HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/1991, 1 - INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES MEETING DATE:
����h�ii(illllllllll��1°j1IIIIIN city of san tUis OBISPO — — 71
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TE NUMB R:
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance
Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager
SUBJECT: INCREASE IN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution increasing planning, building & safety and engineering fees effective
November 16, 1991.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Increasing planning, building & safety and engineering development review fees has been
the subject of extensive discussion for the past four years. The proposed increase will set
the fees at comparable levels with other communities while generating a level of cost
recovery that is consistent with adopted City policy and assists the City in meeting
demonstrated financial needs. As discussed below, the general policy guideline for
development review cost recovery is 100%. However, in addressing other issues
incorporated in the City's user fee cost recovery policy, the recommended fees will result
in the following overall cost recovery ratios:
■ Building & Safety 91%
■ Planning 56%
■ Engineering 100%
In adopting new planning, building & safety, and engineering fees, the Council will be
answering a basic policy question:
■ Who should pay for the cost of development review?
There are only two basic options available in answering this basic policy question: the
general taxpayer or the applicant. The City's adopted user fee cost recovery policy attempts
to provide direction on this issue. After considering a wide range of factors, the policy
recommends a high level of cost recovery from the applicant for development review
activities.
DISCUSSION
Background
Development review fees are charged for the processing and review services provided by
City staff in the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The current
planning, building & safety, and engineering development review fees were last revised in
1983. The need to address development review fees has been under serious discussion
since 1987 when the City's long-term financial health was identified as a major objective
during the 1987-89 Financial Plan process. In response to this objective, a Comprehensive
Financial Management Plan (CFMP) was prepared which addresses the City's financial
needs through the year 2000. As part of this long-term financial planning effort, Vertex
1-� I
��,��ni►ilillllllllll�1°j�IIUI1l MY Of San WIS OBISPO
Hii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Cost Systems prepared a comprehensive user fee analysis which identified the amount of
development review fees which could be charged for various levels of cost recovery. (A copy
of this report is on file and available in the City Clerk's office.) Increasing development
review fees was subsequently identified in the CFMP as a key source of new revenue to
support the City's long-term financial health.
From this user fee analysis, .the Council identified the need to develop a comprehensive
user fee policy which would identify the level of cost recovery that should be achieved
through these user charges. This task was assigned to the Citizens' Advisory Committee
(CAC) in conjunction with their broader review of the policies and actions necessary to
ensure the City's long-term financial health.The CAC completed their extensive review and
evaluation of the City's long-term financial needs in February 1991, and they recommended
a 100% cost recovery level from development review fees.A summary of the findings of the
User Fee Analysis regarding current cost recovery levels combined with the CAC's
recommended cost recovery levels is provided in Attachment 1.
I
As requested by Council, the CAC's recommendations included a comprehensive user fee
policy. This policy was subsequently adopted by Council as a part of the City's 1991-93
Financial Plan (Attachment 2). In the areas of planning, building& safety, and engineering,
100% cost recovery has been identified as the goal for development review fees. The only
key exception is Architectural Review Commission (ARC) fees, which are recommended
to be set at 50% cost recovery levels.
Cost of Services Methodology
i
The development review fee analysis is based on the "total cost" of providing services, which
is comprised of three major components:
■ Allocation of City-wide support costs such as accounting, purchasing,
insurance, personnel, and legal services.
■ Program administration costs, which are generally included in departmental
budgets.
I
■ Direct costs specifically identified with providing a particular service or
activity.
Consistent with adopted Financial Plan policy, the proposed fees are based upon 100%
recovery of total costs, except for the fees charged for review by the ARC, which are based
upon a 50% cost recovery. Each of the fee categories has been reviewed by the staff from
planning, building & safety, and engineering, and they concur with the final
recommendations. Further, each of the fees has been established to meet all of the criteria
of the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, including the following general concepts as outlined
under Section E of the policy:
■ Revenues should never exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
»nii�lillillllllll1° IIUIU city of San Luis OBISPO
IMia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service,
including direct costs, departmental administration costs, and organization-
wide support costs such as accounting, personnel, data processing, vehicle
maintenance, and insurance.
■ The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible
in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection.
■ Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well
as to smaller, infrequent users of the service.
■ A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for
various programs based on the factors discussed above. I
Proposed Fees
I
The following materials are provided with this agenda report as background materials in
considering the proposed fees:
Resolution Exhibits
The following exhibits summarize the proposed rate schedules for development review
fees:
A. Building & Safety Fees
B. Planning Fees
C. Engineering Fees
Attachments
Attachments 1 and 2 provide a summary of recommended cost recovery goals and current
cost recovery ratios for each fee category (Attachment 1) as well as Council adopted user
fee cost recovery goals excerpted from the 1991-93 Financial Plan (Attachment 2). These
two documents provide a financial overview of the methodology for 100% cost recovery and
the philosophy for the method of implementing of the proposed fees. Attachments 3
through 11 provide comparisons of the proposed City fees with those charged by cities
within the tri-county area (Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties) with a
summary of the City's current vs. proposed fees. These attachments are organized as
follows:
Building & Safety Fees
■ Recommended modifications from the 1988 Uniform Administrative
Code (Attachment 3).
■ Comparison of proposed fees to other agencies (Attachment 4).
/-3
������i>,i►ilVlllllllllPu llll city of San LUIS OBISPO
MICma COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Planning Fees
■ Summary of current and proposed fees (Attachment 5).
■ Comparison of proposed fees with other agencies (Attachment 6).
Engineering Fees
■ Summary of current fees and rate structure (Attachment 7).
■ Comparison of proposed fees with other agencies (Attachment 8).
Impact of Proposed Fees on Typical Developments
■ 20,000 square foot commercial project (Attachment 9)
■ Three (3) unit residential development (Attachment 10)
■ Fifty (50) unit residential tract (Attachment 11)
The following is a discussion of these schedules for each of these major fee categories:
BidldbW& Safety Development Review Fees
The building & safety fee schedule currently in effect is based upon the 1983 Uniform
Administrative Code (UAC). The UAC is the first three chapters of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). As such, although it is -a part of the UBC and has the same fee structures
as the UBC, the UAC is considered a separate document. Both documents are only
updated every three years. In June 1990, the City adopted all portions of the 1988 Edition
of the UAC and UBC except the fee structure. The 1991 Edition of the UAC and UBC
is currently before the State for adoption, which must occur prior to jurisdictions adopting
the codes, but is not expected to occur until January of 1992. The UAC and UBC are
considered the industry standard, and the State requires jurisdictions to strictly adopt the
code, with the exception of the fee schedules.
The proposed fee schedule, which is included as Exhibit A, is based upon the rates/fees
provided in the 1988 Editions of the UAC and UBC. Although the user fee analysis would
indicate a slightly higher rate structure than UAC, adoption of the UAC rates is
recommended for two key reasons:
■ These rates represent a nationally recognized standard for fee levels.
■ We-should strive for 100% cost recovery using this standard as our guide for
productivity and performance.
Fortunately, the 1991 Edition of the fee schedules remain the same as the 1988 fee
schedules. The proposed fees represent approximately a 50% increase over fees currently
charged. The resolution before Council adopts the UAC as the basis for the City's building
fees with minor changes as recommended by the City's Building Official as summarized in
Attachment 3. With the State requirements for adoption of the UAC and UBC, most cities ,
also adopt the fee schedules (making their own modifications) as shown in Attachment 4,
which compares proposed fees with those of comparable tri-county communities.As reflected
in these schedules, all of the surveyed cities not only use the 1988 UAC as the basis for
their fees, but many add significant percentages to this base.
klI city of san Luis OBISPO
SMaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Planning Development Review Fees
Attachment 5 provides a comparison of the current and proposed fees for planning services.
The proposed fees are based upon the recommendations in the 1988 User Fee Analysis, and
have been increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the past three years to provide
for current dollar values. Additionally, the Community Development Department has
performed a review of the proposed fees and their recommendations have been
incorporated.
Attachment 6 compares a sampling of the proposed planning fees for the City with planning
fees charged by other tri-county cities. This type of comparison is extremely difficult to
prepare due to several factors:
■ Published fee schedules obtained from other cities listed only the basic or
high volume fees
■ Cities use different names for the same fee
■ Cities combine a variety of fees under one category
■ Cities have widely varying rate structures
Because of the complexity in obtaining the fees, not every fee was compared, but a sample
was generated to provide a fairly broad basis for comparison. As reflected in this
comparison, the proposed fees are within the ranges of the surveyed cities.
From a policy perspective, the most significant feature of the proposed planning fees is the
recommendation that the fee for appeals be set at 50% of the original permit application
fee. Currently, no fee is charged to applicants. Supporting factors for this recommendation
include:
■ Significant costs are incurred by the City in processing appeals, and it is
consistent with City policy to expect cost recovery.
■ It is common practice for cities to set appeal fees using the recommended
approach.
Alternative fee structures for.appeals include:
■ A reduced percentage of the initial permit application fee.
■ A flat nominal fee.
■ Continue the policy of no fees for appeals.
Based upon the 1988 User Fee Analysis, the average cost of an appeal is $515 compared
with current cost recovery levels of zero. As noted above, the recommendation to set
appeal fees at high cost recovery levels is based primarily on the significant costs associated
with processing them. In determining the appropriate level of appeal fees, there may be
!-S
city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
other factors than those outlined in the user fee policy that the Council may wish to
consider (such as the impact on community participation and the ease of access by citizens
as well as developers to the appeal process) in making a policy decision on this sensitive
issue.
Engineering Development Review Fees
Attachment 7 provides the current engineering fee schedule. As reflected in this summary,
most fees for these activities are calculated on an hourly basis of staff time at specified
dollar values. This method of fee implementation is cumbersome to administer due to
hourly tracking and recording of time as well as outdated hourly rates. Additionally,
although deposits are initially taken for these services, it is also cumbersome for developers
as the final cost is uncertain and may not be determined for years after the deposit is
initially received. Per the City's adopted cost recovery policy regarding administrative
simplicity, the proposed fees are an attempt to keep the fee structure simple for both the
developer and staff.
Attachment 8 compares all of the proposed engineering fees to those that other tri-county
cities charge for these services. As reflected in the comparison, the use of standard
percentages based on estimated improvement costs is the industry standard, and the
recommended percentages are within the low-range of the cities surveyed.
Who Pays Development Review Fees?
Development review fees are paid by the applicant - individuals, businesses, contractors, or
developers. Although an attempt has been made at keeping the fees lower for the types
of services most used by individuals, it is appropriate that those using City services pay their
fair share of the costs the City incurs in providing the services. The developer will include
the fees in calculating the cost of the house/facility and will apply their profit margin
accordingly. As such, it can be reasonably expected that the developer will try to pass the
cost of increased development review fees onto the purchase price or rental income of the
project.
However, it is very difficult to fully assess the impact of increased development review fees
on the price of projects - especially "affordable housing". There are many communities in
the Central Coast with much higher development review fees than we currently have that
produce housing that is much more "affordable" than ours. Clearly, there are many factors
other than development review fees that affect the price of housing.
There are a number of options available to the City in addressing this affordability issue.
For example, the Planning Commission has recommended that affordable housing be
exempt from paying any development review fees. As a concept, this approach may have
merit, but it poses several difficult questions, including:
M What is "affordable"?
■ How would fees be reduced if only portions of a development project are
"affordable"?
1 -
�������►►�IVIIIIIIIIII�►j�Il�Ill city of San Luis OBISp0
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Who assures that "affordable" housing remains affordable as it changes
ownership over time?
In recognizing affordable housing goals while assuring that the above issues are effectively
addressed, it is recommended that projects owned or actively managed by the Housing
Authority be exempted from development review fees.
Do We Need Additional Revenues?
As discussed in the CFMP and the CAC's report submitted to the Council on February 5,
1991, the City's current financial condition is very strong by state and national standards.
The City has enjoyed a strong local economy since World War II, which has contributed
significantly to our fiscal success. However, there are many communities that have financial
resources equal or greater than our own, but nonetheless have experienced serious financial
difficulties. Although our strong local economy has enabled us to deliver an excellent
program of municipal services, the City's current financial health is primarily attributable
to the City's past and current financial management policies and practices that reflect our
commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Although the City is in good financial condition today, continuing our commitment to an
excellent program of municipal services and achieving our public facility goals will require
new revenues. The CAC's report identified $5.7 million in annual costs required to support
new programs or projects that have already been adopted by Council. These expenditure
needs only increase if other projects currently under consideration, but not yet adopted, are
also considered.
