HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2013 c7 appropriate unbudgeted permit revenue to allow development related servicescounctL
âqenòâ RepoRt
14eeling DaLe
s12|13
Item Nu'¡bec
7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM:Wayne Padilla, Interim Finance Director
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:APPROPRIATE UNBUDGETED PERMIT REVENUE TO ALLOV/ FOR
DEVELOPMENT RELATED SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution appropriating $100,000 of excess, unbudgeted revenues from development fees
for use in paying contract plan check and temporary contract assistance or temporary staff
("Development Related Services") in order to meet development review deadlines.
DISCUSSION
Background
The purpose of this item is to allocate $100,000 of unanticipated development fees that exceed
currently budgeted revenues. The attached resolution will provide for the appropriation of these
unanticipated and unbudgeted revenues to retain Development Related Services when permit
activity outstrips the capacity of City staff to timely process permit applications. This report
provides the background for why the appropriation is needed, the linkage to the recently completed
organizational assessment and how this appropriation ties to the adopted Economic Development
Strategic Plan. The proposed appropriation is also linked to the 2013-2015 Major City Goals of
Economic Development and Fiscal Health.
This past fall, the City hired Beacon Economics to prepare a forecast of permit activity associated
with new projects in the City. Their conclusion was that development activity in the City of San
Luis Obispo had bottomed out, and was on an upward trend. This forecast was validated following
the report with the reemergence of permit activity that is currently exceeding or trending towards
exceeding five year averages. Attachment 1 provides a summary of permit activity over the last
five years for fire, building, planning, and engineering and projected over the next financial plan.
Beacon Economics' forecast was cautiously optimistic and assumed that the City had seen the worst
declines in permitting activity. V/ith virlually every economic indicator trending upward, they
concluded that it was only a manner of time before new construction began with earnest. Thus,
anticipating the ramping up in activity, which has already emerged this year with some visible
projectsr, staff is proposing that the City Council appropriate $100,000 in unbudgeted revenues for
Development Related Services for use when permit activity exceeds resource levels. This request
applies to Development Related Services in Fire, Public 'Works and Community Development
Departments.
I SESLOC, Mind Body, Serra Meadows, Chinatown, Digital'West, and Garden Street Terraces projects to name a few
c7 -1
Allocate Unbudgeted Development Services Revenue Page2
Fiscal year 2012-13 has shown strong permitting activity already surpassing total permit valuation
and application levels for 2011-I2. Attachment 1 shows permit activity for Fire, Public Works,
Building and Planning over the last five years and projected over the next financial planning period.
Attachment 1 shows that Planning and Public Works Engineering reduced stafhng to account for
the reduction in permit activity. Fire and Building did not make staffing adjustments as the
decrease in permit activity did not allow for a full reduction in staffing. In the case of building,
although revenue went down, there ìwas a marginal decrease in building activity and hence staff was
not reduced.
Staff has proposed the same staffrng levels in each of the four divisions over the next financial
planning period. This is because 1) development is unpredictable, 2) additional staff is costly, 3)
revenues were conservatively estimated to account for the unpredictable nature of development and
could not justify additional staff, and 4) adding temporary contract staff or using subject matter
experts for Development Related Services can be utilized or remain idle depending on the level of
permit activity and not burden the City with ongoing staffing costs in down times.
Revenues have increased due to the current level of permit activity and the currently anticipated
revenues are forecast to exceed the currently budgeted development fee revenues for this Fiscal
Year. Attachment 4 shows the adopted revenue budgets and the actual revenues received for each
permit activity as of May 1't. The table shows the amount of over-realizedrevenue as of May l't
and projected to June 30, 2013. In the current fiscal year, revenues are currently exceeding the
adjusted mid-year budget by approximately $188,000 and are projected to be more than $200,000
over budget on June 30,2013. While the projection shows that revenue will significantly exceed
the adopted budgeted amounts, staff is recommending less than the full amount should any
significant drop in revenue occur over the next six weeks.
