HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-21; City Council; 7645; FEES PLANNING APPLICATIONS PERMITS SERVICESCITtt>F CARLSBAD - AGEND/5"4lLL
ABtf 7^ 4*5~~
MTf3 2/21/84
nFpT PLN
TITLE: FEES FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS,
PERMITS AND SERVICES.
DEPT. HD.j
CITYATTY
CITY MGR.
'(tfU
Q
UJ
SCCL
O5<
_i
O
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 7<5""AS
fees for planning applications, permits and services.
ITEM EXPLANATION
establishing
City Council adopted Resolution No. 6368 in November, 1980 establishing planning
fees. More requirements have been mandated and more time is now required to
process development permit applications since that time. Planning has
maintained records during the past year to validate time to process each type
and the quality of permits/applications processed. A study was conducted to
determine realistic recovery rates and to reduce the general fund supplement for
development. Several meetings were held with a Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee
comprised primarily of members from the development community. Most of their
suggestions were incorporated into the proposal. The best method for charging
of fees was to use a graduated fee schedule based on the average hourly rate of
the planning personnel and the average hours to process each type of permit.
The results are shown in the attached resolution. Also, more detailed
background information on this item is provided in the attached memorandum to
the City Manager dated January 23, 1984. Most of the recommended increases are
not that substantial. Some fees are recommended to be reduced. The most
significant increases are for the larger, more complex projects or for items for
which no fee is presently charged.
Current budget of Land Use Planning is $370,000. 1983 receipts for zoning and
subdivision fees was $80,000. Increasing fees as recommended will bring in
$180,000 in 1984 for a 49% recovery of direct cost. The cost allocation study
authorized by Council on January 24 will provide data on the indirect costs
which could be added to the fee schedule at a later date if desired.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fees should result in an increase of revenues to the general fund of approx-
imately $98,000 in the coming year if development activity in planning continues
as it has in the past year.
, establishing fees for planning
EXHIBITS
1. City Council Resolution No.
applications, permits and services.
2. Land Use Planning Manager's Report to City Manager, dated January 23, 1984
entitled "Land Use Planning Fee Study"
3. Letter from Chamber of Commerce dated October 27, 1983
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
RESOLUTION NO. 7515
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
APPLICATIONS, PERMITS AND SERVICES.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
Carlsbad, California as follows:
THE CITY OF
FEES FOR PLANNING
of the City of
1 . That the following fees shall be established by the
City Council, according to the applicable provisions of Titles
19, 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
planning applications, permits and services:
APPLICATION/PERMIT/SERVICE
Administrative Variance
Single Family
Other
Appeals
To City Council
To Planning Commission
City Manager's Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Supplemental Report
General Plan Amendment
Master Plan
Master Plan Amendment
Minor
Major
Notices - Developer pays fees prior to final
costs incurred by the City.
for the following
FEE
$100
$330
$175
$105
$ 45
$420
$175
$700
+ Actual Cost
$440
+ Actual Cost
$765
+ $5 lot/acre
$1,635
+ $5 acre
$185
+ $2 acre
$545
+ $5 acre
action to cover
<5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A *i21
f* 022
23
24
25
26
27
28
^"W Xrf
APPLICATION/PERMIT/SERVICE
Planning Commission Determination
Planned Development for Condominium
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development for Non-Residential
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
#'
FEE
$330
$240
$530
$1,090
$165
$420
$875
Planned Development for Planned Unit Development
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
( 51 or more)
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development Extension
Planned Development Final Map
Planned Development Final Plan
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Industrial Permit
Precise Development Plan
Redevelopment Permit
Sign Program
Site Development Plan
Specific Plan
-2-
$255
$530
$1,090
Condominium
$ 75 -
$365
$655
Non-Residential
$ 40
$220
$400
Planned Unit Development
$ 55
$275
$545
HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
$ 15
$ 60
$ 60
$100
$440
$ 00
$ 75
$365
$1,090
3
APPLICATION/PERMIT/SERVICE FEE
Specific Plan Amendment
Minor $ 75
Major $440
Special Use Permit $420
Street Name Change $350
Structure Relocation $120
Tentative Map
1-25 units or lots $530
8 26-100 units or lots $765
101 or more units or lots $1,310
9
Tentative Map Extension HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
10
Tentative Map Revision
11 1-25 units or lots $330
26-100 units or lots $545
12 101 or more units or lots $765
Revision which does not change design of
13 subdivision $150
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Variance
Single Family $150
Other $420
Zone Code Amendment (If initiated at request of
private party) $565
Zone Change $655
2. That the fees, except for appeals which shall be
paid to the City Clerk at the time the appeal is filed and
deposited to the appropriate planning accounts, shall be paid
to the Land Use Planning Office at the time the application is
filed, or the permit requested, or the services performed, as
applicable.
