HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2005, PH4 - CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REVIEW FEES council 10-6-D" 5-17-05
j acEnc)a WPM 1�"u
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance &Information Technolo Zp"d''_
John Mandeville, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REVIEW FEES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending the City'.s master fee schedule to establish fees for development
applications and other proposals requiring review by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
DISCUSSION
Background. The City does not currently assess fees for Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
review of development applications and other proposals. On November 18, 2004, the Council
conceptually approved implementing cost recovery for these reviews as part of the budget-
balancing "pantry" items presented at this "setting the table" budget workshop. Based on the
analysis presented at that time (Attachment 1), it costs the City $68,600 annually to provide this
service; and in accordance with the City's user fee cost recovery policies, it makes sense for
applicants to bear these costs rather than the community at-large.
Cost Recovery Summary and Proposed Fees. As outlined in Attachment 1, it costs the City an
added $2,135 to process CHC reviews in conjunction with development applications; and$2,929
in other cases, such as requests to add properties to the Master or Contributing List or to remove
them.
The chart below summarizes the proposed cost recovery for reviews by the CHC. In accordance
with the City's rate structure policy for all other planning-related fees, we are proposing that
45% of the review cost for development-related projects be recovered through an application fee
of $961, with the balance
recovered through an added cost Per Annual Annual
2.5% surcharge on building Application Applications cost
permit and plan check fees . Related to Development $2,135 28 $59,800
(the current planning fee Other Applications * 2,929 1 3 8,800
surcharge is 37.5%). Total $68,600
*Excludes requests for addition to the Master or Contrbuting list;
For CHC review requests no fees are reconmwnded in this case.
unrelated to development
applications, (primarily requests for removal from the Master or Contributing list), the
recommended application fee is $2,929. As noted in the November 2004 report, we are not .
recommending fees for requests for additions to these lists.
Effective Date. Under "AB 1600," which sets the ground rules for adopting development-
related fees, there must be at least sixty days between approval of a new fee and its effective
Cultural Heritage Committee Review Fees Page 2
date. As part of the budget-balancing strategy approved by the Council on April 19, 2005, we
plan to present other development review fee proposals for adoption by the Council on June 21,
2005. Accordingly, for ease of administration in complying with AB 1600, we recommend an
effective date of September 1, 2005.
CONCURRENCES
We have sent.notices about the proposed fees to over 60 community groups and interested
individuals based on our standard fee notification list. This list includes a diverse range of
community groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods,
ECOSLO, Sierra Club, Land Conservancy, Building Industry Association of the Central Coast,
Property Owners Association, Economic Vitality Corporation and Housing Authority.
As of the issue date of this report, we have not received any comments from these groups.
FISCAL IMPACT
Implementing the proposed fees is consistent with the City's adopted user fee cost recovery
policy, and will help prevent even deeper cuts to community-wide services than will already be
required in balancing the General Fund budget for 2005-07.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two basic options: continue with no cost recovery for this service or implement partial
cost recovery. Given the Council's direction in November 2004, we do not recommend either of
these options.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Excerpt from November 2004 Report on "Pantry Items"
2. Resolution amending the City's master fee schedule to establish fees for development
applications and other proposals requiring review by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
G:Budgets/Financial Plans/2005-07 Financial Plan/Fees/CHC Review Fees/Council Agenda Report,5-17-05
Attachment I
."PANTRY'.'
e FOLLOW-UP• ■
APPLICATION FEE FOR CHC REVIEW
Recommendation
Go Forward Now. Except for requests to add properties to the Master or Contributing list, implement an
application fee for proposals requiring review by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC).
Proposal Summary
Historically, the City Council made the determination that CHC review is a public service that should
encourage historical review of buildings and development projects, and therefore no fees have ever been
recovered for CHC review of proposals. CHC review fees could be justified at this time based on the
more recent direction to implement full cost recovery for project review by Community Development
staff. There are two distinct situations where Community Development staff provides work for the
Committee which could warrant cost recovery.
1. The fust, projects with development, is for applications that go before the CHC that are related to
Architectural Review Commission or Planning Commission permits. These are for private
development action, generally in historic districts or involving Master List or Contributing property.
