Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - TTM APPEAL FEE WAIVER (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented y: CONSENT _CALENDAR.Mark Scott DATE: March 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Request.for Fee Waiver DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND•. At its March 13 meeting, the City Council considered a request by Mr. Glenn Reeves (attached)' that appeal fees be waived so that he and his neighbors could appeal the American Landmark (Tract No. 47863) and Weston (Tract No. 46626) projects without paying the $335 fee per project. In a staff report, staff argued against waiver of appeal fees, but recommended that. due to project similarities, a single $335 fee could be justified to cover both projects. Mr. Reeves addressed the City Council in support of his request. Mr. Allen Cameron spoke on behalf of the project applicants, expressing concern that the two projects would be consolidated or otherwise not given due process. Because the projects had not yet been formally approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council directed that this matter be placed back on the agenda following Planning Commission approval. That approval was granted at the Planning Commission's March 20, 1990, meeting. Therefore, City Council action on the waiver request is now in order. On March 13, the City Attorney advised the City. Council that it has several options --to waive the fees for these cases, to change the City code to reduce or eliminate appeal fees altogether, to charge the full appeal fees per code, or to accept the staff recommendation to charge a single •$335 fee. The City Council could also "call the cases for review" on its own accord, thereby making the residents' appeal unnecessary. Staff continues to ,believe that appeal fees serve a necessary purpose because they discourage situations where frivolous appeals can be filed --at considerable expense to the City and delay to other projects. This in no way suggests that Mr. Reeves' situation is in any sense frivolous. Staff knows him to be very sincere about. his concerns. Staff recommends a single appeal fee_ for both projects because the staff reports will be very similar and efficiencies will exist. Appeal fees vary widely from city to city. The City's appeal fee of $335 is very reasonable and lower than charged in many cities. The actual costs of an appeal are usually ten times or more higher than the fee, considering costs for Community Development staff, City Engineer, City Clerk, City Attorney and newspaper advertising. P'RO�ED Agenda In regard to Mr. Cameron's concerns, he is correct that the two projects are entitled to be addressed separately.. At the City Council's option, the two public hearings can be consolidated, but separate votes need to be taken on any City Council motions, and each applicant is entitled to present; his own case. Hopefully, this will resolve Mr. Cameron's concerns. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council assess a total fee of $335 to cover the appeals on both of the subject projects. ATTACHMENT: Letter from Mr. Glenn Reeves s Donna Grindey . Assistant City Clerk City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Grindey, P, 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 : 0 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- ita General Plan there are legitimate questions whether these projects will ultimately fit into the General Plan. We believe that if the General Plan were in place now these projects would not be allowed by the Planning Commission, as approved, due to the topography of 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 r 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