The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS11-Planning CITY OF SAN BEIUC.RDIN()f":l R.QUEST ()R COUNCIL ACTION Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning From: and Building and Safety Subject: Oept: Planning Date: November 14, ,l989 Planning Department Fee Increase Resolution Mayor and Council Meeting of November 20, 1989, 2:00 p.m. Synopsis of Previous Council action: On August 15, 1988 the Mayor and Council adopted Resolution No. 88-305 establishing or modifying fees for Planning services. :tJ f'Il :.- t") Cj .c::i "'<.; HI .... 1 Racommended motion: I - bo Cl t::J ~'= ;!.:; - -.. ;:r: ":-J c-. .- '"Tf ~ :'1 That the Mayor and Council close the public hearing; and that the attached resolution (Attachment D), modifying fees for Planning services, be adopted. ~, r~/ Signature Larry E. Reed Staff Report Phone: Ward: 384-5057 Contact person: Larry E. Reed Supporting date attached: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: City-Wide Amount: Source: (Acct, No.1 (Acct, Description> FilWlce: Council Notes: (" - Lilt) 75.0262 Agenda Item No 5-1/ ;'~.4 ','",,-,... <"'"",,~.'-' .. ..,..,,,,,... '..'. .,.... .... "."'.<r'~'~'.i';""_'c__.''' ....--;..,-............;,,"""'.-:-,.., ....'..".r~j~.;.#.~(.';""'~.~_,..":,.%"Y~.......".,,<\o,""':,~~'flj,l...""......r1, <(""~":N<'.,~~,,,,,.,.. . ..1 CITY OF SAN _RJC)RDlNO - RIIQUEST ,;:))II COUNCIL ACTION Subject: Planning Mayor and STAFF REPORT Departaent Fee Increase Resolution Council Meeting of November 20, 1989 for REOUEST To adopt a resolution raising-the Building and Safety Department Departments development review and fees" of the-PlalUling to cover more of processing costs. and the , , , I i 1 1 BACKGROUND This fee adjustment resolution was requested to be prepared by the Mayor as a revenue enhancement for the purpose of recovering cost of services provided by the Planning Department. As a result of this request by the Mayor, the Department's staff surveyed the cities within the Inland Empire to determine the amount of fees being charged for all of the various development review services. The results of this survey and a development review fee analysis are presented in this staff report. The main factor result of the development review fee analysis is that the citv does not charae enouah in develoD- ment review fees in order to adeauatelv staff and Drovide for a hiah aualitv of develoDlDent review service. ' (See Table 3, Dev~lopment Review Service Estimated Costs/Revenue Sources.) The existing development, review fees for the city of San Bernardino's Planning Department will generate about $256,400 in Fiscal Year (FY) 1989-1990. This revenue represents about a 21' cost recovery of the Planning Department's total budget or about a 39' recovery of the cost to operate the CUrrent Division of the Department. The current Planning Division costs are focused on in this analysis, as this