At the present time there is no additional fee collected for CHC review, although additional staff time
is required for this review. These are the most common CHC reviews with 28 projects forwarded to
the Committee in the past year.
2. The second situation, projects without development, is for applications that go before the Cultural
Heritage Committee that are not related to any other required permits. This would be for private
development action, not Architectural Review Commission or Planning Commission related, such as
historic inquiries and requests to add or remove properties from Master or Contributing list. These
are less common, with about six applications per year under the present rules. This number could
decrease if people felt the fee was too high.
Fiscal Impact
In the past year, 28 projects with development were forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee for
their review and recommendations. At that level, as noted on the attached Exhibit "A," full cost recovery
would require a fee of $2,134 per project, which would generate about $59,700 per year. Under the
present system, because building permits are anticipated for this type of review, only 45% of the fee
would be collected at the time of application. The remaining 55% would be collected with building
permits.
Approximately six projects without development per year go before the Cultural Heritage Committee
for their review and recommendations. Half of these are for adding a property to the Master or
Contributing list and therefore would be exempt from fees under the recommended proposal. Full cost
recovery, as noted on the attached Exhibit `B," would need to be $2,928, which would generate about
$8,750 per year. The per project cost is higher for these applications than for projects with development
due to the inclusion of file creation and management costs that are already covered in projects that have
planning applications.
To avoid discouraging requests to add properties to the Master or Contributing list, we do not recommend
a fee for this service.
�- 3
Attachment T
• •
APPLICATION FEE FOR CHC REVIEW
Implementation
What who When-,
L. Review proposal with the Cultural Heritage Committee and CDD 1/OS
stakeholders
2. Hold public hearing & obtain Council approval to revise fee CDD 3/05
schedule
3. Implement fee schedule CDD 5/05
Alternatives
1. Continue the current policy of not charging fees for CHC review. This would be inconsistent with the
recent Council policy change of trying to achieve full cost recovery for most planning services.
2. Implement full cost recovery for all CHC reviews, including additions to the Master and Contributing
properties list. This is likely to discourage many from applying for this.
3. Implement full fee recovery for projects with development only, because these referrals are part of a
review involving more significant changes and the fee is a much smaller proportion of the total
project costs.
4. Implement partial fee recovery for one or both types of projects.
Attachment -�-
8 O p v1 O O p h h h p h pp O Ut p p p p pp p pp pp O p p p p p p p 1° pp � r`
h O N h h O N O OO N O8 S N O h r O O O O 8 0 8 0 0 h S S S S O O O h V ry
a <+ COC C O O L O N OO OO m �.. - C Coco - C L O G O C G C C - G G C C C G .V
w ai w
c
ERE O
v
h -
E' N N I C! N
V Vi �i
C I
I p
c•� O O O.ti � '
C'C f9 M
C Z.
q u
Q
0 CC Y1 N vl V'1 N VI V1 N N,r 8.
y h h h h OI P P,
a,
N. CC d f9 Vf'
C p Q
sa
c
O > d N N Q b
G p I O Ni
Q Q �I
y h
C
rn
CE
U. U;C:U
.E. mV' G
.'g
v G u c c u E ._ 5 E t
Z
-E .2
u o6 '3
i - > Nwo G v r c g "u o N C •'u o n 3
.S .v - c �- c �- •� m W e g. c c o E o °.
CG � aeZQO ° U r7) E 0533 rn Zzv, Q C °u 1rii4 u°. FSv' rn` in �' C .:1 O U �i �
� r M_ P_ O N- N 1 N r1 V
N N
Attachment.L
8 0 0 0 0 0 S S O O N H r 0 O N O vOi M1 0 0 0 0O O O O O O O O S O O 8 r b
e
0000000 d N o 0 n = — 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o o_ g — $
N
p p H H
o
V N
h
E N N N N
C y H
�•U O M1 Mt
•C'C H y
a `u'
F
u g N g
e w C 8 C
¢a
heoo
O v O O N O O N M1
'e
v
y L H H
vi vi vi vi O. V
V C T N N N M1 M1
c c
a
y V SJ
y'O
V
0
_ Y O mvi
Q Q
u vOi 8 � O v0`i
•� wy C
Q
gU �U
'3 0 � mmy mmq .
x a E =
er c 3
o` F o ' 3 .c E? .