Fees
The cost of providing service is calculated by reviewing expected costs and estimated time to
provide the requested service. Determining a target level of cost recovery involves agency specific
decisions. As long as the adopted fee is set at an amount that does not exceed the estimated
reasonable cost of providing the service or activity, the City will remain in compliance with legal
requirements. The City currently meets these requirements and the proposed policy will strengthen
the relationship between fees paid and services rendered. The City's adopted policy is that
development should fully cover ihe costs for permitting services.2
This General Plan policy is implemented through City Budget and Fiscal Policies on User Fee Cost
Recovery Goals or Development Review Programs which states that cost recovery for these
services should in most instances be 100%. The current fee schedule was established to recover
rc}% of staff time spent reviewing building, planning, engineering, and fire permit applications.
The City is currently working to update the Master Fee Schedule. Updating fees every five years is
a best practice and ensures that there continues to be a direct relationship between the time spent on
a service and the fee. This is a basic requirement under the 1aw3 to ensure that fees for services do
2 General Plan Policy I . I 3 indicates that the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be
bome by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain
community-wide benefi ts.
' Article XI of the California Constitution.
c7 -2
Allocate Unbudgeted I)evelopment Services Revenue Page 3
not undercharge or overcharge and hence become a tax. A revised fee schedule for Parks and
Recreation, Police, Fire, Engineering, and Planning will be presented to the City Council in early
2014. While new fees will ensure that cost recovery is occurring consistent with established policy,
any change in fees will not address the amount of available resources needed to service permits
during periods of permit activity that exceed currently available staffing and other resources.
O r ganizatio n al As s es s ment
The recently completed organizational assessment provided over 80 recommendations. One of the
ten strategic recommendations is to develop an approach to administer revenue derived from permit
activity so that resources are readily available to tackle periods when permit activity exceed
available resources and quickly shed unneeded resources when development activity slows. The
exact language from the assessment is as follows:
Establish a Development Services Fund, or compqrable accounting device, that will allow
the Department to appropriately manage resources during peak and non-peak development
activity periods.
The cyclical nature of development is not a unique phenomenon to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Every jurisdiction experiences the ebb and flow of development. These cycles are less pronounced
in the City of San Luis Obispo which has had an evenly distributed housing and non-housing
development rate.
One approach to compensate between the time that services are delivered and the period in which
planning, building, fire, and engineering permit fees are collected is through the establishment of a
Development Services Fund. This approach is commonly used in larger organizations where large
fluctuations in development activity can cause significant swings in permit revenues and cost
centers.
Staff is not recommending the establishment of a full Development Services Fund at this time. The
reasons are that assigning the full costs (i.e. direct, indirect, and overhead) for processing
applications is challenging to establish and once established is time consuming to administer.
Moreover, the process of establishing and maintaining a separate Development Services Fund
would likely add administrative costs to the development review process. Lastly, development
services fees make up 3.4% of the overall General Fund revenues and establishing and maintaining
a separate fund to account and track these funds would likely not be worth the time and effort. Staff
intends on returning to the City Council to propose a financial policy when it has been fully vetted
to create a Development Services Revolving Account to fund development related services when
permit activity outstrips available resources.
In the short term, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) to
allocate $ 100,000 of the estimated $210,246 in excess permit revenues to be used for development
related services as set forth in the Resolution.
Economic Development Strategy
The proposed reallocation of excess revenue ties to the Economic Development Strategic Plan that
identified a goal of reducing permit processing times as one of the key strategies to creating Head of
c7 -3
Allocate Unbudgeted Development Services Revenue Page 4
Household jobsa. This goal identifies 10 different strategies to achieve this goal; the majority of
these are process changes rather than a shift in policies. The main goal nonetheless is to reduce
processing times while also ensuring compliance with adopted policies, regulations, and
development standards.