Further, these projections assumed a continuation of our historical increases in key revenue
sources such as sales taxes; recent trends have not been this favorable. Increasing
development review fees to appropriate cost recovery levels is one component of an overall
strategy to maintain our financial health - now and in the future.
What Will Be the Impact on Typical Developments?
To determine the impact on typical developments, three hypothetical projects with varying
assumptions were developed to demonstrate the amount of fees to be paid by the developer
using the City's current fee structure and the proposed fee structure, along with a
comparison of the fees charged by the other "benchmark" tri-county cities:
■ 20,000 square foot commercial .development
■ Three unit residential development
■ Fifty unit residential tract
Attachments 9, 10, and 11 provide the varying assumptions for each project with a subtotal
of the fees by type and a total of the projected fees. As reflected in these summaries, the
recommended fees will bring the City in-line with the fees currently being charged by other
cities in the tri-county area.
��ruililllllllllll1°jIIIIIIII MY Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The City's long-term financial health and user fee cost recovery policies have been
extensively reviewed by the CAC. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Commission have reviewed the proposed fees and have provided
comments for the Council's review. A copy of the responses by the Community
Development Department to these comments is provided in Attachment 12 summarized as
follows:
Architectund Review Commission
At its July 15, 1991 meeting, the ARC reviewed and commented on the proposed
development review fees. General ARC comments centered around the appropriateness
of a 100% cost recovery goal, and commending the commitment to evaluate the fees
annually so that a recurrence of fee increases in the amounts being proposed will not be
repeated.
There was a consensus of support among the ARC for the proposed Building & Safety and
Engineering fees. Specific planning fees discussed by the ARC included:
■ Appeal fees. Consensus for 100% cost recovery for applicant initiated appeals and
a lower appeal fee for others.
Staff continues to recommend that appeal fees be set at levels that recover the cost
of providing this service. However, as discussed above, there are key issues
associated with this approach that are not fully covered in our existing user fee
policy, and accordingly, Council direction on this matter is required.
■ Sign permit fees. Consensus for lowering the proposed sign permit fee and increasing
the proposed sign variance fees, to encourage application for the original sign permit.
Staff continues to recommend the proposed sign permit fee ($50 - $70). Using the
current procedures, an exception requested at the time of initial application would
only be charged for the basic sign permit plus the fee for ARC review.
Planning Commission
During its August 14, 1991 meeting, the Planning_Commission reviewed and discussed the
proposed development review fees. The following is a summary of the Planning
Commission's comments and staff's modifications/recommendations:
■ Expand comparisons with other Central Coast cities.
The Planning Commission indicated their desire to only compare the proposed fees
with other Central Coast cities. Therefore, the comparisons were modified using
I
���►ri�l�lill{IIII 11° ����U city of San tuts OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
cities from the tri-county area: three cities from Ventura County (Oxnard, Simi
Valley, and Thousand Oaks), two cities from Santa Barbara County (Santa Barbara
and Santa Maria), and two cities from San Luis Obispo County (Pismo Beach and
Paso Robles).
■ Prepare fee impacts by project type (single house development,tract, and commercial
project).
This analysis has been prepared which compares the City's current fees with
proposed fees along with the fees charged by other Central Coast cities (Santa
Maria, Pismo Beach, and Paso Robles) as well as other tri-county cities
(Attachments 9, 10, and 11).
■ Exempt seismic retrofits and affordable housing from paying any development review
fees.
I
As indicated above, staff is now recommending that any project that is owned or
actively managed by the Housing Authority be exempt from all development review
fees. Financing options to implement the City's seismic safety regulations are
currently under review, and it is recommended that consideration of fee incentives
be deferred at this time and included with our analysis of the broader financing
issues.
■ Reduce fees for EIR determinations, EIR administration, and variances.
i
Staff is not recommending any changes to the proposed EIR Determination and EIR
Administration fees. An EIR Determination is not only used to determine if an EIR
is required, but also addresses negative impacts with appropriate solutions, which
is very time consuming. The proposed EIR Administration fee (consultant contract
price plus 30% of the contract price for administration) covers the preparation of the
work scope and RFP, recruitment and selection of the consultant, negotiating the
contract, monitoring the progress of the consultant, administration of the consultant
contract, and dealing with the distribution, review, and adoption of the draft and
final EIR.
Staff is also not recommending any changes to the proposed Variance fee. Since
variances are granted for unique circumstances, it would be difficult to categorize
variances into levels of significance or amount of time consumed. Provisions
currently exist for minor exceptions through an administrative review process, which
will continue in effect, with a smaller fee ($200 vs. $780 for a variance).
■ Change the proposed fee basis for Specific and General Plans and Engineering fees,
making them hourly charges.
Specific Plans. Due to the unique nature of Specific Plans, staff concurs that it would
be more appropriate to charge a Specific Plan Initial Study Fee of $1,000 and
combine this with a written agreement with the developer, to be executed before
work is initiated, which outlines tasks,workscope, City and developer responsibilities,
and reimburses the City fully for its costs. The proposed fee resolution has been
amended to reflect this approach.
���il�n►►►1�IIII1111111°�uq `� city of san-lues OBISPO
Mii% COUNCIL AGENDA G NDA REPORT
General Plans. General Plans are usually localized and text amendments are
relatively straight forward to process. As such, staff continues to recommend the
originally proposed fee structure.
Engineering Fees. In reviewing Engineering fees with other tri-county cities, the
recommended fees are very comparable. As such, staff continues to recommend the
originally proposed fee structure due to factors previously discussed.
■ Phase-in the proposed fee increases.
Taking into consideration the length of time since the last increase, the comparability
of the proposed fees with other tri-county communities, and the City's demonstrated
financial needs, this approach is not recommended: . -
■ Provide for an on going review of fees so that significant "catch-up" increases will not
occur in the future.
The City's adopted user fee policy (Section A) recognizes this concern. Accordingly,
the proposed resolution provides that fees will be increased annually on November
1st by the Consumer Price Index, with a comprehensive review performed at least
every five years.
■ Develop a plan to ensure accountability for service delivery.
In January 1991, a Building Process Task Force was formed for the purpose of
reviewing and improving the City's development review process. The Task Force is
responsible for determining ways to improve the City's internal coordination and
communication, "streamlining"procedures, and providing better information to guide
applicants through the process. The Task Force has identified three specific areas
to review:
1. Building permit process
2. Preliminary discretionary approvals through the planning process
3. Field inspection functions
The Task Force recently completed its review of the building permit process and has
developed a draft information packet to guide the applicant through this process.
The information packet includes a mission and values statement, building permit
process flowchart, permit application processing .goals, permit application
requirement guidelines, and a list of items that typically will be addressed during the
plan checking process. The information packet is expected to be available for
distribution to the public by early October. The Task Force will begin its review
of the City's planning process and inspection functions in early October.
■ Do not have a fee for appeals.
Staff recommendations regarding appeal fees have been addressed above.
/_/0
MY Of san WI S OBI SPO
s COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Other Community Participants
To ensure communication with affected industry groups, a joint meeting with representatives
from the Chamber of Commerce, the Building Industry Association (BIA), and the
Contractor's Association was held with City staff on June 24, 1991 to discuss the proposed
development review fees as well as other fee issues. There were two basic issues regarding
the development review fees which this group addressed:
■ Value for Cost. The developers /contractors were specifically concerned with
the type of service that they will be receiving for these fee increases. They
suggested that the City establish performance and time standards for
processing the work. Overall, the comments indicated that there was not a
major concern with the fee increases if there was a guaranteed performance.
The efforts of the Building Process Task Force discussed above reflect the
City's commitment to address the building industry's legitimate concerns in
this area.
■ Cost Recovery Goals. The proposed fees are based upon 100% cost recovery
in all areas except for review by ARC, which is based upon 50% cost recovery.
This basis was recommended by the CAC and has been adopted by the
Council. During the discussion with the developers /contractors, they
expressed some concern with this high level of cost recovery for development
review services since the community is the primary beneficiary of the
development review process, and accordingly, General Fund revenues should
also support development review costs. This concern with community -wide
versus special benefit in setting fees is specifically addressed in the City's User
Fee Cost Recovery Policy. However, the policy also states that cost recovery
goals should recognize the "service- driver" nature of fees and services. In this
category of fees, developers may not be the "beneficiary" of the service, but
they "drive" the need for the City to provide it. As such, 100% cost recovery
is appropriate and consistent with the City's adopted policy in this area.
Provided in Attachment 13 is a letter from the BIA commenting on their review of specific
proposed fees. The following is a summary of the BIA's comments and staff's
modifications/ recommendations:
■ Phase -in the proposed fee increases.
This concern was also expressed by the Planning Commission and staff's
recommendation on this issue has been addressed above.
■ Projects that are in the "pipe- line" should be exempt from the proposed increases.
Projects which have submitted completed applications for any specific planning,
building & safety, or engineering services by November 16, 1991 will be charged at
the current rate regardless of when the processing is completed. In this sense, "pipe-
line projects" are exempted.
city of san Luis ogispo
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
However, staff does not recommend that projects that are in an early phase of the
development review process (such as an application for a tentative tract map) be
"locked into" existing rate structures for all other services for years to come as they
progress through to building permit applications. Not only would this approach be
extremely difficult to consistently administer, it would result in significant equity
issues. For example, it is highly likely that individuals receiving the exact same
services at the exact same time would pay significantly different fees. Further, using
the tentative tract to building permit phase an example, this would provide someone
with a right to build at a significantly lower processing cost before discretionary
approval has even been received.
Lastly, there would be some difficulty in defining when the "pipeline" began. Did
it begin with a specific plan proposal? General plan amendment? Rezoning
request? EIR determination? PD application? Tentative tract map filing?
In summary, in the interest of clarity, equity, efficient fee administration, and straight
forward communication to the development community, as well as the staff, it is
recommended that the fees become effective for all applications received on or after
November 16, 1991 for specific development review services.
■ Expand comparisons with other Central Coast cities.
This concern was also expressed by the Planning Commission and the staff has
modified the comparison cities accordingly.
■ Discount development review fees by 50% for seismic retrofitting.
This concern was also expressed by the Planning Commission and the Staff's
recommendation on this issue has been addressed above.
■ Three proposed planning fees should be reduced:
Tract Tentative map
Parcel Map
Vesting Map
$1530 + $50 /Lot
$1530 + $50 /1-ot
$ 400 + $50 /Lot
Tentative Tract Map. Staff continues to recommend the proposed fee of $1530 +
$50 /Lot for the tract map due to the variation on scale of work and the related cost
involved.
Parcel Map. It was not staff's intention to charge the $50 /Lot in addition to the
$1,530. The proposed fees reflect the stand alone flat rate of $1,530.
Vesting Map. Staff concurs with the BIA's recommendation to eliminate the
proposed fee for vesting maps.
city of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ The fee structure for three engineering fees should be changed to an hourly basis:
Improvement Plan Check $200 + 1.5% of Construction Cost
Construction Inspection $500 + 2.5% of Construction Cost
Final Tract Map $750 + $50 /Lot
This concern was also expressed by the Planning Commission and the staff's
recommendation on these fee categories has been addressed above.
When Will the Increase Be Implemented?
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1600 the increased development review fees can go into effect
sixty (60) days following the adoption of the resolution. Therefore, it is recommended that
the proposed fees become effective on November 16, 1991.
How will Fees be Updated in the Future?
As indicated in the adopted User Fee Cost Recovery Policy in the 1991 -93 Financial Plan,
the proposed fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they
keep pace with changes in the cost -of- living. This will be accomplished by increasing the
fees by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) on November 1st of each year. At least every five
years, we will perform a comprehensive review of the fee structures to ensure that the City's
cost recovery goals are being properly met. Unfortunately, the current development review
fees have not been reviewed or modified since 1983, and in order to bring the fees to
appropriate 1991 levels, significant percentage increases (approximately 40 %) are required
solely to account for the passage of time.
FISCAL IMPACT
As summarized in Attachment 1, the proposed fee increases would have resulted in
additional revenues of $700,000 annually during the "base year" analyzed (1988). In the
long -term, this should be the 'order of magnitude" level of new revenues available to the
City on an annual basis. As discussed previously, this revenue increase is one component
of an overall strategy to ensure our long -term financial health if we are to maintain our
current level of service and achieve our public facility goals.
However, over the next two years, these increases are projected to have a smaller fiscal
impact on the City due to the significantly reduced level of development activity estimated
to occur during 1991 -93 compared with 1988. As noted in the Budget Message of the 1991-
93 Financial Plan, these increases were assumed in our revenue projections based on
Council adoption and implementation of the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. Development
review volumes were projected at 75% of 1990 -91 levels (which were themselves
significantly lower than historical levels). Due to this significant reduction in anticipated
activity levels, the recommended fee increases are projected to generate approximately
$300,000 annually during 1991 -93 as summarized in Attachment 14. As such, failure to
approve the recommended fees will result in a revenue shortfall of $600,000 over the next
two years, which will result in General Fund balances that are less than our 20% policy by
approximately this amount.