3. The fees specified in City Council Resolution No.
6368 shall remain in effect until March 2, 1984 at which time
that resolution shall become null and void.
//// -3-
MARY 3 CASLER, Mayor
1 4. That the fees referred to in this resolution shall
2 become effective on March 2, 1984
3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
4 Carlsbad City Council held on the 21st , day of February
5
1984 by the following vote, to wit:
6 AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Prescott
7
NOES: None
8
ABSENT: None
9
10
11
12
ATTEST:
13
14
ALETHA L. RAUTENTCRANZ, City £lerk
15
(SEAL)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
^—J>
JANUARY 23, 1984
TO: FRANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: Michael Holzmiller, Land Use Planning Manager
LAND USE PLANNING FEE STUDY
During late 1979 and 1980, a detailed study of City fees for
services was conducted. In 1980, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 6368 which established fees for certain
subdivisions and planning applications. The fees became
effective on January 1, 1981. Since that time more requirements
have been mandated and more time is required to process
development applications and permits. Also, the City has moved
in the direction of attempting to recover actual costs of staff
time in providing services such as the processing of
applications.
In an effort to determine the level of general fund subsidy for
the Land Use Planning function, times were calculated for the
different types of permits and a record of the numbers of permits
processed was maintained for a period of time during the past
year. 479 permits/applications required 12,482 hours of effort.
A study was initiated - May, 1983 to determine realistic cost
recovery rates under the current year's Operations and
Maintenance Budget for the department.
Approximately 50% of all Land Use Planning time, is devoted to
the actual processing of development permits. During FY 1982-83,
over $80,000 was collected for processing permits/applications.
This relates to about 5,300 hours, or approximately 21% recovery
of time vs. 50% expenditure of time. To alleviate the situation
of general tax funds being used to supplement development,
several alternatives were considered:
1. Maintain current fees and absorb excess development costs
from general fund monies.
2. Establish a deposit fee for each project using processing
times (either maximum or average times) multiplied by an
established hourly rate.
3. Utilize a graduated fee schedule based on an average hourly
rate for Land use Planning personnel and average hours to
process each type of permit.
It is recommended by staff that the most reasonable and effective
fee cost system would be the graduated scheduled method. The
current and proposed fees for Land Use Planning development
applications/permits and services are shown on enclosure 1. In
determining the figures, staff did detailed studies of actual
times spent on a number of projects and developed shortest,
longest and average times. Detailed daily time records were
Le
•<"**
Frank Aleshire, City Manager
January 23, 1984
Page 2
kept on a number of representative projects while the projects
were actually being reviewed. Over a several month period, daily
logs were maintained and work hours were summarized and
categorized into different functions. Enclosure 2 contains a
summary worksheet of the figures which were used in calculating
the proposed fees. Fees charged in the San Diego Region are
shown on Enclosure 3.
Staff held several meetings with a subcommittee of the Chamber of
Commerce to present the study and our recommendations. The
subcommittee was composed primarily of representatives from the
development community. The study was received quite positively
and most of the subcommittee's suggestions have been incorporated
into our proposal.
Staff recommends that the proposed fee schedule be forwarded to
the City Council for consideration. At the Council meeting,
staff will make a formal presentation with graphics summarizing
the background and the findings of the fee study.
MJH/ar
Attachments:
Enclosure 1
Enclosure 2
Enclosure 3
7
LAND USE PLANNING FEE SCHEDULE
PERMIT/APPLICATION;
Administrative Variance
Single Family
Other
Appeals
To City Council
To Planning Commission
City Manager's Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Impact Supplemental Report
General Plan Amendment
Master Plan
Master Plan Amendment
Minor
Major
Notices
Planning Commission Determination
Planned Development for Condominium
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development for Non-Residential
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
CURRENT FEE
$100
$250
$ 50
$ 00
$ 00
$400
$100
$300
+ Actual Cost
$150
+ Actual Cost
$200
+ $5 lot/acre
$1,000
+ $2 acre
$ 50
+ $2 acre
$500
+ $2 acre
PROPOSED FEE
$100
$330
$175
$105
$ 45
$420
$175
$700
+ Actual Cost
$440
+ Actual Cost
$765
+ $5 lot/acre
$1,635
+ $5 acre
$185
+ $2 acre
$545
+ $5 acre
Developer pays fee prior to final
action to cover costs incurred by
the City.
