Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5e - Clarification and Approval of Administrative Appeal Fees for Inclusion in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule Item 5e Department: Attorney Cost Center: 1501 For Agenda of: 6/1/2021 Placement: Consent Estimated Time: N/A FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Kelly White, TAO Legal Analyst SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FEES FOR INCLUSION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting and confirming various fees for Administrative Appeals;” and 2. Approve a fee to appeal to the Tree Committee consistent with current language of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.24; and 3. Confirm the applicability of an existing fee to appeal an administrative citation to the Administrative Review Board; and 4. Confirm the applicability of an existing fee to appeal an administrative citation to the Construction Board of Appeals; and 5. Approve modifications to the language of the Comprehensive Fee Schedule to clarify the applicability of the fees referenced above; and 6. Request that the Administrative Review Board consider staff recommended modifications to the administrative citation appeal process, as currently codified, and recommend to the City Council any changes or fee modifications deemed necessary. DISCUSSION Background Tree Committee In 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1664 which, in part, repealed and replaced sections 12.24.090 and 12.24.180 of the City’s Tree Regula tions. After adoption of Ordinance 1664, no decision of the Tree Committee (“Committee”) was appealable to the City Council, making the role of the Committee advisory to either the Community Development Director (SLOMC 12.24.090(F)(2)) or the applicable “approving authority” (SLOMC 12.24.090(F)(4)). Consistently, applications under Municipal Code section 12.24.090(E)(3) for tree removals “based on property owner convenience” also call on the Committee to advise the Community Development Director so a decision can be made. Page 183 of 823 Item 5e Currently, though no decisions of the Tree Committee are appealable to the City Council, the following remains in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule: Figure 1. Screen capture, FY 2021-22 Comprehensive Fee Schedule, ‘Finance’ tab, lines 24-26 Staff recommends that the “Tree Committee” fee listed in Figure 1 be applied to those appeals of City Arborist decisions to the Tree Committee under Municipal Code section 12.24.090(E)(2), tree removals for “tree health or hazard mitigation”, which come before the Committee, but currently have no adopted fee. Administrative Review Board In 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1625 which, in part, repealed and replaced Municipal Code section 1.24 (the City’s Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures) and established the Administrative Review Board (ARB) advisory body. Appeals of administrative citations reviewed by the ARB require extensive staff time to schedule, notice, and coordinate each hearing, and to draft a staff report for each agenda item. The “All Other Appeals” fee, shown in Figure 1, is currently being applied to appeals heard by the ARB. Staff recommends Council expressly confirm the applicability of this fee to ARB appeals prior to finalization of the 2021-22 Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Construction Board of Appeals The same Ordinance 1625 referenced above also established the current purview and procedures of the Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA). Since 2015, when the ordinance was adopted, the fee staff has applied to appeals reviewed by the CBOA has been the “All Other Appeals” fee, shown in Figure 1. However, the Comprehensive Fee Schedule currently contains the following fees, which staff believe should more accurately be applied to appeals to the CBOA: Figure 2. Screen capture, FY 2021-22 Comprehensive Fee Schedule, ‘Additional Building Fees’ tab, line 8 Figure 3. Screen capture, FY 2021-22 Comprehensive Fee Schedule, ‘Additional Building Fees’ tab, line 55 Page 184 of 823 Item 5e Staff recommends that the Council confirm as applicable to appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals the fees shown in Figures 2 and 3. Staff requests this confirmation in the interest of public transparency and to confirm that the recommended fee is consistent with current Council intent and should be applied going forward, rather than the general appeal fee that seems to have been applied in error. Comprehensive Fee Schedule – Language Edits In order to clarify and capture the fee changes being recommended, the section of the 2021-22 Comprehensive Fee Schedule shown in Figure 1 will be modified as follows: Appeals to Advisory Bodies Following Administrative (non-Planning) Decisions Tree Committee $125.71 Construction Board of Appeals $1,196.04 Administrative Review Board $312.61 All Other Appeals $312.61 Policy Context  Throughout the City there exists a consistent practice of charging an application fee for staff review and decision-making, and then an additional fee to appeal the decision on an application if the appeal process requires extensive staff time. Adoption of a fee to appeal to the Tree Committee would be consistent with that practice.  