In densely populated areas of California, the permitting process is highly controlled, overly controlled to the point that creativity and true public dialogue is irrelevant. In Homer, we have the opportunity to set precedents in the process that will help create the kind of town we want to live in, resolve neighborhood conflicts and still maintain an organic and creative design process. This can only happen if there is active and intense dialogue between designers, developers and the public.
The permitting process currently provides for public testimony at the planning commission in three basic cases. One is when a variance is requested from normal permitted development rules. Two is if a conditional use permit or planned unit development is requested, which is essentially if a use of building configuration is requested that is not listed as normally permitted for the zoning district. Three is for a subdivision permit. In each of these cases, the plan is presented at a public planning commission meeting, which is a venue in which the public has a right to testify in favor or opposition or simply with comments and suggestions.
Notices of these hearings are sent to property owners of adjacent properties, or in the case of a subdivision to property owners within 500 feet of the subdivision. This means that renters are not notified by mail, nor are property owners outside the 500-foot boundary that may be affected by a larger development, though all public hearings are listed in the local newspaper.
If the proposed development is on the list of outright permitted uses in a zoning district, no matter what the design is like, no public hearing is required. A design review process is in the works for the Central Business District only, at this time.
Though the planning commission hearings are an important venue in which opinions can be shared between all neighbors and developers, I would encourage anyone planning a project to make an effort to dialogue with all stakeholders before this point is reached in the permitting process. By the time a project has reached the planning commission, a lot of effort and expense has been put into a project, and it is a lot more costly and time consuming to respond to public concerns.
Also, planning commission meetings follow fairly rigid procedural rules that don’t allow much dialogue or give-and-take between parties. These meetings are intended to be a final opportunity for the public to be heard just before a project is permitted.
Though property rights are based on Common Law, and basically say you can do what you want within the boundaries of your property, things change in more densely populated areas. Activities on one property affect the economic value of neighboring properties, they affect hydrology and other natural systems beyond a property’s border, and they affect the character of an area much larger than the lot itself. In this case, these effects have to be regulated by a consensus of all those affected, not just the property owner. Common law also disallows anyone from influencing anyone else’s property. This fact is the main reason that the City Code exists, and it is the primary responsibility of the planning staff.
The planning commission, staff and city council can only make decisions based on findings. These findings must be based on ordinances in place at the time of the permit application. The ordinances are fairly flexible, so interpretation is the key to how the code is used.
When addressing the commission, emotional testimony should be kept to a minimum, and only expressed to emphasis interpretation of ordinance. If testimony is not based on code, the commissioners probably will not have time or knowledge to translate the desires of the testifier into code language that can be used to permit, deny or place conditions on a permit request.
When a large number of people are testifying about a single issue, it is best to make different points, rather than reiterate what every other person has already said. Meetings are tedious and boring, and the more efficient and to-the-point that the public can be, the better their chance of being listened to patiently by the commissioners.
David Scheer is the owner of Analytical Design, an architectural and planning firm, and Second Bottom Line, LLC, a property development firm. He also owns property adjacent to the “Sportsman’s Resort” project on Ocean Drive.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
