My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
10B Action 2018 0904
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2018
>
Packet 2018 0904
>
10B Action 2018 0904
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:01:37 PM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:01:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
9/4/2018
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
Reso 2018-105
(Message)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
Reso 2018-106
(Message)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Resolutions\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
File #:18-178,Version:1 <br />recommendation was influenced by a number of prior appeals that required substantial staff time to <br />process and had exceeded their deposited amount. The City Council adopted this updated appeal <br />fee in the FY 17-18 Master Fee Schedule. <br />Analysis <br />Current City policy is to attempt cost recovery for discretionary planning applications (those requiring <br />a public hearing), including appeals. Establishing a reasonable and proportionate appeal fee is <br />challenging since the cost of processing appeals can vary widely. A number of prior appeals in recent <br />years, such as a contested solar wind turbine proposed near Heron Bay, a Site Plan Review for <br />Greenhouse Marketplace and an interpretation on electric fences, required a significant amount of <br />staff time to process and had inadequately recovered costs, prompting an increase in the <br />recommended deposit amount following the outcome of the prior fee study. <br />Deducting an hourly rate from a set deposit has shown to be an equitable method for processing an <br />appeal. The concern from the public and the City Council understandably is that a higher deposit <br />amount can be prohibitively expensive for a concerned resident with limited financial resources to <br />challenge a decision. The benefits of averaging the appeal deposit using the current method is that it <br />reduces or eliminates the balance due after a Council decision is made, since a losing appellant may <br />have little incentive to pay an outstanding balance, and a higher appeal fee generally discourages <br />frivolous requests. <br />Staff recommends the Rules Committee reduce the deposit fee established by the prior fee study by <br />half, to $2,500. This amount is more closely aligned with the amount established prior to the fee <br />study (see attached table “City Appeal Fees by Fiscal Year”). Staff does not recommend eliminating <br />the established direct-cost deposit method for a fixed fee. The recommendation of the Rules <br />Committee will be forwarded for City Council consideration with the upcoming annual Master Fee <br />Schedule update. <br />Previous Actions <br />The current fee schedule was presented to the City Council on March 6, 2017 and approved on May <br />1, 2017 under Resolution 2017-060. <br />Legal Analysis <br />California Government Code enables cities to defray the cost of processing applications so long as <br />the fees are reasonable and proportionate to the costs incurred. <br />Fiscal Impacts <br />Modifying or reducing the deposit for an appeal would not have a discernable fiscal impact. <br />Establishing a fixed fee could have a fiscal impact if the fee does not cover the cost of services <br />provided. <br />ATTACHMENTS <br />City of San Leandro Printed on 5/18/2018Page 2 of 3 <br />powered by Legistar™242
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.