HomeMy WebLinkAbout38-Planning
CIQ OF SAN BERNARDI(X) - REQI()ST FOR COUNCIL AQON
Michael W. Loehr R~r.'n '''DMIH ..........
From: Interim Director of Plirh~niq' . _Pl-':
Dept: Planning ISB8 AUG -4 PII. 2: 44
DaU: August 15, 1988
Planning Department Fee Increase
Resolution Adoption
Mayor & Common Council Meeting
August 15, 1988. 2:00 P.~ ___
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On August 1, 1988. the Mayor and Council unanimously voted to approve
of Planning Department service fee adjustments and directed preparation
of Resolution for adoption.
Recommended motion:
That the Mayor and Council adopt the attached Resolution which amends
Resolution No. 83-201 and 84-284. which set Planning Department Service
Fees.
~ 4). ~ir ~!tL. ~--
Signature :, ,/
Michael W. Loehr
Ccntact person:
Michael W. Loehr
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Resolution
Ward:
City-wide
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.!
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No. ~ 't.
...M
CI-R OF SAN BERNARDIQ - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL ACOoN
STAFF REPORT
subject: Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning
Department Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
BACKGROUND
Section 54990 of the Government Code requires that fees for
planning se~vices not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fee is charged. There-
fore, fees should be established based on documentation of
the actual time and cost to process various types of applica-
tions. Actual direct costs indicated in this report reflect
ONLY the direct cost incurred by the Planning Department in
salaries, benefits, and supplies and do NOT include any
expenses incurred by other departments which participate in
the processing of planning applications. These departments
include, but are not limited to, the City Attorney's office,
the Administrative office, and the depa~tment~ of PUblic
Works, Building and Safety, Fire, Police, Parks and
Recreation, Water, Public Services, etc.
In considering the following options, remember that in
February the Council approved four new positions for the
Planning Department. At the time there was agreement to fund
these for the balance of 1987-88 with increased Building
Permit fees, but the on-going annual cost was to be looked at
in relation to increased planning fees. The on-going cost of
the new position is approximately $135,000 per year at
today's salaries.
TY:~~s.. .Q~I>;p.pr,.IC~tTIONS PROCESSED
There are currently over thirty types of applications pro-
cessed and/or services provided by the Planning Department.
These may be categorized in a variety of ways, but for fee
purposes they are defined as follows:
Services for which There is.ll.JUr.Jl.C.t; ~J3.t.. Recoverv
There are only two types of applications which
recover full costs: preparation of Environmental
Impact Reports and Preparation of Specific Plans.
In both cases, the City awards a contract to a
consultant who prepares the document. The
applicant pays the full consultant cost plus
fifteen percent for City processing costs.
';'<,.("...."4
-
J
o
o
o
o
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept.
Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 3
.S.Ett:v j.p.~e _ _l.O_I__ . . .Wb~c.h . _ tPAr..e. _ . -1~ Consult..ot Cost.
Recoverv
The City contracts with outside geologists to
review geology and liquefaction reports for
development . projects. The City charges the
applicant for the full cost of the geologist review
($60/hour) but does not charge any fee for City
expenses incurred in the processing of those
reports.
S~1~tc~~.{OLWbtCA-~~_Are Fees
There are twenty-two Planning Department services
for which the City has established fees. These
have not been updated since July 1, 1983. These
fees include Zone Changes, General Plan Amendments,
Sign Permits, Review of Plans, etc. (See
Attachment A)
Se.rv ices which Ar.eCuu.ElIltlY. Prov..i.Qe(). .at.}lo Cost
There are at least eight services currently
provided for which no fee has been established (See
Attachment A). This category includes things like
Certificates of Occupancy, Minor Revisions,
Temporary Trailer/Mobile Home Permits, etc.
Services C~tep~lY ~ot ~rovided But Ar~ Likely To
Bjl
This category includes such things as Development
Agreements, Vesting Tentative Maps, Amendments to
the Interim Policy Document, etc., which are
services the City does not yet provide but is
likely to initiate in the near future.
PHILOSOPH.I~~~.~~~~O~CH~S ~.~LANNING_~~
There are several basic philosophical approaches to estab-
lishing planning fees. All are used throughout the state and
it is strictly a. policy matter which is selected by the
elected body. To assist in the preparation of this report,
the Planning Department has reviewed three fee studies: a
study of 69 Southern California cities conducted by the City
of South Pasadena in 1987; a study prepared by David M.
