An appealing way to conduct business

At first glance, the change the Newport Beach City Council made last

week to its way of calling for reviews of Planning Commission

decisions raises a few red flags. Does altering the process so a

majority of the council must approve the review take away power from

individual council members and, by extension, their constituents?

Will it limit public discussion of potentially important city

business if a sole council member can’t request another hearing? Does

it establish an inconsistency in the process, given that a single

planning commissioner still can request a review of decisions made by

other commissions?

Having reviewed the change, we think the red flags can be lowered.

The new process, while systematically different, is still

fundamentally the same.

The most important similarity is that council-member or

constituent concerns can still be heard in a public forum. If a

council member has questions about a decision, those questions can be

asked in public at a City Council meeting. What is different is that

the discussion, rather than waiting for an official public hearing,

can start immediately. In fact, it will have to because that council

member will need to convince three colleagues to bring the issue back

for a full debate.

By extension, we are convinced that these same initial discussions

will ensure -- and perhaps even publicly display -- individual

council members’ power and influence. As the process was set up, any

council member could call for a public hearing. But rarely did one

member’s questions lead the rest of the council to agree to overturn

the Planning Commission. It was, to a great extent, a waste of the

council’s time, as well as the time of any other people -- residents,

business owners, developers, activists -- involved. By requiring the

majority agreement, it will be clear from the beginning whether a new

discussion will be worth the time. If a member can’t convince three

colleagues at least to discuss the item, what chance is there of

convincing them to overturn the decision?

We do urge the council, of course, to take these initial

discussions about potential appeals seriously. The process will not

work if they are not thoughtful and considerate when questions arise.

They should err, if they must, on the side of too much talk, of too

much debate. If they don’t agree to allow an appeal, that could be

the last time an issue comes before them -- the recourse of having

one council member call an issue forward will be gone.

Months ago, when this issue was being talked about, the Pilot

reported that Councilman Dick Nichols’ many appeals were at the root

of the discussion. Residents at last week’s meeting spoke of their

concern that Nichols was the target. Council members say that is not

the reason. We trust that is true and that they will listen when

Nichols, who since being elected has requested the most reviews,

brings his questions forth. We trust they will do that with all of

their colleagues, present and future.

Finally, we agree that there is an obvious inconsistency between

how the council and the Planning Commission handle appeals. And if

the process established for the City Council works, it may be worth

ending the difference and giving the commission the same

requirements.