2. For a residential development that creates one (1) additional lot, or two (2) to six (6) rental dwelling units and/or lots, or two (2) to four (4) ownership dwelling units and/or lots, or for a residential development that triggers a decimal fraction of less than one-half (.50), the builder shall pay an in lieu fee for the fractional unit requirement or build a below market rate unit affordable to a low-income household.
3. The in lieu fee may be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council or may be determined for a specific residential development through the preparation of an affordability gap analysis that will determine the difference between the affordable sales price or rent and the fair market value for the unit, but in no event shall the in lieu fee exceed the cost of mitigating the impact of market rate units in a residential development on the need for affordable housing in the City.
4. Nothing in this chapter or Chapter 18.17 shall deem or be used to deem the in lieu fee authorized pursuant to this subsection C as an ad hoc exaction or as a mandated fee required as a condition to developing property. Any in lieu fee adopted by the City Council is a menu option that may serve as an alternative to the on-site below market rate housing requirements set forth in this chapter.
D. Below Market Rate Units Eligible for State Density Bonus. If a residential development receives a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, any density bonus BMR unit and any dedication of property that made the residential development eligible for the density bonus that also satisfies the requirements of this chapter shall be counted as below market rate units pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 1566 (Exh. B (part)), 2020: Ord. 1550 § 2 (part), 2019: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011:
Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.040)
18.16.040 Exemptions to below market rate housing requirements.
The requirements of Section 18.16.030 do not apply to:
A. Residential development of a legal accessory dwelling unit consistent with Section 18.23.210, Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 920
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
B. The reconstruction of any dwelling units that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature; provided, that the reconstruction of the site does not increase the number of legally constructed dwelling units or increase the area of the legally constructed dwelling units by one thousand (1,000) square feet or more.
C. Additions to existing dwelling units of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet.
D. Residential developments that already have more deed-restricted units that are affordable to moderate-, low- and very low-income households than Section 18.16.030 requires. (Ord. 1566 (Exh. B (part)), 2020: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.050)
18.16.050 Below market rate unit standards.
Below market rate units built under Section 18.16.030 shall conform to the following standards:
A. Design. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and subject to the approval of the Administrator, below market rate units shall be evenly dispersed by floor and general location throughout a residential development and, consistent with Health & Safety Code Section 17929, may not be isolated to a specific floor or area on a specific floor and must have the same access to the common entrances to a structure as the market-rate units. Below market rate units may have different interior finishes and features than market rate units in the same residential development, so long as the finishes and features are durable, of good quality, compatible with the market rate units, and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. Below market rate units must in aggregate be no smaller in average size than market rate units in the same residential development and the number of bedrooms in below market rate units shall be in the same proportion as in the total number of units in the residential development.
B. Timing. All below market rate units shall be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of market rate units, and in phased residential developments, below market rate units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the residential development, unless an alternative phasing plan is approved as part of the below market rate housing plan for the residential development.
C. Duration of Affordability Requirement. Below market rate units produced under this chapter and Chapter 18.17 shall be legally restricted to occupancy by households of the income levels for which the units were designated in perpetuity. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.060)
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 921
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
D. Parking. Below market rate units must be provided parking spaces at a ratio equivalent to the distribution of parking spaces among market rate units for an equivalent bedroom size (for instance, if 1.5 parking spaces on average are provided for each two-bedroom market rate unit, then the two-bedroom below market rate units must be provided 1.5 parking spaces on average). Any fractional result must be rounded up. For residential ownership developments, any additional cost for the parking spaces must be included in calculating the affordable ownership cost for the below market rate units. For residential rental developments, any additional cost for the parking spaces must be included in calculating the affordable rent for the below market rate units.
18.16.060 Compliance procedures.
A. General. Approval of a below market rate housing plan and recordation of an approved below market rate housing agreement prior to the recordation of any final or parcel map, or, if no final or parcel map is required, prior to issuance of any building permit, is a condition of the first approval of any residential development to which Section 18.16.030 applies. This section does not apply to exempt projects or to residential developments where the requirements of Section 18.16.030 are satisfied by payment of a fee under Section 18.16.030(C).
