The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20- Planning and Building CITY OF SAN BERN. _RDINO — REQUEST F.dR COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Modification of Planning Fees Dept: Planning and Building Services For Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 11, 1993 Date: December 11, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On November 20, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 89-471 revising fees for planning services. April 17, 1991, Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 91-148 establishing fees for new planning services. — July 15, 1991, Mayor and Common Council extended Resolution 91-148 for 6 months. January 6, 1992, Mayor and Common Council extended Resolution 91-148 until April 1992. April, May and June of 1992, proposed increases in planning fees were reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee of the Common Council. June 15, 1992, Mayor and Common Council set July 20 as date of Public Hearing concerning planning fees (for additional background, see Item 7 of June 15, 1992) . July 20, 1992, Mayor and Common Council, after the public hearing, continued consideration of planning fees until the first meeting in January 1993. Recommended motion: That consideration of the resolution establishing and modifying planning fees be referred back to staff for further study. Al Boughey Signature Contact person: T.nrry F. Rppd Phone: 5267 Supporting data attached: Staff Report & Attachments Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: ,t_nqF;7 . . -. 17 n CITY OF SAN BERNA[JINO - REQUEST FO,' COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Direction on Proposed Modification of Planning Fees REQUEST As directed by Mayor and Common Council on July 20, 1992, this item is on the Mayor and Common Council agenda of January 11, 1993 to consider adoption of the resolution, establishing and modifying planning fees and to consider staff's recommendation to refer the entire planning fee proposal back to staff for further analysis. BACKGROUND As staff indicated to the Mayor and Council in May and June 1991, it was expected that the Development Code would be a living/changeable document. Since the Development Code has been in effect, staff has identified various issues and concerns that need to be resolved. Staff is in the process of preparing a work program for revising the Development Code. This work program will come before the Mayor and Council for authorization to proceed. This work program may make changes in planning processes, types of approvals, types of permits, etc. which could have an effect on the City's planning fee schedule, revenue, etc. Therefore, staff is requesting time to examine planning fees in the context of revisions to the Development Code. MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. The Mayor and Council may refer the planning fee resolution back to staff for further analysis. 2. The Mayor and Council may continue consideration of increasing planning fees until a date certain. 3 . The Mayor and Council may direct staff to readvertise for a new public hearing prior to considering adoption of the planning fee resolution. 4 . The Mayor and Council may adopt the planning fee resolution (based upon a public hearing was held on July 20, 1992 and adoption of resolution was continued to a specific date. ) STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council refer the planning fee resolution back to staff for further analysis. Prepared by: Larry E. Reed Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services Exhibits: Table 1 - Comparing Existing and proposed fees with the median fees of the area. Planning Fee Resolution 5-0264 TABLE 1 Existing, and Proposed Fees Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service A. Amendment to $331. 00 $330 minimum (-$1. 00) No Conditions or 10% of minimum Comparison the present or varies filing fee which ever is greater B. Amendment to $826. 00 D.C.R. with; Varies with No Development $800 minimum complexity Comparison Code (Text) $3,000 maximum C. Antennae $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit D. Antennae $517. 00 $520. 00 $3 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit Approved by Planning Commission E. Appeal to $110.00 $100. 00 (-$10.00) $565.00 Mayor/Common Council or to Planning Commission F. Building Permit $33 . 00 $35.00 $2 . 00 No Review, including Comparison Business License Checks G. Certificate of $17.00 $50. 00 $33 .00 No Occupancy Review Comparison not involving a Building Permit H. Change of D.C.R. D.C.R. with; No Change $2, 385.00 Zone/District $800 minimum (Map) (Including $3, 000 maximum Prezoning) (Christmas $264.00 (See Temporary Use Permit, Tree Lot) Non-Profit Uses) Table 1 - Existing, Propose and New Fees Page 2 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service I. Conditional Use $770. 00 $1, 500. 00 $730. 00 No Permit for Comparison Alcoholic Outlets in Existing Building J. Conditional Use $1, 322.00 $2,400.00 $1, 078. 00 $2, 425. 00 Permit for Conditional Uses K. Conditional Use $1, 322 . 00 $2,200. 00 $878. 00 $2 ,250. 00 Permit for plus $11 plus $12 Condominiums, per unit per unit Planned Residential Development, Multi-Family Projects Non Hillside Management Areas L. All Project (See Item $4, 000 plus Between No (Commercial J and K $15 per $1, 300 to Comparison and Residential) above) residential $2 ,200 within Hillside unit, Note: projects Management $30 per within Hillside Overlay District commercial Management except In-fill tenant space District are Housing involving or building more complex 4 or less $47 per lot involving dwelling units geology, drainage, cuts/fills, biological concerns, issues and special studies requiring more staff time M. Surface Mining F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No and Land D.C.R. * D.C.R. with a Comparison Reclamation $500 minimum * Some Land Reclamation project of pre-existing surface mining operations were processed as a Conditional Use. Also some pre-existing surface mining projects were not required to have a Environmental Impact Report. Table 1 - Existing, Propose and New Fees Page 3 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate ($) B y of Area or Service ($) N. Design Review Fee F.C.C. F.C.C. No Initial Deposit $220. 00 $250. 00 $30. 00 Comparison O. Development F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Agreement/ D.C.R. D.C.R. with a Comparison Development $500 minimum Agreement Amendment P. Development $33 . 00 $100.00 plus $67. 00 No Permit-Director $225 if a Comparison Public Hearing Q. Development $1, 322. 00 $1, 600.00 $278. 00 $1, 605.00 Permit- plus $11 plus $225 if plus $1 Development per unit a Public per unit Review Committee if applicable Hearing plus (Previously $12 per unit called Review if applicable of Plans) R. Development $1,322.00 $2,200.00 $878. 