HomeMy WebLinkAbout53-Planning and Building
CITY OF SAN BERCARDINO - REQUEST90R 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 is, 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 is, 1992, Mayor and Common Council set July 20 as date of Public Hearing concerning
planning fees (for additional background, see Item 7 of June is, 1992).
Recommended motion:
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.
e
Contact person:
. Staff
Supporting data attached:
Larry E. Reed
Phone:
5267
Report & Attachments A, B & C
Ward:
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
IAcct. OescriDtionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
75_0262
.It.nAnrl~ .'torn Mn. ~
'CITY OF SAN BERNOIDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: Resolution Modifying and Increasing Planning Fees
REOUEST
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 ih 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 covered 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
increa.sing 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 ~he
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.
o
o
2. The Department's overhead is 20% 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%
planning cost times 130% equals
providing the service).
(Department's total
the City's cost of
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 Zoning Map .
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.
o
o
o Tentative Tract Maps (Item VV) is increased by $1,247
plus $2 per parcel.
DECREASES: The resolution will decrease the following fees:
o Development Review Committee (DRC) pre-application review
(Item S) reduced $81.
o Home Occupation Permit (Item BB) reduced $40.
o Recycling Development Permit not involving Planning
Commission (Item NN) reduced $17.
o Temporary Use Permit (Item SS) reduced $64.
o Tree Removal Permit (Item XX) reduced $60.
o
The following is reduced based upon
Council's policy direction to keep
affordable to the public.
the Mayor and
some processes
* Appeal Fee (Item E) being kept at $100 even though
the actual cost is approximately $500.
* Temporary Use Permit for Non-prOfit Organizations
(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.
o 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 publ ic 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
c
o
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
Amendment (Item 0); $500 minimum.
* General Plan Amendment Text (Item Y); $800 minimum.
*
Agreement
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The options available to the Mayor and Common Council are to:
1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C),
establishing and modifying 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
o
()
ATTACHMENT A
City of San Bernardino
Department of Planning and Building Services
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
,
Al Boughey, Director of Planning and Building Services .J)i~
Larry E. Reed, Assistant Director of Planning andfL'
Building Services
FROM:
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, Charlyn Archuleta 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 ~s $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.
o
o
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..
an average. Median is defined as a number in a set that
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:
the median
cost?
Why is staff only proposing to increase ~~
of the area and not charge the cities actual
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
c
o
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.
Tvoe of
ADDlication
or Service
A.
Amendment to
Conditions
B.
Amendment to
Development
Code (Text)
C.
Antennae
Development
Permit
D.
Antennae
Development
Permit Approved
by Planning
Commission
E.
Appeal to
Mayor/Common
Councilor to
Planning
Commission
F.
Building Permit
Review, including
Business License
Checks
G.
Certificate of
Occupancy Review
not involving a
Building Permit
Change of
Zone/District
(Map) (Including
Prezoning)
(Christmas
Tree Lot)
H.
o
TABLE 1
Existing, and Proposed Fees
Existina
Rate (S)
ProDosed
Rate (S)
$331. 00
$330 minimum
or. 10% of
the present
filing fee
which ever
is greater
$826.00
D.C.R. with;
$800 minimum
$3,000 maximum
$33.00
$35.00
$517.00
$520.00
$110.00
$100.00
$33.00
$35.00
$17.00
$50.00
D.C.R.
D.C.R. with;
$800 minimum
$3,000 maximum
$264.00
o
ATTACHMENT B
Increased
Bv (S)
(-$1.00)
minimum
or varies
Varies with
complexity
$2.00
$3.00
(-$10.00)
$2.00
$33.00
No Change
(See Temporary Use Permit,
Non-Profit Uses)
Median Fees
of Area
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
$565.00
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
$2,385.00
Table 1 -Existing, proPo~d and New Fees
Page 2
TvDe of
Aoolication
or service
Existina
Rate (S)
I. Conditional Use $770.00
permi t for
Alcoholic
Outlets in
Existing Building
J. Conditional Use $1,322.00
Permi t for
Conditional Uses
K.
