The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0426.093• ~, • • '!:,'" I,"';::' July 29, 1993 HONORASLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto. California Continued Use o£ Temporary Professional Plann~rBi FUll 'cat Recovery Program Members of the Council: R!!J?Qrt in Brief This report recommends City Council approval of a budget amendment ordinanc~ to fund continued use of temporary professional planners. These temporary professionals will assist in pr.ocessing majoT Planning Division applications~ while the Comprehensive Plan and other major development entitlements are in progress~ In addition, temporary professional planners will assume other Division assi~~ts, e.g_, preparing a mitigation monitoring ordinance and a package cf periodic zoning orQinance text amendments that would traditionally have been assigned to staff who are now working on full cost recovery applications. The use of temporary professional planners will a8sur~ continued maintanance of satisfactory custumer service levels for all Planning D~viBion applicants+ Background OYer the past 10 to 15 years, the Planning DiviSion has regularly USed statf members normally assigned to special studi~s and Comprehensive Plan work to process complex, larger scale development applications (e,g., Stanford Hospital expansion, Sand Hill Road extension, Palo Alto Medical. Poundation expansion, YMCA expansion). The necessity of respondin~ to routine development applications and the time devoted to public contact have meant that st~ff assigned primarily to development monitoring work are not abl~ to devote the large blocks of time necessary to processing unusual larger scale projects. With the 1992 commitment of a large block of staff time to the Comprehensive Plan update (equivalent of 2.5 to 3.0 staff members), it became evident that staff would not be able to respond to large. complex devslopme.o.t applications without additional resources. The 1992-93 City budget instituted loa percent cost recovery fees for Comprehensive plan amendments~ 20ne changes and environmental impact reports. On November 16, 1992, the City Council approved a budget amendment ordinance to fund use of a temporary professional planner to process regular development applications (see attached CMR:5~2:92). Funding for the temporary planner amounted to $46.800; and these funds were CNR:426: 93 anticipated to be fully offset by lees from full c~st recovery projects such as Stanford West and Sand Hill Road. Regular st~ff would work on the Stanford project., and the tempc.rary staff member would work on other full f~e recovery applications and some tasks tha~ would normally have been assigned to the staff 'Working on the Stanfo:x.:'d projects. Temporary planners were to be assigned less complicated projects, in order to assure ~intenance of satisfactory l~vels of se.rvice for all applicants and to micimize Ut'~ of pr-ofe.ssional planners iIl8signed to the Comprehensive Plan for ...... ork on development applications. Current Status ot Temporary P1Ann@re Since council approved funding for temporary professional planners in N?Vember 1992. one profe&sioaal planner wa~ hired on a temporary part time basis. Some of the projects assigned to this pla.I'.ner ir-.cluded the Creekside Inn Motel zone change, 620-640 Page Mill Road zone change, the Hotel Overlay :zone change. 4277 Miranda zone change and the Veterans' Administration Hoapital Enviror~tal Assessment. The ~nefits of having a professional temporary planner process these projects during these past seven months ha .... e been multifold. It assured that the processing of small and medium sized p=ojecte was not deferred. It allowed vork on Stanford West ana Sand Hill Road to be managed by experienced pro£es8iooal planners in the Oepar~ment. It also reliuced, but did Dot elimioate. the need to use soa-.e staff ass.igned to the Comprehensive Plan to work on major development projects. Pees from full cost recovery projects recei~~~ by the Planning Department, since the. funding-of the tempora.ry planner, have amounted to approximately $20 1 000 over the &mount projected i~ the budget for appliCAtions where cost recovery ha.s been implemented (i.e., zone changes, Comprehenaive Plan amendments; environmental impact reports and development agreementa). OUtstanding reve.nue which has yet to be billed amounts to another $40.000~ This outstanding &mOunt, combined vit.h the $20 1 000 collected, exceeds the $46,800 Council approved for the temporary planner by $14,000. R~verl the initial projection