00 $2,425.00 Permit-Planning Commission/ Council S. Development $331. 00 $250. 00 (-$81.00) No Review Comparison Committee Pre-application Review T. Environmental F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change Actual Impact Report D.C.R. D.C.R. Cost plus deposit U. Expeditious F.C.0 plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Review Fee 50% of the 50% of the Comparison normal present review fee filing fee per type of project V. Extension $274. 00 $200 minimum Varies $191.00 of Time or 10% of the depending (All appli- present of project cations filing fee filing fee other than subdivisions) Table 1- Existing, Proposed and New Fees Page 4 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($1 Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service W. Extensions 10% of the $200 minimum Varies $300. 00 of Time original or 10% of the depending (Subdivisions) filing fee present of project filing fee filing fee X. Fence/Wall $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit (Fire Works $264.00 (See Temporary Use Permit, Sales Booth Non-Profit Uses) Y. General Plan D.C.R. D.C.R. with; No Change $2,866. 00 Amendments (Text) $800 minimum $3, 000 maximum Z. Historical F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Preservation D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison Reports Initial Deposit $547. 00 $550. 00 $3 . 00 for F.C.C. AA. Planning $274. 00 $500. 00 $226. 00 $537. 00 Commission Interpretations BB. Home Occupation $165.00 $125. 00 (-40. 00) $127.00 Permit CC. Landscape Plan $110. 00 $250.00 $140. 00 No Review Comparison DD. Letter of Zoning/ $83.00 $83. 00 No Change $80. 00 General Plan Consistency EE. Lot Line $274.00 plus $300.00 plus $26. 00 plus $455. 00 Adjustment $43 per lot $45 per lot $2 per lot FF. Minor Exception $382 . 00 $382 . 00 No Change $325.00 GG. Minor Revision/ $220.00 $220.00 No Change $175. 00 Modification Table 1- Existing, ProposedQlnd New Fees 0 Page 5 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate ($) By of Area or Service HH. Miscellaneous $165. 00 plus $300. 00 plus $35. 00 No Environmental F.C.C. F.C.C. Comparison Report Review, including Mitigation Monitoring Initial Deposit $220. 00 $250.00 $30. 00 F.C.C. II. Negative $382 . 00 $500.00 $118. 00 $675.00 Declaration (Environmental Review) JJ. Notice of $110. 00 $110. 00 No Change $102 . 00 Exemption KK. Parcel Map - $930. 00 plus $1,800. 00 $870. 00 plus $2, 100. 00 Except projects $43 per plus $45 $2 per in Hillside parcel per parcel parcel Management Overlay District LL. Plan Check $33.00 $100. 00 $67 . 00 No Review (Only Comparison when plans are reviewed) MM. Recycling $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit (Staff) NN. Recycling $517.00 $500.00 (-$17. 00) No Development Comparison Permit not involving Planning Commission 00. Sign Permit $43.00 $65.00 $22 . 00 $65.00 PP. Sign Program $254 .00 $400.00 $146.00 $480. 00 Development Permit QQ. Sign Program $517. 00 $600. 00 $83. 00 $770. 00 Conditional Use Permit Table 1- Existing, Proposed ..nd New Fees Page 6 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate ($) By (S) of Area or Service RR. Specific F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Plan/Specific D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison Plan Amendment (Temporary $134.00 (See Temporary Use Permit) Trailer/Mobile Home Permit) SS. Temporary Use $264.00 $200.00 (-$64. 00) No Permit for Comparison Profit Uses TT. Temporary Use $264. 00 $50. 00 (-$214. 00) No Permit Non- Comparison Profit Uses UU. Temporary Use $517.00 $517. 00 No Change No Permit Planning Comparison Commission VV. Tentative Tract $1, 653 . 00 $2,900. 00 $1,247. 00 $2,983 .00 Map except plus $43 plus $45 plus $2 plus projects in per lot per lot per lot Hillside Management Overlay District WW. Tentative Tract 50% of 50% of No Change $1, 170. 00 or Parcel Map original original Revision filing fee filing fee XX. Tree Removal $310.00 $250.00 (-$60. 00) No Permit Comparison YY. Variance $713 . 00 $1, 000. 00 $287. 00 $1, 150.00 $350.00 (-$363.00) Involving Owner Occupied Single Family Home ZZ. Vesting Tentative F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Map D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison AAA.Zoning Notice -0- $225.00 No Previous No Public Hearing -0- Fee Comparison (when not required as part of the regular review process) Table 1- Existing, ProposeaWnd New Fees Page 7 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate ($) By (S) of Area or Service BBB.Phasing Plan $500. 00 $500.00 No Change No Review (if not Comparison part of original project review CCC.Reconsideration $300. 00 $300. 00 No Change No by Planning Comparison Commission ** D.C.R. - Direct Cost Recovery Fee *** F.C.C. - Full Consultant Cost 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-201 MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES, AND REPEALING NO. 89- 3 471 AND NO. 91-148. 4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find: 6 A. A hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council 7 pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66016, et 8 seq. , to consider the increase of fees and services charges for 9 various services provided by the Planning Division, which hearing 10 was held following public notice published in a newspaper of 11 general circulation in the City of San Bernardino. 12 B. None of the proposed new fees exceed the estimated cost 13 of providing such services. 14 C. The proposed fees and charges are reasonable and 15 necessary to enable the City of San Bernardino to more nearly meet 16 actual costs of providing such services. 17 D. The adoption of this resolution is exempt from the 18 California Environmental Quality Act because it approves fees for 19 the purpose of meeting a portion of the operating expenses of the 20 City Planning Department, as set forth in Public Resources Code 21 21080 (b) (8) . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 SECTION 2 : Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2 , Subsection I, 2 is amended to read: 3 "I. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERMIT, FILING OR SERVICE SERVICE FEE OR CHARGE ($) 4 A. Amendment to Conditions $330 minimum or 10% of Present 5 Filing Fee which ever is greater 6 B. Amendment to Development Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a Code (Text) $800. 00 minimum and a 7 $3 , 000. 00 maximum 8 C. Antennae Development $35. 00 Permit 9 D. Antennae Development $520. 00 10 Permit Approved by Planning Commission 11 E. Appeal to Mayor/Common $100. 00 12 Council or to Planning Commission 13 F. Building Permit Review $35. 00 14 Including Business License Checks 15 G. Certificate of Occupancy $50. 00 16 Review not involving a Building Permit 17 H. Change of Zone/District Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a 18 (map) (Including $800. 00 minimum and a Prezoning) $3 , 000. 00 maximum 19 I. Conditional Use Permit $1, 500. 