April 18, 2022
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item C.2
Annual Adjustments for User Fees and Charges
Hearing Date: April 19, 2022
Dear Mayor Perotte, Mayor Pro Tempore Kasdin, Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kyriaco, and Councilmember Richards:
I support adopting the proposed user fee schedule after considering the following questions and recommended changes:
1. Add a new fee to create a Design Review Board Consent Calendar
2. Consider Fees for the Planning Commission Consent Calendar vs the City Council Consent Calendar
3. Include Planning and Environmental Review fees for Work Without a Permit
4. Direct staff to automate fees applied to Projects for Hearings Each of these is discussed below.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chris Noddings
City of Goleta Resident
Topic 1: Add a new fee to create a Design Review Board Consent Calendar Currently, a Consent Calendar does not exist for the Design Review Board. This can create significant additional and unnecessary cost, especially for applicants that work with the DRB starting early in the process and/or when a project requires Final Review by the DRB after Preliminary Review by the Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council.
Once the Director, Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council grants Preliminary Review approval, the (now-approved) project must return to the DRB for Final Review. Often, when there are no significant changes to the approved project , the DRB grants Final Approval without further comment. In these instances, the project should be returned to the DRB on a Consent Calendar at a greatly reduced cost; currently, the only alternative is to charge $516 for each additional hearing beyond the first three hearings. The Synagogue project on Stow Canyon Road, and the Cox Communications project, are good examples in which the final hearing could and should have been conducted via consent.
Additionally, although relatively rare, members of the DRB sometimes ask staff why certain small, inconsequential projects are brought forward for review and approval by the DRB. The typical answer is because a small threshold in Title 17 was crossed or because Title 17 requires that all such projects receive Design Review approval by the DRB. In such instances, it would be best to bring these minor projects forward under a consent calendar to reduce cost, while simultaneously warning the applicant that if the DRB “pulls” the item for discussion, the full fee could apply.
Internally, staff have generally agreed that a consent calendar should be created, and it is not clear to me why that has not been done.
Topic 2: Consider Fees for Planning Commission Consent Calendar vs the City Council Consent Calendar
The existing (and proposed) consent calend ar fees for the Planning Commission ($569 proposed) is significantly higher than that of the consent calendar for the City Council ($94). Perhaps there is good reason for this (e.g., there typically are significantly more items on a consent hearing for the City Council than for the Planning Commission, thus helping to spread the cost among multiple items).
Regardless, given the large discrepancy, I believe it is worth reviewing the last fee study to understand how these fees were developed and considering whether one or both fees should be modified.
Topic 3: Include Planning and Environmental Review fees for Work Without a Permit For many years, the adopted fee schedule has included a fee in Planning and Environmental Review for Work Without a Permit. As stated in the staff report, this fee has only been assessed during the Building Permit phase and, accordingly, staff recommend removing the fee from Planning and Environmental Review. I believe this fee should not be deleted precisely because it should be assessed by Planning and Environmental Review in addition to Building & Safety for the following reasons:
A. Working with applicants in such scenarios often takes Planners significantly more time (e.g., performing permit history research, explaining the code , responding to push -back from the applicant, etc.).
B. A project applicant could work with Planning Staff, at significant cost to the City and its tax payers, without ever submitting to Building and Safety, thereby avoiding the doubled fee in Building and Safety. For example, when the applicant realizes that the Planning approval process is too costly and/or risky (e.g., it is determined that discretionary approval is required and unlikely to be granted).
C. Some jurisdictions increase building fees for work without a permit five -fold. Rather than recommend this change, I recommend doubling Planning Fees.
It should be noted that the above recommendation to double Planning fees for work without a permit works well for flat fees, but may not be appropriate for deposit-based fees. For example, perhaps a maximum cap should be identified.
Topic 4: Direct staff to automate fees applied to Projects for Hearings As of September 2021, staff understood that fees for hearings had to be applied manually (e.g., within MAGNET). However, in my experience, this was often and easily overlooked and there was no set protocol for doing so. Hopefully, the situation has improved since September 2021, but if not, City Council should direct staff to develop a process by which fees for hearings are automatically applied. Furthermore, staff should also be directed to review all hearings and apply the appropriate fee for any and all active projects.
Not doing so effectively forces taxpayers to subsidize the cost of private development.