Griffith and Associates, Ltd., in 1987 using 17 cities in
California; and a study of ten local cities conducted by the
4.
-
o
o
o
o
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept. Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 4
Planning Department early in 1987 (Attacpment B).
Basic to any fee philosophy is the fact that planning is an
exercise of police power delegated to local jurisdictions by
the state for the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the general public. To carry out this responsi-
bility, cities and counties are required to adopt a General
Plan and implementing ordinances, including zoning. Once
those plans and ordinances are in place they become .the
mechanism to protect the public. Keeping these two factors
in mind, the basic approaches to planning fees are as
follows:
Option.l_~ No Chanae
The philosophy behind the "No Change" approach is to
leave the fees as they are for the purpose of keeping
development costs down and remain~ng cpmpetitive with
other local jurisdictions. However, as the cost to
process applications increases, the greater the general
fund contribution becomes. Increased planning costs
decrease the amount of funds available to other city
departments and services. There is usually no direct
relationship between the people who benefit from the
planning services and those who suffer from reduction of
other services. Therefore, this is t~e least equitable
of the concepts reviewed herein.
Based on
current
$114,125
the workload projections for 1988-89, the
fees are expected to generate approximately
in revenue.
OPTION 2 - Dttep.l; .Cos.t Recovery
This approach assumes that the individuals benefitinq
from the planning services should be the ones to pay for
them, and that the applicants are the sole beneficiaries
of the process. If the General Plan and ordinances
already protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
general public, then changes to them or processing of a
project which, by definition, could be detrimental,
benefit the applicant and not the public.
Although recovering the direct processing cost from
applicants has not been the traditional approach, more
and more jurisdictions in California are adopting this
kind of fee structure. Unless an hourly rate fee based
on actual cost is established, a disadvantage of this
concept is the fact that .Direct Cost Recovery. fees
J.
l _
, ,
o
o
o
O.
.,
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept. Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 5
represent an 'average cost' to process any given type of
application. Therefore, some applicants will pay more
than the actual cost of their project, while others will
pay less. However, this is true with any fee structure
unless the fees are so low they cover the most minimal
processing. The hourly rate system works only if the
jurisdiction has a good cost accounting system to track
time on at least fifteen minute increments
For the purposes of this report, the term -Direct Cost
Recovery" refers only to the direct costs incurred by
the Planning Department for salaries, benefits, and
supplies. It does not include indirect costs or other
department expenditures. Some jurisdictions do compute
other departments into "Direct Cos~ Recovery- fees. This
is most easily done if the City has a state-approved
cost allocation plan.
Another option considered was the top of the local range
or the actual cost, whichever was lowest. This produced
a revenue which was within a few thousand dollars of
this "Direct Cost Recovery" approach. This is because
the computation used the lowest figure and at least one
city is charging fees which are higher than our direct
costs.
Based on workload
Cost Recovery" fee
~u~ludina fees for
cost.
projections for 1988-89, a -Direct
woulo generate approximately $254,166
services currently provided at no
using a "Direct Cost Plus" approach to account for City
overhead and other departments, the revenues produced
would be higher. Although San Bernardino has no cost
allocation plan, overhead figures from other cities
average about 25 to 35 percent. Applying a 30 percent
cost plus figure, the revenue generated would be
$254,166 times 30 percent or $330,416, which is more
reflective of the full cost to the City.
OPTION3~-F~p~G/~rivate SDlit
A third concept is based on the assumption that both the
general public and the applicants stand to gain benefits
through the planning review process. Since the general
public profits as well as the applicant by receiving
protection as well as indirect economic benefits, one
can argue that the general fund (i.e. the general
public) should bear at least a portion of the processing
- -
.: )
()
o
o
:)
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept. Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 6
costs. The applicant is
stands to benefit as well
and therefore, also should
making a request and he/she
if the project is approved,
share in the cost.
The degree of benefit to each is a policy issue.
Assuming a 50-50 public/private split, the projected
revenues would be $126,609 using the percentage split OR
the existing fee, whichever is hiqher. Obviously
different percent splits render different revenues.
Applying the same approach, a 30/70 public/private split
would generate a projected $194,754 in revenues.
Q.P'l'~O~. .4 . ':" Pel;cent.Oge. .J\lltl\lAl. .1:(Ij:;rease
Since the fees have not been updated for five years, a
fourth approach is to increase them on a percent per
year basis. Assuming a five percent increase in City
costs per year over a five year period, the fees would
be adjusted upward by 25%. This concept would generate
approximately $182,310 in 1988-89 based on projected
workload.