00 20 for Alcohol Outlets in Existing Buildings 21 J. Conditional Use Permit $2, 400. 00 for Conditional Uses 23 K. Conditional Use Permit $2, 200. 00 plus for Condominiums, $12 . 00 per unit 24 Planned Developments, Multi-Family Projects 25 Non-Hillside Management 26 27 28 2 1 L. All Projects (Commercial $4 , 000. 00 plus and Residential) within $15. 00 per 2 Hillside Management Overlay residential unit District except In-fill $30. 00 per 3 Housing involving 4 or commercial tenant less dwelling units space or building 4 $47. 00 per lot 5 M. Surface Mining and Land Full Consultant Cost plus Reclamation Direct Cost Recovery Fees 6 with a $500. 00 minimum 7 N. Design Review Fee Full Consultant Cost Initial Deposit $250. 00 8 O. Development Agreement/ Full Consultant Cost plus 9 Development Agreement Direct Cost Recovery Fees Amendment with a $500. 00 minimum 10 P. Development Permit-Director $100. 00 plus 11 $225. 00 when a Public Hearing is required 12 Q. Development Permit- $1, 600. 00 plus 13 Development Review $225. 00 when a Public Committee Hearing is required plus 14 $12 . 00 per unit, when applicable 15 R. Development Permit-Planning $2 , 200. 00 16 Commission/Council 17 S. Development Review $250. 00 Committee Preapplication 18 Review 19 T. Environmental Impact Full Consultant Cost plus Report Direct Cost Recovery Fees 20 U. Expeditious Review Fee Full Consultant Cost plus 21 50% of the Present Filing Fee 22 V. Extension of Time $200. 00 minimum or 10% of (All Applications other the Present Filing Fee 23 Subdivisions) 24 W. Extensions of Time $200. 00 minimum or 10% of (Subdivisions) the Present Filing Fee 25 26 27 28 3 . 1 X. Fence/Wall Development $35. 00 Permit 2 Y. General Plan Amendments Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a 3 (Text) $800. 00 minimum and a $3 , 000. 00 maximum 4 Z. Historical Preservation Full Consultant Cost plus 5 Report Direct Cost Recovery Fees Initial Deposit for 6 Full Consultant Cost $550. 00 7 AA. Interpretations $500. 00 (Planning Commission) 8 BB. Home Occupation Permit $125. 00 9 CC. Landscape Plan Review $250. 00 10 DD. Letter of Zoning/General $83 . 00 11 Plan Consistency 12 EE. Lot Line Adjustment $300. 00 plus $45. 00 per lot 13 FF. Minor Exception $382 . 00 14 GG. Minor Revision/Modification $220. 00 15 HH. Miscellaneous Environmental $300. 00 plus Full 16 Report Review, including Consultant Cost Mitigation Monitoring 17 Initial Deposit for Full Consultant Cost $250. 00 18 II. Negative Declaration $500. 00 19 JJ. Notice of Exemption $110. 00 20 KK. Parcel Map - Outside of $1, 800. 00 plus 21 Hillside Management $45. 00 per parcel Overlay District 22 LL. Plan Check Review $100. 00 23 (Applicable only when plans are reviewed) 24 MM. Recycling Development Permit $35. 00 25 Director (such as reverse vending) 26 NN. Recycling Development Permit $500.00 (small collections) 27 28 4 1 00. Sign Permit $65. 00 2 PP. Sign Program Development $400. 00 Permit 3 QQ. Sign Program Conditional $600. 00 4 Use Permit 5 RR. Specific Plan/Specific Full Consultant Cost plus Plan Amendment Direct Cost Recovery Fees 6 SS. Temporary Use Permit - $200. 00 7 Director - For Profit Organizations 8 TT. Temporary Use Permit - $50. 00 9 Director - Non Profit Organizations 10 (such as Holiday Sales) 11 UU. Temporary Use Permit- $517. 00 Planning Commission 12 VV. Tentative Tract Map $2, 900. 00 plus 13 $45. 00 per lot 14 WW' Tentative Tract Map or 50% of the Present Filing Fee Parcel Map Revision 15 XX. Tree Removal Permit $250. 00 16 YY. Variance $1, 000. 00 17 $350. 00 involving a Owner Occupied Single Family Home 18 ZZ. Vesting Tentative Maps Full Consultant Cost plus 19 Direct Cost Recovery Fees 20 AAA. Zoning Notice of Public $225. 00 Hearing (when not required 21 as part of the regular review process) 22 BBB. Phasing Plan Review (if $500. 00 23 not part of the original project review) 24 CCC. Reconsideration by Planning $300. 00" 25 Commission 26 27 28 5 1 SECTION 3 . Multiple application projects being requested 2 to be processed concurrently subject only to flat rate fees shall 3 pay the total of all applicable flat rate fees. Multiple 4 application projects being requested to be processed concurrently 5 subject to a mix of flat rate fees, and direct cost recovery shall 6 be handled as a direct cost recovery application without the 7 maximum fee limitation for an individual case plus full consultant 8 cost when applicable. If a project involves multiple applications 9 and is being processed concurrently, the initial required deposit 10 for the type of direct cost recovery application that is of the 11 greatest amount shall be paid. 12 SECTION 4 . "Direct Cost Recovery Fee" shall include all 13 City Planning Department labor and material costs, both direct and 14 indirect, including department and city wide overhead (cost 15 allocation) charged against the specific item being processed. The 16 applicant shall pay deposits for the Direct Cost Recovery Fee as 17 outlined in Section 7. 18 SECTION 5: "Full Consultant Cost" shall include all costs 19 incurred under Contract with a Consultant. The applicant shall pay 20 deposits for the full consultant cost as outlined in Section 7. 21 SECTION 6: Payment of a Design Review fee shall be 22 required for any residential, commercial or industrial project 23 requiring a Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit, except as 24 determined by the Planning Director of Planning and Building 25 Services or as exempted in Title 19. 26 27 6 1 SECTION 7 : The applicant shall pay at the time of filing 2 an application in which there is a Full Consultant Cost Fee or 3 Direct Cost Recovery an initial deposit of $2 , 000 or the indicated 4 initial deposit in Section 2 . When 50 percent of a deposit has 5 been expended the Planning Division shall provide a statement to 6 the applicant indicating the expenditures. Whenever 75 percent of 7 a deposit has been expended and the Planning Division determines 8 that the estimated remaining costs of the job will exceed the 9 amount deposited, an additional deposit of such excess amount shall 10 be required. A statement indicating that 75 percent of initial 11 deposit has been expended and notification of the additional 12 deposit required will be mailed to the applicant, who shall deposit 13 such additional monies prior to the date specified in the notice. 14 When additional deposit has been requested, work will be suspended 15 on the project when 95 percent of the deposit previously received 16 has been expended. Projects will not be completed with money due. 17 If additional deposit is not made by the date specified in the 18 notice, the project shall be deemed withdrawn on the date specified 19 without further action on the part of the City of San Bernardino 20 and without refund of any money deposited for services already 21 performed. Such project may be reinstated only if the additional 22 deposit is made within 30 days from the date the project was deemed 23 withdrawn. 