The staffrng levels of the Community Development Department, Fire, and Public 'Works are
oriented towards servicing regular permit activity rather than staffing to the peak. Staffing to peak
permit activity would result in the inefficient use of resources during periods of normal or below
normal permit activity. Attachment 1 shows the amount of planning applications and building
valuation over the past five years and compares it to existing and projected activity. The graphs
also show the amounts of employees dedicated to the direct processing of permits in Fire, Public
Works, Planning, and Building. These graphs show that projected permit activity is on the cusp or
will soon likely outstrip current resources, particularly in the Planning and Building Divisions,
which would result in delays in permit processing.
Attachment 1 illustrates general indicators of permit activity. Currently, when permit activities
substantially increase, the department does not have an immediate mechanism to access financial
sources to retain additional resources to meet cycle times and/or shorten processing time for high
priority projects. The proposed reallocation of excess revenue would be allow staff to bring on
additional resouÍces to meet or exceed permit processing times.
Companion RFP's
Two RFP's are also on the agenda to retain outside "on-call" consulting firms to assist with building
and planning plan check and inspections. These firms would only be used when existing staff
resources cannot meet cycle times and only when there are adequate balances in the Development
Services Account. Staff will be crafting RFP's for plan check services for Fire and Public 'Works
over the next few months so that these departments also have on-call resources during peak permit
activity.
CONCURRENCES
Fire, Public 'Works, Utilities, and the Community Development Departments all support the
proposed reallocation of funding to provide immediate funding to process permit applications when
volumes exceed available resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the General Fund as permit revenues are projected to exceed budgeted amount
by approximately $210,000 on June 30,2013. The proposed appropriation of $100,000 would be
offset by an equal increase to the Community Development revenue accounts. These monies would
only be used for plan check and inspection services or temporary contract help on an as-needed
basis. In the event that the actual revenues realized fall short of the budgeted amount, any portion
of the def,rciency will be removed from the expense budget at June 30th since it is unlikely that the
contracts with outside seruice providers willlead to a significant expenditure of these monies before
that time.
4 1.1 Identi¡, opportunities for permit streamlining with the goal of reducing permit processing times, seeking
opportunities to increase internal coordination, and improving cross department focus on development review
c7 -4
Allocate Unbudgeted Development Services Revenue Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose to deny the proposed appropriation and approach to addressing this
increase in service demands. Staff does not recommend this alternative as current staffing levels
budgeted in the current and next fiscal years will at times not be suffrcient to timely process permit
applications without additional outside resources. This would cause delays in permit processing
which would delay beneficial economic activities associated with projects.
ATTACHMENT
1. Five-Year Planning, Fire, Engineering, and Building Permit Activity
2. Unbudgeted Appropriation and Allocation of Revenues from Permit Fees Resolution
3. Permit Processing Cycle Times
4. Development Services Revenue Projections
c7 -5
Attachment 1
To
t
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
s5
0
50
0
45
0
7 6 5
6 .Ë E oô.
4
Èoc (!
tn
d¡
T
o
t
a
l
Building Permits
*s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
-T
r
e
n
d
l
i
n
e
3
40
0
2
35
0
t
30
0
0
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
20
0
9
-
2
0
t
o
20
1
0
-
2
0
7
1
20
L
7
-
2
0
L
2
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
20
7
2
-
2
0
L
3
*
20
!
3
-
2
0
t
4
20
1
,
4
-
2
0
1
5
at
\
.8
44
t
45
4
46
2
43
8
7C
To
t
a
l
ln
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
15
,
0
0
0
14
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
!2
,
0
0
0
1L
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
9,
0
0
0
8,
0
0
0
7,
O
O
O
6,
0
0
0
7 6 5
6 =o o CL
6tr
4
bocç(E
tt
,
rÈTotal lnspections *staffing -Trendline
3 2 1-0
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
20
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
20
r
o
-
2
0
1
-
t
20
7
L
-
2
0
L
2
20
7
2
-
2
0
1
,
3
"
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
20
1
3
-
2
0
7
4
20
1
4
-
2
0
L
5
-
/
/
\
.ç
10
,
3
7
\
_1
-
?