ANALYSIS
The current fee structure is anticipated to generate approxi-
mately $114,125 in revenue during FY 1988-89, or 12 percent
of the Planning Department budget and 45 percent of the
actual direct cost to provide services. If it is the City's
intent to generate enough revenue to oft-set the cost of the
additional staff, then the fees must generate approximately
$250,000. The only option which accomplishes that is Number
2, the direct cost recovery which is a legitimate approach
and does not reflect full cost recovery to the City.
Staff is recommending this basic approach with some modifica-
tions, including two major differences. First, staff is
recommending that the direct cost of an appeal is unreason-
able for the average aggrieved party to pay. In that the
Council has already set $75 as the fee for appealing a
Development Review Committee decision, and this amount is
seen to be reasonable and in line with appeal fees charged by
other jurisdictions, staff is recommending that a fee of $75
be set for appeals to the Planning Commission and to the
Mayor and Common Council.
Second, staff is also recommending that the fees charged for
subdivisions be left as they are until such time as the
General Plan is adopted and the City has had time to track
actual direct costs to process. The estimate shown in Option
~ ~
. ,
()
o
o
~
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept. Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 7
No. 2 is based on a very limited number of tracts processed
during the past year. It is felt that these are not indica-
tive. of the actual amount of time requ-ired under a normal
workload. Therefore, until this can be assessed, fees should
remain as they are. Since the processing of subdivisions
does require substantial review by several departments, at
the time the analysis of actual direct costs is made, the
processing cost from other departments should be included.
The number of hours required to process the anticipated
workload is 11,080 hours or 32 percent of the total available
hours (not including overtime). The revenue generated using
the staff recommendation, $259,360, covers the cost of
increased staff and represents 28 percent of the FY 1988-89
budget for the department, reducing the General Fund contri-
bution from 88 percent to 72 percent.
~~Cp~~DATION
The Planning Department is recommending Qpt~~n.7__~ Direct
Cost Rec~exy including services for which 0 fee is charged
currently with the following changes and additions (as shown
in Attachment A - Fifth Columm-Recommendation):
1. Fees be rounded up the nearest five dollar increments
except those under $15. In that these fees do not cover
the full cost, only the direct cost, and since they
represent an average fee, the rounding up will not
violate state law.
2. Fee for appeals to the Planning Commission and to the
Council be set at $75 rather than the direct cost. One
of the Development Review Committee resolutions estab-
lishes a $75 appeal fee which has never been implemented
and it is an amount consistent with appeal fees charged
by many jurisdictions. The other most common fee for
appeals is one half the original fee.
3. The fee for Conditional Use Permits for alcohol permits
in an existing building (not a new development project)
be set at one half the direct cost OR $530.
4.
Establish a Minor Variance procedure for single
homes and leave the fee for Minor Variances
current rate of $300.
family
at the
5.
Leave all Tentative Tract
Parcel Maps, and Lot Line
fees but review as part of
Maps, inCluding subdivisions,
Adjustments at their current
1989-90 budget process. .
-
. \
()
o
o
J
Recommendations to Increase Fees for Planning Dept. Services
Mayor and Council Meeting of July 18, 1988
Page 8
6. Adopt. a "Direct Cost Recovery" fee including All
departments for Vesting Tentative Maps, Development
Agreements and Development Agreement Amendments, and
Specific Plans and Specific Plan Amendments.
7. Direct staff to develop an enforcement and public
information program for Home Occupations during Fiscal
Year 1988-89. There are large numbers of persons who
conduct businesses from their homes who do not have home
occupation permits pursuant to the existing Municipal
Code. In addition to a source of revenue currently
untapped, these occupations often cause problems for
adjacent neighbors.
8. Set the fee for Landscape Plan Review based on the
Planning Department cost but direct staff to study the
actual cost to All departments during fiscal year 1988-
89 and make a recommendation for a fee adjustment
concurrent with the 1989-90 budget process. Landscape
Plan Review has been modified and fees are now collected
by the Public Works Department. The majority of the
time and cost to process these plans is in the Public
Works and Parks and Recreation Departments.
9. Establish a fee of $585 for Amendments to the Interim
Policy Document.
10.
Establish a policy that
applications, that full
tion shall be paid.
11. Direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions and
set necessary hearings on these fees, including a
provision for an automatic increase in fees based on the
annual salary adjustment for the General Employees Unit
and establish a three-year review process for Planning
fees (i.e. If in 1988-89 the general employees receive a
six percent salary increase, then the fees in 1988-89
will be increased by six percent) .
if a project involves
fees for each type of
multiple
applica-
MICHAEL W. LOEHR
Interim Director of Planning
mkf
Attachment A - Comparison of Fee Alternatives and Revenues
B - comparative Studies of planning Fees in
Southern California in Dollars
Memo:8806-2107
ATTACHMENT A rL
COMPARISON OF FEE ALTERNATIVES AND REVENUES ~
[Option 1 Option 21 Option 3 . Option 4
No ChanqEloirect 50-:-50 PublJ. 5% Per year
TYPE (fF APPLIC~nON (e) CosTa~ :~te Increase
~MENOMENT TO CONDITIONS Is 100 ISo 219 $ 110
aU{I DING ~VE ON I 175\ 229 175 (c)
CliANGE OF ZONE 1350+25/A I 742 375
CUP I 350 I 1.059 530
CUP/CONDO/PRO 1350+10/U~it 530
I 75\
I 25 I
\ I
I 100 I
\
I
I
LANDSCAPE PL~N REVIEW I
I
\
I
T
I
\ I
~00+40/1ot J
I I 1.059
1l00+10/unit
\ 10% fee I
I 50% fee
b00+30/1ot
~00+31)/lot I
o
o
ENV.REVIEW/NEG.:>EC.
233
~NV.REVIEW/EXEMPTION
82
ENV.REVIEW/E!R
EXTENSION OF TIME
229
GPA - IOOA or less
500
1,0001
150 I
50 I
I
63
1,167
GPA - IOOA or more
HOME OCC~P. PERMIT
229
~!QUEFACTION REPORT
.C. INTERPRETATION
50
229
REV I EW OF PLANS
,?"
359
SIGN PERMIT
10
23
SPECIFIC PLAN
~ENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SINGLE ~AMILY
CONDO/PRO
EXTENSION OF it ME
229
REVISION
638
PARCE!. MAP
380
225
LOT L!NE ADJUST.
o
117
$ 125
219
438+31/A
I 438
I 438+13/A
94
31
I 125
625
I 1,250
I 188
I 63
I 63
I 156
I 13
I
41
115
500(c)
l,OOO(c)
159(c)
50(c)
115
180
12
all (c):
400+40/lot 1500+50/1ot
400+10/uniJ 500+13/unit
10% fee
10% fee
50% fee
50% fee
200+30/1ot 250+38/lot
200+30/1ot 1200+30/lot
:)
~111.erda-
tion
$ 220 I
230.
745 I
1.060 ~
235 I
80
l:onsultant Cost
+ ,,,..
-
230
1.170 I
230
65
---.
e150 + additional
actual cost
230
360
25
:onsultant
+ 15%
Cost
400+40/1ot
400+10/10t
10% fee
50% fee
200+30/1ot
200+30/1ot
.
. f
()
o
o
:>
A. _ .' .'1ENI' A - Cant 'd.
ecmparison of Fee Alternatives and Revenues
~
Option 1 Option 2 I Option 3 I Option 4 I ~'~dai
No Chanqe Direct SO-50 PubliC 5' Per Year I -.. -
I tion
(c) Cos~, lleOCV t~~vate ! Increase t
v~E OF AP~LlCATtON 'B\ ".. ,
.
,l,RIANCE $ 300 $ 480 $ 300 (c) $ 375 $ 480
ERTlF!CATE OF oce. 0 12 6 12 (a) 12
HRISiMAS TREE LOT 0 12 6 12 (a) 12
PPEALS I
COUNC: L 0 360 I 180 360 (a) 75
PLAN. COMM. 0 I 229 115 I 229 (a) 75
.~TTER/ZONING CONSIST. 0 66 33 66(a\ 70
'l!;AL SUILOING 0 229 I . 125 (c) I 229(a\ 230
I1l0R RElTISICNS 0 94 47 94(a\ 95
EWER HOOKUP EXE~TION 0 229 115 I 22<11,,\ ''In
-
. I I I
~MP. TRAILER PEa~IT. 0 94 47 <14("\ <10:;
.,endments to Interim I
o'icv ...o....nment 5SO:;
PR:mX:TEIl 88-89 I
REI1INlES $114,125 $254,166 $U6.609 I $182,310 $259,360
. .