$ 25
$100
$100
$100
$200
$200
$200
$330
$240
$530
$1,090
$165
$420
$875
ENCLOSURE 1
PERMIT/APPLICATION CURRENT FEE
Planned Development for Planned Unit Development
Minor (4 or less) $200
Major (50 or less) $200
(51 or moreO $200
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for Condominium
Minor (4 or less) $100
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
$100
$100
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for Non-Residential
Minor (4 or less) $200
Major (50 or less) $200
(51 or more) $200
PROPOSED FEE
$255
$530
$1,090
$ 75
$365
$655
$ 40
$220
$400
Planned Development Amendment/Revision for Planned Unit Development
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or nore)
Planned Development Extension
Planned Development Final Map
Planned Development Final Plan
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Industrial Permit
Precise Development Plan
Redevelopment Permit
Sign Program
Site Development Plan
Specific Plan
Specific Plan Amendment
Minor
Major
Special Use Permit
Street Name Change
Structure Relocation
$ 50
$200
$200
$ 55
$275
$545
HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$500
$ 00
$ 00
$350
$1 ,000
$ 50
$500
$400
$ 00
$ 00
$ 15
$ 60
$ 60
$100
$440
$ 00
$ 75
$365
$1,090
$ 75
$440
$420
$350
$120
-2-
PERMIT/APPLICATION
Tentative Map
1-25 units or lots
26-100 units or lots
101 or more units or lots
Tentative Map Extension
Tentative Map Revision
1-25 units or lots
26-100 units or lots
101 or more units or lots
Revision which does not change
design of subdivision
Variance
Single Family
Other
Zone Code Amendment (If initiated by
City at the request of private party)
Zone Change
CURRENT FEE
$500
$750
$1,000
PROPOSED FEE
$530
$765
$1,310
HANDLED BY ENGINEERING
$125
$188
$250
$100
$250
$ 00
$500
$330
$545
$765
$150
$150
$420
$585
$655
-3-
SUMMARY WORKSHEETS
LAND USE PLANNING FEE STUDY
No. Permits Average Presubmission Total Grand Revenues
in 1 Year Staff Time Time Each Staff Total At $15/Hr
Each Hours Time (Hrs)
Administrative Variance
Single Family
Other
Appeals
To City Council
To Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Environmental Impact
Report
Environmental Impact
Supplemental Report
General Plan Amendment
Landscape and Irrigation
Plan
Master Plan
Master Plan Amendment
Minor
Major
7
1
10
5
15
41
10
1
22
50
2
2
2
17
18
12
7
23
12
48
30
42
11
90
10
30
4.0
4.3
0
0
5.6
0
0
0
10.3
0
21.6
2.3
7.0
21.0
22.3
12.0
35.0
28.6
12.0
48.0
30.0
52.3
11.0
111.6
12.3
37.0
147.0
22.3
120.0
35.0
429.0
492.0
480.0
30.0
1150.6
550.0
223.2
24.6
74.0
$2,205
$ 334
$1 ,800
$ 525
$6,435
$7,380
$7,200
$ 450
$17,259
$8,250
$3,348
$ 369
$1,110
Notices
Planning Commission
Determination 11 18 4.3 ,22.3 245.3 $3,679
179 402.3
ENCLOSURE 2
No. Permits
in 1 Year
Average
Staff Time
Each
Presubmission
Time Each
Total
Staff
Hours
Grand
Total
Time (Hrs)
Revenues
At $15/Hr
Planned Development
for Condominiums
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
For Non-Residential
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
For Planned Unit
Development
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Planned Development
Amendment Revision
for Condominium
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
For Non-Residential
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
16
5
9
5
8
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
13
29
60
9
23
48
14
29
60
4
20
36
2
12
22
3.3
7.0
14.3
16.3
36.0
74.3
260.8
180.0
668.7
$ 3,912
$ 2,700
$10,030
2.0
5.6
11.6
3.3
7.0
14.3
0.6
3.0
5.3
11.0
28.6
59.6
17.3
36.0
74.3
55.0
228.8
59.6
51.9
180.0
297.2
2.6
15.0
27.3
7.8
30.0
27.3
r\
$ 825
$ 3,433
$ 894
$ 779
$ 2,700
$ 4,458
1
4.6
8.6
5.0
24.6
44.6
5.0
24.6
44.6
$
$
$
75
369
669
$$$
\ I
117
450
410
65 2121.3
-2-
No. Permits Average
in 1 Year Staff Time
Each
Planned Development
Amendment Revision
for Planned Unit
Development (cont'd)
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or nore)
Planned Development
Extension
Planned Development
Final Map
Planned Development
Final Map
Minor (4 or less)
Major (50 or less)
(51 or more)
Precise Development
Plan
Site Development
Plan
Specific Plan
Specific Plan Amendment
Minor
Major
Special Use Permit
Street Name
Street Name Change
1
1
1
27
6
4
1
8
7
3
2
3
30
5
99
3
15
30
1
4
4
24
20
60
4
24
23
6
24
Presubmission Total
Time Each Staff
Hours
0.6
3.6
7.0
0
0
0
60
4.6
14.3
1.0
6.0
5.6
0
t
0
3.6
18.6
37.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
30.0
24.6
74.3
5.0
30.0
28.6
6.0
24.0
Grand Revenues
Total At $15/Hr
Time (Hrs)
3.6
18.6
37.0
27.0
24.0
16.0
30.0
196.8
520.1
15.0
60.0
85.8
180.0
120.0
1333.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54
279
555
405
360
240
450
2,952
7,802
225
900
1,287
2,700
1,800
o
u
-3-
No. Permits Average
in 1 Year Staff Time
Each
Structure Relocation
Tentative Map
1-25 units or lots
26-100 units or lots
101 or more units or
lots
Tentative Map Extension
Tentative Map Revision
1-25 Units or lots
26-100 units or lots
101 or more units or
lots
Variance
Single Family
Other
Zone Code Amendment
Zone Change
3
14
9
12
1
1
1
2
8
25
20
8
29
42
72
18
30
42
23
23
40
36
Presubmission Total
Time Each Staff
Hours
0 8.0
7.0 36.0
10.3 52.3
17.6 89.6
4.3 22.3
7.0 37.0
10.3 52.3
5.6 28.6
5.6 28.6
0 40.0
8.6 44.6
Grand Revenues
Total At $15/Hr
Time (Hrs)
24.0
504.0
470.0
1075.2
22.3
37.0
52.3
57.2
228.8
1000.0
892.0
$
$ 7
$ 7
$16
$
$
$
$
$ 3
$15
$13
360
,560
,061
,128
335
555
785
858
,432
,000
,380
o
C }
96 4363.5
-4-
No. Permits Average Presubmission Total Grand Revenues
in 1 Year Staff Time Time Each Staff Total At $15/Hr
Each Hours Time (Hrs)
City Managers Conditional
Use Permit
Sign Program
Redevelopment Permit
5
5
30
3
3
20
0
0
0
5.0
5.0
20.0
40
15.0 $ 225
25.0 $ 375
600.0 $ 9,000
640
GRAND TOTAL 479 12,481.7
-5-
Major Fee Schedules for San Diego County Region as of September 1983
KHUUNGFHSIPCtUMTCOST)
SCrvK* IMPACT FU]
(PER UNIT COST)
SCHOOl FEES
SEWER CONNECTION FEES
.VmtCONMnOMHB, . .
"MELlCr ILL
PUNNING PICS/OTHBI
(COST Kl AWUOUION)
ttZOM. ... . .. . ____ .
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
GENERAL PtAN AMENDMENTn*TAHWPAKBu«r _ . . ..
HNALPAKCLMAP
GRADING INSPECTION
.BUNTU.^^, ...aj_,
SO UNITS
.W.UNJtt . .,
ENGlNEEItING * INSPECTION
.UUMB. _...
SO UNITS
PUNNING MAJOI SUMMVISION FBS
TENTATIVE MAP
FINAL MAP
U1MTS.I. ,
SO UNITS
DESIGN RE VIEW
JtlONOT-,.,.
50 UNITS
SITE PLAN REVIEW
MI*«TS .. ...
SO UNITS
.ENVWtONMENTAl INITIAL
STUDIES
IHUNTTS ..._ _____
M UNITS
WUMTS ,
EIR PROCESSING
IOUMTS ..... _..
50 UNITS
«•—
M4tat
.. »4«...
1?
"'-•-*•-•
A
I500-33&C
. J*/A
0-4500/AC
1*00
1000-1500
435-1020 ..fl
500
200
400
200»S/tOT
300
100
157
525
1050
30 .
170
27$
500
750
1000
120
700
$00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N'A
N/A
100
100
100
300 1 COST
300 -COST
3DOtCOST
CHULA
VBtt
VI
353
...... «t .