24 SECTION 8 : Refunds will be made by the City for any fee 25 which was erroneously paid or collected; for any unused deposit 26 monies of Direct Cost Recovery Fee or Full Consultant Cost Fee, 27 28 7 1 after all charges for the project have been determined; or, as 2 determined by the Director of Planning and Building Services. 3 SECTION 9: These fees shall be automatically adjusted 4 annually on January 1 of each year, based on the latest available 5 Consumer Price Index increase from the prior year. 6 SECTION 10: Resolution No. 89-471 and No. 91-148 are hereby 7 repealed. 8 SECTION 11: This resolution shall take effect sixty (60) 9 days after the date of its adoption. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1 RESOLUTION . . . AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-201, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 89-471 AND NO. 91-148, MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING 2 SERVICES AND ESTABLISHING NEW FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino, at a meeting held on the 6 day of 1992 by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 ESTRADA 9 REILLY 10 HERNANDEZ 11 MAUDSLEY 12 MINOR 13 POPE-LUDLAM 14 MILLER 15 16 City Clerk 17 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 18 of 1992 . 19 20 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 21 Approved as to 22 form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney 24 by: 25 26 27 28 9 CITY OF SAN BER._..ADINO - REQUEST w-%A COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Resolution Revising Planning Fees Dept: Planning & Building Services Mayor and Common Council Meeting July 20, 1992 Date: July 9, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: On November 20, 1989, the Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 89-471 revising fees for planning services. April 17, 1991, Mayor and Common Council adopted Resolution 91-148 establishing fees for new plannning services. July 15, 1991, Mayor and Common Council extended Resolution 91-148 for 6 months. January 6, 1992, Mayor and Common Council extended Resolution 91-148 until April 1992. April, May and June of 1992, proposed increases in planning fees were reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee of the Common Council. June 15, 1992, Mayor and Common Council set July 20 as date of Public Hearing concerning planning fees (for additional background, see Item 7 of June 15, 1992) . Recommended motion: That the Mayor ?md Common =1L-7Z Zh a Public Hearing; that the attached resolutic_: (Attachment C) establishing and modifying fees for planning services be adopted. 'M'.0 Al Bough e Larry E. Reed 5267 Contact person: Phone: Supporting data attached:Staff Report & Attachments A, B & C Ward: N/A FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: aZ CITY OF SAN BERN. .. .JINO - REQUEST 1, .k COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Resolution Modifying and Increasing Planning Fees REQUEST That the Resolution Modifying and Increasing Planning Fees be Adopted BACKGROUND HISTORY: The current history of planning fees began in early 1989 when the Council recognized that the high turnover of Planning staff was caused by low pay (as determined by a salary survey) . The Council also recognized that to offset the increase in salaries would require an increase in planning fees and directed staff to compare our fees to other cities' planning fees. Planning staff then surveyed 16 cities in the Inland Empire. This led to the Mayor and Council adopting on November 20, 1989 Resolution 89-471, which increased planning fees to the rate that equaled the median fees of the Inland Empire. As part of the Mayor and Council's discussion, staff was directed to continue to work towards establishing fees that coffered more of the cost of providing the service and come back in a year. In early 1991, staff brought forward a proposal for increasing planning fees. In April 1991, Council adopted the City's (new) Development Code and delayed increasing any planning fees. In early 1992 , planning staff completed an analysis of what the cost is to process various types of planning cases and conducted a survey of planning fees in the Inland Empire (the same 16-city survey as in 1989) . METHODOLOGY: The methodology for recommending adjustment of planning fees was based on two factors: 1. An analysis establishing the cost providing various planning services. 2 . The results of the 16-city survey that established the median planning fees. The controlling factor was to use the lower of the two figures based upon State law requirement mandating that fees may not exceed the cost and the City's commitment to be supportive of quality development and to stay competitive with other cities by not exceeding the median of the area. The cost analysis determined the average cost for providing planning review and processing for each type of planning case based upon three elements; the planner's time, department overhead, and a City-wide cost allocation factor. 1. The planner's time is the average number of hours to process a specific category of planning case multiplied by $27 per hour equals the base cost. r) (00*' 2. The Department's overhead is 200 of the planner's time multiplied by $60 per hour (base cost plus Department overhead equals Department's total cost) . 3. City-wide cost allocation is 30% (Department's total planning cost times 130% equals the City's cost of providing the service) . Using the above methodology, an increase in most categories of planning fees is warranted. (For additional background, see Item 7 of the June 15, 1992 meeting of the Common Council ; Table 2 - Cost Analysis and Table 3 - Fee Survey. PROPOSAL For a complete comparison of proposed fees to current and median fees in the area, refer to Table 1. INCREASES: The resolution proposes to increase the following fees. O Amendments to Development Code--Text (Item B) currently requires the payment of a flat fee of $826. The resolution will change this to direct cost recovery (DCR) , which is the same as the method used to charge for General Plan Text Amendments and General Plan Zofdna Man Changes since November 1989. O Conditional Use Permits (Item I, J, K) are increased by $730, $1, 078 , and $878 , respectively. O Projects within Hillside Management Overlay District (Item L) is a new category of fees. This category was separated from other types of projects (planning cases) because hillside projects are more complex and require more staff time (review of documents, studies, analyses, public involvement, etc. ) Hillside Management projects, on the average, will cost between $1, 300 to $2 , 200 above a flatland project. O Development Permit - Director (Item P) and Development Review Committee (Item Q) typically do not require a public hearing. There are, however, occasions where a public hearing is required by the Development Code. To account for this cost, a provision was added to allow the City to charge for public hearings, when required. O Development Permit, Type III (Item R) is increased $878. O Planning Commission Interpretation (Item AA) is increased $226. O Parcel Maps (Item KK) is increased $870 plus $2 per parcel. 