is a direct cost. Advanced Planninq, on the other hand, may be considered to be an indirect cost and a service provided to all the citizens of San Bernardino, thus a general fund expense. Planninq Department Budqet for FY89-90 Estimated Cost of CUrrent Planning Division for FY89-90 $1,224,164 $653,909 The Planninq Department has conducted a Development Review Fee Survey of the cities in the Inland Empire (Attachaent A - Table 1). ~. The main result of this survey is that on the averaae. San Bernardino's fe~ sched~l~ is about 31' below the median of "other cities in the Inland-EmD~re.. at the present time. fMany cities are presently considering a fee adjustment which would further reduce the City below the median.) 75..0264 - "c__,~#.ll,..,_",,;L, .' ''-' ,~-,-,,,>;:_'''''',~~,,""-,,,,",jo'~'~0''-,J. ~'.""",_~, ",~~-:-~):,<"","_~~""""":"'j U_,! ~"';, '-"".__-".''''''';.,'"''''._ Mayor and counci~genda of November 20, 198> Planning Department Fee Increase Page 3 The City currently performs which there is no charge. include: development review services for Examples of these services Checking building permits for General Plan con- sistency (projected volume FY.89..90 - 2,718) Construction Plan Checks for compliance with approved permits (projected volume FY89-90 - 666) Other cities collect these types of fees, but San Bernardino has not imposed them. In addition, a common practice for fee program ordinances is to include an automatic annual increase, tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). San Bernardino should adopt this practice. It is estimated that, if the City had a fee schedule for development review that was the average of the Inland Empire, it would generate about $338,850 or about 28% of the Planning Department's total budget or about 52% of the CUrrent Planning Division's budget. Increasing fees to the average is still a low percentage of actual cost recovery. The low percentage of 52% cost recovery for CUrrent Planning means that the taxpayers would continue to heavily subsidize the cost of reviewing the new development that is occurring within the City. Suaaested Actions I 1 j Raise fees to about the average of the Inland Empire (about a 31% increase). (See Attachment B Table 2, Fee Increase Proposal) 2. Charge for the following existing services: 1. . Building Permit Review · Plan Check for Compliance with Approved Permits 3. Provide for an annual automatic adjustment of fees based on the Consumer Price Index. RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; that the attached resolution (Attachment A) modifying fees for Planning services be adopted. . , ,.; ~l m Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP, Principal Planner for Larry E. Reed, Director of Planning and Building and Safety ! *''''''~'''i''''''~._ <~Ci'_'''~'''''''-...''''''~'''''''''''''~'9;}",,~.,_;-<...'''"f''_.'-,.il''l.~- .'1;:.;,;".....-~..(\A ~-4;...,':>:!'