B. Below Market Rate Housing Plan. The decision-making body for the first approval (either the Planning Commission or the City Council) shall approve, conditionally approve or reject the below market rate housing plan. No application for a first approval for a residential development to which Section 18.16.030 applies shall be deemed complete until a below market rate housing plan, in a form satisfactory to the Administrator, is deemed complete by the Administrator. The below market rate housing plan shall include:
1. The location, structure (attached, semi-attached, or detached), proposed tenure (for sale or rental), number of bedrooms, and size of the proposed market rate and below market rate units and the basis for calculating the number of below market rate units;
2. A floor or site plan depicting the location of the market rate and below market rate units and the location of the common entrances;
3. The income levels to which each below market rate unit will be made affordable;
4. The same information for any below market rate units provided to meet other requirements of state law, including but not limited to density bonus law, Government Code Section 65915;
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 922
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
streamlined approval (SB 35; Government Code section 65913.4); or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300).
5. For a phased residential development, a phasing plan that provides for the timely development of the number of below market rate units proportionate to each proposed phase of development, or with an alternative phasing plan;
6. A description of any below market rate incentive requested pursuant to Chapter 18.17;
7. Any alternative means designated in Section 18.16.070(A) proposed for the residential development, along with information necessary to support the findings required by Section 18.16.070(B) for approval of such alternatives;
8. Builder’s agreement to conform to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to the provisions of Sections 18.16.080 through 18.16.100; and
9. Any other information reasonably requested by the Administrator to assist with evaluation of the below market rate housing plan under the standards of this chapter.
C. Below Market Rate Housing Agreement. The forms of the below market rate housing agreement and any resale and rental restrictions, deeds of trust, options to purchase, and other documents authorized by this subsection, and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in the document, shall be approved by the Administrator and the City Attorney or his or her designee prior to being executed with respect to any residential development prior to the recordation of any final or parcel map, or, if no final or parcel map is required, prior to issuance of any building p ermit. The form of the below market rate housing agreement will vary, depending on the manner in which the provisions of this chapter are satisfied for a particular development. All below market rate housing agreements shall include, at minimum, the following:
1. Description of the residential development, including whether the below market rate units will be rented or owner-occupied;
2. The number, size, number of bedrooms, and location of all below market rate units;
3. Below market rate incentives granted by the City, if any, pursuant to Chapter 18.17;
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 923
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
4. Provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, options to purcha se, rental restrictions, or other documents as appropriate;
5. Provisions for monitoring the ongoing affordability of the units, and the process for qualifying prospective resident households for income eligibility;
6. Formula for calculating affordable rent and/or affordable ownership cost and the proposed initial sales price for the below market rate units, any density bonus BMR units, and any very low or low income housing units required to meet any other requirements of state law, including but not limited to density bonus law, Government Code Section 65915; streamlined approval (SB 35; Government Code section 65913.4); or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 66300) as applicable;
7. Builder’s agreement to conform to the provisions of this chapter, including but not limited to the provisions of Sections 18.16.080 through 18.16.100; and
8. Any additional obligations relevant to the compliance with this chapter.
If a builder chooses to satisfy all or a portion of the below market rate requirement with rental units, as permitted by Government Code Section 65589.8, then the below market rate housing agreement shall include the builder’s agreement to the limitations on rents and applicable terms and conditions required by Section 18.16.030(C).
D. Recording of Agreement. Prior to the recordation of any final or parcel map for a residential development, or, if no final or parcel map is required, prior to issuance of any building permit for a residential development, below market rate housing agreements that are approved and fully executed shall be recorded against residential developments containing below market rate units. Addition al rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, options to purchase, and/or other documents acceptable to the Administrator shall also be recorded at the time of sale against owner-occupied below market rate units.
