HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Item 1, RowleyCOUNCIL MEETING: ___R Ei7
Gardner, Erica ITEM NO.:! _
A
CLERK
From: RQN of SLO [
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:33 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Item 1, Review of Cost of Service Study
Attached please find RQN's comments regarding this item.
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
Meeting Date: April 18, 2017
SUBJECT: Item 1, Review of Cost of Service Fee Study
Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the Council,
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods appreciates the opportunity to comment on this particularly
important issue. At February's City Council meeting, some of our members heard the comment,
"too many appeals" and remembered the information provided by staff that previous years had
averaged seven appeals per year, but that there had already been three this year.
Aside from the fact that an average means there had been more appeals in some years and fewer
in other years, it appeared that it was the number of appeals that mattered, not the substance or
the rational. Additionally, members understood this to mean that the proposed fee increases
were intended to limit public participation in a city that has long valued such participation —
regardless of the topic or project.
In 2013, the team that conducted the assessment of the Community Development Department
observed that there was a high level of civic engagement in San Luis Obispo, including developers,
residents and community stakeholders. They found that preservation of the City as a special place
is a value shared by everyone they met. They further noted that the City Council and the
community together placed a high value on citizen involvement.
Many individuals seem to be concentrating on the excessiveness of a possible $643 Tier 1 appeal
fee; and we agree this is excessive. However, so are the fees for Tiers 2 and 3. For example, the
recommended application fee for a High Occupancy Permit is $1,012; the applicant can recover
this amount (or more) in the first month with the added rental income. A non -applicant's appeal
of a hearing officer's approval of this permit would, with the revised rate, be $346 with, of course,
no ability to recover the cost. In other words, the applicant gets a return on his money; the non-
applicant appellant spends the money because he cares.
Of the comparables chosen, the City of Davis most closely resembles San Luis Obispo in that it is
the home of UC Davis and the majority of students live off campus. The cost to file an appeal in
Davis is $200. This seems a reasonable amount for San Luis Obispo, too.
Being able to file an appeal is part of the democratic process, and part of the development
process. Those who say there are too many appeals and, therefore, we should raise the fees are
also saying they do not believe the process should be open to everyone. An applicant has the
resources, and can recoup the cost of an appeal win or lose. Residents do not have that luxury —
even pooling resources with others is difficult with the current $281 fee. The Davis appeal fee of
$200 is a more reasonable cost for residents — not low, but not high.
1
And, no, there are no "frivolous" appeals —just appeals by residents who care about their city and
their neighborhoods and think there is additional information that needs to be considered.
Thank you for your time and your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
2