Loading...
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