In cases where the requirements of this chapter are satisfied through the development of off-site below market rate units, the below market rate housing agreement shall simultaneously be recorded against the property where the off-site below market rate units are to be developed.
E. Amendments. Modifications to the below market rate housing plan shall be considered a change in the approved conditions of approval and processed in the same manner as the original below market rate
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 924
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
housing plan. (Ord. 1550 § 2 (part), 2019; Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.070)
18.16.070 Alternatives.
A. Builder Proposal. A builder may propose an alternative means of compliance in a below market rate housing plan required by Section 18.16.060(B) according to the following provisions. The builder may also partner with a nonprofit affordable housing provider to meet its below market rate housing obligations through one of the alternatives set forth in this section.
1. Provision of a Greater Level of Affordability. The builder may propose a greater level of affordability than required under this chapter and reduce the total number of units otherwise required.
2. Off-Site Construction. Below market rate units may be proposed off-site within the City limits if the proposal meets all of the following conditions:
a. The off-site construction proposal would result in a minimum of ten percent more total below market rate units than required by this chapter.
b. The below market rate units will be located in an area where, based on the availability of affordable housing, the decision-making body finds that the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development.
c. The off-site location is suitable for the proposed below market rate housing, consistent with any adopted guidelines and the housing element, and will not tend to cause residential segregation or concentrations of poverty.
d. If the builder proposes to provide rental off-site below market rate units in place of ownership on- site below market rate units, the rental off-site below market rate units shall meet the affordability and other requirements specified in Section 18.16.030. e. Off-site below market rate units shall meet or exceed minimum quality standards specified in conditions of approval and may include any combination of new dwelling units, new dwelling units created in existing structures, or the preservation of existing affordable units at risk of loss or by conversion of existing market rate units to below market rate units if the preservation or conversion of these units is consistent with Government Code Section
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 925
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
65583.1 and allows the City to use the preserved or converted units to help meet its regional housing needs allocation.
The following information, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, is required for submittal of a proposal for off-site below market rate units:
a. If the off-site below market rate units will not be constructed concurrently with the market rate units, the builder shall specify the security to be provided to the City to ensure that the below market rate units will be constructed in a timely manner, including evidence of ownership or control of any sites proposed for the below market rate units, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, and clear and convincing evidence that financing has been secured for the off-site below market rate units.
b. For preservation of existing affordable units at risk of loss or conversion of existing market rate units to below market rate units:
i. Existing rent or appraised value of each unit on the property to be converted, proposed rents or sales prices after conversion or preservation, and any existing rent limits, resale price restrictions, or other affordability restrictions imposed by any public agency, nonprofit agency, land trust, or other body.
ii. Size of households occupying each unit on the property to be converted, vacancy rates for each month during the past two years, and existing tenant incomes. iii. A property inspection report prepared by a certified housing inspector and a termite report, both prepared no more than sixty days before the filing of the application. The property inspection report shall include a full examination of all common and private areas within the existing dwelling units for compliance with applicable building codes. iv. Plans and a written description of rehabilitation to be completed, including correction of all code violations and completion of all termite repairs described in the property inspection report and termite report; cost of rehabilitation; and the appraised value of the property, including land, buildings, and all other improvements, after rehabilitation.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 926
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
v. Description of benefits to be offered existing tenants, including but not limited to right of first refusal to remain in the unit, and required relocation assistance for existing tenants.
vi. Evidence that the proposal complies with the provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1 and that the City may utilize the units to help meet its regional housing needs allocation.
3. Land Dedication. Below market rate units may be proposed off-site within the City limits if the proposal meets all of the following conditions:
a. The land dedication proposal would result in a minimum of ten percent more total below market rate units than required by this chapter.
b. The dedicated land is located either on the site of the housing development or in an area where, based on the availability of affordable housing, the decision-making body finds that the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development. c. The dedicated land is suitable for the proposed below market rate housing, consistent with any adopted guidelines and the housing element, and will not tend to cause residential segregation or concentrations of poverty.
d. The affordable housing to be built on the dedicated land shall meet or exceed minimum quality standards specified in this chapter.