Ie) = Existinq (current) fee
.) = Actu8.l Pl.anning Dept. Cost
,t) s Top of local range
.
o
o
o
o
.. Ar.RE
.. LOT
.. PARCEL
.~B
COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF PLANNING FEES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
I N DOLLARS
69 CITY SURVEY I N SO . CA. '17 CII T SURVtT 10 ell T
1987 1986-87 LOCAL
SURVEY
fPE OF APPLICATION ,1 l'ItuiAN AV 1987 (RANGE'
) llJU to
~NDMENT TO CONDITIONS - - - - - S 470 + $10/1
.LOING I<<lVE ON - - - - - -
iANGE OF ZONE S 5.785 S 500 S 662 S 175 - 1,615 S 614 S 400 to 1,6!
JP 3,830 300 482 100 - 1,900 . 619 300 to 1,8~
JP/CONDO/PRO
~V.REVIEW/NEG.DEC. 600 100 134 86 - 300 162 45 to 250
_/.REVIEW/EXEMPTION 298 75 95 50 - 500 169 25 to 100
-.----- -.
:NV.REVIEW/EIR COST COST COST . COST COST COST
(TENSION OF TIME 50S fee 100 94 - - 25 to 154
'A - 100A or less 5,815 500 827 550 - 1,,500 844 400 to
?A - 100A or mor.e 2.390 + 20/A
JME OCCUP. PERMIT - - - - - 35 to 150
~NOSCAPE PLAN REVIEW 50 to 75
- - - - - + 40/A
IQUEFACTION REPORT - - - - - -
.. INTERPRETATION - - - - - -
.. 75 + lUtA
EVIEW OF PLANS 1.000 200 259 25 - 500 200 to 1 087
.. 1U + 3U'I-/ sc
IGN PERMIT . - - - 25 - 75 42 ft. to 200
PECIFIC PLAN COST COST COST COST COST COST
.NTATIVE TRACT MAP
SINGLE FAMILY 7 200 500 300 + lOlL
787 150 - 2.510 742 to 1 855
CONDO/PRO J 40o+10/lot t.::
2 250 500 614 - - 185S+12/1ot -
EXTENSION OF TIME 10/A
50S 100 94 - - 25 to 507. T
REVISION IUU to 1,32
- - - - - + lO/L
~RCEL MAP 6 385 100 to 1 925 200 + 20/L
335 597 358 1.262 + 27/
LOT LI NE ADJUST. 1 500 155 251 55 to 480 260 158 to 2C
. .
o
o
o
o
. ACRE
. LOT
. PARCEL
COMPARATIVE STUDIES Of PLANNING FEES IN SOUTHERN CALlFuK..iA
1 N DOLLARS
A.... ___H.d - ,,-,cn~ ...:..:..
69 CITY IN SO. -rA. 11 (;11 Y ....".~ lU (;11Y
1987 1986-87 LOCAL
~ SURVEY
vPE OF APPLICATION H ME Dl AN IfANGE 1987 (RANGE
Minor 30 to
,RIANCE S 1.750 S 300 S 391 S 20 to 1 285 S 601 125 +10/L or
ERTIFICATE OF OCC. Major 272 -
- - - - - 1- 080
HRISTMAS TREE LOT - - - - - -
PPEALS
COUNCIL 1/2 fee 1/2 fee 119 25 to 64/hr. - 25 to 1/2 fe
PLAN. COMM. 1/2 fee 1/2 fee 119 25 to 64/hr - 25. to 1/2 f
.TTER/ZONING CONSIST. - - - - - 40 to 20
'lET AL BUI L 01 NG - - - - - -
II NOR ADJUSTMENT - - - - - -
,EWER HOOKUP EXEMPTION - - - - - -
EMP. TRAILER PERMIT. - - - - -
;TREET VACATION 1. 500 275 389 - - -
:OM
;-16-81
)ISK TABLEII/ANNFEEPI-2
"
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o
o
~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 83-201, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 8~34,
MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES AND ESTABLISHING NEW FEES
FOR PLANNING SERVICES.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find:
A. A hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common
Council pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section
54990, et seq., to consider the levy of new and additional fees
and service charges for various services provided by the
Planning Department, 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 increases or new fees exceed
the actual cost of providing such services, and for those
services which are not completely paid for by the proposed fee,
the additional expense to the City of providing the services
shall be borne by the general fund of the City of San Bernardino.