of 100 percent cost recovery on a montb-by-month basis hae proven to be too ambitious a goal for this fiscal year. This is due to the lag in hilling for applicable fees. The primary reason for the lag in recovering fees is the Bta~c-up time needed to initiate p~oper billing procedures in a Division which has not traditi.onally performed this function. The Division did not anticipate the resources necessary to set up the billing procedures. and it baa proven to be a task which requires considerable time investment. Once it is est~blished, the overhead cost related to billing will also be asseBsed to the applicant. Also. finding resources in the Division to allocate to this function has been difficult. without the full complement of Planning staff that results from one person being reassigned to work on Bconomic Resource Planning and the amount of Division management time required for Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan, CUrrently, the Finance Department and tM Planning Division are developing a process which includes more regular and timely billings of accounts. 0lR.:426:93 ."-'~~."'" 7/2'/93 Page 2 · } Statf preyiouely stated it lIould periodically return to CC'UI:cil with ~udget &mendment ordinances to fund supplemental professional staff. during ~riods when uee of regular staff for full cost recovery projects would diminish resource. fer other ongoing projects (CMR:5l2:92). The following parag~aphs discuss ongoing and expected supplemental professional staff needs within the Planning Division for the remaining 11 months of this fiscal year. S¥pccted Ope of TgmporAkf ProreeBignal P1Ann'r! The need for temporary professional planners over the next 11-month period will increaee ever the previous funding period. The primary reason for this is the expected receipt this year of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation {PAKF) entitlement applications for thej.r proposed relocation to Urba.n Lane. The PAMP project manager unee:;:stands that timely processing of the anticipated PAMF applicationa will require use of contract staff by the City, and that all costa associated with P~F-related work will be rei~ursed by PAMF. They have asked City staff to develop a City-PAMF a~reement, und~r vhich PAMF will pay for City contract staff time prior to submittal of the Foundation'S development application. This request has been made becilllBe of the importance of pre-app~ication staff work in expediting PAMF'6 future application. PAMF represent$tives have asked that the City's temporary planner be a~ailable in the near future becaUB~ of their desire to coordinate york that they are doing witb City staff work necessary to hire an SIR cOlls'J.ltant team. In working ",dth PAMF's repre8entati~8. staff has identified the need not only for a staff planner resource but also for a contract planner. with considerable managerial and policy-level experience# to act 48 project manager and work directly with the Director of Planning and Communiey Environment. In addition. the full cost recovery Stanford appl!eations for the Sand Hill Road ~ension and Shopping Center Expansion and th~ Stanford Weat Residentia1 project have substantially expanded th~ir scope by adding a community outreach program. In sumrr.ary, supplemental temporary planning a8ai8t~ce will be needed to prepare for and pvocess the PAHF applications; ~d temporary planners will continue to be needed to process small and mid-sized development projects and to complete a number of outstanding required code reviSions. thu~ freeing up a regular ataff position for continued work on the Stanford applications. Recgmmepded Budget and Option for Hiring Temporary PlApners Staff recoamends that ehe equivalent of up to one full-time temporary professional planner be hired for the next 11 months to assume responsibility for planning functions described in the previous paragrapha. The earlier report on this subject stated that fees for experienced professional planners average $60.00 per hour. vithout benefits. Therefore. tunds for a full-time professional plann~r for an l1-month period would amount to $110.000. A contract planner with managerial and cost on tbe order of $120.00 per hour. person will be needed on an average of CMR.:ol2Ei:93 l"\~~. __ policy-level experience will Staff anticipates that this five to ten hours per veek for ./29/9. page 3 nine montbs of the fiscal y~~~. The cost of this person will thua range from $~2.500 to $45,000. The attached budget ordinance contains $35.D~O for this purpose. If the PAMF applications require additional resources 1n 1993-9~~ staff will return to council. Hiring options include: (l) temporary contract personnel; (2) contracting with :incUviduala or firma that would require using the City's Request for Proposal (RPP) process, or (3' hiring professional personnel through a tempor.ary employment agency &nd paying the customary overhead 8ervice fee. As noted, Planning and Finance staff are working out the details of a c~lete ACCounting and billing proce58~ This work. as well as future routine billing procedures. may delay receipt of sOIt.e of the billing's beyond 1993-94. To allov for that contingency within the confines of tbe 1'93-9. budqet~ the attached budget ordinance idenCifiea 75 percent of the costs as coming from revenues abovf= and beyond the adopted 1991-9~ budget and 25 percent ($36 r 250) as a supplement to the 1993-94 P~anniD9 Division budget. Tbe $36.250 is proposed ~o be appropriated from the Budget Stabilization Reserve. Sllm,ry and Conclysign The practice of uaing temporary professional planners ras proven very successful since its imp1ementation in early December 1932. Given the necessary commitment to allocate a significant number of professional planning staff to update the Comprehensive Plan and the magnitude o£ major projects either underway, e.g., StanLord West and Sand Hill Road. or expected in the near future, e.g., ~he Palo Alto Medical Foundation, expanded use of temporary professional planners appears to be the moat effective ~ans to assure the provision of ~ adequate level of service for all development projects processed by the Planning Divia1on. It further assures t~at such projects will be processed ~ a timely manner. Staff recommen~ Chat Council approve the attached budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $1~5,OOO to tund ~he hiring of one full time equivalent supplemental professional planner and one part time (five to ten hour. per week) planning manager for 1993-94~ Respectfully submjtted, b~~ Assistant PI ing Off~cial " KENNETH R. SCHR1UBER Director of Planning and community Environment 7/29/93 Page' Attachment: 9u4get Amendrlent ordinance 0'1"512,92 Related CMRa: OMR:S12:92 cc: Stanford Har..ag'$IUellt company (CUrtls Feeny) St4nford University (David Neuman) Palo ~to Medical Foundation (David JuryJ CMR: "'.26: 93 ~,\_~."'- 7/29/93 page 5 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AllENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 TO PROVIDE AN ADOITJ~NAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE DEPARl'IIEN'1' OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVI RONMENT FOR THB HIRING OF TEXl'ORARY ;>LANNERS ~S, pursuant to the previsions ot section 12 of Article zrI of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 21, 1993 did adopt a budget tor fiscal year 1993-94; and WdEREAS, the Planninq Division regularly provides timely and responsive permit processinq to its customers; and WHEREAS, several aajor application projects are in progress; and WHEREAS, use of temporary professional planners wouid assure maintenance o:t current customer service levels .for all permit applicants; and WE'REAS, fu.."'1ding tor approxiaately seventy five application fee revenues; the temporary planner(s) percent cost recoverable, would be offset by NOW, ~ORE, the council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAnf as :tollows: SECTXQti 1. The sua of one Hundred Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($145,000) is hereby appropriated to contract Services in the Planninq Division of the Planninq and Community Environment Departaent. Application }'.e Income is increased One Hundred Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($108,7501 a!"ld the Budget Stabilization Reserve is r~uced Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($36,250j. SECtION 2. This ~ransaction will reduce the Budget Stabili zation Reserve from $10,846,564 to $10,810,314 as of July 19, 1993. SICTICH 3. The council of the city of Palo Alto hereby finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not a: project. under th!!! California Environmental QUality Act and, therefore, no environmen tal t.pact asses~~ant is necessary. SECTION f. Municipal Code, adoption. As provided in Section 2.04.375 of the Palo Alto this ordinance shall become effective upon AlrES: HOES: ABSrEIITIONS: ABSBIIT: ATTEST: city clerk APPlWVED AS 1'0 FOlIK: Sr. Asat. c! ty Attorney APPROVE!): cIty Manaqer D~rector of Finance 1l1rector of Plannlnq and caa.unity Environaent M'PROVED: Mayor