Á
V 9,
9
4
7
1U
5
l
b
1
\r
'
8,
3
7
6
c7 -7
To
t
a
l
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
23
0
22
0
zt
o
20
0
19
0
18
0
L7
0
16
0
15
0
7 6 5
6co .!
.9 CL CL
òo
.s =cr!d
4
¡o
I
To
t
a
l
Planning Applications
3
r!vl
Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
*S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
-T
r
e
n
d
l
i
n
e
2 1 0
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
20
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
20
t
o
-
2
0
7
L
20
L
L
-
2
0
t
2
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
20
L
2
-
2
0
1
3
*
20
7
3
-
2
0
L
4
20
1
4
-
2
0
t
5
2L
3
ç
I
12
2
2
\
5
5
ç t7
9
6
IC
To
t
a
l
Fi
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Pe
r
m
i
t
/
P
l
a
n
Re
v
i
e
w
s
26
0
24
0
22
0
20
0
18
0
16
0
t4
0
t2
0
L0
0
2 1.
5
q 3o o É,cl!ô-
.Ë ELoo-
àoÊ fU 1t
'
r{
n
f
e
t
¿
l
Fire Department Permit/Plan Reviews
1,
*S
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
-
Trendline
0.
5
0
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
20
0
9
-
2
0
L
O
20
t
O
-
2
0
L
1
.
20
t
L
-
2
0
L
2
20
L
2
-
2
0
1
3
*
20
1
3
-
2
0
1
,
4
20
!
4
-
2
0
L
5
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
19
6
rr
Ã
r
/
r
IF
F
tÃ
,
/
I;
-f
t
t
/
1.
1
l_
.
r
l_
.
r
I.
I
,r
1q
,
I.
J.
-t
.
1
23
8
úO
22
2
22
4
{
c7 -9
To
t
a
l
Va
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
S+
s
,
o
o
o
,
o
o
o
10 9 8 7 6
o t!¿o
5
òoc rt
-
lE
tt
t
*nTotal Valuations OStaffing - Trendline
s3
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4 3
S2
5
,
o
o
o
,
o
o
o
2 t
S2
o
,
o
o
o
,
o
o
o
0
20
0
8
-
2
0
0
9
20
0
9
-
2
0
1
0
20
t
o
-
2
0
1
1
20
t
t
-
2
0
t
2
20
1
,
2
-
2
0
L
3
*
20
7
3
-
2
0
1
4
20
t
4
-
2
0
L
5
Fi
s
c
a
l
Ye
a
r
5.
8
5.
8
53
3
,
4
0
7
,
6
t
e
5.
8
5.
8
St
s
,
a
n
,
z
z
z
I
I
5.
8
s4
1
,
8
s
7
,
3
s
0
S3
9
,
5
4
8
,
7
5
8
54
2
,
2
2
9
,
5
9
L
î
5.
8
53
3
,
9
1
8
,
1
6
3
5.
8
Þz
ð
Y
'
5
4
1
C7
Attachment 2
RESOLUTTON NO. (2013)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL
FUND BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATING AND ALLOCATING
DEVELOPMENT FEE REVENUES THAT EXCEED THE CURRENT BUDGET TO
PROVIDE THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO PAY FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
\ryHEREAS, the City Council adopted the annual budget of the General Fund on June
19,2012 setting forth the revenues and appropriations for the 2012-13 Fiscal Year; and
WHEREAS, the City's Budget and Fiscal Policies call for periodic reviews of the city's
financial status no less than semi-annually; and
WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that fees charged by the Community Development
Department will exceed the currently budgeted amounts by at least $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the excess fees represent demand from the development community for
services which the Community Development Department must secure through the use of
outside contracts in order to provide timely services in accordance with the Economic
Strategic Plan; and
\ryHEREAS, the current appropriations within the Community Development Department
are not sufficient to provide the resources to fund the required outside contracts referred
to above and a budget amendment as shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated by
reference herein is required.
