AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
AUTHORIZING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH A VALUATION GREATER THAN
$1 BILLION
Attachments: 1. Resolution
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
AUTHORIZING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE
BUILDING PLAN CHECK AND PERMIT FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS WITH A VALUATION GREATER THAN $1 BILLION
INTRODUCTION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Building Official to determine plan check and permit fees for development projects with a valuation exceeding $1 billion based on the City’s reasonable costs of providing plan review, permit, inspection, and related building services.
The City’s fee schedule calculates plan check and permit fees based on project valuation.
For projects with exceptionally high valuations, however, the fee structure may result in fees that are disproportionate to the City resources required to provide the associated services. The proposed amendment would provide for project-specific fee determinations intended to achieve full cost recovery, consistent with the City’s policy for developmentrelated service fees.
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
DISCUSSION
The Beverly Hills Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to establish plan check and permit fees by resolution for all permits required under the California Building Standards Code, including but not limited to building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits.
Plan check and permit fees are based on the valuation of a development project, and the Building Official is authorized by the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to determine project valuation for the purpose of calculating those fees. As project valuation increases, plan check and permit fees increase to account for the additional staff time and resources required to review plans, issue permits, conduct inspections, and provide related building services as the project size increases.
In addition to the general increase in construction valuation over time, there are now occasional projects with exceptionally high valuations that were not anticipated when the fee structure was developed. Under the fee structure, plan check and permit fees increase at the same linear rate for all projects with a valuation exceeding $500,000.
Project valuation generally provides a reasonable basis for calculating fees. However, at exceptionally high valuations, the incremental increase in project value does not necessarily result in a proportional increase in the staff time and resources required to provide plan review, permit, inspection, and related services. As a result, project valuation may no longer serve as a reasonable proxy for the cost of providing City services for projects with exceptionally high valuations. Application of the standard fee structure to such projects may result in fees that are disproportionate to the City resources required.
For such projects, it is appropriate to apply an alternative fee structure that better reflects the reasonable cost to the City of providing the necessary building services for the project.
Under the proposed approach, appropriate fees for projects with a valuation exceeding $1 billion would be determined by the Building Official based on the City’s reasonable anticipated costs of providing plan review, permit, inspection, and related building services for the project. The determination would be documented and would consider anticipated staff time, consultant services, and other applicable direct and indirect costs associated with the project. The Building Official would be authorized to adjust fees as appropriate as a project progresses based on actual costs or material changes in the scope, complexity, or duration of the services required.
This approach would be consistent with the City’s policy of achieving full cost recovery for development-related services while recognizing that project valuation may no longer serve as a reasonable proxy for the cost of providing City services for projects with exceptionally high valuations. It would also provide the flexibility necessary to account for differences in the size, complexity, and duration of individual projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed amendment is intended to maintain full cost recovery for plan review, permit, inspection, and related building services for development projects with valuations exceeding $1 billion.
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Fees would be determined on a project-specific basis based on the City’s reasonable costs of providing these services, including applicable direct and indirect costs, but would not exceed the fee based on valuation. The proposed resolution would therefore not result in the General Fund subsidizing building services for these projects, and there would be no fiscal impact.
Michael Forbes,
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
!"#$%&'(")%*# !"#$%*!+!,)$"))- !,!.$*"'/-0,!-%)+!-01'//!#!,2"'!-1-*%))%3-4 !(#"%'
!!+!,)$"))-&'"("51)%/!1&# %,"6!-# !"#$%&'(")#%!-#1.)"- 5)1'( !(71'/5!,2"#*!!-.$,!-%)&#"%'*%,1))5!,2"#-,!8&",!/&'/!,# !1)"*%,'"1&")/"'9 #1'/1,/-%/!0"'()&/"'9.&#'%#)"2"#!/#%.&")/"'902!( 1'"(1)0!)!(#,"(1)01'/5)&2."'9 5!,2"#-
!(#"%'
)1'( !(71'/5!,2"#*!!-1,!.1-!/%'# !+1)&1#"%'%*1/!+!)%52!'# 5,%:!(#01'/# !&")/"'9**"("1)"-1&# %,"6!/.$# !!+!,)$"))-&'"("51)%/!#%/!#!,2"'! 5,%:!(#+1)&1#"%'*%,# !5&,5%-!%*(1)(&)1#"'9# %-!*!!- -5,%:!(#+1)&1#"%'"'(,!1-!-05)1'
( !(71'/5!,2"#*!!-"'(,!1-!#%1((%&'#*%,# !1//"#"%'1)-#1**#"2!1'/,!-%&,(!-,!8&",!/#% ,!+"!35)1'-0"--&!5!,2"#-0(%'/&(#"'-5!(#"%'-01'/5,%+"/!,!)1#!/.&")/"'9-!,+"(!-1-# ! 5,%:!(#-"6!"'(,!1-!-
!(#"%';
!,!1,!'%3%((1-"%'1)5,%:!(#-3"# !<(!5#"%'1))$ "9 +1)&1#"%'-# 1# 3!,!'%#1'#"("51#!/3 !'# !*!!-#,&(#&,!31-/!+!)%5!/
!(#"%'=
,%:!(#+1)&1#"%'9!'!,1))$5,%+"/!-1,!1-%'1.)!.1-"-*%,(1)(&)1#"'9*!!-
%3!+!,01#!<(!5#"%'1))$ "9 +1)&1#"%'-0# !"'(,!2!'#1)"'(,!1-!"'5,%:!(#+1)&!/%!-'%# '!(!--1,")$,!-&)#"'15,%5%,#"%'1)"'(,!1-!"'# !-#1**#"2!1'/,!-%&,(!-,!8&",!/#%5,%+"/!5)1' ,!+"!305!,2"#0"'-5!(#"%'01'/,!)1#!/-!,+"(!-
-1,!-&)#05,%:!(#+1)&1#"%'21$'%)%'9!,-!,+!