Conditional Use
permi t for
Condominiums,
Planned
Residential
Development,
MUlti-Family
Projects Non
Hillside
Management Areas
L.
All Project
(Commercial
and Residential)
within Hillside
Management
Overlay District
except In-fill
Housing involving
4 or less
dwelling units
M. Surface Mining
and Land
Reclamation
$1,322.00
plus $11
per unit
(See Item
J and K
above)
F.C.C. plus
D.C.R. *
Prooosed
Rate (S)
$1,500.00
$2,400.00
$2,200.00
plus $12
per unit
$4,000 plus
$15 per
residential
unit,
$30 per
commercial
tenant space
or building
$47 per lot
()
Increased
Bv (S)
$730.00
$1,078.00
$878.00
Between
$1,300 to
$2,200
Note: projects
within Hillside
Management
District are
more complex
involving
geology,
drainage,
cuts/fills,
biological
concerns,
issues and
special studies
requiring more
staff time
F.C.C. plus No Change
D.C.R. with a
$500 minimum
Median Fees
of Area
No
Comparison
$2,425.00
$2,250.00
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
* 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, proP~d and New Fees
Page '3
TvDe of
ADDlication
or Service
Existina
Rate (Sl
N. Design Review Fee F.C.C.
Initial Deposit $220.00
o.
Development
Agreement/
Development
Agreement
Amendment
P.
Development
Permit-Director
Q.
Development
Permit-
Development
Review Committee
(Previously
called Review
of Plans)
R.
Development
Permit-Planning
Commission/
Council
s.
Development
Review
Committee
Pre-application
Review
T.
Environmental
Impact Report
u.
Expeditious
Review Fee
v.
Extension
of Time
(All appli-
cations
other than
subdivisions)
F.C.C. plus
D.C.R.
$33.00
$1,322.00
plus $11
per unit
if applicable
$1,322.00
$331.00
F.C.C. plus
D.C.R.
F.C.C plus
50% of the
normal
review fee
per type
of project
$274.00
ProDosed
Rate (Sl
F.C.C.
$250.00
F.C.C. plus
D.C.R. with a
$500 minimum
$100.00 plus
$225 if a
Public Hearing
$1,600.00
plus $225 if
a Public
Hearing plus
$12 per unit
if applicable
$2,200.00
$250.00
F.C.C. plus
D.C.R.
F.C.C. plus
50% of the
present
filing fee
$200 minimum
or 10% of the
present
filing fee
,.-
J
Increased
Bv (Sl
$30.00
No Change
$67.00
$278.00
plus $1
per unit
$878.00
(-$81. 00)
No Change
No Change
Varies
depending
of project
filing fee
Median Fees
of Area
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
$1,605.00
$2,425.00
No
Comparison
Actual
Cost plus
deposit
No
Comparison
$191. 00
Table 1- Existing, propo~ and New Fees
Page '4
Tvne of
Atltllication
or Service
w.
Extensions
of Time
(Subdivisions)
x.
Fence/Wall
Development
Permit
(Fire Works
Sales Booth
Existina
Rate (Sl
10% of the
original
filing fee
$33.00
$264.00
Y. General Plan D.C.R.
Amendments (Text)
Z. Historical F.C.C. plus
Preservation D.C.R.
Reports
Initial Deposit $547.00
for F.C.C.
AA. Planning $274.00
Commission
Interpretations
BB. Home Occupation
Permit
CC. Landscape Plan
Review
$165.00
$110.00
DD. Letter of Zoning/ $83.00
General Plan
Consistency
EE. Lot Line
Adjustment
FF. Minor Exception
GG. Minor Revision/
Modification
$274.00 plus
$43 per lot
$382.00
$220.00
Protlosed
Rate (Sl
$200 mJ.nJ.mum
or 10% of the
present
filing fee
$35.00
o
Increased
Bv (Sl
Varies
depending
of project
filing fee
$2.00
(See Temporary Use Permit,
Non-Profit Uses)
D.C.R. with; No Change
$800 minimum
$3,000 maximum
F.C.C. plus No Change
D.C.R.