1 -13
57ti city of San LUIS OBE Spo
raaq COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
There are three basic alternatives available to the Council:
■ Approve Fees Which Are Less than Recommended
The Council could approve fee structures which would be less than those
recommended by staff. Based on the City's long -term financial health needs
and adopted user fee cost recovery policy, this alternative is not
recommended.
■ Approve No Increase in Development Review Fees
Based on the City's long -term financial health needs and adopted user fee cost
recovery policy, this alternative is not recommended.
■ Approve a Phased Increase in Development Review Fees
It would be possible to phase in the recommended fees to achieve adopted
cost recovery goals over time. However, taking into consideration the length
of time since the fees were last increased, comparability with other tri- county
communities, and demonstrated financial needs, this alternative is not
recommended.
SUMMARY
Increasing planning, building & safety and engineering development review fees has been
the subject of extensive discussion for the past four years. The proposed increase and rate
structures will set the fees at comparable levels with other communities while generating
a level of cost recovery that is consistent with adopted City policy and assists in meeting
demonstrated financial needs.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution adopting planning, building & safety, and engineering fees
Exhibits
A. Building & Safety Fees
B. Planning Fees
C. Engineering Fees
Other Attachments
1. Summary of current costs, revenues, and cost recovery ratios for each fee category
compared with recommended cost recovery goals
2. User fee cost recovery policy from the 1991 -93 Financial Plan
3. Building & safety fee modifications to the 1988 UAC fee structure
4. Building & safety fee comparisons with other tri- county cities
city of san Luis oBispo
� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
5. Planning services current and proposed fees
6. Planning fee comparisons with other tri- county cities
7. Current engineering fees
8. Engineering fee comparisons with other tri- county cities
9. 20,000 square foot commercial development review fee cost comparison
10. Three unit residential development review fee cost comparison
11. Fifty unit residential development review fee cost comparison
12. Community development department comments
13. Building Industry Association letter
14. Projected development review revenues
ON FILE IN COUNCIL OFFICES
User Fee Analysis Executive Summary, Vertex Cost Systems, November 1988
/./,5
RESOLUTION INTO. (1991 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES FOR PLANNING,
BUILDING & SAFETY, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code authorizes the
establishment of various fees for delivery of municipal services; and
WHEREAS, the cost of providing planning, building & safety, and engineering
services have been comprehensively reviewed by Vertex Cost Systems in 1988; and
WHEREAS, the proposed fees for development review services are consistent with
the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy adopted by the City Council in the 1991-93 Financial
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
adoption of the proposed development review fees is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the State CEQA
Guidelines as the purpose of these charges is to meet operating expenses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing concerning these fee
adjustments on September 17, 1991.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby establishes
development review fee schedules for Planning,Building& Safety,and Engineering services,
as provided in Exhibits A, B, and C attached hereto to be effective November 16, 1991.
SECTION 2. Any project owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority shall be exempt from all development review fees.
SECTION 3. Consistent with current cost recovery policies, all development review
fees shall be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, any flat fees in
Exhibits A, B, and C should be adjusted annually on November 1st of each year by changes
in the Consumer Price Index [all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Los Angeles - Long
Beach - Anaheim area] for the most recent period that this information is available prior
to November lst; and a comprehensive analysis of development review fees similar to that
prepared by Vertex Cost Systems in 1988 should be made at least every five years.
SECTION 4. To ensure cost recovery for services not specifically referenced in
Exhibits A, B, and C for supplemental or additional services as may be required, charges
1-I 0
shall be based on actual labor, material, equipment, and indirect costs. In determining
labor costs, hourly billing rates shall be established by the Director of Finance which
appropriately reflect salary, benefit, and overhead costs. In determining equipment usage
costs, the equipment rental schedule developed by the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS) or similar authoritative source for equipment costs shall be
used. For services provided by the City through private contract not specifically referenced
in this document, the contract price plus 10% for City contract administration shall be used
in establishing the service charge.
SECTION 5. If any charge set forth in this resolution or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other
charge or application thereof, and to this end the charges established in this Resolution are
declared to be severable.
SECTION 6. Refunds of any portion of fees for withdrawn or partially completed
projects shall be determined by the Director of Community Development, Building Official,
City Engineer, or Director of Public Works based on code requirements and/or their
appraisal of the cost of staff work performed.
SECTION 7. Effective November 16, 1991, Resolutions No. 5009 (1983 Series), No.
5908 (1986 Series), No. 5953 (1986 Series), and No. 6486 (1988 Series) are hereby rescinded
along with all other fee schedules in conflict herewith.
Upon motion of , seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1991.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
�_�r
APPROVED:
City drmnistrative fficer
ty om
�Di of Public Works
Director of Co u 'ty Development
Director of Finance
/s� v
�xhibit.�
BUILDING AND SAFETY FEE SCHEDULE
All construction permit fees are subject to a minimum of$30.00. INzenever work is started
without fust obtaining a permit, an investigation fee equal to the amount of the permit fee
required, »may be collected.
Plan Review Fees
When a plan or other data are required to be submitted by Section 302(b) of the Uniform
Administrative Code, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans,
specifications or other data for review. Said plan review fee for buildings or structures shall
be 65 percent of the total of all building, plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees.
The plan review fees specified in this subsection are separate fees from the permit fees
specified in Section 304(b) and are in addition to the permit fees.
Where plans are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review prior to
the issuance of a permit, an additional plan review fee may be charged at an hourly rate
rate of $50.00 with a minimum charge of one-half hour.
Permit Fees - General Application
For newly constructed buildings and additions, a single all inclusive combination permit
will be issued. The fees therefor shall be determined by increasing the building permit
fee by 40%, for the cost of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing inspection of the building.
A. BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Building permit fees shall be as in Table 3-A of the Uniform Administrative Code.
Total Valuation Fee
1. $1 to $500.00 $15.00
2. $501.00 to $2,000.00 $15.00 for the first $500.00 plus $2.00 for
each additional$100.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $2,000.00
3. $2,0001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $9.00
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $25,000.00
4. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $6.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000.00
H9
9
5. $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $100,000.00
6. $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100,000.00 plus $3.50
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $500,000.00
7. $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $2039.50 for the first$500,000.00 plus$3.00
for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
8. $1,000,001.00 and Up $3539.50 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus
$2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or
fraction thereof
9. Energy Consumption Compliance Surcharge:
A surcharge of 10% shall be added to the permit fees for projects required
to comply with State of California Energy Conservation Standards.
10. Accessibility Compliance Surcharge:
A surcharge of 6.5% shall be added to the permit fees for projects required
to comply with State of California Accessibility Standards.
11. Other Inspections and Fees:
a. Inspections outside of normal business hours $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
b. Reinspection fees assessed under provision of
Section 305(g) (minimum charge - one hour) $50.00 per hour
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one-half hour)
d. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
B ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Electrical Permit Fees shall be as in Table 3-13 of the Uniform Administrative Code.
1. System Fee Schedule:
a. Private Swimming Pools
For new private, residential, in-ground, swimming pools for single
I��4
familyand multifamily occupancies including a complete system of
necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater
lighting,water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly
related to the operation of a swimming pool, each $30.00
For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas and
alterations to existing swimming pools, use the Unit Fee Schedule.
b. Carnivals and Circuses
Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions
utilizingtransportable-type rides, booths, displays and attractions.For
electric generators and electrically driven rides, each $15.00
For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays
having electric lighting, each $ 4.50
For a system of area and booth lighting, each $ 4.50
For permanently installed, rides, booths, displays, and attractions, use
the Unit Fee Schedule.
C. Temporary Power Service
For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or
pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each $15.00
For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting anc,
receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas
tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each $ 7.50
2. Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to Permit Issuance Fees above)
a. Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets
For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current issused
or controlled, except services, feeders and meters.
First 20, each $ .75
Additional outlets, each $ .45
Note: For multioutlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be
considered as one outlet.
b. Lighting Fixtures
For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices.
First 20, each $ .75
Additional fixtures, each $ .45
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each $ .75
For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each $ .75
lia,
C. Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same,
including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops;
electric ranges, self-contained room, console, or through-wall air
conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwasher; washing
machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated
appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP)in rating, each$ 3.00
Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
d. Nonresidential Appliances
For residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired
nonresidential appliances not exceeding one horsepower(HP),kilowatt
(KW), or kilovolt- ampere (KVA), in rating including medical and
dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated
show cases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines;
or other similar types of equipment, each $ 3.00
Note: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
e. Power Apparatus
For motors,generators,transformers,rectifiers,synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking
or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows:
Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt-amperes (KVA),
or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KVAR):
Up to and including 1, each $ 3.00
Over 1 and not over 10, each $ 7.50
Over 10 and not over 50, each $15.00
Over 50 and not over 100, each $30.00
Over 100, each $45.00
Note:
1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,
heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used.
2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,
relays and other directly related control equipment.
f. Busways
For trolley and plub-in-type busways, each 100 feet or
fraction thereof $ 4.50
Note: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors
and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type busways.
No fee is required for portable tools.
I
g. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one
branch circuit, each $15.00
For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting
system or marquee, each $ 3.00
h. Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating,
each $18.50
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes
in rating, each $37.50
For services over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating, each$75.00
i. Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit
is required but for which no fee is herein set forth $11.00
Note: This fee is not applicable'when a fee is paid for one or more services,
outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other
equipment.
3. Other Inspections and Fees:
a. Inspection outside of normal business hours $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
b. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) (minimum one hour) $50.00 per hour
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one-half hour)
d. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
C. MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Mechanical Permit Fees shall be as in Table 3-C of the Uniform Administrative
Code.
1. Unit Fee Schedule:
a. For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type
furnace or burner,including ducts and vents attached to such appliance,
up to and including 100,000 Btu/h $ 9.00
b. For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type
furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance
over 100,000 Btu/h $11.00
C. For the installtion or relocation of each floor furnace,
including vent $ 9.00
d. For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed
wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater $ 9.00
e. For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent
installed and not included in an appliance permit $4.50
f. For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance,
refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating,
cooling,absorption,or evaporative cooling system,including installation
of controls regulated by this code $ 9.00
g. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and
including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including
100,000 Btu/h $ 9.00
h. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over
three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption
system over 100,000 Btu/h to and including 500,000 Btu/h $16.50
i. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over
15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption
system over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h
$22.50
j. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over
30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption
system over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h$33.50
k. For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over
50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h
$56.00
1. For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per
minute, including ducts attached thereto $ 6.50
Note: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is a
portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative
cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in
this code.
M. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm $11.00
n. For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $ 6.50
o. For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $ 4.50
p. For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air-conditioning system authorized by a permit $ 6.50
q. For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical
exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $ 6.50
r. For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type
incinerator $11.00
S. For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-
type incinerator $45.00
t. For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but
not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is
listed in this code $ 6.50
2. Other Inspections and Fees:
a. Inspections outside or normal business hours $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
b. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) (minimum charge - one hour) $50.00 per hour
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one-half hour)
d. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approve plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
D. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Plumbing Permit Fees shall be as in Table 3-D of the Uniform Administrative Code.
1. Unit Fee Schedule:
a. For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap
(including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection
therefor) $ 6.00
b. For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer. $15.00
C. Rainwater systems - per drain (inside building) $ 6.00
d. For each cesspool (where permitted) $22.50
e. For each private sewage disposal system $45.00
f. For each water heater and/or vent $ 7.50
g. For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap
and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as
fixture traps $12.00
h. For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-
treating equipment, each $ 3.00
i. For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture$ 3.00
j. For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow
protection devices therefor $ 9.00
k. For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in Item 2:
1 to 5 $ 7.50
over 5, each $ 1.50
1. For each back-flow protective device other than atmospheric-type
vacuum breakers:
2 inches and smaller $ 7.50
over 2 inches $15.00
in. For each gas piping system of one to four outlets $ 3.00
n. For each gas piping system of five or more outlets, per outlet$ .75
2. Other Inspections and Fees:
a. Inspections outside or normal business hours $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
b. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) (minimum charge - one hour) $50.00 per hour
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one hour)
d. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
approved plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
E. FEES FOR PERMIT TO MOVE A BUILDING
1. For issuance of each permit to move a building $50.00
2. Inspection of a building within the City $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one hour)
3. Inspection of a building outside the City $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
F. DEMOLITION PERMIT FEES
1. Permit Issuance
When pedestrian protection is required $100.00
When no pedestrian protection is required $ 50.00
G. GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES
Grading plan review fees shall be as in Table 3-G of the Uniform Administrative
Code.
