TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Sheryl L. Bratton - County Counsel
REPORT BY: Jason M. Dooley - Chief Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Introduction and intention to adopt an Ordinance removing Section 2.88.040 and amending Sections 2.88.050, 2.88.060, 2.88.070, and 2.88.080 of Chapter 2.88, Appeals, and Section 3.32.100 of Chapter 3.32, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, regarding the filing and contents of appeals packets.
RECOMMENDATION
title
PUBLIC HEARING - Introduction of Ordinance
Introduction and intention to adopt an Ordinance removing Section 2.88.040 and amending Sections 2.88.050, 2.88.060, 2.88.070, and 2.88.080 of Chapter 2.88, Appeals, and Section 3.32.100 of Chapter 3.32, Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax, regarding the filing and contents of appeals packets. (No Fiscal Impact, Discretionary)
body
BACKGROUND
Under the current Napa County Code, appeals are initiated by filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal on a form provided by the Clerk of the Board, along with an initial filing fee. The Notice of Intent must be filed within 10 days of the decision subject to the appeal. Thereafter, an applicant must submit a complete Appeal Packet and another fee calculated by the Clerk of the Board. Napa County Code section 2.88.050 sets forth the required contents of the Appeal Packet including relevant details about the appeal, the substantive grounds of appeal and, in cases involving real property, a report identifying the owners of any property within 1000 feet of the property subject to the appeal. The Appeal Packet is due within 10 days of filing the Notice of Intent to Appeal, and therefore, no more than 20 days after the date of the decision.
On November 5, 2024, the Board of Supervisors amended the fee policy relating to appeals and established a single fee to encompass the general costs associated with an appeal. The fee change simplifies the process for the Clerk, who no longer must calculate a complicated fee based on the number of pages submitted by the applicant and also provides applicants with certainty and consistency.
Along with the fee change, staff now recommends simplifying the appeal process further by eliminating the two-step filing process. The proposed ordinance removes the Notice of Intent to Appeal and all references thereto so that only an Appeal Packet would be required to initiate an appeal. The proposed ordinance retains the standards for calculating the deadline for filing the appeal and preserves the required contents of the Appeal Packet.
The main recommendation would remove the requirement to file a Notice of Intent to Appeal, a procedural requirement that currently must be filed within 10 working days of the decision. The Appeal Packet is then required to be filed within 10 working days of the Notice of Intent. Frequently, the appeal packet would be due anywhere from 15 to 20 working days of the decision, depending on when the Notice of Intent is filed. The proposed ordinance would consolidate the appeal process into one filing, which would be due within 15 working days of the decision, which usually amounts to 21 calendar days.
The primary reason for this change is to reduce the administrative cost and burden on the Clerk of the Board and other staff, who must process the two-part appeal. The Clerk and other staff are required to review each procedural step to determine whether the filing requirements have been met. Eliminating the Notice of Intent will remove one of those procedural steps and alleviate the burden on staff.
The Notice of Intent serves two purposes, though. First, it initiates the appeal, along with payment of the fee. There is no reason that the Appeal Packet cannot serve this purpose and, since the Board amended the fee policy, the appeal fee is now due on filing the Appeal Packet anyway. Second, the filing of the Notice of Intent indicated to a project applicant that the land use decision was not final. Phrased differently, the deadline to file the Notice of Intent was the date that a decision became final, absent an appeal. For applicants, this is an important milestone affecting the substance of their property rights. To address this impact, staff recommends reducing the time to file the appeal packet to 15 working days.
In reviewing the appeal procedures from other jurisdictions, the proposed ordinance would put Napa County firmly in the middle. Many jurisdictions require appeals be filed within 10 calendar days, while others allow as many as 30 or 45 calendar days.
Staff has performed some public outreach on this item. On November 20, 2024, the Clerk of the Board sent a draft of the ordinance to interested parties and land use stakeholders to ensure that those most likely impacted by this procedural change were aware of the proposed amendment. This initial draft provided a 20-day deadline for the Appeal Packet. Based on stakeholder feedback, staff has revised the proposed ordinance to instead include a 15-day deadline for the Appeal Packet. On January 16, 2025, the Clerk of the Board sent a follow-up email to interested parties and land use stakeholders highlighting the change to the appeal deadline in the proposed ordinance.
The Clerk of the Board caused a notice of the proposed ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Napa County as required by Government Code Section 25124.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. Open Public Hearing;
2. Brief Staff Report;
3. Public Comments;
4. Discussion, motion, second, and vote on intention to adopt the ordinance.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Vote to indicate the Board of Supervisors’ intent to adopt the Ordinance at its next regular meeting on February 4, 2025.
FISCAL & STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
|
Is there a Fiscal Impact? |
No |
|
Is it Mandatory or Discretionary? |
Discretionary |
|
Discretionary Justification and Consequences if not approved: |
Current appeals filing fees would be inconsistent with the Code, and the appeals process would continue to be somewhat cumbersome. |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (State CEQA Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable.