AgdaPkt 2006-05-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 3 is over $5,200. The Finance Committee felt that to charge the full costs for appeals would restrict the right to appeal. The Finance Committee decided that a deposit was more appropriate than a fee in a variety of cases. In such cases the applicant will pay an initial deposit; and if the cost for staff time exceeds the initial deposit, the applicant will provide additional funds. At the end of the review process, unused funds will be returned to the applicant. In the chart above, the proposed deposits are left unshaded, the proposed fees are$hàêÍèd. The Finance Committee also recommended some new permits and processes and their associated charges. These new items are grouped at the end of the list of permits and charges in the recommendation; and they are explained in more detail later in this report. A brief explanation of the role of all planning permits is provided in Attachment 3 to this report. Background The City adopted Resolution No. 6882 in April 1973, establishing, among other things, a fee schedule for evaluation of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City adopted Resolution No. 11333 in July 1990, amending fees and charges for planning permits. These are shown in the central column of the above chart as "Current Fees and Charges". These fees and charges remained unchanged from 1990 until 2004. In September 2004 the City Council approved Resolution 14609 establishing the Planning Cost Recovery Program, a system of deposits for projects with sites of one-quarter acre or larger in size. No change was made for permits for smaller sites -- the 1990 charges still pertained. Council asked staff to return later with proposals for adjustments to the fees and charges for these smaller sites. In January 2005 Council adopted Resolution No. 14622, amending the Cost Recovery Program to exempt single family home additions or alterations, and construction of single family homes not part of larger subdivisions or development, on lots of one quarter acre or more. Staff worked with the Coro Fellows to examine all City fees and charges during 2005. The Coro Fellows concluded that Redwood City's fees and charges were low when compared with our surrounding cities. Of the seven types of development tested by the Cora Fellows, Redwood City's fees were the lowest of the sample cities in three of the seven cases. More recent data indicates that Redwood City's fees have slipped further relative to the sample cities2. Review by the Council Finance Committee On March 6 and March 20, 2006, the Council Finance Committee met to review staffs recommendations on fees and charges for projects smaller than one-quarter acre. 2 Update of 2005 Fee Study Conducted by Coro Fellows, presented in memo form from Joan ChapJìck, Project Manager with Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc., to Gary Hover, dated March 7, 2006. The sample cities used by the Cora Fellows were Daly City, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, San Leandro, San Mateo and Sunnyvale. 3