1. 50 cubic yards or less No Fe(
2. 51 to 100 cubic yards $15.00
3. 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $22.50
4. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $30.00
5. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards - $30.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards plus
$15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
6. 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards - $165.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,
plus $9.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
7. 200,001 cubic yards or more - $255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus
$4.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
8. Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisionsto approved
plans (minimum charge - one-half hour) $50.00 per hour
H. GRADING PERMIT FEES (1)
Grading permit fees shall be as in Table 3-H of the Uniform Administrative Code.
1. 50 cubic yards or less $15.00
2. 51 to 100 cubic yards $22.50
3. 101 to 1,000 cubic yards - $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof
4. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards - $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards., plus $9.00
for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
5. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards - $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus
$40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
6. 100,001 cubic yards or more - $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus
$22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
(1) The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under
a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original
permit and the fee shown for the entire poject.
7. Other Inspection Fees:
a. Inspections outside of normal business hours $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
b. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) (minimum charge - one hour) $50.00 per hour
C. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $50.00 per hour
(minimum charge - one-half hour)
I. MICROFILM FEE
Fee assessed with permit to defray the cost of microfilming construction documents
filed with permit $ 200/plan page
�S
Uhibl
PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
Proposed Fee
ZONING SERVICES
Sidewalk Sales Permit $ 50.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 50.00
School Tenant Permit $ 100.00
Administrative Use Permit $ 200.00
Planning Commission Use Permit $ 650.00
City Council Use Permit $ 650.00
Downtown Housing Conversion Permit $ 630.00
Variance $ 780.00
Planned Development Permit
Preliminary $1,500.00
Precise $ 800.00
Precise Plan Amendment 50% of Filing Fee
Rezoning
Map Amendment $1,030.00
Text Amendment $ 700.00
Time Extension $ 120.00
SUBDIVISION SERVICES
Lot Line Adjustment $ 300.00
Lot Combination $ 300.00
Minor Land Division $ 600.00
Parcel Map (4 or less Lots) $1,530.00
Tract Map (5 or more Lots) $1,530.00 + $50/Lot
Certificate of Compliance
1 to 9 Parcels $ 250.00
10 or more Parcels $ 300.00
Final Map Time Extensions 50% of Filing Fee
OTHER PLANNING SERVICES
Environmental Impact Determination $ 500.00
Environmental Impact Report Consultant Contract plus
30% for administrative &
review services
Sign Permits
Free Standing $ 70.00
All Others $ 50.00
d
Proposed Fee
Architectural Review
Signs S 150.00
Development Projects S 630.00
Minor-Incidental S 180.00
Street Name Change $ 530.00
Street Abandonment $ 630.00
Condominium Conversion $ 830.00
Applicant-Requested Continuation $ 120.00
Time Extension $ 120.00
Plan Revisions 50% Original Filing Fee
Special Research Actual Cost
Appeals 50% of Filing Fee
GENERAL & SPECIFIC PLANS
Specific Plan
Initial Study Fee $1,000.00
Plan Review Fixed fee intended to fully recover City
costs per written agreement with applicant
to be executed before work is initiated
which outlines tasks, workscope, and City
and applicant responsibilities
Amendment Fixed fee intended to fully recover City
costs per written agreement with applicant
to be executed before work is initiated
which outlines tasks, workscope, and City
and applicant responsibilities
General Plan Amendment
Map (includes rezoning) $1,130.00
Text $ 700.00
ANNEXATIONS
Annexation $1,000.00 + $100 Per Acre
over 5 Acres
NOTE: All fees include costs for applicable notification requirements to adjacent
property owners. Public Art is exempt from all fees.
/-430
MAPS AND PUBLICATIONS
The fee schedule for General Plan Elements, Other Publications, and Ordinances should
be evaluated annually, with the fee adjusted to reimburse the reproduction/printing cost
plus 30% to cover the overhead/administration costs.
Proposed Fee
DIZAO PRINTS OF MAPS
Aerial Photo only $ 2.00
Counterbook Page $ 1.50
Photo-Topo Combo $ 2.75
Topo Map Only $ 2.00
1000' City Map (3' x 3') $ 4.00
800' City Map (42" x 42") $ 5.50
500' City Map (2 pieces) $12.00
ALL OTHER MAPS & COPIES
Blueline $ .50/sq. ft.
Sepia $ 1.00/sq. ft.
Photo Copies:
Standard or legal $ .25/page
11" x 17" $ .50/page
Microfiche Copies:
8-1/2" x 11" (in house) $ .25/page
8-1/2" x 11" (50 copies or more) $ .50/page
11" x 17" $ 1.50/page
18" x 24" $ 4.00/page
minimum charges for rushes $ 8.00
Microfiche Duplicates: $ 1.00/fiche
minimum charge $ 4.00
Many of these fees are applicable to City operations other than planning, building & safety,
and engineering. Accordingly, whenever applicable, these fees shall be assessed City-wide.
�-31
&hibit��
ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE
Fee
Improvement Plan Check $200.00 + 1.5%
of Construction Costs`
Construction Inspection $500.00 + 2.5%
of Construction Costs`
Tract Map (Final) $750.00 + $50.00 per Lot
Parcel Map (Final) $750.00
Encroachment Permits $25.00 Minimum Charge
$500.00/year for Blanket Permit
$25.00 + $2.00/1-inear Foot for
New & Replacement Installation
$100.00 + $0.25/Linear Foot for
Excavation
Transportation Permit $35.00
An estimate is required from the applicant for verification of the public improvement
costs.
Attu
d w �O h kn 00
-Ir oo O Ln N � h
> V
a P4 .g ^ N o
en n
Oa:
a aC
� in 000 000
6 'a kn a a
' r.- to
{0 y cif (1 to o0
30
oc
.................... ..
>, 0 00 — Wn
V a 0 0 in
0
o O\ 00 vi
CA
t-- v r°Oi o
va —
a v 00" 'v o-
y O — O %O 00
d co r- h —
a` d
oC �64 in
ft!
E g a oo g N
E %0 en Nr
N %O C� 00
W N eq H n tn
L
Q N
W Q 3
H O z
Z U
W
C
CL ccV) o
J
W
> > °
m
pQ wam F°
w ¢ O N O h R 'MV N � 0 8 fMr1 O N b 8
S z tri h a v1 N m N O N — O M — N O 4 w
0% O h O M M w M M w w to M O
h — to to O h %0 O h w
888p8p$ 88p8p88 � 8pg
to vn wi O \D g 8 tO 6 ton N
h h
V N N M M M M M M R M
cc �c 0% O
N v� — 0% N O
%0 00 00 t/1 D\ O - - O v as %0 N h w h N
O d V � M NM —
i a 5
C
U
. I'{ ......F•!{ wK �{ T1 •,.{ I••� wK :� t t.
a a
8 h ao O M N_ �o 00 00 — N M v 00 h N 00
O V'1 0% N O v1 O O N ON r- m N v O R
8 � 00 00 to D\ O O R as �O N tr w h N
.P „� MiA eM — to V to N 00 to N — — M —
e0 a
V.
V! Vk i'Z �+ •-3: 4'S: C* st,Qi �C ....Od. 0�}0 CS t!G
Ot 4^i .: 4:; ^�: N �C i�'� et.�C'.Ps 'V' trs tt..et C3:
a
>. h T N c8 00 �O O\ Q M. N_. �O 00 .00 N en 'e 00 h N co
;C :.
to — v1 O O — N O. h O% N v O �
y %D 00 — 00
In O — — O 7 m N h 00 h N
Mff) M — to t4 k i N 00 tf N —
fA �
r_ p p p p p p
r=+ G O O O O to h%0
8 N o 8 000 8 h 8 8
N N CN N rn W -�+ O� �D � 00 O M O\ M O 00 00 00 M
N 2 >
a
m
h 00 t0 C to M h t0 00 00 — N M e 00 h N 00
1i N h 00 V1 v to M to Opp�� 00 C, M IT N M O
C '` V D\ r-- to M %0 00 %o to ON O h Go M to In b
Cl)
O N 00 m —O N M - - N M T tp
Gn
W
LL Z
o E
N
LU < E .
M N ° 0 > o d �E a¢i d
H
� °- 5 ;? E q aci aci E c c o 00
W ` W of ti E a a �S a .o
Q °' E a a R o
3 " ° c x
� z d 0 c � a v aLF
¢
0 LL �0. y e a •° "� 0 ca T '6 y E to oo ,o ca v E
J C WLTJ 0 �d > o Z E _m -5 w e y e
LLIN Z E•" z —ftC C. E^ C (Y F' N N N N N C C E Gm
'2
G N O h O d N O C7 O O O
W � .. Vmw Qu t— a � aaaa � c� x � c
D a m a
/-3�
o 8 v o W)i 8 0 8 M C o Q ¢ ¢ Q
fl 00 %O R M %O o0 [- N — %O v1 Z Z Z Z
V
a N
v�
� 888888888 °' S .�
� �- oo �; �; 00000 oo � Qcis
O 1^ h N N y N %n 00 N 00 > > >
U 69
N N 00 N �o N h LA O N N_ M
O m 00 %0 Oh — 00 N h h 00 00 N
00 O' h .-+ O kn N N h O� O%
6. �" O — ? V1 h
> H N N N
4 cocsoocncao o� c> cea .cv cso "'
a x ;.
B ^� 00 N h N ON h N R h N O'%
8 .O 00 \O w h Oo N h N Ln OO O N �o go 00 O\
h h M
— O O O� h 'a0 O� O� �O a to to
h a 00 r-
.......
v M oo
.::::pp.:.;::��.:pp.:..::�.:p...::::::...::���.::.{:.;::�.,.{.:>:>.��.,;pp..:��r��.,yy�:;x��:,:ppc�:�;:yy.,<,�p.y..:::i:::::::>:::i:::>t::\y:�,pp:::�::�:::;:yy:��::.;:yypp.;..:.>�.�:QQ..:.;:.;::�;;;:.;:.;;;:.;>..:>:::.>.;>::.::.;::....:; �;
r V`..T . �.O` 04 41� V�:i1� IT aT 9� �0'� Q•� P: .:
G Z' O N ..«. +ryr.
V C .--i ..`r .tel Q et :et r* b .r O� V! x+i 00 .�..:.
mov <: .. rel # tl.. �t
T 00 N h N O — R R — h N [� N Q. R
'Q 00 \o 0o R h 00 N h N to 00 O N �o 00 00 — T M
M R h — O kn O Ow h 0o m O\ R �o O\ u/i %n
- — M �o a oc M R M oo h
fA 69 R O �O N — to — 0-0 r-
en
O O O Wn O O O O Op O O inO Q Ln O O O O
7 to Ln h O wl O O �b ww h h ��jj 7 :fl h h N O�
O R N M h h N � m R O R ^ �O h [� in M
> N oo N 0o tK N M OCT O M - 0o OCT rz O
OC 96 N — M OLn
C
4) '•8 00 N N N O — RV O h N U R
M — %O R N 00 N M O M h N N M00 N
M T h M R O\ in O N O'' O\ O\ of R �D — a
y y N N �O R %O �O M % — Oo O_ 01 h 0o h%n r4 c,4 C14C M N_ NO h
W ^ H 6Y R h N M M M h O — N N
W m ^
LL = C
C
_ C
C .d
> V c
W v O
Q N � e a Tc �" a •E �` w i
F" C
Z K G
Q w N n.
„ •p < . ad
O A O. y C y 'O C 00 •^ .v y N
CL v 0 C_ C > 0. 6. 0. �" 0. m V y O
0 C7 20
J C Z X '- � G e e o o Z c c e c 3 � = o
W z G U U U •� E ; 0) E° A = ° F i y u F Q
Z e rs' oG o4 e e 00 o o > 9:6 F
w m a4Faaa > aw ¢ ^ c� mmm a F o
I-3.�
7 8
o :?
V �yy
G y 4) C3
N 6
> y C R C r y 0
0 ca
d a=a 7
CJ
cs
V H d Hca 2 w r3 O 0 0
a � w o � a
?
pNy O O O
.. 8Y SN 8@ 0`2 8@ kR 8R
Ch C7 fQ
$ U o C d
0
a�
a
6 'd o o 0
r
m y
................................................. ....... ............................................
V ,,p .p .,y ,,p ��pp
...dO G : o:
v
x
....................................................... .....................................................