0 Tentative Tract Maps (Item VV) is increased by $1, 247 Plus $2 per parcel. DECREASES: The resolution will decrease the following fees- 0 Development Review Committee (DRC) pre-application review (Item S) reduced $81. 0 Home Occupation Permit (Item BB) reduced $40. 0 Recycling Development Permit not involving Planning Commission (Item NN) reduced $17 . 0 Temporary Use Permit (Item SS) reduced $64 . O Tree Removal Permit (Item XX) reduced $60. 0 The following is reduced based upon the Mayor and Council's policy direction to keep some processes affordable to the public. * Appeal Fee (Item E) being kept at $100 even though the actual cost is approximately $500. * Temporary Use Permit for Non-profit Organ (Item TT) is being reduced to $50 even though the actual cost is approximately $200. * For Variance (Item YY) a new subcategory was added for variances for single family homes when the applicant is the owner. This establishes a fee of $350 even though the actual cost is approximately $1, 000. OTHER CHANGES: After discussion with Ways and Means Subcommittee, the following revisions were made to the original proposal. 0 Limit the amount that can be charged to most direct cost recovery projects by placing a maximum based upon what it would cost an applicant of a complex proposal but without a lot of public controversy. The Committee felt a maximum was required because it would be unfair to require an applicant to pay for the added cost of public concerns and handling appeals (additional staff time, public hearings, etc. ) when outside the applicant's control. * Amendment to Development Code--Text (Item B) ; $3 , 000 maximum. * General Plan--Change of Zoning Map (Item H) ; $3, 000 maximum. * General Plan Amendment--Text (Item Y) ; $3, 000 maximum. O Set a minimum fee based upon the current fee rate for the following: * Amendment to Development Code Text (Item B) ; $800 minimum. * Plan Amendment--Change of Zoning (Item H) ; $800 minimum. * Surface mining and land reclamation (Item M) ; $500 minimum. * Development Agreement--Development Agreement Amendment (Item O) ; $500 minimum. * General Plan Amendment Text (Item Y) ; $800 minimum. COUNCIL OPTIONS The options available to the Mayor and Common Council are to: 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C) , establishing and modifyJ. fees for planning services. 2. Not adopt the attached resolution. 3 . Continue consideration of the adoption of resolution to some specific time in the future. RECOMMENDATION That the Mayor and Common Council close the public hearing; that the attached resolution (Attachment C) establishing and modifying fees for planning services be adopted., Prepared by: Larry E. Reed Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services for Al Boughey Director of Planning and Building Services Attachments: A - Memo to Al Boughey dated July 1, 1992 B - Table 1, Existing and Proposed Fees C - Resolution ATTACHMENT A City of San Bernardino Department of Planning and Building Services INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services FROM: Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Services SUBJECT: Results of Meeting with Development Community Concerning Planning Fees DATE: July 1, 1992 COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------------- The material outlining the proposed planning fees was sent to nine developers. On June 29 , 1992 , Sandi Paulsen, Senior Planner, and I met with Adam Eliason of Griffith Homes, Steve Quincy of Dukes and Dukes, Bob Diehl of Century Homes, Cha?'ij.-& Ar%_-iiuleta of Monning Development Company, and Frank Williams of the Building Industry Association to explain the City's proposal for increasing planning fees including the history and the methodology behind the increases. In the discussion that followed, the developers made it clear that there was not a good time to increase and that it was even worse in poor economic times. Questions and concerns were raised and my responses were as follows: 1. Concern: What has the City done to reduce the cost of planning services Response: Over a two-year period of time, the City has reduced planning staff by 45%. 2. Concern: What is the City's planning revenue compared to planning's budget? Response: For FY 91-92 , last year's budget ending June 30, 1992 is $810, 000 compared to $291, 000 revenue. However, staff is not recommending that revenue should equal planning's budget because there are too many services that planning performs without any fees such as special projects (Mt. Vernon Avenue Specific Plan, 40th Street Study, etc) , council initiated planning cases, etc. Staff's proposal only attempts to cover the cost of processing specific types of cases. Results of Meeting. . . Planning Fees Page 2 3. Concern: How does the City's Planning Division staffing level compare to other cities? Response: A rule-of-thumb ratio for planners to population is 1: 10, 000. In San Bernardino, the 1990 census determined the population to be 164 , 164 , which means a minimum of 16 planners. The City has 7 full-time planners for a ratio of 1: 23 , 452 . 4 . Concern: Does the $27 per hour for an Associate Planner include the City's fringe benefits? Response: Yes, the City's fringe benefits equal approximately 32% of the planner's salary. 5. Concern: What does "median" mean and how does it differ from average? Response: As the question suggests, median does not mean. a„ average. Median is defined as a number in a set thdt has the property of having half of the other numbers greater than it and half less than it. Example of a set of seven numbers: 7, 000; 5, 000; , 4 , 000; , 2 , 000; , 1, 000; 800; 750. The median of this set of numbers is 2 , 000; whereas, the average would be 2, 935. 6. Concern: Why is staff only proposing to increase fbm tD the median of the area and not charge the cities actual cost? Response: Staff believes it is following the direction set by the Mayor and Council. The City is pro- development and wants to stay competitive with other cities in the Inland Empire. 