~,~(,il!l: ~,l..,;.._."'.._~ ..~,.,.l~ ;).~.~""l"C''''''''~ ..,;'1'.. $!,. "''''-;,...-m~~''''' , Mayor and Counci~genda of Nov8llber 20, 198/ Planning Department Fee Increase Page 4 Attachments: A - Table 1 - Comparison of Development Review Fees Survey Summary B - Table 2 - Fee Increase Proposal C - Table 3 Development Review Estimated Costs/Revenue Sources D - Fee Resolution mkfll/l4/89 M&CCAGENDA:FEES1 " ; j , I 1 1 , I .. . r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEE SURVEY \... ~ r .' " -- COMP ARISON OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES: SURVEY SUMMARY - - ---- September 11, 1989 ---- - _.- - - , - - - - -- --- - ~ ----- - - -- -- " \.. ~ ._w~JtJ)"'A~''-'''''''-''''';'T''~tJt:'E''r'-~'''' .' " '" - A'l'TACHMEN'l' A ." . I_'~ _____ .L. ~ '. ~A~4."",.",Ul .1 "'''.- ~,;>m' ..1 .,'.~"fIr,,~. -_.""""""7',....i''''i;J-';r-..".'A'/'i''i''?'i~'..'..=.-:i.'.''''-."..~~.'Vw.;''''''.,,.~.:Q-'"~."._,""~ "it<.:_.,...-.,..,...."~^,.,,,~....,..,.,,,."'-........-~'''''.'''''''.,,....__ ..._~~"' J.""'.:."'-'-:fr"""" .. :"'.-~"",;c'''<!'-'<'''''-'! ~ r - ,. - ClI. - ca.. .... - ll.- .. - lIT., - -. lOT. IhCr '" MIl 'I,ZIt.. ..~... .nt." tnt... N,... ..,.... ...,.. tilt,. ."'... .,.. _... #:; 'If .,.... liS.. u.... '2$,,, '2S.. 'IS." 11'.01 m.. tS." SU... m." - TtlT. Ther IF' MIl '.,200,01 13,.... .7'5t." .nt... II,... I.,M.. ...... tilt.. ."'... .... _... 'If .,.... IIS.N n.... 125.. '2S... 'IS." 111.01 ..... ss.. SU... tIl... - TtlT. IhCr !II. lASt 'II... I7IS.. '117.SO .1.... eo." '2$." nt.. '12$,00 SQ." Itlllam.m 2$1 TtIl. lIM:T 1lV. ,. MIl M2$." tl2$." II..N 'm.to 'ar 112.. Itlll "II. m 2$1 _Al' .""~ ~Il .."... '350.. 1150.00 ..ot.. .sa.OO '.".10 tlOO." ""I. ClIIIIIIIIDt 1111.00 S35O." 1150.00 II.... ....DO SIIO.00 'IK." Itlllllll, m sal CMtIIIIF I_ ... 'm,oo .2,1.... .....00 tlGG... SI,... ....,00 "sa,,, _,to -... _.00 "",.. AC'! 110.00 S25.00 M.OO tlS.oa ...... m." CUP CIlIa. USES - mg." '2,11.... t3SG.00 '''.00 t32S." '1lG." usa.OO _... tllS... tS2$." QW," - S".. ..... cuP," - '!SO." tl,II'.OO usa... 'lOO.tll '125." _.00 ..... -,.. us... tS2$." mi." 01 110.00 ..... fl. Ill. '!ICPT. "' 'uo.. ....... at... tlS,,, at,,, "2$.00 Itl IF "II, FIE 2$1 n. EIT;fTT, U" PI, IASI 'l1a.oa .1..... nt... '2$.00 nt,to tl2$.OO It! 1If 1111, m 2$1 _acc.PIltlT "4J.1O '.S... .S.... "'.00 SlU. m." SI".OO Ill, 1If ~.. EllSIST, ISO.OO MO.OO '" ll. AllIIITIBT lASt tltO,,, .21.... ...... III II" ..mUfllI mr." m." '150.00 '150.GO _lIl11l1tlllAlIDt IASI _.00 'lSG," nt... ....... '47.~ S2U. "00." ..St.oo tI7... , - . '2$,00 !MIa III1WlIDt "',00 ~l" 1A1I -.. '2,251.. -,.. 'M," _... .... tltO.OO -,.. '.00." -,.. , P11'_l at.1I 130," ...... .?t." m.oo , ~1""1IlY"IDt - MII.to ms... t3SG,,, IIf It! " Mil. '11 m ".. _. lITE... M2$." nt... tilt." Silt," '12$." IIlY1I1I1 ".. - _... tStS." _... tilt." tllS... .... ...... ..,. ....... tlsa," t712." lilT m." , - tit." , ...IME( tl72... -- IIlIII IllS." II,". -,.. ,-," 1l12,. m...a 1300." -... GlS." tSlS." -- ... .... :.1S... ",,;. ....;.