T �o ^-� N en e` c- O
'7 ICT — v1 en �o in N
'y O O N %0 7 e+1 N NO
Ln 0000 7 r-
— N
69
O OSA O O O O O O O
N
V 7
CL. �
U —
O O N S R m N (N
W h 00 = N
W
3W
W
> c aCi
W to E
w
Wa g � W
d
h
V °' o c o
a W U Y a u
r w Z c .c Z A c
W Z 'o � a � F°- A a
W ZQ z j N 65 a E a m O
CL w a W F
1-34
m
N
w Ld
4�yy 1>Q
U W �7 •Qy O '�
Ir
8 7 d
� "' N •v3 •� aa
N
U O � C � �•", p e
C 'rC, C .� •cU7 C R� �
OD eE U w U 8
I O
.~+ E
690 1.
U N
U y Q e0 W �.
3 Z,
ee = Lv m
ea"
U i0 U U yUy '7
,� •� H •U FU+ _O
go Q
Ir V
V 8
d iC O d t A
C •L^" nVy id 8
N L N a y
Cw yw
,C O
y
v
N v 7 U
5 G10
61 C N
W C U •8 . 5
CA •a CL
67 U y w .
� E. VU
> Q C N � �pp
.a c. •n y U U Qy
axi cc Cd 0
W
E
U .5 E
Ir
p c >+4 , .0 c E c U ^ Co cU
J C ca U N 1. U L 6�
W fA V O 9 .w.i e S LTr t� Ucc
6►.�
W O U � 8 • •
0z 4.
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES Attachment..
SIGNIFICANT NEW POLICIES - USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS
A. Ongoing Review
Fees will be reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they keep pace with
changes in the cost-of-living. Many of the City's existing development review fees have not
been reviewed or modified since 1983. In bringing fees to appropriate 1991 levels, significant
percentage increases will be required solely to account for the passage of time.
B. User Fee Cost Recovery Levels
In setting user fee cost recovery levels, the following factors will be considered:
1. Community-Wide vs Special Benefit
The level of user fee cost recovery should consider the community-wide versus special
service nature of the program or activity. The use of general purpose (tax) revenues is
appropriate for community-wide services, while user fees are appropriate for services
which are of special benefit to easily identified individuals or groups.
2. Service Recipient vs Service Driver
After considering community-wide versus special benefit of the service, the concept of
service recipient versus service driver should also be considered. For example, it could be
argued that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the City's development review efforts:
the community is the primary beneficiary. However, the applicant is the driver of
development review costs, and as such, cost recovery from the applicant is appropriate.
3. Effect of Pricing on the Demand for Services
The level of cost recovery and related pricing of services can significantly affect the
demand and subsequent level of services provided. At full cost recovery, this has the
specific advantage of ensuring that the City is providing services for which there is
genuinely a market that is not overly-stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely,
high levels of cost recovery will negatively impact on the delivery of services to lower
income groups. This negative feature if especially pronounced, and works against public
policy, if the services are targeted to low income groups.
4. Feasibility of Collection and Recovery
Although it may be determined that a high level of cost recovery may be appropriate
for specific services, it may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to identify
and charge the user. Accordingly, the feasibility of assessing and collecting charges
should also be considered in developing a user fee policy, especially if significant program
costs are intended to be financed from that source.
B_17 /-38
POLICIES AND ObiECTIVES
SIGNIFICANT NEW POLICIES - USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS (continued)
C. Factors Which Favor Low Cost Recovery Levels
Very low cost recovery levels are appropriate under the following circumstances:
1. When there is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit
received. Almost all "social service" programs fall into this category as it is expected that
one group will subsidize another.
2. When collecting fees is not cost-effective or will significantly impact the efficient delivery
of the service.
3. When there is no intent to limit the use of (or entitlement to) the service. Again, most
"social service" programs fit into this category as well as many public safety (police and
fire) emergency response services. Historically, access to neighborhood and community
parks would also fit into this category.
4. When the service is non-recurring, generally delivered on a "peak demand' or emergency
basis, cannot reasonably be planned for on an individual basis, and is not readily available
from a private sector source. Many public safety services also fall into this category.
5. When collection of fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements and
adherence is primarily self-identified, and as such, failure to comply would not be read"
detected by the City. Many small-scale licenses and permits might fall into this categ(
D. Factors Which Favor High Cost Recovery Levels
The use of service charges as a major source of funding service levels is especially appropriate
under the following circumstances:
1. The service is similar to services provided through the private sector.
2. Other private or public sector alternatives could or do exist for the delivery of the service.
3. For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct
relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received.
4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged. Police responses to disturbances or
false alarms might fall into this category.
5. The service is regulatory in nature and voluntary compliance is not expected to be the
primary method of detecting failure to meet regulatory requirements. Building permit,
plan checks, and subdivision review fees for large projects would fall into this category.
s-ta
1-31
POLICIES AND 04JECTIVES
SIGNIFICANT NEW POLICIES - USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS (continued)
E. General Concepts Regarding the Use of Service Charges
The use of service charges should be subject to the following general concepts:
1. Revenues should never exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
2. Cost recovery goals should be based on the total cost of delivering the service, including
direct costs, departmental administration costs, and organization-wide support costs such
as accounting, personnel, data processing, vehicle maintenance, and insurance.
3. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to
reduce the administrative cost of collection.
4. Rate structures should be sensitive to the "market" for similar services as well as to
smaller, infrequent users of the service.
5. A unified approach should be used in determining cost recovery levels for various
programs based on the factors discussed above.
F. Low Cost-Recovery Services
Based on the criteria discussed above, the following types of services should have very low
cost recovery goals. In selected circumstances, there may be specific activities within the
broad scope of services provided that should have user charges associated with them.
However, the primary source of funding for the operation as a whole should be general
purpose revenues, not user fees.
1. Delivery of public safety emergency response services such as police patrol services and
fire suppression.
2. Maintaining and developing public facilities that are provided on a uniform, community-
wide basis such as streets, parks, and general purpose buildings.
3. Delivery of social service programs and economic development activities.
G. Recreation Programs
The following cost recovery policies should be adopted for the City's recreation programs:
1. Cost recovery for activities directed to adults should be relatively high.
B-19 /_7V
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
SIGNIFICANT NEW POLICIES - USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS (continued)
2. Cost recovery for activities directed to youth and seniors should be relatively low.
Although ability to pay may not be a concern for all youth and senior participants, these
are desired program activities, and the cost of determining need may be greater than the
cost of providing a uniform service fee structure to all participants. Further, there is a
community-wide benefit in encouraging high-levels of participation in youth and senior
recreation activities regardless of financial status.
3. The current overall cost recovery goal for recreation programs is 40%, although the cost
study performed in 1988 would indicate an actual recovery level of 35%. During the
Winter of 1991, the Council should consider increasing this overall cost recovery goal to
50%.
4. For cost recovery activities of less than 100%, there should be a differential in rates
between residents and non-residents.
5. These policy guidelines are sufficient in themselves in providing direction for the setting
of recreation fees. Accordingly, it is recommended that the use of formal cost recovery
goals for specific recreation activities (page B-4 of the 1989-91 Financial Plan) be
discontinued. Although these targets may be internally useful in administering recreation
fees, the City's management should have as much flexibility as possible in setting specific
activity fees as long as they meet the objectives and criteria provided above.
H. Development Review Programs
1. Services provided under this category include:
a. Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, rezonings,
general plan amendments, variances, use permits).
b. Building and Safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections).
C. Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision
requirements).
2. Cost recovery for these services should be very high. In most instances, the City's cost
recovery goal should be 100%. Recommended exceptions to this standard include ARC
review fees, which is a review process clearly intended to serve the broader community
as well as the applicant, and public information services such as agenda subscriptions.
3. However, in charging full cost recovery, the City needs to clearly establish and articulate
standards for its performance in reviewing developer applications to ensure that there is
"value for cost".
B-2o �.4
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
SIGNIFICANT NEW POLICIES - USER FEE COST RECOVERY GOALS (continued)
I. Comparability With Other Communities
1. Surveys of the comparability of the City's fees to other communities is useful background
information in setting fees for several reasons:
a. They reflect the "market" for these fees and can assist in assessing the
reasonableness of San Luis Obispo's fees.
b. If prudently analyzed, they can serve as a benchmark for how cost-effectively San
Luis Obispo provides its services.
2. However, fee surveys should never be the sole or primary criteria in setting City fees as
there are many factors that affect how and why other communities have set their fees at
their levels. For example:
a. What level of cost recovery is their fee intended to achieve compared with our
cost recovery objectives?
b. What costs have been considered in computing the fees?
C. When was the last time that their fees were comprehensively evaluated?
d. What level of service do they provide compared with our service or performance
standards?
e. Is their rate structure significantly different than ours and what is it intended to
achieve?
These can be very difficult questions to address in fairly evaluating fees among different
communities. As such, the comparability of our fees to other communities should be one
factor among many that is considered in setting City fees.
B_21 1-�a
Attachment.
PROPOSED BUILDING & SAFETY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES
Tables 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-G, and 3-H of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Administrative
Code hereby establishes the permit fees for the City of San Luis Obispo, with the following
exceptions, modifications, or additions:
A. The minimum fee for any permit issued by the Building & Safety Division
shall be $30.00.
B. For newly constructed buildings and for additions or alterations to existing
structures, a single all inclusive combination permit will be issued. The fees
therefor shall be determined by increasing the building permit fee by 40% for
the cost of electrical, mechanical, and plumbing inspection.
C. The "New Residential Buildings" category of the System Fee Schedule in
Table 3-13 is hereby deleted.
D. The Permit Issuance Fees contained in said Tables are hereby deleted.
E. A minimum charge of one hour shall be assessed for items 2, 3, and 4 under
Other Inspections and Fees contained in said Tables.
F. A surcharge of 10%-shall be added to the permit fees for projects required
to comply with State of California Energy Conservation Standards.
G. A surcharge of 6.5% shall be added to the permit fees for projects required
to comply with State of California Accessibility Standards.
H. Demolition Permit Fees shall be as follows:
If pedestrian protection is required $100.00
If pedestrian protection is not required $ 50.00
I. Fee for Permit to Move a Building shall be as follows:
For issuance of each permit to move a building $ 50.00
Inspection of building within the City $ 50.00/hour
(minimum charge - one hour)
Inspection of building outside the City $ 50.00/hour
(minimum charge - two hours)
J. Hourly charge for Other Inspections and Fees $ 50.00/hour
K. Plan Review Fees for buildings or structures shall be 65% of the total of all
permit fees.
K. Fee assessed with permit to defray the cost of microfilming construction
documents filed with permit $ 2.00/plan page
Attechm ._:�:
m ov o o =� o n
p 4 LL LL
t4 LU
m :Z h2 , ,� Y ZaZ Z Z
p !?E
W0 w o w o w 0
y
cr.