7. Concern: What is direct cost recovery and full cost? - Response: The way staff has used these terms, full cost is a broad concept the City is moving toward, charging in a manner that allows the City to collect the cost of providing the service. There are several methods for charging for fees. Direct cost recovery is a specific method where planners keep track of their actual time and using a formula to factor in the Department's administrative overhead and City-wide allocation overhead, determine the actual cost which is then charged Results of Meeting. . .Planning Fees Page 3 against a fee deposit. However, flat rate fees can also be calculated to cover the City's total cost based upon the average time it takes to process a specific type or category of case. 8. Concern: If planning fees in the past have not equaled or covered the cost of providing the service, why can't the City continue with this practice? Response: Given the City's budget situation, it is a matter of the Mayor and Council setting priorities and the planning fee proposal is following the Mayor and Council direction. 9. Concern: Shouldn't the City actually consider rolling back most of its development-related fees to help the local building industry? After all, the public benefits from development; by putting persons to work, home owners then buy carpet, furniture, lamps, etc. Businesses hire people to work and the City would get the revenue back in the form of increased property and sales taxes. Response: This is a broad economic theory that is not relevant to the scale of an individual city, especially when the city is only one of several cities in a larger urban area. In summary, most of the developers indicated there wasn't a good time to increase fees; however, the proposal seemed reasonable and didn't appear to be out of line compared to the other cities in the area. In addition, they indicated that prior to taking a stand for or against the planning fee proposal, they wanted to use some recent projects and compare the fees paid against the proposed fees. Only Frank Williams of the BIA staff indicated objection to the fee increases simply as a matter of principle. ATTACHMENT B TABLE 1 Existing, and Proposed Fees Tyne of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate (Sl Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service A. Amendment to $331. 00 $330 minimum (-$1. 00) No Conditions or 10% of minimum Comparison the present or varies filing fee which ever is greater B. Amendment to $826. 00 D.C.R. with; Varies with No Development $800 minimum complexity Comparison Code (Text) $3 , 000 maximum C. Antennae $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit D. Antennae $517. 00 $520. 00 $3 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit Approved by Planning Commission E. Appeal to $110. 00 $100. 00 (-$10. 00) $565.00 Mayor/Common Council or to Planning Commission F. Building Permit $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Review, including Comparison Business License Checks G. Certificate of $17. 00 $50. 00 $33 . 00 No Occupancy Review Comparison not involving a Building Permit H. Change of D.C.R. D. C.R. with; No Change $2, 385. 00 Zone/District $800 minimum (Map) (Including $3 , 000 maximum Prezoning) (Christmas $264 . 00 (See Temporary Use Permit, Tree Lot) Non-Profit Uses) Table 1 - Existing, PropoS�a and New Fees Page 2 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate ($) Rate (S) By (S) of rea or Service I. Conditional Use $770. 00 $1, 500. 00 $730. 00 No Permit for Comparison Alcoholic Outlets in Existing Building J. Conditional Use $1, 322 . 00 $2 , 400. 00 $1, 078 . 00 $2, 425. 00 Permit for Conditional Uses K. Conditional Use $1, 322 . 00 $2 , 200. 00 $878. 00 $2 , 250. 00 Permit for plus $11 plus $12 Condominiums, per unit per unit Planned Residential Development, Multi-Family Projects Non Hillside Management Areas L. All Project (See Item $4 , 000 plus Between No (Commercial J and K $15 per $1, 300 to Comparison and Residential) above) residential $2, 200 within Hillside unit, Note: projects Management $30 per within Hillside Overlay District commercial Management except In-fill tenant space District are Housing involving or building more complex 4 or less $47 per lot involving dwelling units geology, drainage, cuts/fills, biological concerns, issues and special studies requiring more staff time M. Surface Mining F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No and Land D.C.R. * D.C.R. with a Comparison Reclamation $500 minimum * Some Land Reclamation project of pre-existing surface mining operations were processed as a Conditional Use. Also some pre-existing surface mining projects were not required to have a Environmental Impact Report. Table 1 - Existing, Proposed and New Fees Page 3 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate (S) Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service N. Design Review Fee F.C.C. F.C.C. No Initial Deposit $220. 00 $250. 00 $30. 00 Comparison 0. Development F.C.C. plus F. C. C. plus No Change No Agreement/ D.C.R. D. C.R. with a Comparison Development $500 minimum Agreement Amendment P. Development $33 . 00 $100. 00 plus $67 . 00 No Permit-Director $225 if a Comparison Public Hearing Q. Development $1, 322 . 00 $1, 600. 00 $278 . 00 $1, 605. 00 Permit- plus $11 plus $225 if plus $1 Development per unit a Public per unit Review Committee if applicable Hearing plus (Previously $12 per unit called Review if applicable of Plans) R. Development $1, 322 . 00 $2 , 200. 00 $878. 00 $2 , 425. 00 Permit-Planning Commission/ Council S. Development $331. 00 $250. 00 (-$81. 00) No Review Comparison Committee Pre-application Review T. Environmental F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change Actual Impact Report D.C.R. D.C.R. Cost plus deposit U. Expeditious F. C.0 plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Review Fee 50% of the 50% of the Comparison normal present review fee filing fee per type of project V. Extension $274 . 00 $200 minimum Varies $191. 00 of Time or 10% of the depending (All appli- present of project cations filing fee filing fee other than subdivisions) Table 1- Existing, Propos..10dand New Fees Page 4 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees ARRlication Rate (S) Rate fS) By (S) of Area or Service W. Extensions 10% of the $200 minimum Varies $300. 00 of Time original or 10% of the depending (Subdivisions) filing fee present of project filing fee filing fee X. Fence/Wall $33 . 00 $35 . 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit (Fire Works $264 . 00 (See Temporary Use Permit, Sales Booth Non-Profit Uses) Y. General Plan D.C.R. D.C.R. with; No Change $2,866. 00 Amendments (Text) $800 minimum $3, 000 maximum Z. Historical F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Preservation D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison Reports Initial Deposit $547. 00 $550. 00 S'I � n0 for F.C.C. AA. Planning $274 . 00 $500. 00 $226. 00 $537. 00 Commission Interpretations BB. Home Occupation $165. 00 $125. 00 (-40. 00) $127. 00 Permit CC. Landscape Plan $110. 00 $250. 00 $140. 00 No Review Comparison DD. Letter of Zoning/ $83 . 00 $83 . 00 No Change $80. 00 General Plan Consistency EE. Lot Line $274 . 00 plus $300. 00 plus $26. 00 plus $455. 00 Adjustment $43 per lot $45 per lot $2 per lot FF. Minor Exception $382. 00 $382 . 00 No Change $325. 00 GG. Minor Revision/ $220. 00 $220. 