-- - 'U,'---aL"_ -,.- ..---'I2S." -,.-tll-..---~ -- ---_III - -,.. tlfJS-a- . t227,n 1171,-"-- . - t3lI.1l 1311.17 'lIn.14--ms.t7 . - tlst.lI 1111.. ....71- -~ '" , ";. -.:.:- ~ '. :if,< if ~,--,,,,,,,,..,,~.,,,_. #I'Jf v_~"'.. -'.-,~:,,,' 119, 1.1. .. ILL 'MI' _. 1111. ilia .. q. Q." 119, -. -. - -0 - 11_11- BI.. . ~,...... ,.. ...... M,na.. ........ -,.. ..,..1 -.. (11,....., ,711 _... III ...... 'It," - ..... III," ..... IlL" 'It." (..LlS) "'5l a m... ta... 1111. ilia III . .....,.. ...... ...... ..."'... .....,.. -,.. ..,...., ....... 1".III..n '731 '1lI... III ...,.. .1.... ns... 117." III," '11," lB.. ...... '11.1l MI a 'IS.. "s.. lilt. ilia. m. . lilt." ...... 1lS," 1211." '1lI." .1..... '.".11 ...... (f.".m ,731 '110." IClIF.II, IB 251 ltl ,Ill 'III 1111. ilia .., . '1,.." 17..... ,,231... "1l.00 "II." '210." lI,h:oo, -111 "25." ,It I '11." I.S.. 114.. ICl IF "I. IB Itl _I ..._ _II ...... 1111.00 .."... '146.1t 171." (1171.501 -701 'Iot.to Pl_.. _,... HOt.OO 1125.00 '252.00 '11I,00 "70.00 _.11 171." lI11Ull -741 1151." .1Cl IF .'1. IB 1tI _IF. ... '2,..00 '711," '.,OSI." I2,J".. IC_ ",100.00 "".31 1745." 11225.351 ,m 11IO.00 - '10." III.to 'll," CIIT '11.. lUP _, lIIU ... 11,501.00 .nt.OO IIrOSt.OD ",324." 12,600.OD 1600." '1,153.35 II,Me." 'UI II 1111.01 oICtI Ilt.OO '25." ,,,It 117.01 '".'2 lUPIB ... II,,".GO 1720... II,OSI.OO _ ",324.00 12,600.00 II:S.OO '1,"'.$1 'I,"'.M Ilt.f7 II .nt,,, tal '10." '25,10 ...It 117." 11'.42 TJ. m. 11ll7l. m 1ll1.00 m.OI 1211." 1l3ll.0I 1171." IIM,X '1lI,0I '".14 III 1Il1." ICl IF ..1. IB TJ. m.m. W, III IlK 1135.00 m.oo '1Il.1O '1lI." 1311." 'IM,X 111'.00 ICl .. 1111. III m Itl .Ill 'III _ IlC. ...n '273.00 "'.11 'llO." '11l.25 1511 195.10 - 111. IF _ _111. 130.00 1134.00 Ilto.oo 170.10 "0.. tlO.tol ,II 170." Illll.._ I . '300.00 lno.OO n4I.Of 1464.00 'ISO.OO '214.13 '200.00 1114.13; .211 '111." Itl 130," I II. ..FIClII. I5O.N 11".16 '''.ot 11114.20) ~I 1150." lIIoI"ft 1ECl"'''. ... 11,500.00 "00.00 I'st.OO 143'." '1,000." '250.00 1324.. 1235." ''''.... ,III IISt.GO - .1.... ."a IF IUIPIJ. ...... "4.00 ....7'5 110.1:. 135.25 m ....00 _w IISI 1.,..00 ....00 I..... 12,'10.00 II,iIS.OO I",.GO 115&.13 '200." '6.131 .m mo.OI IU_ 110.00 .....K 130,. 130." 1".161 ,m - w ...... .. _.00 154'.00 110I,10 _,33 II.... 11425.33) "II IM'.OO III 1S3.~ 1S3." 115.to fl..ool 'n1 ICl IF .11. IR m 1tI 251 nl ft...... I..... _.00 II.... .lI.... 1111.00 1241.71 '230.. (111.711 -II 1111," ...0 IF ..:.. .. _... ..... '25"'0 11,..00 .lot.OO '300.01 ' 1411.11 111I." 111I.11. 'III 13lS.0I ." ...... up.,. ICII "',10 MI." tSl.51 "'11a - '1,*.00 ....... 141t.00 'l,fn.1O 11,24&.00 nzs,,, "11.31 ...,.. ('11I.1l1 .m ....00 ... _.10 1Il1... 1124,01 '..m... 1llt.0I nzs." 1DI,0I ...... ""''' 141 lISt," "".1Il 11I2.13 'll4.3' .....11 '.,"" '''I,a _.25 1231.31 tlllSo2t) ,111 _.71 I."