HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/2/2024 Item 7a, Walker
kathie walker <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:7/2/2024, Item 6.a. Fee increase
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
City Council Members,
I write to vehemently oppose the current proposal to increase the cost of the non-applicant appeal fee to the city
council related to a Planning Commission decision. If the city council approves the proposed amendment, fees for a non-
applicant to appeal to the city council would increase by 471%, and would not be accessible to the average person. Yet
that person might need to appeal because of a faulty decision that affects their property rights or neighborhood. The
proposed fee is so unaffordable that it would eliminate one's ability to do so.
A Tier 1 Appeal, which is an appeal to the city council, is currently $745.35 according to the form available on the City’s
website. City staff are proposing an increase to $3,511.94 ($3,408 + $103.94 IT fee), a 471% increase.
In 2017, the fee increased from $281. When the city council discussed raising the appeal fee, their goal was to make
appeals to the city council less common but still accessible to non-applicants who were recognized as those affected by a
Planning Commission decision or advocates for those affected.
A non-applicant appealing to the city council is usually:
Someone directly impacted by the decision, such as a development next door or a conditional use permit near
their home that may affect their living situation, or
An advocate, such as a neighborhood group, on behalf of those affected or the neighborhood.
Non-applicants are generally average residents or a group, not developers or organizations with deep pockets. The
proposed $3,511 fee is outrageously unaffordable and a financial barrier to a non-applicant seeking relief. It will have the
effect of silencing people, and more importantly, eliminating their right to appeal to a higher body.
1
The Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the city council within 10 days. If a non-applicant is
affected by the Planning Commission’s decision and wants to seek a legal remedy, they must first exhaust their remedies
and appeal to the city council before they can seek relief in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court. An affected non-
applicant cannot move onto the next level unless and until they appeal to the city council and pay the $3,511 fee.
The fee for an appeal should not prevent a non-applicant from seeking relief, but the $3,511 fee is a barrier for most. A
non-applicant should have access to an appeal to the city council for a reasonable fee. In comparison, the Court’s fees for
filing a case are a small fraction of the cost of the proposed $3,511 fee to appeal to the city council, and fee waivers are
available through the Superior Court for those with lower income.
The staff report states that over the past five years, there have been only 14 non-applicant appeals or an average of 2.8 per
year. Based on that figure, the difference in fees amounts to less than $8,000 per year:
$3511.94 (proposed fee) - $745.35 (current fee) = $2,766.59 x 2.8 (appeals per year) = $7,746.45/year
The ideal of democracy - allowing access by a non-applicant to appeal to their elected officials - is worth far more than
$8,000/year. The proposed fee will discourage and prevent non-applicants from appealing decisions by the Planning
Commission to their elected officials. That's not a just system.
Please do not approve the fee increase for non-applicants. Also, in the spirit of inclusivity, the city council should
implement a fee waiver to lower the cost of accessing an appeal for low-income people based on the number of people in
their household, similar to a fee waiver for the courts in the State of California. Access to our elected officials, including
grievances addressed through an appeal, should be accessible to everyone.
Sincerely,
Kathie Walker
2