00 No Change $175. 00 Modification Table 1- Existing, Propos-Pand New Fees Page 5 Tvue of Existingr Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate fS) Rate (S) B or Service -y of Area -L$1 HH. Miscellaneous $165. 00 plus $300. 00 plus $35. 00 No Environmental F.C.C. F.C. C. Comparison Report Review, including Mitigation Monitoring Initial Deposit $220. 00 $250. 00 $30. 00 F.C.C. II. Negative $382 . 00 $500. 00 $118 . 00 $675. 00 Declaration (Environmental Review) JJ. Notice of $110. 00 $110. 00 No Change $102. 00 Exemption KK. Parcel Map - $930. 00 plus $1, 800. 00 $870. 00 plus $2, 100. 00 Except projects $43 per plus $45 $2 per in H:.?lside parcel per parcel parcel Management Overlay District LL. Plan Check $33 . 00 $100. 00 $67. 00 No Review (Only Comparison when plans are reviewed) MM. Recycling $33 . 00 $35. 00 $2 . 00 No Development Comparison Permit (Staff) NN. Recycling $517. 00 $500. 00 (-$17. 00) No Development Permit not Comparison involving Planning Commission 00. Sign Permit $43 . 00 $65. 00 $22 . 00 $65. 00 PP. Sign Program $254 . 00 $400. 00 $146. 00 $480. 00 Development Permit QQ. Sign Program $517. 00 $600.00 $83 . 00 $770.00 Conditional Use Permit Table 1- Existing, Proposed and New Fees Page 6 Tyne of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate lS) Rate (S) By lS) of Area or Service RR. Specific F.C.C. plus F.C. C. plus No Change No Plan/Specific D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison Plan Amendment (Temporary $134 . 00 (See Temporary Use Permit) Trailer/Mobile Home Permit) SS. Temporary Use $264 . 00 $200. 00 (-$64 . 00) No Permit for Profit Uses Comparison TT. Temporary Use $264 . 00 $50. 00 (-$214 . 00) No Permit Non- Profit Uses Comparison UU. Temporary Use $517. 00 $517. 00 No Change No Permit Planning Comparison omparison VV. Tentative Tract - $1, 653 . 00 $2, 900. 00 $1, 247 . 00 $2,983 . 00 Map except plus $43 plus $45 plus $2 plus projects in per lot per lot per lot Hillside Management Overlay District WW. Tentative Tract 50% of 50% of No Change $1,170. 00 or Parcel Map original original Revision filing fee filing fee XX. Tree Removal $310.00 $250. 00 (-$60. 00) No Permit Comparison YY. Variance $713. 00 $1, 000. 00 $287. 00 $1, 150. 00 $350. 00 (-$363 . 00) Involving Owner Occupied Single Family Home ZZ. Vesting Tentative F.C.C. plus F.C.C. plus No Change No Map D.C.R. D.C.R. Comparison AAA.Zoning Notice -0- $225. 00 No Previous No Public Hearing -0- Fee Comparison (when not required as part of the regular review process) Table 1- Existing, Propos_.. and New Fees Page 7 Type of Existing Proposed Increased Median Fees Application Rate (S) Rate (S) By (S) of Area or Service BBB.Phasing Plan $500. 00 $500. 00 No Change No Review (if not Comparison part of original project review CCC.Reconsideration $300. 00 $300. 00 No Change No by Planning Comparison Commission ** D.C.R. - Direct Cost Recovery Fee *** F.C.C. - Full Consultant Cost Q 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-201 MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES, AND REPEALING NO. 89- 3 471 AND NO. 91-148. 4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: 5 SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find: 6 A. A hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council 7 pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66016, et 8 seq. , to consider the increase of fees and services charges for 9 various services provided by the Planning Division, which hearing 10 was held following public notice g P published in a newspaper of 11 general circulation in the City of San Bernardino. 12 B. None of the proposed new fees exceed the estimated cost IQ =v of providing such services. 14 C. The proposed fees and charges are reasonable and 15 necessary to enable the City of San Bernardino to more nearly meet 16 actual costs of providing such services. 17 D. The adoption of this resolution is exempt from the 18 California Environmental Quality Act because it approves fees for 19 the purpose of meeting a portion of the operating expenses of the 20 City Planning Department, as set forth in Public Resources Code 21 21080 (b) (8) . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 JOWAk I SECTION 2 : Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2 , Subsection I, 2 is amended to read: 3 "I. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PERMIT, FILING OR SERVICE SERVICE FEE OR CHARGE ($) 4 A. Amendment to Conditions $330 minimum or 10% of Present 5 Filing Fee which ever is greater 6 B. Amendment to Development Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a Code (Text) $800. 00 minimum and a 7 $3 , 000. 00 maximum 8 C. Antennae Development $35. 00 Permit 9 D. Antennae Development $520. 00 10 Permit Approved by Planning Commission 11 E. Appeal to Mayor/Common $100. 00 12 Council or to Planning Commission rermit Review $35. 00 14 Including Business License Checks 15 G. Certificate of Occupancy $50. 00 16 Review not involving a Building Permit 17 H. Change of Zone/District Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a 18 (map) (Including $800. 00 minimum and a Prezoning) $3 , 000. 00 maximum 19 I. Conditional Use Permit $1, 500. 00 20 for Alcohol Outlets in Existing Buildings 21 J, Conditional Use Permit $2 , 400. 00 22 for Conditional Uses 23 K. Conditional Use Permit $2, 200. 00 plus for Condominiums, $12 . 00 per unit 24 Planned Developments, Multi-Family Projects 25 Non-Hillside Management 26 27 28 2 1 L. All Projects (Commercial $4 , 000. 00 plus and Residential) within $15. 00 per 2 Hillside Management Overlay residential unit District except In-fill $30. 00 per 3 Housing involving 4 or commercial tenant less dwelling units space or building 4 $47. 00 per lot 5 M. Surface Mining and Land Full Consultant Cost plus Reclamation Direct Cost Recovery Fees 6 with a $500. 00 minimum 7 N. Design Review Fee Full Consultant Cost Initial Deposit $250. 00 8 O. Development Agreement/ Full Consultant Cost plus 9 Development Agreement Direct Cost Recovery Fees Amendment with a $500. 00 minimum a 10 P. Development Permit-Director $100. 00 plus 11 $225. 00 when a Public Hearing is required 12 Q. Development Permit- $1, 600. 00 plus 13 Development Review $225. 00 when a Public Committee Hearing is required plus 14 $12 . 00 per unit, when applicable 15 R. Development Permit-Planning $2 , 200. 00 16 Commission/Council 17 S. Development Review $250. 00 Committee Preapplication 18 Review 19 T. Environmental Impact Full Consultant Cost plus Report Direct Cost Recovery Fees 20 U. Expeditious Review Fee Full Consultant Cost plus 21 50% of the Present Filing Fee 22 V. Extension of Time $200. 00 minimum or 10% of (All Applications other the Present Filing Fee 23 Subdivisions) 24 W. Extensions of Time $200. 00 minimum or 10% of (Subdivisions) the Present Filing Fee 25 26 27 28 3 1 X. Fence/Wall Development $35. 