O O 0 O O 0 0 0CO ¢ 0 0
O w LL O d LL 'V a LL U LL CO
LL V a
ao a a a z a ir
m m m co
g
Ol N W Lo (D {A Ol
IM + m + m + m +
D f D 1 cc L cc O
Q Q 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 U
a Q j
N z j z j z j z
I_ f
v, O m O m m O
CO r' m mm �' m 0) m
v 0 ¢ ¢ 0 ¢ 0 Q 0
Q =O QO � Z j Z j Z m Z
a ' s1010
I m m I m ^ m
0 w w f p f w
W 0 O 0 LL 0 c)
< z2 C3w z z N Z N 5 Z N M z N
LL O m ❑J + m �J + co �J + w �J +
co
O)
m m m m
W p wp 0 f 0
LL W O V O 0 O V O V
Q J LL
z z C7 Z C7
C/3Q z z z z
> CO o m 0 m 0 co 0
m J m J w J co J
ca 0) CD W m Ol
m m m I In
Z ¢ 0 ¢ 0 ¢ 0 ¢ 0
D < ° " ° " a' ° " ° "
J a ¢ 5 Z U) m z � Z � � Z
mQ Qo o + m o + m g + m o +
m m J m J m J co J
W m m I m I m
O 0 p .0
OV 0 U ao 0 0 9 D U D U p
to Q
a m Z mZ
mmZm Z mZZ m
CCP + + +
W mOco m +
In m m m
C~
C
CLa W IL v
w
Z Z LL Z U
°- w °aw Zw
Attachment.�L
PLANNING SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE
Current Fee Proposed Fee
ZONING SERVICES
Sidewalk Sales Permit No Fee $ 50.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 25.00 $ 50.00
School Tenant Permit $ 25.00 $ 100.00
Administrative Use Permit $ 50.00 $ 200.00
Planning Commission Use Permit $360.00 $ 650.00
City Council Use Permit $360.00 $ 650.00
Downtown Housing Conversion Permit $360.00 $ 630.00
Variance $220.00 $ 780.00
Planned Development Permit
Preliminary $360.00 $1,500.00
Precise $150.00 $ 800.00
Precise Plan Amendment No Charge 50% of Filing Fee
Rezoning
Map Amendment $360.00 $1,030.00
Text Amendment $300.00 $ 700.00
Time Extension $ 50.00 $ 120.00
SUBDIVISION SERVICES
Lot Line Adjustment $150.00 $ 300.00
Lot Combination $150.00 $ 300.00
Minor Land Division $250.00 $ 600.00
Parcel Map (4 or less Lots)
Tentative $275.00 $1,530.00
Vesting $100.00 $ 0.00
Tract Map (5 or more Lots)
Tentative $675.00 $1,530.00 + $50/Lot
Vesting $100.00 $ 0.00
Certificate of Compliance
1 to 9 Parcels $150.00 $ 250.00
10 or more Parcels $200.00 $ 300.00
Final Map Time Extensions $50.00-$100.00 50% of Filing Fee
OTHER PLANNING SERVICES
Environmental Impact Determination $ 80.00 $ 500.00
Environmental Impact Report 10% of Contract Consultant Contract
plus 30% for admin-
istrative & review
services
Sign Permits
Free Standing $ 25.00 $ 70.00
All Others $ 15.00 $ 50.00
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Architectural Review
Signs $ 25.00 $ 150.00
Development Projects $150.00 $ 630.00
Minor-Incidental $ 25.00 $ 180.00
Street Name Change $ 75.00 $ 530.00
Street Abandonment $280.00 $ 630.00
Condominium Conversion $400.00 $ 830.00
Applicant-Requested Continuation $ 40.00 $ 120.00
Time Extension $ 50.00 $ 120.00
Plan Revisions Actual Cost 50% of Filing Fee
Special Research Actual Cost Actual Cost
Appeals No Charge 50% of Filing Fee
GENERAL & SPECIFIC PLANS
Specific Plan
Initial Study Fee $ 0.00 $1,000.00
Initial Plan Review $450.00 Fixed fee intended to fully
recover City costs per written
agreement with applicant to
be executed before work is
initiated which outlines tasks,
workscope, and City and
applicant responsibilities
Amendment $350.00 Fixed fee intended to fully
recover City costs per written
agreement with applicant to
be executed before work is
initiated which outlines tasks,
workscope, and City and
applicant responsibilities
General Plan Amendment
Map (includes rezoning) $450.00 $1,130.00
Text $350.00 $ 700.00
ANNEXATIONS
Annexation $450.00 $1,000.00 + $100/Acre
over 5 Acres
NOTE: All fees include costs for applicable notification requirements to adjacent
property owners. Public Art is exempt from all fees.
I- / ri
MAPS AND PUBLICATIONS
The fee schedule for General Plan Elements, Other Publications, and Ordinances will be
evaluated annually, with the fee adjusted to reimburse the reproduction/printing cost plus
30% to cover the overhead/administration costs.
Current Fee Proposed Fee
DIZAO PRINTS OF MAPS
Aerial Photo only $ 150 $ 2.00
Counterbook Page $ .75 $ 1.50
Photo-Topo Combo $ 1.50 $ 2.75
Topo Map Only $ 1.50 $ 2.00
1000' City Map (3' x 3') $ 2.25 $ 4.00
800' City Map (42" x 42") $ 3.00 $ 5.50
500' City Map (2 pieces) $ 7.50 $12.00
ALL OTHER MAPS & COPIES
Blueline $ .25/sq. ft. $ .50/sq. ft.
Sepia $ .40/sp. ft. $ 1.00/sq. ft.
Photo Copies:
Standard or legal $ .15/page $ .25/page
11" x 17" $ .25/page $ .50/page
Microfiche Copies:
8-1/2" x 11" (in house) $ .15/page $ .25/page
8-1/2" x 11" (50 copies or more) $ 35/page $ .50/page
11" x 17" $ 1.25/page $ 1.50/page
18" x 24" $ 2.00/page $ 4.00/page
minimum charges for rushes $ 5.00 $ 8.00
Microfiche Duplicates: $ .50/fiche $ 1.00/fiche
minimum charge $ 2.00 $ 4..00
Many of these fees are applicable to City operations other than planning, building & safety,
and engineering. Accordingly, whenever applicable, these fees shall be assessed City-wide.
.... ............
..........
... ......... ... ....
.. .......... w
w . ........
. ......... .......
.... ....... .�.:-o I
'S......... ..... . ...... .......
..........
COa..,
J; 0 cl 0.
lw A +45
N
omm W, ci.IZ 6 lw
0
U,
Q
'z......... ..... .......
...........
....... .........
Q
nA
so
e"m
Y +
Q C9 Lu
C� 't cli a) z Lu Z(-)0 x 0 LU
0 w LU-j(.)-j Lu Z LU W
Ln 1+U X LU X LL Lu X x CY
t co Ia cri
56so co + U'o C.) C%i
CY Ln CY +Owzw 69
a. 0 Go Go 69 49 69 N Z 40 Z + + LU Go co z 0)z C4 'o
cc co:5 :! M
�m IL cq CC
W Go co a
a. E La Cq N a. EL
Z 49
w
+Jl +J +y +co co
-1 �
LIJ < t= <-< +
+ ra RX wawtwt!--&
+ I-- + :5 0 w LLI N OwowOwww
CY m cn 0 CD cli 5
Z co CY 0-j 0 co Go 0 cn 0 cc fL�- 0) m ti m�CL 1-0
< q,N -A 0-J + LU LU<LLI v LU LU LU < (L
N W -;;�co 4 o�- a 2¢ 13 2 0 2 0 2 Lu 2(a
I Go fa Go 0< cydg V,50
(0) w ad 0 -W ad -d
Z =W w z CC WIN w^w oV LU
cy� ':2 ci 2 vi 2 2
0 to r ro P a p 0 p
co
LU
L0 + 0 0 Z w
C z N 0 0 w
< co) Lr) Lo 60 0 a C)o 0 Lr
Lo in 0 0-1 W) 0 LL 0
0 -1 V) 60 0
U
D 4c V) I C.)
to C-3 go 0 CY C%i <
(03, a, to to Co. 1:
00 Lo to 3 (01. 0, 0
cli 0
0 Lc) N
to Q Z LL
w Q
w
LL CO)
LD Ln Lr) LU w w
cf) L0 cr m -i LU
Ln ¢¢ a
we
a �t lu
M C0 z Lu z
m cri M C.) LL
L) to 0 co 0 100 0) 0 0 CD co w C.) 1 3 -C
< 1 0 W 40 0) Lq CO CD Z
Q v Ln U) r
> z W, Lu 0) x
x o in 'co, N W z
N 6% o CO 0 U)40 49. 0 to +
z
0
a
w
Cl)
cr 0 Cst LU 0=i w
C14 w cm w co
LU cy CC a cc c%j a: v M C'j Z9 0. [L-Z
cc WO*>w 0
0 0 z
Z
2 >- V d) + U w + I.- + CD 0 CY
LU w CY to GO 0 0
C" U) 'D 'm Z M Z N +
N cli Cl) Cl) N Z
Z U) o) Im ow D cq
M 0) cri
Lq, J.-
GO a w 69 z + ¢
cm a,—
> 40 to W 40 0 +0 to (a ob 9)
69(ofn 49
Z a.
LU LU Cl
c!) (9 Lq N 0) cu
o ca V')12 CO 0 2 2 CD 2 w
C%i Ir cc 0 -mcom . 2mLM C3 Go Er
(o 0< cm 0 0 0 0 64 0 69 0(ok 0 Ln co At
z co W) a:
Q U I ON C.) C-) 0
4c cc LL I ICDI m t- w -
I - U) c cy
C., 0 La Lo C
ED vWO 0 'o N UA 0 w ul w w (a w -w 0 0
N cr z z to cc N CO Er U)M CC vi a:6.,CC 1
to to (a to Go z
Ln
0 0 0 CD 0 C0 CC 0 0 0 0 co
20 0 0 0 W) 0 0 Lu Cy P 0 5 o 0 0
Lo o U) 0 0 a 0
(06 r. M un Lo C%l Lq q + Z LG LD Lr)
5: ig w I C%i I
'o 0 00,% Csi C%i ci
Go 69 to U)(
69 bs 69 Go
CY
LU T N0 Lo
W
C.) LU
LLI cc LU w C) 0 z
0 z
LLI z 0 Z 0. LU a
Z cn w z w 2
— M ¢ a w
> 0 2
cc z
CC Z w z Z <
U) < W z
w w < 5 t� LU > z Z 0
rn
CL IL 0
cn =1 w z C/3
LU z
0
NaR a. a. w
ct) w
cr 0 (L) > w LL CC 2E W rj)
LU z 3 0 S2 4c
Z z ZLUI.- . myz �� Cr -i
LU < i LU 0 t- < Lu
0 0 Z w W LLI LU
mw ON cc co m < m > 0 w z z CL
0 V) 0 w < D 0 < m W z Ir a. W z
m m m > -i CL 0 0 w 0. CL
N (D w
4.28.040-4.28.070
4.28.040 Engineering and public works Public services director 30.00
services City engineer 30.00
The fees for engineering and public works
serices are as follows: Utilities engineer 22.00
A. Tree removal permit . . . . . . . . . no fee; Senior planner 20.00
B. Curb,gutter, sidewalk and driveway ramp Super.ising ciNil engineer 20.00
permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00; Chief building official 20.00
C. Excavation permit (work within public
right-of-way) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00; Civil engineer 18.00
D. Transportation permit . . .. . . . $15.00. Engineering field supervisor 18.00
(Reso. 5009 § 1 (pan), 198 1)
Associate planner 17.00
4.28.050 Document sales and special services
The fees for document sales and special sere- Plan check engineer 16.00
ices are as follows: Engineering assistant 16.00
A. Books, Reports, Maps, Copying. Surveyor 16.00
1. Preprinted documents . . actual cost +
20%; Assistant planner 15.00
2. City publications/documents actual cost Public works inspector 15.00
+ 200 ;
3. Map reproduction . actual cost + 20%; Building inspector 15.00
4. Copying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S.15 per page.
B. Agenda Subscriptions(annual). Planning technician 13.00
]. Agenda only — Architectural review and Graphic services coordinator 13.00
planning commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520.00; Tree maintenance technician 13.00'
2. Complete agenda packet — Architectural Engineering technician 13.00
review and planning commission . . . S120.00.
(Reso. 5009 § 1 (pan), 1983) Drafting technician 12.00
4.28.060 Special research/projects Secretary 11.00
When the community development director, (Reso. 5009 § I (pan), 1983)
city'engineer or public works director determines
that additional charges are warranted to cover 4.28.070 Refunds
actual costs for services and for major projects or Refunds of any portion of fees for withdrawn
special projects, hourly charges shall be as fol- or partially completed projects shall be deter-
lows: mined by the community development director,
Hourly city engineer, or public works director,based on
Staff Position Rate code requirements and/or his appraisal of the
cost of staff work performed. (Reso. 5009 § 1
Community development director 530.00 (pan), 1983)
clan iris Obispo r66) 84-16
. ............
...... .......... . ...... ................
to. Ko
As
0
........ y. .............
%g
yJ
...........
Di N
............ . ar
ol
ca ri)0
0 LU —j —1 (n 0 0
(1) —J 0 m J.— cr C!