..."_'''>-''~'''''''>_''.~..''.''-''V'''''';';.'__,....",-?;_"".~,~"""""""'~:"':,"""""~''''''''!f'''~'~1'><""~,"_"-,,,,,''''''!''''~)~~T~).~,., .~;..,..! "~~#',,,,'_'W":"""f,"""'"Ii.~; -- ." ATTACHMENT B TABLE 2 FEE INCREASE PROPOSAL 1.l.~...<U\ "' .<",;_'_"'~. ^'~''4J>/.-'~/''_'J\.:_'''''_~''''';",,-''''''''_'';''''';',~'''''~~'';'rr~;,'_., C'''~'''''''''"_~_''''''''~"':>_~'".--'~__' ," "--<Y;~-"~1"""_~il"':r_'7""-""'''~'~'''''''-'''=:~,~~""" Planning Department Per.~Service Type 16. Extensions of Time (subdivisions) 17. General Plan Amendments (Text) Present ~ IDS of Ori gi na 1 fil i ng fee 1,170 18. Historical Preservation Report No Fee I ni ti al Deposit 19. Home Occupati on Permit 230 20. Landscape Plan Review 65 21. Letter of Zoning/General Plan 70 Consistency 22. Lot Line Adjustment 200 plus 30/Lot 23. Miscellaneous Environmental 150 plus Full Report Review Consultant Cost Initial Deposit for Full No Deposit Required Consultant Cost I 24. Minor Revision/Modification 95 , I ~ 25. Negative Declaration 235 , i 26. Notice of Exemption 80 :1 27. Parcel Map 200 plus 30/Parcel 28. Planning Commission 230 Interpretation 29. Plan Check Review No Fee 30. Revi ew of Pl ans 360 31. Sign Permit 25 32. Specific Plan or Specific Full Consultant Cost Plan Amendment Plus Oirect Cost Recovery Fee 33. Temporary Trailer/Mobile 95 Horne Permit 34. Tentative Tract Map for 400 plus 10/00 Condominium or Planned Residential Development C7 APPFEES2 ;'-_""",",'!9:-__"_'__'''_'''_.~~'''' J.L ___ _ J ~~-,..,.... Proposed Fee Same Direct Cost Recovery Fee Full Consultant Cost plus Direct Cost Recovery Fee 500 150 100 75 250 plus 40/Lot Same 200 200 350 100 850 plus 40/Parcel 250 30 1,000 40 Same 125 1,500 plus 40/DU .",.."".,,- ,._'_^""',..-....;"..~..,..-.....,._""_.~w~~............"'~~..."','.,.!"..<,.."':O:O_~ ...I .;'. '.'!'~'t~ ~M~. ~<_,.""'_~~. .~ __ . "'~ .J"'r~' Planning Department Permit/Service Type 35. Tentative Tract Map for Single-Family Residential 36. Tentative Tract Map Extension 37. Tentative Tract Map or Parcel Map Revision 38. Variance 39. Minor Variance (Exception) 40. Vesting Tentative Map 41. Development Agreement i C7 APPFEES3 "; ~ i I , , , 1 I j , Present Fee 400 plus 10/Lot 10% of Ori gi na 1 Filing Fee 50% of Ori gi na 1 Filing Fee 480 300 Full Consultant Cost plus Direct Cost Recovery Fees Full Consultant Cost plus Direct Cost Recover Fees ~ .h' ~#."~~~"-",""""",--"",,,,,,,,",,-,_,,,,,,,,,,~.,>-, Proposed Fee 1,500 plus 40/Lot Same Same 650 350 Same Same >l!',,"~,..,__~,,,,,,.'.i.:~'i'.""'_...,,'",'''C'',,;>w_'~.~>;-'1'~..,~'V,-:: .:" .~.~..~.~__~ .'>->0'--!:.,."~--"""""~..".,.~"""",..",,,,,. .,.f:I.,:~W;,. :.....~...".^".,_~i~".,.;..~",'",.~r"-l" _]C.' ~'<\j:..