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.