HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2017 Item 1, WhiteCOUNCIL MEETING: eq - «"- 1,;L APR 19 2017
ITEM NO.:
From: Linda White [
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:02 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.or >
Subject: Appeal Fees
I have read the comments from Allan Cooper, Richard Schmidt and Peg Pinard. I agree with everything for
which they have commented. Please add my name to those opposed to the fee increase.
Below is the letter that I wrote back in February stating my opposition the fee increases.
2017 02 19 CC 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.
• 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?
s 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
Did the objections by the public actually materialize? E.G. inadequate parking, overcrowding, loss of view
shed, increased police calls, light intrusion, increased traffic, etc.
It seems that many of the resident complaints are similar on all projects brought to appeal.
• Publically 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 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