WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: E-7 Appellate Procedures
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:03:56 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Please read the following e-mail at the council meeting.
The proposed deletion of “to set” hearings is good, but what is lacking is additional sensible appellate procedure.
Hearings should be set to provide adequate time for the appellant to file the appeal materials—an opening brief as it were; a time limit for the respondent to provide opposition; and a date for the appellant to provide a reply. Then all issues and arguments can be considered in the city’s agenda report.
Without such procedures and as it presently stands, city appeals are chaotic.
Also, perhaps it would be a good idea for anyone who requests a council members to call up a matter, to be advised of the 5 hearing limit, and the remaining hearings which may be necessitated.
Although it is not directly on the agenda, as I have mentioned before, the city’s over $6K appeal fee is outrageous and unconstitutional. Whenever the subject of excessive city fees are brought up, a council member will ask staff to respond, and a staff member like Ryan Gohlich will claim that a study was done and it was found that the (outlandish) fee to be charged was found to represent the actual costs of the city. However that is a ridiculous position because the city takes in a great deal of income from various taxes to pay the costs of running the city, and affording appellate rights to residents is the city’s duty for which it has already been paid.
The California Supreme Court charges $710 to file for review, and the California Courts of Appeal charge $775, while their costs to processs appeals far exceeds what it costs the City of Beverly Hills to process an appeal.
I heard a council members state that it was good for the appellate fees to be so high, to discourage appeals, but when a right to appeal has been provided, it is unfair to try to prevent that right from being exercised.
Darian Bojeaux