Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Item 1, CooperAEC E_1VCU COUNCIL MEETING - __Y-1 �7 - 17 ITEM NO.: _1L_ APR 17 2017 sLO CITY CLERK From: Allan Cooper [ Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 12:55 PM To: Johnson, Derek <djohnson@slocity.org>; Carloni, Marcus <mcarloni@slocity.org>; Bradford, Xenia <XBradford@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org> Subject: Appeal Fees Dear Derrick, Marcus and Xenia - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the City Council before their 4:00 P.M. meeting tomorrow (April 18, 2017)? Thanks! - Allan 1 To: SLO City Council Re: Review of the Citywide User and Regulatory Fee Study - Appeal Fees From: Allan Cooper Date : April 17, 2017 Honorable Mayor Harmon and Council Members - With regards to Appeal Fees, I applaud your decision to distinguish between fees assessed on non -applicants and applicants. I also agree with your concept of "Tiers". I had the pleasure of meeting with Marcus Carloni to discuss this issue and I believe that I cited the $623 fee increase as being not unreasonable considering that it represented a 20% (not 25%) recovery amount. Nevertheless, I do believe that the cities of Santa Rosa ($475), Encinitas ($250), Woodland ($238), Petaluma ($219) and Palo Alto ($136) would be a better metric for determining reasonable recovery costs for neighbor/non-applicants. The City of Santa Rosa charges the applicant/applicant representative $5,469 (considerably higher than the $1,557 that SLO is recommending) for an appeal as compared to a neighbor/non-applicant appeal fee of $475. More importantly, I would like to call your attention to two criteria stated for determining alternative cost recoveries which I believe are both false and disingenuous. The first is that if the appeal cost is too low it will encourage appeals. Over the past 3 years, neighborhood groups have filed 9 appeals' based on concerns that planning staff and the advisory bodies were not properly adhering to the Hillside Ordinance, the Community Design Guidelines, the Downtown Concept Plan, the Sign Ordinance, Conservation Guidelines for wildlife corridors, the Tree Ordinance or the Historic Preservation Ordinance. These were not frivolous appeals and these appeals were representing the interests of the public at large. These appeals were certainly not motivated by the fact that the residents could easily afford the appeal fee. The second criteria was that lower appeal fees might discourage housing or other important City goals. Neighborhood groups have never gone on record opposing housing. Instead, these groups are opposed to housing projects that are incompatible and poorly designed. These groups are opposed to "housing at any cost". And finally, these groups are opposed to housing projects whose benefits are more than offset by the adverse effects of traffic congestion, unwanted noise, encroachment on public open space, loss of tree habitat and loss of view sheds. Meritorious appeals should not be discouraged. The public at large benefits from the appeal process. When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large the cost recovery should be nearer 0%. When a service or activity completely benefits an individual or entity such as an applicant/applicant representative, the cost recovery should be nearer 100%. Fee increases have the unintended consequence of driving away the population served. As Dan Buettner described in his book "The Blue Zones", happiness is related to social engagement where people of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities. The appeal process addresses these broader, local social values. 1 Neighborhood groups in San Luis Obispo have lost the following appeals within the past 3 years: the Monterey Place at 667 Monterey St., the Monterey Hotel at 1845 Monterey St., the Discovery SLO at 1144 Chorro, 85 Buena Vista, Bressi/Serrano subdivision, 22 Chorro St., 1042 Olive St., 560 Higuera St. and 71 Palomar.