12
3*
300
750350
F
0
$00
G
H
n/o
10QU
lOOOd
7$0d
2000d
*OM
'
750d
4QOOd
*$OU
J
i
- ••'
0
0
0
MOM
MGOOd
2200U
N/A
N/A
N/A
AO
AO
AO
40M
400d
40W
25000
?500d
TSOOd
COtONAOO
7*1
433
40
30
to
. N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
850
N/Au
1030
530
$30
1030
730
330
1*9
745
H75
L
L
I
1530
1530
1530
430
430
430
150
150
150
N/A
N/A
N/A
2*5
765
2*S
1015
1015
1015
Ml MAI
270
431
50
30
SO
AC
n/a
N/A
N/A
N/A
191-592
N/A
AH
1000
N/A
200400
1000
Alloo/ior
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
AJ
AK
AK
AK
Al
AL
AL
75-250
75 250
75-250
100-1000
1001000
100-1000
250
250
250
MO*
500-
500*
1 aCAJON
174
2*7
31
13
, »
300
M
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
H
N/A
102-150
50
50
250
200*2/tOT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
«*75
3*450
114J50
220
300
*00
350
550
1300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50
50
$0
150
150
150
ESCOMPIOO
2*2
433
45
1*
40
, $$0
432
300
1270 5125
450
2300
1500
N/A
530 200
530-2025
370
530
370 200
ISOps
1350
13500
3712$
*4$0
74300
7*500
745
1145
IMS
I50pt
150pi
ISOp.
N/A
N/A
N/A
ISO
150
ISO
270
N/A
N/A
890
890
A£
IMKJHAtUACH
2*1
433
30
9
2*
200
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
70
N/A
N/A
*IO/AC
700
350
350
-25AOT
400
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
400
1275
1775
550
1550
5300
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100
100
100too
100
N
N
N
LAMfSA
2*2
433
35.
25
32
250
n/o
N/A
f
N/A
600
H
N/A
400
N/A
ISO
300
22S+25/IOT
250
400
800
2300
1000
3000
10500
AF
AF
150
.50
ISO
125
175
125
400
400
400
IEMONdove
2*1
433
30
9
2*
200
n/o
n/a
n/o
n/a
n/a
H
N/A
300+8/AC
H
37$
T
225*25/101
*00d
10*0
12*0
1240
AB
Afl
Al
390
640
990
2500-*000d
2500-400CM
2500-*000d
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
125
175
125
AQ
AQ
AQ
NATION*
CITY
2*1
433
30
28
25
125
450
N/A
75
N/A
1545
175
N/A
250
100
100
ISO
17$
700
V
V
V
ww
w
17$
175
17$
X
X
1
N/A
N/A
25
25
2$
SO
50
50
200
200
200
A
OCCANSH»
23*
461
AM
AM
AM
517-970
1000 1650
AN
l375-7?46ox
N/A
1000
$00
1.2%
1100-2200
15007500
MO
30004700
!80*tO/tOT
400 '3SAOT
1*$*12410
3123$
1)450
39750
100000
700
3500
14000
750
7150
7400
$50
900
900
N/A
N'A
N/A
400
400
400
3400
3400
3400
POMMY
273
420
40-45
24
32
792
5140
4*0
950 1570
N/A
15002500
100-8*5
N/A
1400
225
275-1*00
1000
$00
300p»
75U
ISOOd
4SOOd
**50d
24250J
*4000d
1*50
1450
1*50
300d
300d
300d
22$
225
22$
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
!00
100
COST*20%
COS! -TO".
CO$Tr»%
DKGO
CITY
23*
347
$3
39
S3
200
1832
I
2
Z
100
1200
1850
37$
1500
700
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
1500
1500
tSOQ
AA
AA
AA
N>A
N/A
200
700
200
TOM
''00.1
TOOd
TOOOd
2000d
TOOOd
OIECO
COUNTY
270
431
$0
30
SO
200
04000
N/A
0 4600
N/A
0 1500
H
N/A
1400
)700d
1700d
950
700
6004
*00d
600d
*00d
A*AS
AB
2050d
2050d
205M
lOOOd
IWOd
l*00d
N'A
N/A
250
250
250
390
390
390
2500-6000d
2500hOOOd
2500-AOOOd
SAN
MAICOS
24*
382
44
II
34
2*0
1584
350/1 OT
N/A
n-o
n/a
N/A
500-1000
350
200
500 1000
300
478
12)0
2250
•870
33150
104550
600
2100
3*00
270
550
2550
N/A
70
JO
20
100
100
100
500.1000
500 tOOU
500-1000
SANTU
281
440
32
30
32
200
1488
N/A
541
N/A
1643
933
N'A
1400
1/OOd
ITOOd
3000
550
550
lOOOd
ITOOd
I200d
AB
AB
AB
20SOd
TOSOd
2050d
600
1000
2500
N'A
N/A
225
271)
225
315
315
315
2500
2500
2500
VISTA
248
382
35
35
30
H 3 /ROOM
1450
471
i:i3V 2906
121
lobti
1000
N-'A
700
140
700
1310
53*
N/A
493
1829
3509
AQ
AQ
AQ
500
780
19*0
235
375
975
N/A
N/A
531
531
531
185
I8<>
185
COST* 10%
CO-if • 10".
