Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - FEE WAIVER TTM 46626/TTM 47863 (2)CONSENT CALENDP�R - - — — -r C DATE: March 13, 1990 IN AGENDA REPORT .' 1 City Manager Approval 'f Item to be presented by: SUBJECT:' Request for Waiver of Appeal Fees DEPARTMENT:' Community Deyelopment_.�� BACKGROUND: Mark Scott The attached letter from Mr. Glenn Reeves asks that the City Council waive the normal appeal fees for the Weston Development and American Landmark project tentative tract maps. The Planning Commission has approved these projects in concept and will be taking action on formal resolutions of approval on March 20. A group of neighbors would like to appeal these projects to the City Council. The appeal period will run from March 21-30. Mr. Reeves is asking that the appeal fees be waived for various reasons set forth in his letter. While staff has sympathy for residents who wish to participate in their City's and neighborhood's planning process, experience would suggest that waiving appeal fees is a poor precedence. Appeal fees serve two purposes. First, they enable a city to cover some percentage of its overhead costs -- making it possible to extend additional planning services. Secondly, appeal fees act to discourage frivolous appeals that would otherwise take City Council time from equally pressing public business. While Mr. Reeves and his group are very sincere in their interest, the precedence of waiving fees is not recommended. Staff does, however, recommend that the City Council authorize payment of a single fee to cover these two projects. Because the projects are interrelated in seveial respects, the public hearings on the projects have been consolidated by the Planning Commission, and staff's reports to the Commission have been nearly identical on the two projects. It does not appear fair that the appellants should have to pay twice to appeal the two projects when staff will likely consolidate the hearings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached request for waiver of appeal fees (Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863) be denied. Staff further recommends, however, that the appellants be allowed to appeal both projects for a single appeal fee (.�335) because the two projects are very similar and will be considered, effectively, as one project with a single staff report. — ATTACHMENT: Letter from Glenn Reeves, dated March 5, 1990. Igenda item: / f Donna Grindey Assistant City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Grindey, • March 5, 1990 Glenn E. Reeves 28222 Bakerton Ave. Canyon Country, CA 91351 Work : (818) 358-1871 Home: (805) 298-2771 This letter is a formal request to the City Council for consideration of a waiver for fees regarding the appeal of Tentative Tract Maps 46626 and 47863. These maps are for the Weston Develop- ment and American Landmark projects approved by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1990. Approval of the final resolution for these projects is expected at the March 6th Planning Commission meeting. I, in conjunction with my neighbors, oppose these projects. We would like the City Council to direct the Director of Community Development and the City Clerk to waive the appeal fees for these two projects. Since there is only a ten day period (from March 6th) within which an appeal may be filed it is important that the City Council consider this request at the March 13, 1990 meet- ing. We ask for the waiver for the following reasons : • We are not an organized homeowners association. We have no common community fund- ing or the ability to raise the required fees. Furthermore, we object to the appeal process fee requirement because it is a deterrent to public participation in the public hearing process. • These projects will set precedents regarding the issues of land use designations, density, and open space. These precedents will affect the entire City of Santa Clarita. We do not believe that the Planning Commission addressed these issues adequately or that there exists an ade- quate official policy to allow them to do so. • These projects require both zoning and plan changes. Since there is no City of Santa Clar- ity General Plan there are legitimate questions whether these projects will ultimately fit into the General Plan. We believe that it the General Plan were in place now these projects would not be allowed by the Planning Commission, as approved, due to the topography ole the properties and the density requested. Again, we believe that the Planning Commission acted incorrectly due to lack of appropriate guidance. The first reason given, although important, is insignificant in comparison to the magnitude of importance which should be given the last two reasons. Our city is changing rapidly. The volume of previously approved development both outside of the city boundaries and within the city, but • approved before the City of Santa Clarita was incorporated, is enormous. The Planning Commis- sion is faced with the task of considering current development proposals without a General Plan and without solid direction from the City Council. This has caused considerable concern for the Planning Commission and considerable outrage from the public. This outrage has been most apparent over the approval of these projects and the more recent Santa Catarina project. We cannot wait for the General Plan to be completed. Some policy must be established for the Planning Commission to follow. We believe that this policy should be based on slow, gradual development with heavy emphasis on following the guidelines of the L.A. County SCV Area Plan and the General Plan Advisory Com- mittee. Specific guidelines need to be established regarding hillside management and open space, infrastructure needs versus development, and adherence to the projected 270,000 person population ceiling for the Santa Clarita Valley. An appropriate forum for setting this policy, by precedent, is during the appeal of the Weston and American Landmark projects. As concerned citizens we are trying to participate in the process of defining our city of the future. It is most appropriate that the financial impediment limiting our participation be removed. Sincerely, Glenn E. Reeves