Fee Studies are a regular part of the provision of City services to ensure fees are reflective of the City’s costs of providing the associated services . In the coming year, the Code Enforcement Division intends to evaluate the fees within its scope of work. It is recommended that City Council provide direction to staff and the Administrative Review Board to review and analyze not only fees related to the administrative appeal process, but the entire process, as currently codified, and recommend to the City Council any changes or modifications deemed necessary. Public Engagement The fees being recommended here for adoption and/or confirmation are essentially a final clean-up and implementation step of public hearing processes that occurred years ago. The fee and process analysis that will occur as a ‘Next Step’, for both Code Enforcement and the administrative citation appeals processes, will include multiple opportunities for public engagement at both advisory body and City Council meetings. Page 185 of 823 Item 5e CONCURRENCE The Public Works Director, Community Development Director and Chief Building Official concur with these recommendations. The Finance Department’s Revenue division has reviewed the recommendations and will integrate the approved changes in the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project ” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Not Applicable Budget Year: Not Applicable Funding Identified: No Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 State Federal Fees Other: Total $0 $0 $0 $0 Because an insignificant amount of additional staff work is anticipated as a result of adopting and/or confirming the fees being recommended, no new fiscal impact will be incurred. All related work is included in appropriations requested for the 2021-23 Financial Plan. Page 186 of 823 Item 5e ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the recommended actions. This alternative would leave ambiguities within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule indefinitely which is not a viable option. 2. Modify one or more of the fees to an amount other than that recommended by staff. If this alternative is chosen, specific reasoning f or the modification should be included in Council direction. 3. Authorize Recommendation 5, but deny the other recommended actions pending the results of the analysis. The ambiguities that would remain within the Comprehensive Fee Schedule would not be ideal, but there would be a plan in place to resolve them. ATTACHMENTS A – Draft Resolution – Various Administrative Appeal Fees Page 187 of 823 Page 188 of 823 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2021 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING VARIOUS FEES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1625 (2015 Series) which, among other things, established the Administrative Review Board to hear certain administrative citation appeals that required the creation of a substantial record; and WHEREAS, no fee amount was explicitly set for an appeal to the Administrative Review Board, but has been interpreted as falling under the ‘All Other Appeals’ category of the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 1625 (2015) also redefined the purview and procedures of the previously established Construction Board of Appeals, including specifying staff’s creation of a substantial record for those administrative citation appeals it reviewed; and WHEREAS, no fee amount is explicitly listed in the City’s Comprehensive Fee schedule for an appeal to the Construction Board of Appeals, but there does exist two otherwise applicable fees: “Appeal of Building Official Decision – BLDG” and “Handicap Board of Appeals – BLDG”; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1664 (2019 Series) which modified the process for tree removal applications and as a result there are no longer any decisions of the City’s Tree Committee appealable to the City Council though a fee for such an appeal remains listed in the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, certain decisions of the City Arborists are appealable to the Tree Committee, but no fee amount for such an appeal is listed in the Comprehensive Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Fee Schedule will be updated to reflect all new and updated fees becoming effective July 1, 2021. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that: SECTION 1. The City will begin collecting fees for administrative appeals to its various advisory bodies as show below. Accordingly, the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule shall be amended to reflect the following fees: Page 189 of 823 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2 R ______ Appeals to Advisory Bodies Following Administrative (non-Planning) Decisions Tree Committee $125.71 Construction Board of Appeals $1,196.04 Administrative Review Board $312.61 All Other Appeals $312.61 Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2021. ________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Page 190 of 823