C F C i s ENE:i s e
3 E 3 •� er3 E eJ T H 9 N y 6
ti
3 > > Z5c
E c v ' ` `4 C p c c e �E o cc
U
y •u O j an d U d • O 9 y Yu• E.E
J
�' > ; e '+ c '.q u `o. L' .'_' e7 L u � $ •� � � v �•u � y S �`- aCi " m•y g-' T
'a o •- "• r y a 1Y e a "g u p a U N c m H c a, a u °
w o - L� y w3 `` v a Y o 5� • �v .°. _ e 6 S. "' •:t {e� � 'u .. e-
V C L L�V C N G Y. 'p •J O 9 n 9 CJ V E 7 0 9
� ' � `Q' O � .a u � 3•u e � c � a c o d c 3 �' '� c u a `m c u c V r7 m o u e U °C' e o
F= v i v n a �' C pcp++• a E-' o u E 2 0
G � OCZQ _ � h mtn3 c yZcinQ C u � ulQ u.ez yr7� �a ::tG Urn S� =7 � Uh o v.
U
dddd h M
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CITY'S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
ESTABLISH CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REVIEW FEES
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City of San Luis Obispo to review service charges on
an ongoing basis and to adjust them as required to ensure that they remain adequate to achieve
adopted cost recovery goals;and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy the Council adopted Resolution No. 9130 on
November 21, 2000 updating the City's updated master fee schedule on a comprehensive basis;
and
WHEREAS, the Council considered amendments to the master fee schedule at a public
hearing on May 17, 2005 based on a detailed analysis of costs and funding requirements to meet
adopted cost recovery goals in providing reviews by the Cultural Heritage Committee of
development applications and other proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that the City's master fee schedule is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, effective
September 1, 2005.
Upon motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on May 17, 2005.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
onat n P. Lowell, City Attorney
1
Resolution No. (2005 Series) Attachment 2
Page 2
Exhibit A
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REVIEW FEES
Service Fee
Development Review
Initial Application Fee $961
Development Review Fee for Planning Services 2.5/%of the combined
(To be collected at the same time as building permit fees) construction permit and
plan check fee
Requests for Additions to the Master or Contributing Lists No Fee
All Other Proposal Reviews $2,929
(Such as requests for deletion from the Master or Contributing List)
4- g
CP I
-- 61�L
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce I 1 n 1
1039 Chorro Street-San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
May 17, 2005 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255•TDD (805) 541-8416
David E. Garth, President/CEO
Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Item PH 4, Cultural Heritage Committee Review Fees, Council Agenda,May 17
Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members,
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce understands the concept of cost recovery as a tool
for balancing the city's budget but we cannot support the proposed Cultural Heritage Committee
Review Fees.
It is our opinion that the fees as proposed do not represent a commiserate benefit to the applicant
or to the community. We would prefer to see cost saving measures instituted which would make
the process more efficient. These could include completing more review at the staff level. This
would save time in the preparation of reports for the CHC and would also expedite the review
process. Using less staff and volunteer time seems a reasonable way to cut costs.
The Cultural Heritage Review may appear to be a benefit; however, some of our members who
have gone through CHC review have indicated that the review is too far reaching and the process
unecessarily cumbersome. The results may be unpredictable and often the review itself creates
significantly increased costs for the applicant.
We suggest that the City examine what can be done at the staff level to expedite the process
before determining the value of the service for cost recovery.
Sincerely,
Bob Wacker
Chairperson of the Board
email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com
OF
From: "Devin Gallagher" <DevinZ@aihug.co.nz>
To: "Astrid Gallagher" <Astrid@Digitalputty.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: CHC Review Fees ��,
Re CULTURAL HERITAGE REVIEW FEES
Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council
I do not agree with the proposed cost recovery fees. The CHC
provides a community benefit. To require funding for the review of cultural
and historic resources may be counter productive.
Willingness to pay the fee assumes that every potential applicant has an
interest in maintaining the community's cultural and historic resources.
Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Many applicants believe that it's best to hide or destroy anything of
significance prior to making a development application, to begin work, or
should they find something significant during the course of construction.