November 12, 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL P.lo Alto, Callforni, Full Cpst Recovery Program: TemPorary prQfes~iQnal PlanneTt Members of the Council: Repgrt lD Bri ef This report recommends City Council appro~al of a budget amendment ordinance to fund the hiring of tfllllpora-ry professional planners., ·who would assist "in processing Planning Division applications during periods when several major full cost recovery projects are in process. Use of temporary professional planners would assure .aintenante of turrent customer service levels for all Planning Division applicants. funding for the temporary planner(s) .ould be fully offset by full cost recovery application fee revenues. Without aSsi5tance, no~al t1~ lines for permit processing will be diffic~lt to achieve and custoaer service jeopardized, or staff reso~rces would need to be shifted fro. the Comprehensive Plan update, dellying that project. Background In an attach~nt to a Jyne 2, 1992 report to the Finance Committee on apprDpriate levels of servic~ in the Planning DiVision (see Attachment 2, from CMR:283:92. of 6i2/92J, the following items were discussed: I) types of project, targeted for full cost recovery fees in the FY 1992-93 .nd 1993-94 budgets; 2) reasons for the full cost recovery fee schedule; and 3).an expl ination of how high levels of ser'v'ice could be provided through tlse of suppleaental professional staff. d~ring periods when .ajar fu11 cost recovery project appl;catlons Jlso were being proc~ssed. This atta,hment f~rther painted out that with t~e fort~coming commit~nt to updat~ the Comprehensive Plan, it would nO longer be possible to borrow Planning O;vision staff assigned ether programs, e.g., the Comprehensive Plan, without i~pacting the time frame for ,ompletin9 the Division/~ ~aj~r work program. C!Jrrent Status of Full Cost Recovery Projects Curr~ntly, the Planning Division nas received fees from four full cost recovery projects, I) the Stanford We,t project and EIR, 2) t_e Sand Hill CltR:512:92 Road extension and Shopping Ceriter e.xpans;on £IP., 3) the Tamarack Court resIdentIal hotel PC zone ch,nge project. and 4) a zone change for , hote' (H) overlay for the Creekside rnn on El Camino Real. In addition. t~e Planning 01ytsion expects to re<eive app1ications from two full cost recovery projects in the week of Nov~aber 9, )9~2, lot 1in~ adjustment and minor zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment requests for sites at 620-640 Page Mill Road and 265D El Caml"o Rea;. The Stanford West project and Sand Hill Road fIR alone are expected to require at least )00 percent Df a Senior Planner's (Planning Division) time for the next year and a half. As a resu1t of this major project being process~d concurrently with tbe COMprehensive Plan, the normal operati~ns of the Planning Divi$~on would at~erwise be severely delayed. Tne s~lution propased with the 1993-94 Budget and Fee Schedule. that wa. endorsed earlier by Council. was to ~ire temporary professional project planners using 100 percent cost recovery fees in order to assure continued high l~vels of customer service for .11 Planning Divfsion applications and related projects. Re~ommended BUdget and Options For Hiring Temporary Planngrs Staff estimates that ,urr~nt and expected full cost recovery projects being processed over the next six months will r~Quire the hiring of a minimum of a three-~~arter5 tlme ~rofessional planner for this six month time fraae, and we aay need to process a~other Budget Amendment Ordinance before six montns haye expIred. (T ... planners also could be hired whese totol time wou1d equal the equivalent of i three-Quarter ti~ staff person.) Tne teaporary planner or planners will be assigned to the less complicated applications, sucn as tne Creekside Inn zone change lnd the lot line adjustment at 610-640 Page "iil Road, and to underfill for planning applications wh'ch would normally be th~ responsibility of the Senior Planner now handling the more d~anding Stanford We.t and Sand HIll Road projects. Current fees for experienced profeSSional planners average S60.00 per hour wlthout benefits. Therefore, funds for such a prqfessiona1 planner{s) for a six month period would amount to $46 1 800. Tbese funds would be entirely reimbursed t~ the City from current and expected full cost recovery projects. Three options are available for hiring a temporary planner. They are I) executing a contract with a firm or indiYidual consistent with tne City's request for proposa.l process (RfP't 2) hiring