$550.00 $3.00
$500.00 $226.00
$125.00
$250.00
$83.00
$300.00 plus
$45 per lot
$382.00
$220.00
(-40.00)
$140.00
No Change
$26.00 plus
$2 per lot
No Change
No Change
Median Fees
of Area
$300.00
No
Comparison
$2,866.00
No
Comparison
$537.00
$127.00
No
Comparison
$80.00
$455.00
$325.00
$175.00
Table 1- Existing, propo~ and New Fees
Page '5
TvDe of
ADDlication
or service
Existina
Rate (S)
HH. Miscellaneous $165.00 plus
Environmental F.C.C.
Report Review,
including
Mitigation
Monitoring
Initial Deposit $220.00
F.C.C.
II. Negative $382.00
Declaration
(Environmental
Review)
JJ. Notice of
Exemption
KK. Parcel Map -
Except projects
in Hillside
Management
OVerlay
District
LL. Plan Check
Review (Only
when plans are
reviewed)
MM. Recycling
Development
Permit (Staff)
NN. Recycling
Development
Permit not
involving
Planning
Commission
00. Sign Permit
PP. Siqn Program
Development
Permit
QQ. Sign Program
Conditional Use
Permit
$110.00
$930.00 plus
$43 per
parcel
$33.00
$33.00
$517.00
$43.00
$254.00
$517.00
ProDosed
Rate (S)
$300.00 plus
F.C.C.
$250.00
$500.00
$110.00
$1,800.00
plus $45
per parcel
$100.00
$35.00
$500.00
$65.00
$400.00
$600.00
o
Increased
Bv (S)
$35.00
$30.00
$118.00
No Change
Median Fees
of Area
No
Comparison
$675.00
$102.00
$870.00 plus $2,100.00
$2 per
parcel
$67.00
$2.00
(-$17.00)
$22.00
$146.00
$83.00
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
No
Comparison
$65.00
$4BO.00
$770.00
~abl~ 1- Existing, propo~ and New Fees
Page 6
o
TvPe of Existina ProDosed Increased Median Fees
ADDlication Rate ($1 Rate ($1 Bv ($1 of Area
or Service
RR. Specific F.e.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
00. 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, propo~ and New Fees
Page'7
o
Tvtle of Existina ProDosed Increased Median Fees
ADDlication Rate (Sl Rate (Sl Bv (Sl 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
o
-...)
RESOLUTION NO.
1
2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING RESOLUTION
83-201 MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES, AND REPEALING NO.
3 471 AND NO. 91-148.
NO.
89-
4 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
5
6
7 pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66016, et
SECTION 1.
The Mayor and Common Council find:
A.
A hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council
8 seq., to consider the increase of fees and services charges for
9
10
11
12
13
various services provided by the Planning Division, which hearing
was held following public notice published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of San Bernardino.
B.
None of the proposed new fees exceed the estimated cost
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
18 California Environmental Quality Act because it approves fees for
D.
The adoption of this
resolution is
exempt from the
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 IIII
23 IIII
24 IIII
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28
1
1
2
3
4
A.
5
6 B.
7
8 c.
9
D.
10
11
E.
12
13
F.
14
15
G.
16
17
H.
18
19
I.
20
21
J.
22
23 K.
24
25
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
o
SECTION 2:
,......