C. The proposed fees and charges are reasonable and
necessary to enable the City of San Bernardino to more nearly
meet the actual costs of providing such services.
SECTION 2: Resolution No. 83-201, Section 2, Subsection I,
is amended to read:
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
HE:ss
August 4, 1988
1
o
o
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT, FILING OR SERVICE
Amendment to Conditions
Amendment to Interim Policy
Document
Appeal to Mayor/Common Council
or to Planning Commission
Building Move-on
Certificate of Occupancy
Change of Zone (map)
Christmas Tree Lot Permit
Conditional Use Permit for
alcohol outlets in existing buildings
Conditional Use Permit for
conditional uses
Conditional Use Permits for
condominiums and Planned
Residential Developments
Environmental Impact Report
Extensions of Time
(all application other than
subdivisions)
Extensions of Time
(subdivision)
General Plan Amendments
Home Occupation Permit
Landscape Plan Review
Letter of Zoning/General
Plan Consistency
Lot Line Adjustment
HE:ss
August 4, 1988
2
:)
$
SERVICE FEE OR
CHARGE
220.00
585.00
75.00
230.00
12.00
745.00
12.00
530.00
1,060.00
1.060.00
Full Consultant
Cost plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fees
230.00
10% of original
filing fee
1.170.00
230.00
65.00
70.00
200.00 plus
30.00 per lot
- -
,
o
10
11
12
13
14
_ 1
1
2
S.
3
4
T.
5
6
u.
v.
7
8
w.
x.
9
Y.
z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
15
DO.
16
17
EE.
18
19
FF.
20
21
GG.
22
23
HH.
24
II.
25
26
JJ.
27
KK.
28
1
o
o
Liquefaction and/or Geology
Report Review
Metal Building
Minor Revision
Negative Declaration
Notice of Exemption
Parcel Map
Planning Commission
Interpretation
Review of Plans
Sewer Hook-up Extension
Sign Permit
Specific Plan
Specific Plan Amendment
Temporary Trai1er/
Mobile Home Permit
Tentative Tract Map for
condominium or Planned
Residential Development
Tentative Tract Map for
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Tentative Tract Map Extension
Tentative Tract Map or
Parcel Map Revision
Variance
Minor Variance
HE:ss
August 4, 1988
3.
:)
150.00 plus-
Full Consultant
Costs
230.00
95.00
235.00
80.00
200.00 plus
30.00 per parcel
230.00
360.00
230.00
25.00
Full Consultant
Cost plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fee
Full Consultant
Cost plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fee
95.00
10.00
unit
400.00 plus
per dwelling
400.00 plus
,*0. 60" per lot
~.CO
10% of original
filing fee
50% of original
filing fee
480.0
300.0
4IL .L
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_ u
o
o
J
LL.
vesting Tentative Maps
Full Consultant Cost
plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fee
MM.
Development Agreements
Full Consultant Cost
plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fee
NN.
Development Agreement
Full Consultant Cost
plus Direct Cost
Recovery Fee
Amendments
SECTION 3:
If a project involves multiple applications,
the full amount of fees for each type of application shall be
paid.
SECTION 4:
"Direct Cost Recovery Fee" shall include all
City labor and material costs, both direct and indirect,
including overhead, charged against the specific item being
processed. The applicant shall pay a deposit for the Direct Cost
Recovery Fee at the time of filing the application in an amount
estimated by the Planning Department.
SECTION 5:
"Full Consultant Cost" shall include all costs
incurred under Contract with the Consultant. These fees shall be
reviewed yearly by the Planning Department, Mayor and Common
Council for an increase based on the annual salary adjustment for
the City's General Employees Unit for the previous fiscal year.
SECTION 7: These fees shall be reviewed every three years
by the Planning Department, Mayor and Common Council for cost
recovery analysis and adjustment.
SECTION 8: Resolution No. 84-284 is hereby repealed.
/ / /
/ / /
HE:ss
August 4, 1988
4
I
RESO: AMENDING RES~-201 AND Qr;ALING RESO 84-284 0
MODIFYING FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES AND ESTABLISHING NEW
FEES FOR PLANNING SERVICES
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was
duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
of
meeting held on the
. 19__, by the following vote, to wit:
day
Bernardino, at a
AYES:
Council Members
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
The .foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
19
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form
a(1 legal ~~t:
y Attorney
HE:ss
August 4. 1988
5