>?@ABCDEFEGHI?JHK>LMN>OPNFFQRSSTQUTVSQUMSSQFWPNTMXMORU>
!
"#
$%
&
'
%
&
()
#%
&
!
!
!
!
*
'
!
%
&
!
!
!
#%
&
!
#%
&
$
'
%
&
!
!
+,-./01232456,758+9:;+<=;33>?@@A>BAC@>B:@@>3D=;A:E:<?B+
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"#
$
% & %
'
(
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)( *+ ',% '%(-
..
$/(-
$0$
% ..
$/(-
$$&
(&
* ,
(&(
1("&(
2 &#$'*"' %
3456789:;:<=>4?=@3ABC3DEC;;FGHHIFJIKHFJBHHF;LECIBMBDGJ3
!!" #"$! #!! %
"&
#
'()(*+ '(
'*,-.( /0( 12(3
.*+24
(().30( 5+*(26.7
'*8.
.*0( 9)4+
'24)(*8+ :8242)(8
/8(2;2.)( 9)4+ %2(2)+ 2 <.3
*(=) ),
'()024 ),
>20 ? @A>/ # B 9).2;2. >20 @A' C /)))B
DEE =6 57;8
82
&8F G2+H /
! %
1.3I,8F32+684
9
8++ !#6%DE6#!6ED
J
K LMN
'()(*+ :8242)
!ODO% %" $
E%#
P
G8 2 <.3
1.3I,8F32+684
Q.)(2
.*'24
RN STU RNVL
U
Q)*8. '6 <28
128I814)16.0
'.*82(F Q 0)2H
..*(
*(3(2.)(2
@=B
'24)(*8
(2 98 +.( '(F
A+24 9
8++ % #6#$6%
E6E
'( !ODO% %" $
!EE
P
W21 !ODO% %" !EED
P '24 !ODO% %" !E%E
P
S
J
K K RNV XU
UVY
=( :;;8 2)
.*+24
P)F Z2)4
0-2)4I,8F32+684
'.*82(F Q 0)2H
..*(
*(3(2.)(2
@=B
'( !ODO% %" !E%$
P
S
J
K K RNV XU
UVY
=( :;;8 2)
.*+24
5F) [32.3
8432.3I,8F32+684
'.*82(F Q 0)2H
..*(
*(3(2.)(2
@=B
S
J
K K RNV XU
UVY
=( :;;8 2)
.*+24
/8)24
6 /80)
..80)I,8F32+684
'.*82(F Q 0)2H
..*(
*(3(2.)(2
@=B
S
J
K K RNV XU
UVY
=( :;;8 2)
.*+24
G*0)
30
3)30I,8F32+684
'.*82(F Q 0)2H
..*(
*(3(2.)(2
@=B
S
J
K K RNV XU
UVY
=( :;;8 2)
.*+24
\ ]U
RN STURNVL
U
SK
XT^ STURVUL
U
_N XT^ STURVUL
U
!"
#$
!"%&' (
$)* "
+,
(
-' .
/01 2
3++*,!
3,
!
+1
*!
45*!6
77
87
9
7
:
5*
;<< =
'1
>*+,$"!
>!$
?1 +1
="1 +1%&' (
$)* "
+,
(
-' .
/01 2
3++*,!
3,
!
+1
*!
45*!6
77
87
9
7
:
5*
;<< =
'1
>*+,$"!
@"1!
? (
0" (%&' (
$)* "
+,
(
-' .
/01 2
3++*,!
3,
!
+1
*!
45*!6
77
87
9
7
:
5*
;<< =
'1
>*+,$"!
A
9 B
9
/!' *C
!
D1$
=E/!+ (C
=FEGHEIJIK
L.MF.NN
3@
O