profe-ss.ional personnel th~~ol1gh a teaporary employment a.genC~t or 3j recruiting and hiring a professional planner as a temporary ~loyee. Staff endDrse~.tne last option because 1) this hirfr.g procedure is most ccst effective in terms of fees (no overhead), 2} it provides flexibility to use such planners only when Planning Division workload requires supple~nta1 staff in order to maintain high service levels , and 3) it requires minl~al reSOUTces in hiring and administering such personn!!'l. Svrnrnary and Conclusion The Cily Council prE\'~ously approved. as part of the Municipal Fee Schedule-, the concept for full cast recovery fees for major planning projects. The CMR;512;92 p: \~I"\contCQSt.CJII!" 11/11/92 Page 1 fln.nce Coomlttee, In Its ~e.lew of the department budget, and the PolIcy .nd Services COidiitet, in i discussion of tte ARB process, also discussed tne importance of aaintlining h;g~ service levels in the processing of III Planning Division flppl1cat1ons and related projects. iTlc1udjng ~!Jrirjg periods when ~or full cast recovery ~rDje(ts could otherwise diminish staff resources. Hiring Dutside pt ~ss;ona' planning personnel during periods of peak workloads has been used etfect1~ely by other Bay Area (ities including 5~nnyyale. Walnut Creek, South San Fra~cisco~ B~lmont and los Altos. Such a process fs re$pons1ve to application fluctuations, assures continued levels of custOMer service and is tost effectiye. Staff r~commend$ to~~til approyal of the attached budget ISOndoent o~inanc. in the amount of S46,BOO and Council authoTizat\on to bire professio~al ~lanner$ on a temporary baSis, to work on bGth full cost ~.co.ery projects and projects t~at otherwise .ould be defer~.d because regul~r salarfed planners are assigned to f~ll cost recovery projects. Staff expects to return to Counc~l with budget amendment ordinances to fund s~pplementil professional personnel during periods when allocation of regular staff for full cost recovery projects diminish resources for other ongoing prOjects. Examples of projects which have been publicly reported as pending and which would reqiJire additional resources include-the pDtentfa:l Palo Alto Med1ca1 Foundation re1ocation to Urba~ Lan~ and any project at one of the t~o Hyatt hotel sites on £1 C .. ino Real. Be c; reprnd at i on Staff reca.mends ~kat Council iPProV~ thE attached budget amendment ordinance in the a.ount of $46~800 to f~nd th~ hlrin9 of one or more suppleme~tal profeSSional planners while Stanford West and other major full cost recovery ~rojects are being processed by Planning Division staff. R9;ctfull Y subaitted, ~~~ A5sistant Planning Officl~l J~~ l~;)r. C1ty Hanager Athchment: BAO KENN£TH R. SCHREIBER Oirecto~ of Planning and Community EnVironment Attahment 2 from CHR:2B3:92 Municipal Fee Schedule, pages 11-15 OtR:512:92 p: \c-r\Corltcost. OIr 11/12/92 Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AHEh~ING THE BUDGE'!' POR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE DEPAR'l'KEIIT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE HIRING OF TEMPORARY PLANNERS ~EAS, pursuant to the prov~s10~S af Section ~2 of Article III o~ the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 22, ~992 did adopt ~ bUQget for fi&ca~ year 1992-1993; and WHEREAS, the Plannin9 Division regularly provides timely and responsive permit processing to its customers; and WH~S, several major cost r~covery projects are in processj WHEREAS, use of temporary profe~sional planners would assure aaintenance of current customer service levels for all penu.it applicants; WHEREAS, funding for the temporary planner(s) would be fully offset by application fee revenues; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does O~N as follows: SECTION 1. The sum of forty six thousand and eight hundred dollars ($46,800) is hereby appropriated to Contract Services in the Planning Division of the Planning and Community Environment Department. Application Fee Income is correspondingly increased and there is no impact on reserve$. SECTION 2~ The Council of the city of Palo Alto hereby finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not a project under the california Environmental Quality Act and. therefore, no environmen tal impact assessment is necessary. SECTIOr-l3 .. Municipal Code, adoption .. As provided in section 2.04.375 of the Palo Alto this or.dinance shall become effective upon INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: HOES, ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST, city clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Asst. C1ty Attorney APPROVED: Director of Finan~ Director of Planning and community Environment APPROVED, Mayor 92-93.9 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING PEPl\RTXENT FEE SCHEpULE CHANGES AND EFFECT ON APPLICANTS ~n response to city council direction, staff has adjusted the fee schedule tor all planning applications with the ove~all goal bf 70 percent cost recovery. Prior to the 1990-92 budqet cycle, the Planning Division had recovered fees at approximately 40 percent cost recovery, and increased to approximately 43 percent tor 1991- 92. Many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, since L~e adoption of Proposition 13, collect fees on a 100 percent cost recovery basi. ~or most, and in some cases all, planninq entitlements. The strategy used in developing the fee schedule was, rather than using an "across the board" adjustment, to do so with sensitivity to applicat.lons with the least to gain froll! the entitlement. Therefore, sinqle family variances, home improvement exceptions~ lRinor Arc:hltectw:a1 Ravie .. Board (ARB) applications and sign approvals were adjusted closer to 50 to 60 percent cost recovery. These applications are usually for remodeling of single family residences and small businesses and staff believed thi5.t they could l~st afford 'the full cost of city processes~ Also, substantially hiqher fa .. tor these types of applications vould encouraqe efforts to do work without City review and permits. Proje~ts Where the applicant has relatively more to gain fro. the entitlement (i.e~, subdiVisions, commercial variances, conditional use permits, major ARB) were adjuste'd at or near 70 to 90 pezcent recovery. For these types of projects, the Pl~'in9 fees represent a relatively smaller p~oportion at the project costs, and in these instances, it was felt that the. applic::a.nts are in need of less subsidy. In all cases, the aajorit)' of PlaJ''.ning feE.s are in-lina with those of other jurisdictions (Santa Clara, San Jose, Mountain View and Fremont). The only applications for which staff recommends 100 percent cost recovery at this time are: aJ environmental impact reports bj zone changu, both planned community .and regular c) comprehensive plan amendments d) major sit~ an~ Qesign applications These applications are generally the type where the property owner has the most to gain from the entitlement. The reason for this recommendation is twofold: 1) CKR:283 :92 To keep customer service levels high by allowing responsiveness to permit activity, simil~r currently provided by the Building Division~ 8 division to tbat 2) ...:,.--, .. ~f~:~?·;:c'~~:.: .. c,.,.:oe. To elimina~e the internal conflict for staff resources that now exists between the two sides of the Plenning Division, Develop~~nt Monitoring and Special Studies. First, in order to keep ~ustomer service levels very high and to continu~ to meet current time lines for all applicotions, there 1s a naed tor f'lexi:bility in the number of oevelop:;uent Monitoring ataff, to rESpond. to the appli.::ation workload.. CUrrently as A result of low permit activity., Development Monitoring staff ue comprised of five and one-half planners: i. e. , one c;ount.e%' technician, one-half-time single fam.ily plan checker, one A.Rl' planner, one planner, one senior planner, and the Zoning Adminis trator. The Senior ARB planner is currently assi9I1ed to larqe Planned community applications, including the pendinq Stanford housinq project at 600-S00 Sand Hill Road. This staff is responsi ble for processinq all planning-entitlements through either the zoniJ'l9 Administrator, ARB, Planninq Commission and City council, or over the counter~ Heretatore., when several large applications have been received at once, &taff have been internally reassigned from Special Studies to Development ~nitorin9. enlarging the Develop ~,t Monitoring staff tc as high as eiqht and one-half planners intermittently over the past four years, at tbe expe.."'