My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
19
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
061615
>
19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 11:53:05 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 4:14:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/16/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Division <br /> The Planning Division processes all zoning and land use applications in the City; <br /> prepares, oversees and reviews all special studies associated with long-range land use <br /> objectives and entitlements; works with residents, businesses and the development <br /> community to facilitate the review of new projects; and supports the City Council and the <br /> Planning Commission. The total budgeted cost of planning services related to private <br /> development and fee related activities in 2014/15FY is $2,012,313. Currently, the City <br /> recovers 9.5% ($144,515) of these costs; therefore, the annual General Fund subsidy is <br /> approximately $1,867,798. Few cities in California subsidize development fees to such <br /> a level and most cities seek a cost recovery level in the range of 75% to 100% for <br /> planning related services. Staff felt that given that the planning fees are so low it would <br /> not be practical for the City to try and reach these cost recovery levels immediately. <br /> Instead, the Study recommends a 25% cost recovery level ($503,078). <br /> One comment staff received from the business community in 2011 was the potential <br /> burden of an increase in planning fees at the initial stages of a project. They proposed a <br /> lower recovery rate during the planning stage; deferring a majority of the cost to the <br /> building permit stage when projects have financing. Therefore, staff has included 36% <br /> of the cost of planning services in the development of the building permit cost recovery <br /> rate. This results in the cost recovery rate for planning to increase from its <br /> recommended level of 25% to 61%; 25% coming from the planning phase and 36% <br /> from the building permit phase of a project's development. This further reduces the <br /> annual General Fund subsidy for Planning by $724,433. <br /> The cities of Fremont and Walnut Creek have a 15% surcharge on all building permit <br /> fees to offset a portion of the Planning Department fees. Our proposed 36% offset by <br /> the Building Department of Planning fees is equivalent to a 16.98% surcharge on <br /> building permit fees. However, in all cases our proposed fees with the surcharge <br /> included are lower than Fremont's and Walnut Creek's building fees without their <br /> surcharge included (see the Building and Safety Division Fee Comparison Chart <br /> herein). <br /> Two additional comments were received in 2015 from the Council and the Chamber of <br /> Commerce regarding the fees. The first one was regarding the proposed Conditional <br /> Use Permit of $3,000. It was felt that this was an appropriate amount to charge when <br /> the applicant's use is reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. <br /> However, there should be a lower fee for circumstances where the use is an <br /> administrative review by staff only. The fee schedule now includes a proposed <br /> administrative conditional use permit fee of $750. It should be noted that for staff to <br /> implement this fee it will require an update of the City's zoning code. <br /> The second comment was regarding appeals. The appeal fee is proposed to increase to <br /> $250. The proposal is to allow appeal fees to be refunded upon a successful appeal by <br /> the applicant. The fee schedule has been updated to include a proposed full refund of <br /> the appeal fee upon a successful appeal. <br /> Page 4 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.