NO\ry, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo hereby finds and directs the following actions:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The General Fund budget shall be amended as shown in Exhibit A to this
resolution.
SECTION 3. The Interim Finance Director/Treasurer shall take all actions necessary to
record the budget amendment within the financial records of the city.
SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall secure the required outside
contracts or temporary staffing resources as needed to provide the services for which fees
have been collected in accordance with City contracting policies and procedures.
SECTION 5. In the event that the estimated revenues are not realized in the amount
reflected in Exhibit A, the Interim Finance Director/Treasurer shall reduce the amount
appropriated in accordance with this resolution by the amount of revenues that are not
realized at June 30,2013.
R
c7 -11
Resolution No. _ (20xx Series)
Page2
*{<***********{<**
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following ro11 call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2l't day of May 2013.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Maeve Kennedy Grimes
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
c7-12
Resolution No._ (20xx Series)
Page 3
Fund - General Fund Increase/(Decrease)
$ 25,000.00
$ 75,000.00
$100,000.00
Exhibit A
Revenue
45480 -
45490 -
Planning and Zoning Fees
Building Permits
Expense
40100 -7227 Contract Services
c7 -13
Pland¡g (from "deemed complete" date)
40Lot Line Adjustment
80-120Tract Map
40-50Minor Sub
Dir. Action 20-30
Admin UP 30-40
20-40ARC Minor lncidental
40-60ARC
40-60Conceptual ARC
PC Use Permit 40-60
Mills Act 30-40
Siens 20-40
120-240GPA
120-180Rezone
Specific Plan Amend 1_20-180
Variance 20-40
PLANNTNG/BUTLDTNG CYCLE TIMES
Attachment 3
lnitialReview RecheckResidential
20 10Minor
10Moderate20
10Major20
Commercial
Minor 20 10
30 15Moderate
40 20Major
RechecklnitialReview
Fire & Life Safety 15 10
Fire Protection 15 10
r¡ ,{. lì ,ìri:I i iJttl ìiì¡ìt,':t ¡[:]\f/ ,,
lnitialReview Recheck
20 L0
Lot Line Adjustment or
Certificate
r, !\ ,i.,ri::ì{í ii,1r"rr r''ì irjil.l t,). rri"r'l
c7-14
MS Map Review 30 15
MS PIP Review 30 15
Tract Map < 50 lots*40 20
Tract PIP's < 50 lots*40 20
Add time/50 lots 10 5
Encroachments
Minor L0 5
Moderate 20 10
Major 30 15
Misc PIP's
Minor 20 L0
Moderate 30 15
Major 40 20
Traffic Plan Review
Moderate 10 5
Maior 15 L0
Attachment 3
c7 -15
A
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Lu
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
v
i
e
w
20
1
2
-
1
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
c
Attachment 4
(Ð
=
Re
v
i
s
e
d
re
v
m
0
e
s
ft
o
m
th
e
20
1
2
-
'
1
3
Mi
d
-
Y
æ
r
Bu
d
q
e
t
Re
p
o
r
t
(B
)
=
Ac
t
u
a
l
re
v
s
u
e
s
as
of
5t
'
1
t
2
0
'
t
3
(c
)
=
AJ
l
2
x
l
o
-
e
(D
)
=
B/
1
0
x
1
2
(E) = o-nt
Un
b
a
d
g
e
t
e
d
Revenues (6/s0/1s)$80,554 $116,737 s6r,464 -$33,262
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
a
e
s
(6
ß
0
/
1
s
)
$5
8
0
,
4
5
4
$1
,
2
2
r
,
3
3
7
$2
1
1
,
4
6
4
$5
3
1
,
7
3
8
Un
h
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
(5
n
/
ß
)
$6
7
,
1
2
9
s9
7
,
2
8
r
s5
1
,
2
2
0
-s
2
7
,
7
1
8
$4
8
3
,
7
1
2
$1
,
0
1
7
,
7
8
1
st
7
6
,
2
2
0
$4
4
3
,
1
15
Ac
t
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
(s
/
I
/
1
3
)
$4
9
9
,
9
0
0
$1
,
1
0
4
,
6
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
6
5
,
0
0
0
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
(M
í
d
-
Y
e
ø
r
)
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Fi
r
e
PW
En
e
.
