HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2017 Item 1, WhiteCOUNCIL MEETING: '.2( �" FEB 2 Y 2017
ITEM NO.:—_ I
Me]
From: Linda White[
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 12:12 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocitv.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon LM sloci t .or >; Rivoire, Dan
<DRiv_oire slocity.or9>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.or >; Pease, Andy <aoease@slocity.org.>; Gomez,
Aaron <a omez slocit .or >; Gallagher, Carrie <CGalla her @slocity _ori>; Goodwin, Heather <h oodwin sloci .or >
Subject: Appeal Fee Increase
I have mostly retired from city politics, activism, etc. and I already have one foot out the door of San Luis
Obispo. In the future, I will live here only during the summer, November and December. Having said that, I
hope that you will consider my comments and suggestions.
Regarding the increase in appeal fees:
• It appears that this is a way to further remove the voting residents from city politics by pricing them out.
r This does not sync with the city's claim of open, inclusive government that respects the opinions of the public.
■ Didn't the city have a 6+million dollar surplus last year? Wasn't this used to upgrade staff computers to
streamline and save staff time and the city money?
• If the city would make residents aware of planned projects more than 10 days before the advisory body
hearings, the residents could make their concerns known before a project has been approved.
• If staff would strictly adhere to City Guidelines, zoning, etc. instead of granting exceptions to make a project
"pencil out" for the developer, the residents would have fewer reasons to appeal.
• Perhaps the firm, NBS Government Finance Group should have been tasked with finding out why there were
so many appeals being filed.
Here is a suggestion to improve the residents trust in City government:
• On all projects, especially contentious projects, have the PC, ARC, involved planner, etc. visit the project 6
months following completion of the project. Answer the questions:
Did this project fulfill the stated objective? E.G. affordable housing, low income housing, workforce housing,
student housing?
Did the objections by the public actually materialize? E.G. inadequate parking, overcrowding, loss of
viewshed, increased police calls, light intrusion, increased traffic, etc.
It seems that many of the resident complaints are similar on all projects brought to appeal.
• Publicly answer those question. E.G. No, there is adequate parking despite the exceptions given and there is
no incursion of parking into the neighborhood. or Yes, this project does provide affordable or workforce
housing and are not rented out at $1,000/bed placing 2 residents in each bedroom.
Not only would this approach make the residents more aware of the end product and its effects but it would also
inform the advisory committees of areas that might be given more consideration in the future.
Linda White
San Luis Obispo, CA