V
Resolution No. 83-201, section 2, Subsection I,
is amended to read:
"I.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT. FILING OR SERVICE
Amendment to Conditions
Amendment to Development
Code (Text)
Antennae Development
Permit
Antennae Development
Permit Approved by
Planning Commission
Appeal to MayorlCommon
Councilor to Planning
Commission
Building Permit Review
Including Business
License Checks
Certificate of Occupancy
Review not involving a
Building Permit
Change of ZonelDistrict
(map) (Including
Prezoning)
Conditional Use Permit
for Alcohol Outlets in
Existing Buildings
Conditional Use Permit
for Conditional Uses
Conditional Use Permit
for Condominiums,
Planned Developments,
MUlti-Family Projects
Non-Hillside Management
SERVICE FEE OR CHARGE ($)
$330 minimum or 10% of Present
Filing Fee which ever is greater
Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a
$800.00 minimum and a
$3,000.00 maximum
$35.00
$520.00
$100.00
$35.00
$50.00
Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a
$800.00 minimum and a
$3,000.00 maximum
$1,500.00
$2,400.00
$2,200.00 plus
$12.00 per unit
2
1 L.
2
3
4
5 M.
6
7 N.
8
o.
9
10
P.
11
12
Q.
13
14
15
R.
16
17 s.
18
19 T.
20
u.
21
22 v.
23
24 w.
25 IIII
26 IIII
27 IIII
28
o
All Projects (Commercial
and Residential) within
Hillside Management Overlay
District except In-fill
Housing involving 4 or
less dwelling units
Surface Mining and Land
Reclamation
Design Review Fee
Initial Deposit
Development Agreementl
Development Agreement
Amendment
Development Permit-Director
Development permit-
Development Review
Committee
Development Permit-Planning
CommissionlCouncil
Development Review
Committee Preapplication
Review
Environmental Impact
Report
Expeditious Review Fee
Extension of Time
(All Applications other
Subdivisions)
Extensions of Time
(Subdivisions)
;:)
$4,000.00 plus
$15.00 per
residential unit
$30.00 per
commercial tenant
space or building
$47.00 per lot
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
with a $500.00 minimum
Full Consultant Cost
$250.00
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
with a $500.00 minimum
$100.00 plus
$225.00 when a Public
Hearing is required
$1,600.00 plus
$225.00 when a Public
Hearing is required plus
$12.00 per unit,
when applicable
$2,200.00
$250.00
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
Full Consultant Cost plus
50% of the Present Filing Fee
$200.00 minimum or 10% of
the Present Filing Fee
$200.00 minimum or 10% of
the Present Filing Fee
3
1 x.
2
Y.
3
4
z.
5
6
7
AA.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
II.
BB.
CC.
DD.
EE.
FF.
GG.
HH.
19
JJ.
20
KK.
21
22
LL.
23
24
MM.
25
26 NN.
27 IIII
28
o
FencelWall Development
Permit
General Plan Amendments
(Text)
Historical Preservation
Report
Initial Deposit for
Full Consultant Cost
Interpretations
(Planning Commission)
Home Occupation Permit
Landscape Plan Review
Letter of ZoninglGeneral
Plan Consistency
Lot Line Adjustment
Minor Exception
Minor Revision/Modification
Miscellaneous Environmental
Report Review, including
Mitigation Monitoring
Initial Deposit for
Full Consultant Cost
Negative Declaration
Notice of Exemption
Parcel Map - Outside of
Hillside Management
Overlay District
Plan Check Review
(Applicable only when
plans are reviewed)
o
$35.00
Direct Cost Recovery Fee with a
$800.00 minimum and a
$3,000.00 maximum
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
Recycling Development Permit
Director (such as reverse vending)
Recycling Development Permit
(small collections)
4
$550.00
$500.00
$125.00
$250.00
$83.00
$300.00 plus
$45.00 per lot
$382.00
$220.00
$300.00 plus Full
Consultant Cost
$250.00
$500.00
$110.00
$1,800.00 plus
$45.00 per parcel
$100.00
$35.00
$500.00
1 00.
2 PP.
3
QQ.
4
5 RR.
6
7
SS.
8
TT.
9
10
11 00.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
w.
ww.
xx.
YY.