COST* 10%
« SIABIJIIDtR OECEMBtB 198:1
ENCLOSURE 3
FOOTNOTES:
N/A= NOT APPLICABLE.
n/J= NOTAVAIIAIIIE
ct - ESTIMATED COST
j - DEPOSIT
p» -- PERSHEETA « PARK FEES IN CARLSBAD ARE J-KK, SIIH/CNITFOR
MOBILE HOMES; Hl«-SH«/l:Nn H>K
Ml II.TI FAMILY UW EIJJNCiS: flH-HMI/l INIT
FORSFD
B = HECAI'SE THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE SCHOOL
IMSTRH.TS IN CARLSBAD TlIE S< IKMII FEES HAVE
A WIIM- RANGE: Till- KAM.t FOR MI'll I-FAMII.Y
L>W ELUNG UNITS IS *6«M <.W,2; THE SINC.I E
FAMILY RAN<.t IS iI WVW4
C - < AKI.%BAI>P1!I>4<)HI>.SMNIIMS5M) t
il/|iNIT. SOU MORE UMTS LH »->CKI (- SVt NIT
l> = < AHI-SBADHNALMAPCOSTSARKIMII DEOIN
THE ABOVE ENGINEERING FEES.
E = SCHOOL FEES IN CHI LA VISTA ARE IJ VIED BY
THE CllliLA VISTA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
THE SWEETWATER UNION UK.II SCHOOL
DISTRICT
F - CHULA VISTA HAS ONE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
WHICH A PORTION OFTHECITY WOULD
CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS
(i * THERE IS A SEWER CONNECTION FEE IN CHIILA
VISTA IF THE LOT LS WITHIN A SEW ER REPAYMENT
DISTRICT. THE FEE AMOIM VARIES.
Service and the People behind M...
tnal's what Catilomia Meier Servicewas butt on.
When you deal with HM MO M you know thai on* can
assures you ol l*si and courteous servic* mwntenanc*of your laundry room equipnwni And you also know matour representatives m key Cablorma cities are available
to help solve any laundry canter problems, trom planning
to remodeftng to installation tIG M wiH keep yourlaundry room equipment m lop running order, servicedby experienced personnel through a statewide network
of radio-dispaicned vencies
The toad belongs to ttte washer-eky*, net en your backl279-1234
9MS Awo Dciv*SanO,«9o. CA92I23
II = IIK)MAiSVVAKIAIHKM>HIN IKANMIION
I -= FEKSFOK THESE HKtH ESSES ARE IIASI.I> ON Till:
ACTI'AI DIRECT SAI.\KY <:OS1H.ISW«.
OVERHFAI)
J = THE FEES FOR IM.IM KKIM. AND I.VM-I < HON
AKE IM.I.I 'OE1> IN THE FINAL MAF FEES
k » ACTI'AI. CONSIL'IANT COST Is AOI)lvl>IO Till:
BASE CIIAKI.E OF DIRECTSAUKIES p| |:s run.I. * EM.INF:I:RIM.A\I>INSPI:C'IIONSAKI:<:<)VERF:I>
IN HIE (.KADINl. AMI INSPECTION FEES
M - VARIES IN APPLICATION ANI> AMOI NT NOT
NORMAU.Y <:OLI>:CTEI> IINI.ESS REIjl<IREI> BY
AN I I K
N = IMPERIAL BEACH I SES INITIAL Ml I>V FEE AM)
REOI IRES APPIJCANT TO SI IBMIT E LR
F - IMVELOPERIIASTOINS'IALI.ORIIASTO(.1 IARANTEF: BY LIEN AI.REE.MEN I FOR n 11 KI:
INSTALIAITON
g - SEE FEES H>R SI1E PUN REVIEW. TENTATIVE AND
FINAL MAPS.
K = IA MESA'S ENI.INEERIN<i AND INSPI-) Ml >N FEES
ARE A.S Ft>l.l.l>WS: INSPEi III)N FEE. iIIKI
MINIMI 'M < >R 2 .<".. < >F KM .INI IK S ESI I.MATF:
PI-«N CHECK FEE ISON A M.IDIM. M Al i: FROM
> imi FOR ENGINEER S ES'HMAIES (IF «l 2.IKKI II)
»2"> FOK ESTIMATED WORK OF il2.UHU-2U.OUH.
F-S1'IMAI>:|> WORK OF MORE THAN S2O.IKXI Is
iV., OF ESTIMATE.