I
)
e
v
.
Re
v
.
C7
MAY 2I 2OI3
R ÏVED
L[rRIcounctl memopânò
May 21,2013
TO: City Council
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
VIA:Katie Lichtig, City
SUBJECT: Agenda Item C7 - Appropriation of Excess Unbudgeted Revenues from
Development Fees
This Council Correspondence file addresses a request for clarification regarding the proposed
appropriation of excess unbudgeted revenues of development fees.
Question L: On the charts, does the 5.8 staffing level include those individuals who are
currently being compensated through developer payments (vis a vis Chevron)?
The 5.8 FTE shown on page C7-6 presents the total number of Building and Safety Division staff
dedicated to the review of plans and inspection of censtruction projects. The 5.8 FTE listed are
funded by fees for service, meaning that building permit and plan check fees that are collected
and deposited in revenue accounts are intended to cover the City's costs to review plans and
inspect projects.
The amount of staff authorized in Development Review Division for the review of planning
applications is 4.0 FTE. The chart does not show temporary positions. The chart shown on Page
C7-8 shows the amount of the planning applications and FTE over the past five years and
projected over the 2013-2015 Financial Plan.
An additional 0.5 FTE temporary Planner Tech position was filled to cover counter activities to
account for the shift in authorized staff to provide special project management services to the
Chevron Tank Farm Project. The 0.5 FTE will only be available until the EIR is presented to
Council in fall 2013. The 0.5 FTE is only temporary and will not be available during the next
financial planning period when permit activity is likely to increase and at times exceed available
staff resources.
Question 2: To what extent has development in the newly annexed Orcutt area and the
upcoming projects re: Chevron, Margaritan Prado and the Airport Area were included in
your projections?
Planning and building plan activity is irregular and unpredictable. The conservative assumptions
that built the projections of building, planning, and fire permit activity as shown in the
attachments for item C-7 over the next two years were based on Beacon Economics' forecast.
This forecast called for total growth of 20-30% in permit activity through 2017-2018. It is
projected that there will be approximately 32% compound growth in permit activity over the
next two years, with activity ramping up in the last three years of the five year forecast. Growth
C-7 Council Correspondence-Appropriation of Excess Unbudgeted Permit Revenue Page 2
is already picking up with virtually all permitting and inspection activity at or near levels seen in
the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year. The majqrity of significant development projects are occurring in
the City's specific plan areas which include properties in the Margarita, Orcutt and Airport
Areas.
Question 3: It appears that the Fire permit/plan reviews are in excess of planning
applications. Please explain.
There is a partial correlation between the number of planning applications and fire permit/plan
review. The volume of planning applications shown on Page C7-8 presents all ministerial and
discretionary reviews over the past five years and projected for the two years covering the 2013-
2015 Financial Plan. Not all planning applications are reviewed by the Fire Department. The
Fire Department reviews some but not all planning and building permits. The projected planning
and fire application and review volumes are similar, but there is not an absolute correlation
between the two.
For example, a sign permit is reviewed by Development Review Planning Division (i.e.
planning) and by the Building and Safety Division, but will not be reviewed by the Fire
Department. Some tenant improvements require only building permits and review from the Fire
Department and will not require planning permits.
The difference in permit volumes is'not uncommon and reflects the complex planning and
building review process that is established by the International Building Code and locally
adopted land use policies and development standards.
Please contact Derek Johnson at 805-781-7187 should there be any questions,
tr\@unc¡l agenda reportsU0l3\2013-05-21\sllocgte development review revenue (padilla-johnson)ogendo conespondence-c-7 docx