~" ATTACHMENT C TABLE 3 Development Review Service Estimated Costs/Revenue Sources Current Division's Revenue Sources Estimated No. of Hours Estimated , Proposed % of Genera 1 Planning Department Permit/Service Type To Process Cost Fee Recovery Fund HRS. $ $ % $ 1. Amendment to Conditions 24 590 300 50.9 290 2. Amendment to Development Code 35 860 750 87.2 110 3. Appeal to Mayor/Common Council 12 295 100 33.9 195 4. Buildin9 Move-on 24 590 300 50.9 290 5. Building Permit Review 1 25 15 60.0 10 6. Certificate of Occupancy Review 1 25 15 60.0 10 7. Christmas Tree Lot Permit 1 25 15 60.0 10 8. Conditional Use Permit for 40 983 700 71.2 283 Alcohol Outlets in Existing Buil di ng 9. Conditional Use Permit for 80 1,966 1,200 plus 71.2 566 Condomi ni ums and Pl anned 10/unit Residential Developments 10. Extensions of Time 15 369 250 67.8 119 (other than subdivisions) 11. Extensions of Time 24 590 lO% of 39.0 ,360 (subdi vi si ons) Ori gi na 1 Fee 12. Home Occupation Permit 10 246 150 61.0 96 13. Landscape Plan Review 5 123 100 81.3 23 14. Letter of Zoning/General Plan 4 98 75 76.5 23 Consistency 15. Lot Line Adjustment 15 369 250 pl us 89.4 39 40/lot 16. Minor Revision/Modification 10 246 200 81.3 46 17. Negative Declaration 15 369 350 94.9 19 C7 DRSCOSTS iI'.:~.~"",<;"~r""""~'Y;''''''''''''''''~~c''"..,,,,,,,:~.,,,>>.,,,.,.,",'''''''... '''_ "Il'-"';'~'-"""''',.,~,., ,. ';"'''--';'-'''''''','''''' _ ,~."",,,,;_ .C'_'_~:"'<:._i'-."'~'::.'''''~'_:''''''_''':.:'.~''.'''''''_>;r.'~'''':.*:~"""'_"_'" ~,-"'_'~, ,~",-"',,*,'__'~v<.:':,-,<"'. ',""~.-.~"'';IP''~'"':'''''-''''''''<,~''' O ,~ ~ TABLE 3 - Development Review Service Estimated Costs/Revenue Sources - Page 2 Current Di vi s i on I s Esti-lllated.u No. of Hours Estimated Planning Department Permit/Service Type To Process Cost 18. Notice of Exemption 19. Parcel Map 5 80 123 1,966 20. Planning Commission Interpretation 24 2 45 590 49 21. Plan Check Fee 22. Review of Plans 1,106 23. Sign Permit 24. Temporary Trailer/Mobile Home Permit 3 8 74 197 25. Tentative Tract Map for Condominiums or Planned Residential Development 26. Tentative Tract Map for Single-Family Residential 27. Tentative Tract Map Extension 80 1,966 80 1,966 70 1,721 28. Tentative Tract Map or Parcel Map Revision 80 1,966 29. Variance 30. Minor Variance (Exception) 60 15 1,475 369 Revenue Sources Proposed % of General Fee Recovery Fund 100 81. 3 850 plus 53.4 40/parcel 250 42.4 30 61.2 1,000 90.4 40 54.1 125 63.5 1,500 plus 96.6 40/du 1,500 plus 96.6 40/1 ot 10% of 11.0 Original Fee 50% of 48.3 Original Fee 650 350 44.1 94.9 23 916 340 19 106 34 72 66 66 1,531 1~016 825 19 * Based on the estimated number of hours to process the particular type of application multiplied by the estimated cost per hour of $24.58 for the Current Division of the Planning Department. Note: Any non-itemized fees are either proposed to be on a Direct Cost Recovery basis, a Full Consultant Cost Recovery basis or both. Therefore, the applicant would be charged 100% of the actual costs incurred by the City. C7 .DRSCOSTSP2 .