The CHC and the historic community have worked diligently to convince us
that there is value and financial benefits in preservation, and that the process
is pragmatic and reasonable. Over the years the general public has viewed
the process of reviewing historic and cultural resources as something they
are willing to go through.
I, for one, believe that CHC reviews are part of the general planning process
that provide greater community benefits. The entire city stands to gain by the
restoration of our cultural and historic resources, or lose by their destruction.
From a financial perspective the proposed fees would presumably
exacerbate the cost differential between restoring, and reusing older
properties versus demolishing and redeveloping in a manner that often
causes further sprawl. The latter would also be counter to the City's stated
goals.
I do, however, strongly agree with a $2900+ fee to remove buildings from
the Master list, and for demolition applications as well. These
applications are often made by people trying to avoid the CHC review
process. It's a waste of city resources to change the designation just because
property owners want something else. In most cases the property was so
designated when purchased. Many times buildings are historically
significant because of their location in a district, as well as for other reasons.
Better yet, make the fee $3500 with no discount in order to discourage
inappropriate behavior and the waste of public resources. And this fee
should be instituted as soon as possible to prevent further misuse.
Some marginal fees may be necessary to eliminate superfluous applications,
if there are any. I would also recommend doubling the fee for appeals to the
city council of CHC decisions.
Devin Gallagher
May 17, 2005
Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council and Mr. Statler:
I agree with Devin to charge applicants requesting removal from the Master
or Contributing list the full costs to the city, as well as any other application
for unnecessary CHC review.
I suggest the city raise the application fees related to development, for
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission review that
include Cultural Heritage Committee input.
The city currently charges $888 for ARC review for a minor development
application. I suggest adding $400 to the fee schedule, but no added fees for
the CHC review.
The city currently charges $2282 for ARC and Planning Commission
reviews on major development projects. I suggest $500 to this fee with no
added costs for CHC review.
I also suggest the city add $200 to the fee for appeals to the City Council of
CHC recommendations.
Astrid Gallagher
'.� City Of
San IUis omspo
990 Palm Street■San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ■(805)781-7125 0 Fax:805.781.7401 0 Email:bstatler@slocity.org
May 3, 2005
Notice Regarding Proposed
CULTURAL HERITAGE REVIEW FEES
The City does not currently assess fees for development applications that require review by the Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC). In November 2004, the Council conceptually approved implementing cost
recovery for these reviews. Based on the analysis presented at that
time, it costs the City $68,600 annually to provide this service. In Pro osedFees
accordance with Council direction,we will be recommending formal
approval of CHC review fees at the May 17,2005 Council meeting. Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Meeting Time: 7:00 PM
Cost Recovery Summary and Proposed Fees. It costs the City an City Hall Council Chambers
added $2,135 to process CHC reviews in conjunction with 990 Palm Street
development applications; and $2,929 in other cases, such as _
requests to add or remove properties to the Master or Contributing
list. The chart below summarizes the proposed cost recovery for reviews by the CHC. In accordance
with the City's rate structure policy for all other planning-related fees, we are proposing that 45% of the
review cost for development-
related projects be recovered Cost Per Annual Annual
through an application fee of Application Applications Cost
$961, with the balance Related to Development $2,135 28 $59,800
recovered through an added
2.5% surcharge on building Other Applications * 2,929 3 8,800
permit and plan check fees (the Total $68 600_
current planning fee surcharge is *Excludes requestsfor addition to the Master or Contrbuting list;
37.5%). no fees are recommended in this case.
For CHC review requests unrelated to development applications, (primarily requests for removal from the
Master or Contributing list), the recommended application fee is $2,929. (We are not recommending fees
for requests for addition to these lists.)
For More Information. We will be happy to meet with you or your organization at your convenience to
discuss this proposal with you prior to the May 17 Council meeting. Copies of the Council agenda report
providing more detailed information about the proposed fees (both in hard copy and electronic form) will
be available upon request from us by May 10, and will be posted on the City's web page by this date as
well at www.slocity.ore/citvclerk/agendas/councit.asp.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed fees, please call me at 781-7125.
Sincerely,
Bill Statler, Director of Finance& Information Technology
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.