S - IA MKSA'NE I.KPKOltSMM, fEI, l> S^HIHI.I^
CONSULTANTS FEES PER CONTRACT
KSTABLLSIIEU FOR EACH PHOJIil I
T - LEMON l.ROVEX.INKHAI PIAN AMENDMENT
FEE IS S.KMIP1.IIS A MINIMUM DEPOSIT OF SI.(KM).
I = >iilH)Pt:KI.Nir APPLIIuM)NIYTOPKO|i:CISOI
3OI;Nll'SORMi>RE.v « pi KI:BI: SECTION-u
U' s MINIMIIMOF SIOPI-l'S «.lno\'ER 2V.
\ = FEES ARE CHARGED ONLY FOR SUBDIVISIONS
AND FOR PARC! I MAPS « Illl S I'NITSOK MORE
THE AC m 'Al. TIME SPENT ON FINAL MAP PRIX KSS
(INCU DINI. CONSTRI K.TION INSPFX: I ION I IS
CHAHI.ED TO DEVELOPER. A 5".. OF PTBI.IC
IMPROVEMEN1<:OSI IS DEPOSITED WITH
THE CUT TO COVER THIS Al SI I1MITTAI. OF
FINAL MAP
Y = C.HADIM. PLAN <:|IE<:K LM>NE ICAH'l II- PERMIIEFF:pi.i's«>/i.iHK)«:r YDS TO IIXIIMMU i U)sAND $i/i.iKKicr. YDS. THERI-:AI-'I I-R
/. = FEE Is AS ESTABLISHED IN THE CUT'S CAI'ILAI
IMPROVEMENT III IM,IT
AA = LAND DEVI-LI IPMI M AND IMPRl >M MINI ARC
IN( UDED.XSPAK'FOFsrHDIVIMON I-LE BASED
ON ESIIMAIE OF I AND DIAELOPMEM AND
IMPROVEMENT WORK C:O.MBIM:D IEI S IOK HIE
THREE DI-AEIOPMENI KXAMHIJ-S VIOl 11) III::
(A> $~.5HI>:|B) AIV.*J«>tl;|C:) SiS.tHH)
AH ~ $MMI DEPOSIT(APPI.K ANTTSIIIIII-DI-OK
AC II U«>M ) INSPI < III>N 11.1 S AHi: •>••„ C>l I III
C :OS I I IF I.MPKC )VEMIM>
AC • TIIIMLEISC HAHC.EDONIA FOR C.CIMKISOR
SPI:( IAI PROU:C:IN
All- SIIIISM AN* E FEE Pll S S IVIIN II.CIRII&1,1 ITER. S«I/DRIM:»A\ AND suvso i r
SIDI«\lk
AE =• c:OSTPII S V,. 01 < ONM I IANI H>R( IIMKAl I
ADMINISTRATION
AF = RANC.E SIIHt-iJ'SI NDI:H SJII IKK): OVER
i2UUUII I V.. 01 IM. IMI RSI VI IMAM
AC. « DEL MAK'MC INS I Rl CTION LICENSE TAX (PARK
I-EE I IS > « PFH St^ll ARE H M >T I >N ALL NEW
CONSTKLC.TTON
All - Till: MELLO HILL C IIARdF IN DEI. MAR Is
SJ.mKI/l Nil C >R S2IMHHI \ 1C I IAI. I M l>
Kl l.ll IRED II > BE SET ASIDE
Al '- Dl I. MAR'S TE.VLYIIYI PARCEL MAPCIIAKC. Els
S^IHI PI I 'S S MHI PER |.l IT. M ) I II I EXCEED i I S1HI
PI R MAPAj ~ PERMIT FEES ARE SSU.1MI; INSPEC:'FIONS ANDI:NI.IM*:RINC. ARE PROVIDED I'NDER PRIVATECONIR.U:) AND KH.H IKI THE API'I.ICAN I 1C)
PI is I A III PI >M I 1C I C OVER Illl ESTIMATE OF
I'lll: ITT.I.A.VIOI NT TO HE BILLED
AK = TENTAHVE MAPS FOR CONDOMINII MS.STCM K
C :i M IPERA'ITVES OR c:c >MMI NI'IT APAH FMEN'CS.
INCT.I DINC. C :c >NVERSH >NS ARE S5CK) Pl.ls
S2 VI 'NI'F. NC »T II I EXC :EED * I .MHI PER 1:1 > T:
'lEM'A'I'IVE MAPS FOR ALL OTHERS ARE SSIKI.
