Supervisors Accused of Setting ‘Punitive’ Appeal Fees

About a dozen people--most from environmental organizations and homeowners groups--complained to the Orange County Board of Supervisors Wednesday that they are being shut out of major development decisions because of the recent increase in the fee to appeal some land-use votes.

“You have created a hurdle that we cannot leap,” said Virginia Chester, head of the Sea and Sage Audubon Society. “We perceive this action to be punitive on your part.”

One speaker said the county’s position “gives support to all of the illicit rumors about the intimacy of the relationship between developers and the supervisors.”

And another, Diane Carter, head of the Modjeska Residents Assn., added: “We would certainly hope that you listen to the little people, not just those with the big bankrolls.”

Last summer, the supervisors voted to nearly triple the fee for appealing a Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors, from about $570 to more than $1,700.

The increase was part of a new county government policy to adopt fees that cover 100% of the government’s cost to provide such services as background checks for licenses, building permit processing and appeals of land-use decisions.

County officials acknowledged that their appeal fee is now almost three times the rate charged by other Southern California counties, but they said their only criteria in determining the rate was to recover the county’s cost.

The supervisors have said they do not believe that it is proper for taxpayers throughout the county to subsidize such services as background checks for private gun permits or the complaints of an individual or a small group against a particular development.

They also noted that county government is facing a serious budget deficit, in which it might be forced to lay off employees and close programs within the next few months.

Wednesday’s testimony came during the public-comments section of the board’s agenda, so supervisors took no action and made few remarks during the discussion.

Board Chairman Harriett M. Wieder suggested to some of the speakers that they attend a county budget session.

“Will you be here,” Wieder asked Chester of Audubon, “at budget time, when we have to cut out some real important human services? . . . The county is in a tight fiscal situation.”

Supervisor Don R. Roth questioned a speaker from the League of Women Voters about whether it was proper for the taxpayers at large to subsidize individual complaints.

The issue of the fee increase was first raised 2 weeks ago by Sherry Meddick, head of the Rural Canyons Conservation Fund, when she wanted to appeal a developer’s plan to destroy hundreds of old oak trees in the south county. She submitted her appeal without the fee; it was rejected.