ZZ.
o
Sign Permit
Sign Program Development
Permit
Sign Program Conditional
Use Permit
Specific PlanlSpecific
Plan Amendment
Temporary Use Permit -
Director - For Profit
Organizations
Temporary Use Permit -
Director - Non Profit
Organizations
(such as Holiday Sales)
Temporary Use Permit-
Planning Commission
Tentative Tract Map
Tentative Tract Map or
Parcel Map Revision
Tree Removal Permit
Variance
Vesting Tentative Maps
19
20 AM.
21
22
BBB.
23
24 CCC. Reconsideration by Planning
Commission
25
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
Zoning Notice of Public
Hearing (when not required
as part of the regular
review process)
Phasing Plan Review (if
not part of the original
project review)
o
$65.00
$400.00
$600.00
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
$200.00
$50.00
$517.00
$2,900.00 plus
$45.00 per lot
50% of the Present Filing Fee
$250.00
$1,000.00
$350.00 involving a Owner
Occupied Single Family Home
Full Consultant Cost plus
Direct Cost Recovery Fees
$225.00
$500.00
$300.00"
5
o
o
SECTION 3.
Multiple application projects being requested
1
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
8
maximum fee limitation for an individual case plus full consultant
cost when applicable.
If a project involves multiple applications
9 and is being processed concurrently, the initial required deposit
10
11
12
13
for the type of direct cost recovery application that is of the
greatest amount shall be paid.
SECTION 4.
"Direct Cost Recovery Fee" shall include all
City Planning Department labor and material costs, both direct and
14 indirect, includino department and city wide overhead (cost
15 allocation) charoed against the specific item being processed.
The
16 applicant shall pay deposits for the Direct Cost Recovery Fee as
17
18
19
20
21
22
outlined in Section 7.
SECTION 5:
"Full Consultant Cost" shall include all costs
incurred under Contract with a Consultant. The applicant shall pay
deposits for the full consultant cost as outlined in Section 7.
SECTION 6:
Payment of a Design Review fee shall be
required for any residential, commercial or industrial proj ect
23 requiring a Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit, except as
24 determined by the Planning Director of Planning and Building
Services or as exempted in Title 19.
25
26 IIII
27 IIII
28 IIII
6
o
o
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
be required. A statement indicating that 75 percent of initial
deposit has been expended and notification of the additional
deposit required will be mailed to the applicant, who shall deposit
such additional monies prior to the date specified in the notice.
When additional deposit has been requested, work will be suspended
on the project when 95 percent of the deposit previously received
has been expended. Projects will not be completed with money due.
If additional deposit is not made by the date specified in the
notice, the project shall be deemed withdrawn on the date specified
without further action on the part of the City of San Bernardino
and without refund of any money deposited for services already
performed. Such project may be reinstated only if the additional
deposit is made within 30 days from the date the project was deemed
withdrawn.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 IIII
28 IIII
SECTION 8: Refunds will be made by the City for any fee
which was erroneously paid or collected; for any unused deposit
monies of Direct Cost Recovery Fee or Full Consultant Cost Fee,
7
o
o
1 after all charges for the project have been determined; or, as
2 determined by the Director of Planning and Building Services.
SECTION 9: These fees shall be automatically adjusted
3
4 annually on January 1 of each year, based on the latest available
5 Consumer Price Index increase from the prior year.
6
7 repealed.
SECTION 11:
SECTION 10:
Resolution No. 89-471 and No. 91-148 are hereby
This resolution shall take effect sixty (60)
8
9 days after the date of its adoption.
10 I I I I
11 IIII
12 I I I I
13 I I I I
14 I I I I
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
o
.:)
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 Ci ty of San
5 Bernardino, at a meeting held on the
, 1992 by the following vote, to wit:
6 day of
7
8
9
Council Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
l\~
ESTRADA
REILLY
10 HERNANDEZ
11
12
13
14
MAUDSLEY
MINOR
POPE-LUDLAM
MILLER
15
16
17
city Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day
18 of
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
, 1992.
W. R. Holcomb, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to
form and legal content:
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
"it"'" '9 fJe-w,..~
28
9