C0 N m a) cc (n a
M o D o 0 40
M o d 0. 0 0 0 0 0
cr x
q q jw- 00 q ci CC*- 0 0 +
ru-) CO3 U) W; n00 co
& , 0 0
Go 0 Gcmo N M 0 0
z < m t7< cr j-: + V� W X c;
< CA LU W CO + o- a
Cl) LL, uj (a z r- r, a 40
LL Z > Z > Z Ln An
0 LL 0 0 LL LL 0 0 40 In w
0 fa
0U 0 g! c) 40
co
Z
x z
0 t= 0
Z
0 3- a
WW o 0 + +
0 U3 LO
M — 0 N Cl) u C%L 'w 0 v 0
Cj) U') 2 0 6 0 'D c) C.) -J Ln
D < 0 Q cm 0) 1 (7) a Lo Lo
00 V) 69 1.- U) 69 CD , 0)
Cl)
U) z z I to W
o 0 0
0 ()
F- CL m 0 00
0 LU v 0 LLI v
a. 0 69 < a GO
2 ul + 0+ LL LL z
0 UJ y 0 0 C, 0 0 0
F LL () 'o ct 0 q 0 b.- w !e X w !e y CD
0) Co LL LU cr . w 0 0 w 0 m + 0
0 z , 0 m W CLQ ttlo 0
CC 0 0 L M , n X Q—) x X m z D Z
r .40 z cri
0 < C.) w U LLI 40 0
LLI LL 0 U) LU m (a (0) LL 2
Z LL 0 W LU + ir — —
w x 0 �- < M z W + W m I P
W > 9) Lo 0
LL w o w 0 Z a m tu
w 0 LU cr cr R LLI m x w IL
0 0 0 0 w V, 0 0 w CG** +n Cl)
U = 0 g f LL W W 4�9 W W W Lo z
X LL M zr N
C) OD cj m
Z F- 49
COD 40
ch 5W Z q o R 00 U) w le w !ld
LU 0 C; LL, in 0 LU C) 2
, W M 0 0 U) -i m 40 -1 m M S
Z ¢w x 0 LO La 0 m z 0 m x z x 2 U)
Z
D
ui o c) i- C-) w U—k 8 Cc*) w C,3 p- w 0
i U LL w } tc- (a m , 0 1.- x U
W CO) + w + 0 1-- -1 X
LU LU 0 o
> o m LL. Z a CO C� I M _j
> Z 0 -1
0 0 0 x 0 cr Y.
IR 0 0 1 0 0 L) C.)
J 0 LL L) a w
Z cm 0 Go w w 4'& a LL w 6
wLV)
+ 0 +
O
Cg) OM Ci CLO� 0
cm
m CI) N o co 0
Q 4,; o C9 0 + -J
+ + x 0
0 L9
m 0 0 0 C� ir z
Z m La Co LU w 1.; 0 C0 cc 0 w cm
< cc — I Lil C'J w w Lu + w CL 2 w
U) LL Z Z > 0 0 z Z > o (0 0
0 LL 0 z LL 0 Z 0 La 0
LL LL. Ln co
Ogg oeovt (a
6T 00
w e e w Ga
N Lo N N
N cm m U) C-i
IL
0 X z co z I_: cn + 0 + 0 z LO
0 Lil ri) w -i -j
LL ad Z cl) U. ad Z W Zo Lo I M
LO I
w 0 0 0 0 0 0 co Go co CY Ln 6s
a. CD S (_) L) L) (L) fie 6 Vi, ci C4
49 49 0
Z
0
z z
0 LU
z
wZ CL
2 C.) C.) 0 CL x CC
LLI LLI D 5 < 0 ca 0
> OC
0 LU 0 1= 17--
w LU 2
Z CL z
a. z w Z < CC
09) < z LU cc w
CL 0 z U�- M LU a. Pa.
....... ................... Attedvn
::: .. ......................
...................
................
............
. ............... ..
........... .. .............
........... ....
lai .. ......
6g i9
................................
......................... .
................. ..... ...........
O
..... ............ ..... ..... .....
.......... ..............
...................... .............. .............. ..... ... ....... .. ......
...........
C 0 0 0 in Ln rl�
co 0 Lo V Lf) (1)
(D U) Go 04 LO 0
cr) r Lr) 69 N Lf) P CO W z
y7 69. 49 4s T -
a RTW
0 N if) cc COV) 0 CL
0 w C) co N CO 0 0 co Co
U) -J C%l 69 CO) 69 0 v U) Lf) cr) 9)
< M Go 69 V: Cd C; C%i C6 a Qcl q 0)
CL 0 &H
cc 69 69
Aa 2,
N .4t0 C)< 69 0 LO
CM Cl) Lf) Lf) 1w
co C, 0
0 Go) V CO r 0 0
Q Ec
< C6 L6 17; a 4 rto 0 6% 6% 64
49
M Q z
Z 0 0 0 cm -it r- M00 0
LO (a Lf) N C) T CV) LO LO 0 OD
< Cl) 0 a 69 -W CO cm N LO co Cc -ra z
co Y- N C4 C6 Lci a; L6 L6 & 1:
=) < 64 69 m 69 6% 69 69 CQ 01) a
0 0 jz- Q)
0)
03 s-
Ln Go CV) CO cr) 0 m LO LO 0 cli
O P CO CY 01 V Ul N 110 W U)
F- < IT 01 -e 69 T rl- 0 co 0 P-
C'i (6 C; 69 csi ej as RIC 4'o
W G
6s 64 0 x 64). 64). O). E a
69 49
2
a. 0 It N v r� CO 0 0 0
C) W 6% N C) M0 U) Lf) C) q)
Q% IT CO r
69 CD N co �2 t
C6 Lri a; C%i C6 C6 Q)
w C/) Q 60 49 69 (a 49 69 GO
> 641).
>
LUQ CJ (3) r (W) r LO C) 0 0 0 0
< Er r- co co CO) -IT C%l m 0 0 0 QL
Cv CO(7) m w NtD P.- 03
li
C6 a C6 d
Z m LO co Cf) *0
< cc W 49 CV :?t7
lb3 rL
2� a
cr) ca to
m cli C%l m 0 a
UJ LO 0 Lf) N IT 0 r- Lf) LO co ca
L) 1� V (A Ln CV) w cli C%l CL
Cl
< 64
LU 64 z o t6 42
(L m EA fA
0 0 t :33 tr
CC Ct
0 , , 6
00 0 LLI
EU
LL C, QL 03
Lu LO
O CO
Co
0 ;; w
I.I. o
0 11 ,
LL w 0 0 -0 6 cx ca
3LL w C5
LL r
ui -0
U- (a .0 W e-A w ca
>- 0 a) CO 'o z a: 6 2 -z
E F- 0) W Lu a) N 0 w Q 0
�j > W LL w LL < Z > Q a) CL ca
W w w 0 o -,cz
U) a. LL a) LL. EL
w a: cm a) QL
w C< E LL. co Lu z a:
n C.9 E
LL r- Z cc o a- to cz
CD Z a) o c co Q) cc a
o 01
W L) z
cm CM m 0 w Q) w T
z r
a. Z c L) E- M LU > LU U- 0 C/) Q
—ca Z m
Q�
Z co CL �lb
< — 0 E 0 -6 0 0 :) " Q4
moi
�_j a- 75 (9 a. m Z 0 0 z m () (L
a. m w
. ............ Attechm
.........
x:
...........
..... ............
M.
v.z.
..........
wo
J c
rd�i :6 U) cv): CO. LO
r- cr) 0 Go C\l.. P P......R
C,j
C%*' Go 0 Lo cc C-4 NC, 03
4w
s.
LL u
93
CD CDw U) r� co co 0 QL
0 LU 'Or IV %CY le tq� v LO
Co —J 7 GO w L
9
< M �: C%l
a. 0 6s ttl
Ir
r)
cep
N 0 0 tb
C�OD 0CO CY CY c
< r) cr
z
Fr (0 " % v CY co LO
49
<
< 1-: Ncri N
0 0 cm N V cm cm CD
< CD 0 cm 0) le M qe cf)
w 69 'It C\! Iq 0 M
CM CO CZ
ci ci Cd
6s 6% (a 40
00 93
co w w Go co M 0 a w CM LO La M
0
< C-4 04 f9 r- w - -e y Co
z ci ci ci lb
t4 6% d3 GO VD.
X 64
0 m cc
a N C%l 0 It M (D M
JN cm M v IM IM 0 w L
-i M (a 't " w co w N U
C6 1: 1: C6
Z0 < fis� 60 6r# 60 40 69 Go V>
> T
w < M CO 0 0 w 03
< LO La Ct) v co v Lo In v
w 6% V) U) M IM
z M 49 ci C6 L44
6 K
0 co< cc 6a 60 0 LU
< Q)r4
W <
ca > 0 C, C) IM CM CM V) �C-a
LO Ul) CIJ W 0 LO U) it qo))
w C%l C*4 69 QD Cl OD OD 00 CD z 0)
oC Ln < 1: 17 C4 qi 44 C6 t-L a
LU .
60 0 4s co QS 69� w
QL
_j (L a) Z
CO
CL -
W 0 al 0
z
E P LU 0 0) -40 93 C� C; Lu 5 Cb elm t3)
C� Z QL .C:
W c c Fo-
co
LU
w
co0 z co z
LU >1 CC LU D ca
w LLto < rr 0LU
ct
W LL0) U) LL U) LU cis cm LU rj
W c Z > .0
il: G W LL 0 ZWOO Q)
U) LL LL ad w
z w 0)
w S C< ELL E co z z a: cc
C< Z o o < 0 CL f4 93
CD D LL CL r_ ai -.,e 4) S z Fn z CO cc 5 2
ca C cx C CD
E gL 0 a. cc -5 LU ;z 5; 0 W < IS OR
CL W a am) cm 2 r- LU CC 0 L) a)
a. z w w U. 0.
s 0 E- IM w
w Z (D -6 3 CO :1 ca
0 Z u Cc$ -j
Z M 0 C.) z M Q)
CC a 3 F5 i� a
> Co -j 0 =)
CD _j a- =) a a. M Z0. cr) M w w 0 IL
a. M w
......... Attachments .
r
oaf................
...........
.. ..........
4-: 44. ..........
Ol
a
X ......
N. NO
X .:X .:.
..............:..X......
:::
Zj40
w40
10 io Lo 0 Lo 610 :0
f�
0. 01c, W, cr) O no......: N : .r.
cl: co F 60 N 0 co 0:.0 co :a) C r4
C6. 69 f9 69IV
0 CY..d%T 69� C; :.::c6.
&3- 40. Cf) Lf).:: Ln 0 4c
iA 49 0) tj
93 a
to r CM CO N CO LO r
60 (a N CO 0
o w CD Cr) 00 C%l IW ca CO UQ
M G-J
CO qt 6% Lf) 0 0) 0 co0 0
031 6% Iz .1i a C6 C6 d a 5,1-
a. 0 Go CV) U) co to U) CIO
a: 6'9�
1 1 1 1 0 0
co 0) C-4 a C\1 Lf) r CO h 0 0 r-- C%l R cs U %oz
< r 0 01 69 r C%l N r 0 0 Lf) LD 0 cr) 0 Cf) O :3
-q (ID IT h49 LO 40 CD 1` N N NLO 0 69 x �j
Z <
ci 69 d cd N N0; 01 -Z Icc
4
< 69 69 04 v N 69 w v 0 cc
CD m 60 Go 6a 69 rfo 69so uz
O 11 0
(L
Z 000 00 CM Lf) 00 v 0 0 le N
0 0 0 60 0 CM N r 0 cf) LO LO CO -it L6F ui
Q 6A 0 Lf) O LO (a Lr) 0 t0 rl C-i N CY cf) 60 Cl) CC 0 72 CO
ci a csi C6 to co 0 C6 a cy- W, 0- II 0H
Q)
D < 6% 60 69 69 CM v N (a NCO CD V) 0 ca T Q
0 0 49 64> 69 co Z
fo F- <
COW Z a. 10 Q)
0
(D Lf) I- CO 0 CD 0 CV) Of CO 0 LO 0 C) 2 •c:
9! Lf) W —J 9)
Cl LO 0) N CS 04 0) 0 P� Ct) 0 Z >
< co IT if) a) 4*" IT C\l CD 0 co to 0 0
Zd C6 cNi C6 L6 LO 0, CM V V CD —
x G& Go 60 CO LO a) G& cli v r� r F- w
m 69 CZ
0 03
cc° — Z (b
> 0 W CM 0 0 04 LO GO 0 O CD 0 co 0
- Rs r�
J 0 NV 69 A0 Lf) 0 0 Ln Nco mQ 6O 6D
cc a co r- LO 69 Lf) 0 w cm 0 0 C\j v Z m >
43i IZ 4 Ld 6 (d Ld 6 (Ni 0- LOf to' cri
49 64 40 C%l IT N 44 cr) LO co P� 0 m z
Go Go 49 Go Gog. 44 C) a. w
IZL ca a
> r4 03
< CD LO 10 0) N CO CM CO r 0 0 O 0 co
0 0
N CV) I-- co co r r 0 0 0 0 r ca
z H Q C\j r, rl to n 6% Cf) M to N Q C3 (a
cl, qlp CO I'- — (D '0 M
z m r,: : 69 Gp, C; 4 d M t0 6 C%i C6 C;
W < cc 60 fis r IV t0 r fo C%l v ca a)
U) < 44 44
m
CD0 CQaL
0 go Cl 40 0 0) 1n V 0 'o 0 C', 'o 0 1
U) W p = N 0 0 04 co
W) 0 C� 0 Lc) CM 'IT (D Op Q CL
2 C) r- U) 0 v co 613�1- v co C', co 0 0 co C', Ln
h C4 I.
