for a signature. In answer to that, Hogin proposed the resident trying to obtain a permit could appeal the request to the Planning Commission if the person was unable to obtain all the signatures.
However, the council decided against this because it would create a situation where somebody needs the permit on short notice, but must wait as long as two weeks until the next Planning Commission meeting. As a resolution, the council decided to extend the maximum filming days to 16.
Additionally, the council proposed extending the maximum number of days allowed in a 12-month period for still-film shooting to 50 days. The current maximum is 20 days. The council also proposed banning the use of helicopters in all types of film shoots.
Plastic foam saga continues
Barovsky said the council would address revising the recently approved ordinance to ban plastic foam at its May 23 meeting. Earlier this year, the council passed a ban on the substance, also known by the trademark name Styrofoam; to go into effect on July 1. But the language in the ordinance outlawed more than what the council said it had intended, including the prohibition of coffee cup lids. Several restaurateurs came to the council meeting earlier this month to voice opposition to the ordinance.