CC RES 1988-017RI.ESOLUTION NO. 88-17
A RESOLUTION C.)F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (._",ITY RANr%...'HO PALOS
VERDES ADOPTI.IENG A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION FEES; IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVI(."_.ES.
WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Services proposes 7--.0
change the Plann_Lng Division application fees from a trust deposit
system to flat fees.
WHEREAS, a '.Public Hear.-ALng was noticed and 1`%..e_1.d on MarC-:h 1-5.
.-T Cy
1988, at which time the public was given opportunit to give
testimony regarding the proposed fee structure as required 'in
-Section 54992 of Chapter 1."3 of the California Government Codet
I
WHEREAS, the Department of EnvJ.-ronmental Services proposes to
adjust the fee rates and implement.. new fees for administrative
processing.
WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental services has
reviewed. and, Caner aged present fees collected under the r-c-urrent
trust deposit system.
WHEREAS, the Depart ment of Environmental Services h.1-1s
� %,�- A.A.
astab-li.shed S>uch fees c1lompair -able tko tho;se fees --ollected f -rom
k.,)%.her. cities as de,�C-a-li-led in the 1987 South Pasadena Planning Fee
% - -r
L.L.L 1' �--
NOW, T HEREFORE, THE C47-TY '.-_1.0UNkC.IL OF THE %--_-.ITLY OF RANC-PHO PALO ► S r OLLOWS:
"VERDES DOES HEREBY FII-41). DET ,MINE AND RESOLVE i 7,
Sec t.ion 1.- That the proposi_--d c-t1hange to Elat fee scheduie
Would improve departmental operations for both the Pianning
Division and the Finance Department by eliminating time- consuming
.I -T a I -ings and poor ree.7ordS management.
account,ing, subseqkA...nt f inal b' li
Ser'.41tion 2: That the proposed fee schedule does include new
application fees for the processing of admin.-L''s-itrCative func4t 1 o n;s
which have not been -previously leviie--d.
.1. -A
Section 3: That the proposed fee rates would be consistent
with the true average costs of pro-Cessing Planning Division
applications and are therefore considered reasonable.
-es are comparable to
- That the proposed feel, rat
Se ction 4.
Planning fees collected +.:,.L-om other communities azs -averaged in the
i
1987 South Pasadena P.1anning Fee Sul_-vey.
i the %.-
for he foregoing reasons the City Coun%-.'-.JL1
,aecton 5- Th
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby granter approval of a new
Iq
fee schedule for the Planning Division as detailed in the attached
Exhibit "A".
APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 1988.
City C-ler k
te of California
CYinty of Los Angeles ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of
RC-Lncho Palos Verde,-,.-,, hereby certify that the above Resolution No.
38-17was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of
Marc., 1988.
CITY CIA 9K, CITY OF RANCHO ALO VERDES
- 2 - Resol. 88-17
PROPOSED PLANNING
FEE SCHEDULE
MINOR-APPLICATIONS
PROPOSED FEES
(Previous)
Certificate of Compliance
$150 +$10 /lot
(155 +8 /lot)
Coastal Permit, Hearings Officer
Appealable
145
(115 )
Non - Appealable
$ 65
( 65)
Geology Investigation Permit
$100
(200 TD)
Geology Report Review Deposit
$600 TD
(200 TD)
Grading
20 to 50 c /yds.