00 Permit 2 Y. General Plan Amendments Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a 3 (Text) $800. 00 minimum and a $3 , 000. 00 maximum 4 Z. Historical Preservation Full Consultant Cost plus 5 Report Direct Cost Recovery Fees Initial Deposit for 6 Full Consultant Cost $550. 00 7 AA. Interpretations $500. 00 (Planning Commission) 8 BB. Home Occupation Permit $125. 00 9 CC. Landscape Plan Review $250. 00 10 DD. Letter of Zoning/General $83 . 00 11 Plan Consistency 12 EE. Lot Line Adjustment $300. 00 plus $45. 00 per lot 13 FF. Minor Exception Y---Z;2 . u0 14 GG. Minor Revision/Modification $220. 00 15 HH. Miscellaneous Environmental $300. 00 plus Full 16 Report Review, including Consultant Cost Mitigation Monitoring 17 Initial Deposit for Full Consultant Cost $250. 00 18 II. Negative Declaration $500. 00 19 JJ. Notice of Exemption $110. 00 20 KK. Parcel Map - Outside of $1, 800. 00 plus 21 Hillside Management $45. 00 per parcel Overlay District 22 LL. Plan Check Review $100. 00 23 (Applicable only when plans are reviewed) 24 MM. Recycling Development Permit $35. 00 25 Director (such as reverse vending) 26 NN. Recycling Development Permit $500. 00 (small collections) 27 28 4 1 00. Sign Permit $65. 00 2 PP. Sign Program Development $400. 00 Permit 3 QQ. Sign Program Conditional $600. 00 4 Use Permit 5 RR. Specific Plan/Specific Full Consultant Cost plus Plan Amendment Direct Cost Recovery Fees 6 SS. Temporary Use Permit - $200. 00 7 Director - For Profit Organizations 8 TT. Temporary Use Permit - $50. 00 9 Director - Non Profit Organizations 10 (such as Holiday Sales) 11 W' Temporary Use Permit- $517. 00 Planning Commission 12 VV. Tentative Tract Map $2,900. 00 plus 13 $45. 00 per lot 14 WW. Tentative Tract Map or 50% of the Present Filing Fee Parcel Map Revision 15 XX. Tree Removal Permit $250. 00 16 YY. Variance $1, 000.00 17 $350. 00 involving a Owner Occupied Single Family Home 18 ZZ. Vesting Tentative Maps Full Consultant Cost plus 19 Direct Cost Recovery Fees 20 AAA. Zoning Notice of Public $225.00 Hearing (when not required 21 as part of the regular review process) 22 BBB. Phasing Plan Review (if $500. 00 23 not part of the original project review) 24 CCC. Reconsideration by Planning $300. 00" 25 Commission 26 27 28 5 1 SECTION 3 . Multiple application projects being requested 2 to be processed concurrently subject only to flat rate fees shall 3 pay the total of all applicable flat rate fees. Multiple 4 application projects being requested to be processed concurrently 5 subject to a mix of flat rate fees, and direct cost recovery shall 6 be handled as a direct cost recovery application without the 7 maximum fee limitation for an individual case plus full consultant 8 cost when applicable. If a project involves multiple applications 9 and is being processed concurrently, the initial required deposit 10 for the type of direct cost recovery application that is of the 11 greatest amount shall be paid. 12 SECTION 4 . "Direct Cost Recovery Fee" shall include all 13 City Planning Department labor and material costs, both direct and 14 indirect, including department and city wide overhead (cost 15 allocation) charged against the specific item being processed. The 16 applicant shall pay deposits for the Direct Cost Recovery Fee as 17 outlined in Section 7 . 18 SECTION 5: "Full Consultant Cost" shall include all costs 19 incurred under Contract with a Consultant. The applicant shall pay 20 deposits for the full consultant cost as outlined in Section 7. 21 SECTION 6: Payment of a Design Review fee shall be 22 required for any residential, commercial or industrial project 23 requiring a Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit, except as 24 determined by the Planning Director of Planning and Building 25 Services or as exempted in Title 19. 26 27 6 SECTION 7 : The applicant shall 1 Pp pay at the time of filing 2 an application in which there is a Full Consultant Cost Fee or 3 Direct Cost Recovery an initial deposit of $2 , 000 or the indicated 4 initial deposit in Section 2 . When 50 percent of a deposit has 5 been expended the Planning Division shall provide a statement to 6 the applicant indicating the expenditures. Whenever 75 percent of 7 a deposit has been expended and the Planning Division determines 8 that the estimated remaining costs of the job will exceed the 9 amount deposited, an additional deposit of such excess amount shall 10 be required. A statement indicating that 75 percent of initial 11 deposit has been expended and notification of the additional 12 deposit required will be mailed to the applicant, who shall deposit 13 such additional monies prior to the date specified in the notice. 14 When additional deposit has been requested, work will be suspended 15 on the project when 95 percent of the deposit previously received 16 has been expended. Projects will not be completed with money due. 17 If additional deposit is not made by the date specified in the 18 notice, the project shall be deemed withdrawn on the date specified 19 without further action on the part of the City of San Bernardino 20 and without refund of any money deposited for services already 21 performed. Such project may be reinstated only if the additional 22 deposit is made within 30 days from the date the project was deemed 23 withdrawn. 24 SECTION 8 : Refunds will be made by the City for any, fee 25 which was erroneously paid or collected; for any unused deposit 26 monies of Direct Cost Recovery Fee or Full Consultant Cost Fee, 27 28 7 I after all charges for the project have been determined; or, as 2 determined by the Director of Planning and Building Services. 3 SECTION 9: These fees shall be automatically adjusted 4 annually on January 1 of each year, based on the latest available 5 Consumer Price Index increase from the prior year. 6 SECTION 10: Resolution No. 89-471 and No. 91-148 are hereby 7 repealed. 8 SECTION 11: This resolution shall take effect sixty (60) 9 days after the date of its adoption. 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 1 RESOLUTION . . . AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83-201, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 89-471 AND NO. 91-148, MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING 2 SERVICES AND ESTABLISHING NEW FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES. 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly 4 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San 5 Bernardino, at a meeting held on the 6 day of 1992 by the following vote, to wit: 7 Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT 8 ESTRADA 9 REILLY 10 HERNANDEZ 11 MAUDSLEY 12 MINOR 13 POPE-LUDLAM 14 MILLER 15 16 City Clerk 17 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this day 18 of , 1992 . 19 20 W. R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 21 Approved as to 22 form and legal content: 23 JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney 24 by: Cvn.z 25 26 27 28 9