HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2017 Item 1, Rowley (2)COUNCIL MEETING:_ -,_ 1 F'%LIF_ V.` ""'
ITEM NO.: _ _ T Z FEB 21 2017
From: Sandra Rowley [
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:14 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire_@slocity.or >; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@5locity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>
Cc: Gallagher, Carrie <CGaI_lagher@sIocity.or >; Goodwin, Heather <hgoodwin@slocity.or >; Christian, Kevin
<kch risti a n @slocity. or >
Subject: Item 1- Study Session
Attached is a letter regarding the above subject.
Meeting date: February 21, 2017
Subject: Item 1, Study Session — Cost of Service Fees (Fee for Appeals)
Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
The staff report raised a number of questions for me so I checked several sources: city staff and
various documents. Subsequently I was asked some questions about the tiered system versus
the flat rate system and the increases in the appeal fee and did more research. Also, I was told
by two different sources that some jurisdictions have two fees for appeals, one for residents
and one for the applicant of the development project. However, I did not research this.
I think the current flat system is superior because it is more user-friendly for residents than the
tiered system. In addition, the suggested fees will undoubtedly limit public participation ($779,
$433, $303? Really?). The rationale for these statements follows.
Tiered system of fees. In the example given in the staff report architectural review is in the first
tier, but there are two types of architectural review - one is through the ARC and the other is in-
house by staff. Are both in Tier #1? What else is in Tier #1? Also in the example use permits
are in Tier #2, but a Home Occupation Permit is a use permit and it is in Tier #4. Where would
the use permit for a High Occupancy Permit fall, Tier #2 or Tier #4. Where would a request to
the Cultural Heritage Committee fall? Would it depend on the nature of the request? These
are just a few examples... all of which may be crystal clear to planners, but not to laymen. And
that's the point, residents shouldn't have to delve "into the weeds;" the process should be
open and transparent and easily understood.
None of the comparative cities use a tiered system for appeals, all of them use a flat fee.
The appeal fee in Davis (and Paso Robles) is $200. This shows that they have determined that
there is a community benefit to "reasonable" appeals costs. Davis is similar to San Luis Obispo.
Per the city's website the population is about 66,000, and UC Davis, which is adjacent to the city
limits, has a population of about 32,000. Like SLO a significant portion of the housing units in
the city (approximately 57%) are rentals with home ownership at 43%.
Back to SLO, here are some of the General Plan Land Use Element's Neighborhood Wellness
Action Plans designed to help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods. They say,
among other things that the City shall: Work with residents that request assistance to prepare
neighborhood plans that empower them to shape their neighborhoods; encourage the
formation of voluntary neighborhood groups, so residents can become involved early in the
development review process; involve residents early in reviewing proposed public and private
projects that could have neighborhood impacts by notifying residents and property owners and
holding meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods.
Residents do not file frivolous appeals. Business owners provide some kind of product or
service, and for this they receive remuneration that gives them some level of profit (otherwise
they would go out of business). If they have applied (to the city) for something, but do not like
the decision of staff, one of the advisory bodies or the city council, they can appeal. (If you
recall, the first appeal of 22 Chorro was by the applicant.) The funds spent on the appeal are
either rolled into the resulting product or service or they are counted for tax purposes as a
business expense. Residents who file an appeal are different in that, win or lose, they cannot
recoup any part of the funds spent on the appeal. Therefore, residents are unlikely to file any
appeal unless they will be personally "harmed" by the decision or they see the decision as
setting a precedent that could "harm" them in the future. Potentially, although I have never
seen it, someone could appeal a decision for the greater good because the decision was
contrary to city regulations. The City Council and the community together have always placed a
high value on resident involvement. I hope that will not change.
One reason there have been a number of appeals is because there are currently a large number
of proposed projects. Most people would not notice the ones that are approved without
disagreement (University Square; 399 Foothill). A second reason is that either residents were
not involved early in the development review process as mandated in our General Plan and,
thus, could not express their concerns early on about which aspects of the project would
negatively impact them... or the developer discounted these concerns and residents had no
other recourse than to appeal (Chorro; Dana).
Increasing the fee to appeal would price most residents, but not most developers, out of the
appeals process. If a project were appealed through the entire process, by either the applicant
or a resident, the cost could rise above $2,000. Raising the appeal fee to these levels is similar
to saying that on a scale of importance, residents (and their concern for their personal quality
of life and that of their neighborhood) are less important than developers and their projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
SLO Resident