HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-11134 denying a protest of payment of Permit (4)R 11134
RESOLUTION NO. 11134 (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PROTEST OF PAYMENT OF
PERMIT FEES FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ENCR-0780-2020, AND
DENYING A PROTEST OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING
THE INSTALLATION OF A DECORATIVE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
FIXTURE AS REQUIRED BY ARCH-1236-2017
WHEREAS, Mr. William Walter, owner of the property located at 679 Monterey Street,
filed a planning application for the construction of a new studio dwelling unit behind an office
building, and the addition of a deck to the office building on the subject property (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the application, determined that the Project did not
require review by the Architectural Review Commission, and responded with a decision letter ,
dated August 1, 2018, granting approval of the Project subject to specified Conditions of Approval
as stated in the decision letter associated with ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey); and
WHEREAS, the project’s Conditions of Approval required the construction of complete
frontage improvements, including new curb gutter and sidewalk, installation of a decorative
pedestrian light fixture, driveway approaches, a tree wells, and other miscellaneous improvements
within City right-of-way along the frontage of the property; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 17.126.020 provides that appeals of a decision of
any official body must be submitted withing ten (10) calendar days of the rendering of a decision
which is being appealed. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.126.020, Mr. William Walter had
ten (10) calendar days to submit an appeal regarding any of the Conditions of Approval identified
in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter, including the condition to install a decorative
pedestrian light fixture, but no appeal was submitted within ten (10) calendar days from August 1,
2018; and
WHEREAS, work within City right-of-way requires that the contractor performing the
work obtain an Encroachment Permit from the City Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, an Encroachment Permit, number ENCR-0780-2020, for work to be
performed for the Project in the City right-of-way was issued on April 27, 2020, with a calculated
permit fee in the amount of $2,036.22; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Master Fee Schedule is reviewed through a Fee Study which is
conducted approximately once every five years, most recently through a Council Study Session on
February 21, 2017, and a Public Hearing on April 18, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the current Master Fee Schedule is based on the 2017 Fee Study, and updated
annually, most recently through the adoption By City Council of Resolution No. 11026 on June
18, 2019; and
Resolution No. 11134 (2020 Series) Page 2
R 11134
WHEREAS, Encroachment Permit fees are included in the current Master Fee Schedule;
and
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court held in Barratt Am. Inc. v. City of Rancho
Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685 that fees imposed to defray administrative and enforcement
costs of a local regulatory program, such as building permit fees, plan review fees, and inspection
fees, do not constitute “fees imposed on a development project” that are subject to protest under
Government Code Sections 66000 and 66020 of the California Mitigation Fee Act; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 4.56.020’s definition of “impact fee” mirrors the
definition of “fee” under the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000–66025)
that was analyzed by the California Supreme Court in Barratt American Inc. v. City of Rancho
Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2020, Mr. William Walter submitted a protest to the City
regarding the cost of his encroachment permit fee in the amount of $2,036.22 and regarding
Condition of Approval Number 13 identified in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter for
ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey), requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture;
and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was conducted during the City Council meeting of June 16,
2020, during which Mr. Walter communicated his items of contention and protest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all
evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, based upon all the evidence presented, that the protest submitted by Mr. William Walter
is denied pursuant to the following findings:
SECTION 1. Encroachment Permit Fee. The City Council finds that the fee charged for
Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 in the amount of $2,036.22 is an appropriate fee based
on the following:
a) The established fees for encroachment permits are not subject to protest because such
fees do not constitute an “impact fee”/ “fee” under the California Mitigation Fee Act
or Municipal Code Chapter 4.56.
b) The established fees for encroachment permits are determined through an appropriate
public process and are established by Council, based on that process in the City’s
Master Fee Schedule, most recently adopted by City Council by Resolution No. 11026
on June 18, 2019.
Resolution No. 11134 (2020 Series) Page 3
R 11134
c) The fee for Encroachment Permit ENCR-0780-2020 was correctly calculated in
accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule.
SECTION 2. Condition of Approval No. 13 ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey). City
Council finds that the protest of Condition of Approval No. 13 is untimely and invalid based on
the following:
a) The decision letter approving the Project with conditions of approval, including
Condition No. 13 requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture, was
issued by the City on August 1, 2018.
b) Municipal Code Section 17.126.020 provides that appeals of a decision of any official
body must be submitted withing ten (10) calendar days of the rendering of a decision
which is being appealed. The ten-day period to appeal was stated in the City’s August
1, 2018, decision letter. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.126.020, Mr. William
Walter had ten (10) calendar days to submit an appeal regarding any of the Conditions
of Approval identified in the City’s August 1, 2018 decision letter, including Condition
13 requiring installation of a decorative pedestrian light fixture, but no appeal was
submitted within ten (10) calendar days from August 1, 2018.
c) Mr. William Walter’s protest of Condition No. 13 requiring installation of a decorative
pedestrian light fixture was submitted on April 24, 2020, which is beyond the ten-day
period allowed for appeals of conditions of approval under Municipal Code Section
17.126.020.
Resolution No. 11134 (2020 Series) Page 4
R 11134
SECTION 3. Action. Based on the foregoing recitals, which are adopted as the findings
of the City Council, and evidence in the record, the City Council does hereby deny the protest
submitted by Mr. William Walter regarding the fee charged for Encroachment Permit ENCR-
0780-2020 and the protest submitted by Mr. William Walter regarding Condition of Approval No.
13 ARCH-1236-2017 (679 Monterey).
Upon motion of Council Member Christianson, seconded by Council Member Stewart, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Christianson, Stewart and Mayor Harmon
NOES: None
RECUSED: Council Member Pease and Vice Mayor Gomez
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 16th day of June 2020.
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