< : C9. 7 a d C6 1: cs Cl r r tz
w 64 to (a t7 LO CD 69 GO co co f- w -'s
• a. m 64 69 fa 69 69 69 CM F-
CC 69 4cp < C3 0.
cc
w (D ca
QL to
E ra CO Q
o LO
LL 0r ` C
~ IIZ-zvi
�11 B
LL Lu j 4)CL
a) a w
Q IL w a: Z cf) z m vii
c!) LU 0
ts 46 LL Z% t LL C6 m
AR z CLI (1) CO (,D Cl) C) ts LU < v
F- Q) (D w r (D LLI CC —
> CL E Q) m
CL > W LL (a LL w cc CL 0 cr F- -0 QL q)
0 z w ca js
CD 0 LL 2 .2 W T
w @ a: cm (D "fa cx tm
LU E > -a < ELL E cD LL — — 0) cL t2 2 <
(j) " Z I C C 0
LL c 0 mai E < in a: 02 ca
r_ a- a. E "Q;- B w
CD E cis
40 r 2 Z w < ca
CL (D
2 0 a LU 0 cr
Z t5 .5 CD a C 0) w =
0 CL Z a c " W LL 03
C) z -j
0 w F
'D <
z ca co — S
cz
a D 0 CO CC cqol
z E (
_j w (L -L m C.) F- 0 (4 m w w
13 LL IL m w Ric
Attachment,.. ..
..... ...; :t�;>;,..:....... ,,.�......,.....:n;:..;:,,.v.„.;;�;:.s,,...;.,,.n;..,.�,..�,,;,n. m,yy,::..!.^;.;"^" '+�rrlr:8;ws;.;...." .:>;'^;'^;:;?
MEMORANDUM r:;.:.:f,.:.:. : :.:::. �_ �:. ::.:... ...n...:::<:.
w•:u�:.:..ns2:w:yG,:uueudua:aa.ko�.Ww.:u:nv.:::w,.. ..vn�.v:a�wSn;ao::.sv�C':tuiiv:ei;.vus:1.'.�.�.E. •� .
Date: August 28, 1991
To: Linda Asprion, Finance Department
From: Allen Hopkins, Community Development Department
Via: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Subject: Response to Planning Commission Comments on roposed Fees
In responding to your inquiry, I offer the following comments which address the
concerns of the Planning Commission at their recent meeting.
1. Variance - divide into two categories with different fees. It is impossible to predict
which applications would be more difficult (time-consuming) to process, since by
definition, the variance is granted for unique circumstances. And it would be
difficult to categorize variances into levels of significance: Which standard is more
important than another -- building height, required parking, yard setbacks or lot
coverage? Provisions already exist for minor exceptions (such as fence height)
through the administrative review process.
Recommendation: We recommend no changes to the proposed fee structure for
variances.
2. Vesting Maps - eliminate the fee. Vesting maps "lock" the rules, fees, codes and
other aspects at the time of tentative map approval. Additional staff time is required
to document these conditions existing at time of approval, and to carefully examine
and evaluate anticipated changes in City codes and standards (eg. development
impact fees)which must be acknowledged in the City Council resolution of approval.
A majority of the subdivision maps currently being submitted are vesting maps, and
it appears that this trend will increase in the future. It would, therefore, be
appropriate to charge a fee for all parcel/tract map applications that recovers the
additional cost associated with processing vesting map applications.
Recommendation: We recommend that a single fee be assessed for all parcel and
tract maps.
3. Sian Permits - lowering the rate for basic permits and increasing the rate for
exceptions. We feel that the basic sign permit fee reflects the amount of work
required to process the application. If lower fees are charged for basic sign permit
applications, the City will not realize full cost recovery for this process. However,
lower fees will more likely induce applicants to apply for a sign permit Procedures
Response to Planning Commission Comments on Proposed Fees
are already in place for the Architectural Review Commission to grant exceptions
for signs. If exceptions are requested at the time of initial application, the fee
charged would be for the basic sign permit plus the fee for ARC review of the sign.
Recommendation: In order to achieve full cost recovery, we recommend no changes
to the proposed fee structure for sign permits.
4. Environmental. •Impact Reports - questioning the need for the proposed
administrative fee. When an EIR is required, this is the only means we have
available to recover our costs of administering the contract with the consultant hired
to prepare the document. There is a significant amount of staff time necessary to
prepare the work scope and RFP, recruit and select the consultant, negotiate the
contract, monitor the progress of the consultant, administer the consultant contract,
deal with the circulation, review, and adoption of the draft and final EIR. The 30%
administrative fee is warranted to recover the City's cost of administering an EIR.
Recommendation: We recommend no.changes to the proposed fee structure for
environmental impact reports.
5. Specific Plan and General'Plan Amendment - fees are too low and should be
increased. These two components should be addressed separately.
a. Specific Plan. There are very few specific plan applications, but those that
are pending are all major expansion areas identified in the General Plan,
requiring significant staff work to process (Dalidio, Margarita and Irish Hills).
In some cases, there is preliminary review and comment before an application
is even submitted, requiring significant staff effort. Due to the unique nature
of these applications, it would be appropriate to charge an initial study fee
of a fixed amount to cover the City's fixed cost, plus an plan review fee based
on an estimate of staff time and the cost of materials and consultant services.
As part of the application process, an agreement between the City and
applicant would be completed which outlines tasks, work scope and
City/applicant responsibilities. The agreement should also allow the City to
collect additional fees if costs exceed the original estimate.
b. General Plan. General Plan map amendments are more frequent (hearings
held three times per year) and are usually localized in nature, and text
amendments are relatively easy to process. The proposed fee structure is
appropriate for these types of applications.
Recommendation:
a. Specific Plan. Assess a Specific Plan Initial Study Fee of$1,000 to cover fixed
costs, plus an application fee based on an estimated total for staff time,
printing/materials costs and consultant services.
�_5
Response to Planning Commission Comments on Proposed Fees
b. General Plan. We recommend no changes to the proposed fee structure for
General Plan amendments.
6. Anneals - charge separate rates for applicant versus theeg neral public. This is a
policy decision that will have to be resolved by the Council. There has been
considerable study on the impact of appeals on the hearing process that would
provide the Council with adequate information to resolve the fee structure for
appeals.
Recommendation: We feel that some fee would be appropriate in order to insure
that at least a portion of the cost of appeals would be recovered. Specific appeal
fee level(s) should be determined by the City Council.
\USERS\AHOPMNS\PCFE M.MEM
AttachmenLLI .
BIACC
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE CENTRAL COAST
P.O. Box 5158 • San Luis Obispo,Ca 93403
(805)543-2247 FAX(805)543-8702
July 26, 1991
Board of Directors
John French, Bill Statler
President Finance Director
Santa Lucia Hills City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo
Richard Loughead, Dear Bill:
Vice President
BDC Development,
Corporation Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you regarding the proposed
Pismo Beach increases in fees for Building and Safety and Planning, and Engineering. We
Jon Martin, understand very well that increases in costs must be covered by either
Vice President increasing revenue or decreasing expenses. Unfortunately, increases in city
Michael Towbes fees will have a detrimental effect on our industry. This is especially true in a
Construction&
Development.Inc. period such as we are now in where, in order to sell homes, builders have
Santa Barbara been forced to reduce sales prices from 10-15%. As you know, construction
Chuck Crockett, valuation in the city of San Luis Obispo for fiscal year 1989 was over $66
Secretary million dollars; for fiscal year 1991, it was just $23.7 million. The last half of
Crockett Construction fiscal year 1991 was.even bleaker ($10.5 million). This adversely effects retail
Paso Robles sales and many other portions of our local economy.
Tom Hallock,
Treasurer We have reviewed the proposed fee increases with an eye out for areas where
The Bank of Montecito p p Y
Santa Barbara the fees seem out of line with the services rendered. In those few cases (6) we
have provided what we feel is fair market value of such services. In such
Tom Carey cases, further action would be required by management if our suggested fees
The Carey Group.Inc. are adopted. We would be lad to meet with the cit management team to
Santa Barbara p 8 Y S
Terry Flotley work on such streamlining.
Terance B.Fiatley.Inc.
Santa Maria Other than the six fees we feel are out of line, we recommend that the
Dick Huizengo economic impact of the proposed fees be softened by a phased
Commonwealth-united implementation. As you point out in the staff report, at current levels of
Mortgage building activity less revenue could be anticipated from the increases, so less
San Luis Obispo revenue would be lost if implementation were phased over a two year period.
Russ Londress We also suggest that in the future, fees be reviewed more frequently to avoid
Los Padres Sovi^sol Bk
an9 the disruption caused by the kind of large increases proposed.
Chuck Larson
Fence Factory In a related matter, we are unclear how you propose to handle "pipe line"
Santa Maria projects. That is, projects that are part way thru the system, but have not yet
Dick Leadbetter reached the point of paying all fees, ie. have an approved tentative map, but
R.L. Leadbetter,Inc. have not filed a final map. Our suggestion is to exempt these projects from the
Santa Maria proposed increases.
Dan uoyd
EDA We are also concerned about the cities used as comparison, especially in
San Luis Obispo regards to engineering fees. Why weren't Paso Robles or Santa Maria or other
Rick Webster
Laguna Hili Pork.Inc. more local cities used?
Son Luis Obispo One last item before dealing with "the unreasonable six": How do you propose
to handle seismic retro fitting? We believe there is significant public benefit
from such construction, and that lower fees would be an encouragement to get
this work done. We suggest a 50% discount.
I-s1
Building & Safety: We endorse adoption of these fee increases as proposed.
Planning Services: We feel the three of the proposed increases are excessive.
Fee Current Proposed BIA Alternate
Tentative Map $675. $1500+$50/Lot $675.+$5./Lot
Parcel Map $275. $1530+$50/Lot $675.+$5./Lot
Vesting -0- $400+$50/Lot -0-
We are unaware of any additional work generated because a map is labeled "vesting". The
fees charged by the comparison cities were $5./lot, rather than $50./lot. Perhaps the $50.
was a typo.
Engineering:
.Fee_ Current Proposed BIA Alternate
Improvement plan check Varies $200+1.5% $200+$50/Lot
of const. cost
Construction Inspection Varies $500+2.5% $500+$50/Lot
of const. cost
Final Map Tract $500+$50/lot $500+$5. alot
In the case of improvement plan checking, the proposed fee would generate fees equal to an
unbelievable 40 percent of our cost of preparing the improvement plans. These plans are
signed and stamped by a registered Civil Engineer who is liable for their accuracy and
completeness. Costs should be brought into line with the value of the services.
In the case of construction inspection, the proposed fee would generate enough income to
pay for a full time inspector for twice the construction time. For instance: A 50-lot
subdivision would generate $44,250. in inspection fees. Such projects are generally
completed in 100 working days. Paying $4,442.50 a day, when less than an hour a day of
inspection is needed, is clearly excessive. Our proposal is based on 100 hours at $30.00 per
hour for the same 50-lot subdivision.
In the case of final maps, we see little difference in checking a map of 5 or 50 lots. The
mathematics are provided by the Registered Civil Engineer. The added cost of checking for
completeness is certainly not worth $50. a lot.
As you can see, of the hundreds of fees proposed, we are suggesting revisions to only six. I
sincerely hope you seriously review our suggested fees and take action to bring the cost of
providing these services into line with the value of the services. We are grateful for the
assistance provided by the San Luis Obispo County Contractors Association in preparing this
evaluation.
Again, as you can see, a few of the proposed fees are clearly excessive.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact us.
Very Truly yours,
9n French
resident
1-51
Attachment .
Projected Development Review Revenues
BurtdtngB :... Pluginn
...
1988 Activity Levels&Revenues
Actual cost recovery $353,600 $77,100 $82,100 $512,800
Recommended cost recovery 670,300 298,400 252,600 1,221,300
. ... ..:.:.::......:.
NO .....................,.Ott, 1°7�}.
1990-91 Estimated Revenues 150,000 40,000 131,000 321,000
1991-93 Projected Annual Revenues
No fee increases @•75%
of 1990-91 levels 105,000 39,000 99,000 243,000
Projected revenues with fee
increases 200,000 150,000 206,000 556,000
icfdYt t rc envies < 95, 10 o ff '. ..D'f fl0i ................
I . }
Sources
Additional Long-term Revenues
User Fee Analysis Executive Summary, Vertex Cost Systems, November 1988
Projected Revenues for 1990-91 Through 199192
1991-93 Financial Plan, Pages H-2 and H-3
�"S9