$ 75
( 60)
51 to 999
$150
(140)
*1,000 to 9,999 or P.C. approval
req'd $235
(260)
*10,000 to 99,999
$335
(new)
* >100,000
$435
(new)
*Considered a major application
Large Family Day Care
$145
(105)
Lot Line Adjustments
$150 +$10 /lot
(155 +8 /lot)
Miscellaneous Hearing
$145
(100 TD)
Parking Lot Permit - Permanent
$145
(140)
- Temporary
$ 65
(105)
Reversion to Acreage
$235 +$10 lot
(235 +$3 /lot)
Sign Permit - Permanent $145
+$5 add'l sign
(95 +5 add11)
- Temporary $
65
(45 +5 add11)
Site Plan Review
$ 60
( 60)
Site Plan Review Accessory /Addition
$ 35
( 35)
Resolution 88 -17
- 3 -
Minor Applications (Continued)
MINOR APPLICATIONS PROPOSED FEES (Previous)
Spec is 1 Animal Permit - Major $145 (18 5 )
Minor $100 ( 95)
Special Construction Permit $ 60 ( 15)
Special Use Permit $235 (185 )
NEW
Use Determination $ 75 (new)
Written Correspondence $ 35 (new)
Lending and Escrow Institutions
Appeal for Minor Applications $135 (various)
Penalty Associated with a Minor (double (same)
Application flat f ee )
Pre - application Plan Review $ 75 (new)
Stamping of more than ( 3 ) approved plans $ 25 (new)
per set
Time Extension $100 ( 70)
Resolution 88 -17
4 -
PROPOSED PLANNING
FEE SCHEDULE
MAJOR APPLICATIONS
Coastal Permit, Planning Commission
Appealable
Non - Appealable
Coastal Plan Amendment
Coastal Plan Amendment Request
Conditional Use Permit
Encroachment Permit
Environmental Assessment (Negative
Declaration)
Environmental Impact Report
Extreme Slope Permit
General Plan Amendment
PROPOSED FEES (Existing)
235 ( 65 )
$145 ( 65)
$800
(300 TD)
$100
( 70)
$600
(500 TD)
$145
(100 TD)
$200
(215)
$1,000 (800 TD)
plus contract cost
$305 (400)
$800 (300 TD)
General Plan Amendment Request $100 ( 70)
General Plan /Zone Change /Coastal Plan $1000 (600 TD)
Amendment
Height Variation $305 (210)
Minor Exception Permit $145 (140 )
Moratorium Exclusion $400 (500 TD)
Moratorium Exemption Request $235 (120)
Resolution 88 -17
5 -
MAJOR APPLICATIONS
Tract and Vesting Maps - Tentative
- Final *
Parcel Map - Tentative
Final *
Variance
Zone Change
Amendments/Revisions for Major
Applications
PROPOSED FEES (Existing)
$2500
(2000
TD)
$1000
( 500
TD)
$1000
(1000
TD)
$ 500
( 200
TD)
$ 400
( 300
TD)
$ 600
( 400
TD)
$ 145
(various)
Appeals for Major Applications $ 235 (various )
Penalty associated with Double (same)
a Major Application Flat Fee
Time Extension $ 100 ( 70)
* Plus the cost of City Attorney review of CC & R's.
Resolution 88 -17
- 6 -
TYPE STATUS YEAR
CUP - Amend
CUP - Revised
Cup - Appeal
Act-1ve Files 187
CUP
CUP - Revised
m I
i
CUP - Appe a
Closed
GP/ZC
Active
GP #15
Z c +115
"T
I
closed
GIP
I
EX'.r.ST1N,'t'13 TRUST DEPOSIT
AVERAGE COST ANALYSIS
Files 185
(#151 #14)
Files
& #
FileS 182-186
b
Active Flies 183
GIP
C."..losed Files 184-"86
GRR (a)
I
DEPOSIT AVERAGE *%-..'OST.
AMOUNT OF APPLTCATION
.A-
6696 = $515
13
1073 = X178
6
749 = $187
4
720 =
$ 762u
1
100 =
'42. 0 0
3
1694 $105
2765 = $34-'5
8
Resol. 88-17
DEPOSIT AVERAGE COST
AMOUNT OF APPLICATION
Active Files 187
GRR
1,9)
200
5262
$584
Closed Files
182-186
H.V. Appeal
(8)
200
1649
$206
8
Act..L've Files
187
H.V. Appeal
(6)
200
1378 =
$229
6
-,'Nlosed Files
184-187
Env. Assess. Appeal
(1)
")00
$283
MEP
(2)
500
319
$166
100
12
Misc. Hearing
(17)
100
975
$ 57
17
Active Files
186-187
disc. isc. Hearing
(7)
100
1765
$252
7
Closed Files
180-186
Pa'],.-cel Maps
Tentative
1000
1258
$419
3
Final
200
281 =
$140.50
2
Appeal
200
$200
Par.cel Maps
Active
none entered
C.1os 'hie d File.-s
183-186
rl"rac".: Maps
Tentative
(b)
2000
14689
$2448
6
F JL n a 1
(2)
500
745
$ 372.50
2
-8-
Resol.
88-17
DEPOSIT AVERAIC34E [ClOST
AMOUNT I OF APPLICATION
Active Files
1.37
*312
200
2833
2, 0 0
Tract Maps
200
200
200
200
*_100
4"
Irentative
2000
$2572
Final.
500
1713
$
856
2-
Clo;sed Files
Variance
(15)
300
2478
$
202
Appeal
(7)
400
868
= $
124
7
Active Files
Variance
(10)
300
3706
$
371
10
-Appeal
(1)
200
$
200
Appealls:
APPEALS
1. Conditional Use Permits
2. Environmental Assessment
Height Variation
4. Parcel Maps
5. Variance
Average
ACtUC-Ll ("..oStS
Deposit
Amount
*312
200
2833
2, 0 0
229
200
200
200
200
*_100
4"
1224 244.8
5
Average costs of all appeals $2.145/existing deposit -amt. $t200
-9- Resol. 88-17