\se of projects like the tJrban Desiqn Plan and other special etudies. ,,-ith the upcoainq commitaent to ~~ COllprehensive Plan, it will not be possible to borrow staff 'Without impacting the ti:ae true for co.pletinq that major work program. The other option for completinq special I!ssiqnments, utilized durin9 the R-l Ordinance Amendment prpeess, is ·to let the time lin~s lengthen for application processing and/or to require overtime _ong statf JDember8~ This generally leads to dissatisfac tion trca the development community and qeneral public because tha carrying CO&ts for development projects increase with the amount of time necessary to process the planninq entitlements. This statement is true for both the sinqle-ta1Dily remode.ler and the major commercial developer. However, the State of California requires only that applications. be acted on within six months., considerably longer than our local commitments to customer 6ervice have allow~d. It is worth noting that the Planning Divlsion has learned the hard way that substantial overtime is not prod~ctive :for 5taff in the. long r\lJ\ and results in lower :.orale, poorer quality custo~r contact, and higher staff turn-over~ The Building Division utilizes an "outside" plan check firm to assist in expediting plan checks whe.n our internal plan check process queues up. This allows the applicant to pay an additional expediting charge to ~get around the queue-. Planning approvals cannot be achieved through an outside plan check firm because they involve public process. hoWever there arfl!; outside firms who provide supplementa~ staff 5ervices to public agencies. These agencies retain planners who can be hired on a temporary basis. for the duration of & planning application. Contract planners are CMR:283:92 9 , /-' effective only vi~ internal ~anagement and oversi9ht, but it is 'Worth noting that two current City staff members .. ere formerly employees ot a firm which performed similor ancillary sta!! functions for the cities of Half Moon Say, Foster city, Los Altos Hill., Be~nt, San Mateo" San carlos, and many othe:rs. The Planning Division also utilized outsidf'! assistance to, clear-up backlogged single-family applicatione during the Urgency Ordinance deadline Feriod in 1989-90. With 100 percent cost recove~ for the largest and most controver sial applications, it can be assured that, should the city receive applications for several large projects beyond current estiaates, outstrippinq our oeveloPDent Monitoring staff resources, we could use tee reV6nl.lie to allow the City to contract with an outside tina to assist in application processing and keep our c~stomer service commitment while not affecting the Comprehensive Plan time lines. ThQ 100 percent recovery schelDe is inherently -fair'" because: staff keep track of their t~ end only bill for what is dedicated to a specific application. In this way, ~si~ple· applications pay lese while ·complex~ projects pay more. 0!R:283:92 10 .. -~--- APPLlCAnON Architectural Review Minor Project Major Proj"Cl PreJi minary Review Change 10 Approvod Project Signs (new, replacemenO Signs Ereclod Without Approval Signs (exceplions) EoyironmenLallmpac~ Regul .. Miligatod Negative Declaration ~ct Report (BIR> Lot Merter PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEl!:S PLANNING DIVISION 1991-22 fl!B $ '250.00 + Microfilm fee 1,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm ("". 75/minor -300lm~or + Mitronlm fee 3OO/mlnor -6OO1~or + Microfilm fee 150.00 + Microfilm r"" 300.00 + Microfilm fee 300.00 + Microfilm ree 300.00 1,250.00 4.000.00 minimum or SO" II of C1ty costs, whichever Is greater, with a .... imum of $20,000.00 300.00 1992-93 FEB $ 3IO.00+Microtilm r..,+ Reconl Manngement fee 1,500.00 + EIA &. Microfilm fees + Recan! Management fee tOOlminor -SOOIniaJor + Microfilm f(C + Record Management p"" 310lminor -6OO/major + Microfilm f"" + Record Mana",ment Fee 310.00 + Microfilm fee + Rcx:onl Management Fee 620.00 + Microfilm r"" + Record Management Foe 620.00 + Mlcrolitm fee + Record Manngement Fee 500.00 1,300.00 4.000.00 depo.it plus 100" cosl recovery 500.00 + Micmlitm fee + Record Management """ ~~ ~." .. . ~ ~ ~ll <Q "'~ ~~ ~ '" ~, . '" ~'" '" :E C " ~: 11 ." .. " PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) plANNING DIVISION Minor Subdivision with Planning Director Ap"""",, Preliminary Map Parcel Map Minor Subdivision with City CounctiJ Approval Preliminary Map &. EIA Fee. Parcel Map Sybdivjsion (Five or More parcels) All subdivision prop ... I. requl ... EIA appllcatlons Tentative Map 0 -0.99 acre' ................... .. Tentative Map I -1.99 acreJ .................... . , Tentative Map 2 -2.99 .creJ ................... .. Tentative Map 3 -3.99 acres ......••••....•..•... Tentative Map 4 ~ 4.99 BCre! .................... . Tentative Map 5 -or mOre .cres ................. . Final M.p ......................................... . Variance Residential Commercial and Manufa4!turing 1991-92 FEE 1992-93 PEE S50.00+E1A & Microfilm fee. 1,2S0.OO+BIA & Microfilm fees+ R=rd Management F~ 300.00 + Microfilm fee 500.