Pl.l S >IINIPERI.O'L. NC>rTOE\c:EED ^I.^CKIPER
MAP.AL = FINAI.MAPSFORC:ONIH>MINUMS.STCM:KC:CM>PERATTVES OR COM.MI NII1 APARTMENT
ARE itIKIPII S SiVt NIT.NOI TO EXCEED il.KRI
PER MAP: FINAL MAPS FOR ALL OTHERS ARE SHMI
PER LOT. NOT TO EXCEED SI, Soil PER MAP
AM - PI IMBINC;. MECHANICAL &EI.ECTRIf:.AI. PERMIT
H>S ARE INI 1 1 DEI) IN HIE Bl II DINI. PERMIT
FEEINCIC.EANSIDE
AN " S Id PER TRIP SINGLE FAMILY III TRIP PER
MONTH.
AO - INCORPORATED IN HI III.DING PERMIT PI-\N
CHECK FEE.
AP * PREPARATION COST PI IS III",. FOR CTI\ REVIEW
ACt = SMI" ^CIPII'S >.»",. OFFNC.INEI:RSC:oST
ESTIMAIT-FOK PI BI.1C WORKS CXINSFRIC.TTON.
INMEMORIUM
DickB-RMch
AvgustZI, IVU
ltl-\ I \UlllLs II S tlHKl4*k-lU
Unnl> i* l>kk 11 Kii^li. ulm \
HI a IttMiiiiK .K ink-ill while IMI
iripji I A. l>.i«tll
l>uk i4»iiifU HIA in I<W> MTv
tlu Hoard ni |)iri'iu»r>. and was
Jtai ol ilu- Itoniktl lU-gtMi-rtil K
i-k-n. CUMiti.il in I'>-.V HK tinn. l>kk H
iMriHiHin. wo* j highly n
iihHk-Mng cimtrj«.iMt)t t»nn
, 1983
Ik- i vd hy IIM wile IUIH
InVVbrkers'Corrp
the difference is service.
Those mm-is EH.
•MM tout AM UMNMIte M IMI !»••» CeOUF *O«MKV
COMMHMIMM PeoCMM. 1OU AM *MUMD Of mi (Mitt
H*>N.t A*MI*eU. *im IMCMtAll M < OMP .
EBIGOMmNIES
125
K«.vnoltl> liis MHI in M%\ is curroiilv Minur\ ,,t tin II I A
jiiil (irrMikiii i>l ilu ( iiMiiin IttnKUrs JIK! HriiiiHUUrs
\l
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 (619)729-5924
27 October ]983
Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Frank,
A subcommittee of the Chamber's Growth Management Committee has reviewed
the proposed amendments to the Land Use Department's schedule of planning
fees. The Committee has appreciated the professional and precise present-
ation made by Joe Eggleston and Mike Holzm.iller. During the deliberations,
the Committee has made specific recommendations to these staff members on
particular fees and, in some cases, suggested that the proposed increase
may not be appropriate.
Recording and analysing the actual time the Land Use Department spends on
its various tasks seems like a reasonable basis for setting fees. Also,
attempting to recover the anproximately 50% of denartnient' s time that is
actually used in these tasks does seem reasonable.
We have been informed that Jim Elliot has submitted a "Request for Proposal"
for the development of a cost allocation plan that will provide data on
other departments similar to that developed by Land Use Planning. We
would like to offer several suggestions. Any future study should incorpor-
ate the data developed by Land Use Planning. Carlsbad should work with data
reflecting its own operation and not try to use the experience of other
municipalities. The Coucil should set policy for the percentage of each
department's total budget that would be recovered through fees for -4-s
services.
The Chamber would appreciate the opportunity to review the results of any
future consultant recommendations prior to presentation and actir by the
Council. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City statf in
this manner, where our input can be made in an informal way. It is our
wish that our comments will be of assistance in meeting the goals of these
studies.
Sincerely,UO^*;4:;M 'x •"£ v*^ ' ' ' — ~/t
Michael Straub, President John McCoy, Chairm^ii, Growth Mgmt.
L/ ' 'cc: Frank Mannen, Joe Eggleston, Jim Elliott, Mike Holzmiller, Marty Orenyak,
Mayor Mary Casler
cjm
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - OF " ELM AVENUF AT OLD SANTA FE DEPOT
Carlsbad Journal
Decreed a Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
3138 ROOSEVELT ST. • P.O. BOX 248 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • 729-2345
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation,
published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers, and which newspaper has been established and published at regular intervals in the said
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one year
next preceding the date of publication of the
notice hereinafter referred to; and that the notice
of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
-nrr—r— - February. 3 1984.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
19.
19
19
CJWa*r«bnuuy«,UM
19,
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California on the 8th
day of February 1
a*** VN ^ Clerk of the Printer