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management I'ee 1,700.oo+E1A &. Microfilm fees ~,500.00 + B1A &. Microfilm ree, + R«:ord Management Fa. 1,700.00 + Microfilm fee 1,700.00 + Microfilm fee + RC("ord Management Fee 2,SOO.00+EJA &. Microfilm fees 4,000.00 + E1A 8< Microfilm f ... .~ Record Management Pee 2,SOO.00+E1A &. Microfilm ree, 4,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm fees + Record Manlgeme"t Fee 2,500.00+ RIA &. Microfilm rees 4,000.00 + EIA & Microfilm fee + Record Management Pee 2.300.VO+EIA & Microfilm fees 4,000.00 + PJA &. Microfilm rees + Record M .... geme.t Fee 2,500.00+ B1A IlL Microfilm fees 4,000.00 + B1A &. Microfilm ree. + R«:ord Management Pee 2,SOO.00+EIA & Microfilm fee. 4,000.00 + BIA 8< Microlilm fees -I-Record Management Pee 400.00 1,700.00 + Mierofilm fee + 675.00 + Microfilm ree 1,123.00 + Miemfilm fee 12 Reconl Maoageme.t Pee 900.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Fee \ ,roo.OO + Micmfllm fee + Record Management p.., PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) PLANNING DIVISION Variance ~!ln~ Fence BOR Impmyement ExcepUoo APPLICATION Use Permit Regular Temporary • Minor -Major Family Day Care Home and Day Care Cenler Zone Change Regular Planned Community Zon. Change Minor Change to Planned Community Zone Site and J)qjgn Control District 1991-92 fEB NA 350.00 + Microfilm (eo 1,125.00 BIA I/< Microfilm fees 100.00 +Microfilm fee 500.00 + Microfilm fee lOO.OO+E1A I/< Microfilm fees 2,700.00+EIA'" Microfilm fees 5,400.00+EIA,"'''IlIMicroflm fe<. 2S0.00+ARB &.Microlilm fees 2,000.00 + ETA,ARB '" Microfilm fees 13 1292-93 PEe 500.00 + Microfilm fee + Rricotd Management Pee 350.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Pee 1,800.00 + EIA '" Micmfilm fees + Record Manage",ent Pee 100.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Management Pee 500.00 + Microfilm fee + Record Managem.nt Pee 100.00 + EIA & Micmfilm fees + Record Managem-nt Pet 3,000.00 + 100% Co,t Recovery+ EIA &. Microfilm rees + Record Managemenl Pee 6,000.00 + 100% Cost Recovery + BlA &. Microfilm fee, + Record Management Pee 550.00 + Microfilm fees + Recotd Management Fee 3,000.00 + 100% Cost Recovery + EIA,ARB & Microfilm feel+ Record Management Pee PLANNING DEPARTMENT (continued) PLANNING DIVISION Sjle and DesiR" CCOntjoucdl MTnor Change Minor Change -OS Zone ComprehenSive Man .cbaOlt (Ollt,ide of Annual Review) ~ Review Exception .I2cm.aliliCD Permits for Historic Buildings , NeigbbQ~hood Preservation Zone &g:ptiCW Development A&,recment Documents planning Commission A~endas planning Commission Minutes Title 18, PAMC, Zoning Tille 18, PAMC, Zoning, Sur.plemenls Map Scales -200 sea • zone map 400 scale zone map Comple,e 400 scale zone map I ,000 scale zone map 600 scale zone map 500 scale Zone map aerials 1291-22 Pll!! 1992-93 fOO 250.00+ARB &. Microfilm fees 350.00 + Mlcmnm fee + Record Manacement Pee 400.00 + ARB &. Microfilm rees SSO.OO + MicroHm fee + Record Management Pee 1.800.00 + I!IA & Microfilm rees 250.00 + Microfilm ree 3,000.00 + 100" Cost R-.-y + E1A &. Microfilm r"" + Rec:ord Management Pee 2.600.00 + Microfolm ree 2S0,00 + Microfilm ree + Record Managemenl Pee 2,600.00 + Microfilm ree + Rrcord Management Pee 1,450.00 + Microfilm ree 850.00 + E1A & Microfilm fee 5.800.00 14 IS.OOIannual 25,00/annllal 20.00 2.OOIpage 1.30lpage 2.00 3.00 2.00 1,450,00 + Microfilm fee + Reoord Managemenl Foe 850.00 + E1A '" Microfilm ree Microfilm ree + Rrcord Management Pee 5,800.00 + 100')1; Cost Reccvery & Microfilm ree + Record Management Fee 30.ool.nnual 50.00I.nnuol 24.00 4.00/page 4.oo/page 4.00lpage 30.00 8.00 20.00 4.00 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (eonllnued) PLANNING DIVISION Document. Ic<mtlnuedl Comprehensive Plan 199) -92 PHIl Record Management Fee (Optical disk document retrieval) NA 0.00 ~chment Permit ConSlruclionlTraffie Centrol Related Engineeling Bi~clc !.ockcr Reolal Renla) Fee Reftmdable Key Deposit Parking Permits -CQmmcrcjaf/Cqnst"lcrjpD Construction/Maintenance V.hle) .. Emersency Repair Vehicles Parking Permit, -RusintU J)~ University Avenue Parking District All Lots E.cepl Lot U Lot U Cal'jlOOl Permit TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 60.00 S.OO per month S.OO 25.00/SJIB'" per woek 120.OOIyear Per Ouarter ~ $ 65.00 $200.00 37.50 100.00 Quarterly fee Quarterly fee 15 1992·93 fBI! 20.00 20.00/per file Tran.fern:d to Public Work" 5.00 per month $.00 25.00/space per week 120.OOIyear l'Q..Qu1llCr fiI.Xw $ 65.00 37.50 $200.00 100.00