The builder shall specify the security to be provided to the City to ensure that the below market rate units will be constructed on the dedicated land in a timely manner, including evidence of ownership or control of the sites to be dedicated, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, and clear and convincing evidence that financing has been secured for the construction of the below market rate units on the dedicated land. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the residential development, the property shall either be dedicated to the City or to the developer of the below market rate units on the dedicated land, as determined by the City.
4. Preservation of Historically Significant Structures and Resources. Adjustments may be made to the required number and affordability level of the below market units based on the economics associated with preservation of historically significant structures and resources as identified under guidelines as set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 927
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
5. Rental Units in Place of Ownership Units. The builder may propose rental on -site below market rate units in a residential ownership development rather than sell below market rate units. If the builder proposes this alternative, then at least fifteen percent of the total units (excluding any units approved beyond the otherwise maximum allowable density pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law) shall be below market rate units which meet the standards set forth in Section 18.16.030 for residential rental developments.
6. Combination. The decision-making body may accept any combination of the above options.
B. Findings. The decision-making body for the first approval may approve, conditionally approve or reject any alternative proposed by a builder as part of a below market rate housing plan. Any approval or conditional approval shall be based on the following finding:
1. That the purposes of this chapter would be better served by implementation of the proposed alternative(s) and that the proposal meets the greatest community needs at the time the alternative is reviewed. As one of the factors determining whether the purposes of this chapter would be better served under the proposed alternative, the decision-making body shall consider whether implementation of an alternative would cause or exacerbate racial segregation and, if so, shall reject the alternative. (Ord. 1550 § 2 (part), 2019; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.080)
18.16.080 Eligibility for below market rate units (owner-occupied and rental units).
A. General Eligibility. If the City or its designee maintains a list of eligible households, initial and subsequent occupants will be selected first from the list of eligible households, to the maximu m extent possible, in accordance with any rules approved by the Administrator.
B. Preferences. Preferences will be given to those households where at least one member in the household lives or works in San Carlos, including part-time and household workers, or works for a public agency, such as a school district or fire district, serving residents living in the City of San Carlos, except for those households deemed ineligible due to conflict of interest listed in subsection C of this section.
C. Conflict of Interest. The following individuals are ineligible to purchase or rent a below market rate unit as specified below:
1. Elected City Council officials and all Planning Commissioners (including their spouses and dependents);
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 928
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
2. All City staff members (including their spouses and dependents) who participated in the approval process for the residential development or who establish policy for City housing programs;
3. The builder and its officers and employees (and their spouses and dependents); and
4. The project or land owner of the residential development and its officers and employees (and their spouses and dependents).
D. Occupancy. Any household which occupies a rental below market rate unit or purchases a below market rate unit shall occupy that unit as its principal residence and shall not lease or sublease to a different party. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.100)
18.16.090 Owner-occupied units.
A. Initial Sales Price for Below Market Rate Units. The initial sales price of a below market rate unit shall be set by the City at the time a building permit is issued for the below market rate unit so that the eligible household will pay an affordable ownership cost. The initial sales price shall be based on the builder’s estimate of homeowners’ association dues, if any, the City’s assumptions for interest rates and other factors, and the formula for calculating sales prices contained in the below market rate housing agreement. The City shall provide the builder with an estimate of the initial sales price for the below market rate units at an earlier date upon written request by the builder. After the building permit is issued, the initial sales price may be adjusted by the City due to changes in market factors upon written request by the builder no less than ninety days prior to marketing of the below market rate units. In no case will the initial sales price be adjusted below the initial sales price calculated when the building permit was issued.
B. Certification of Eligibility. The income of each household proposed to purchase a below market rate unit shall be certified to the City or the City’s designee prior to the sale of a below mark et rate unit. Each household shall provide written verification of income, including but not limited to such documents as income tax returns for the previous calendar year, W-2 statements, and pay stubs. Income verification shall be submitted on a form approved by the City.
C. Initial Sales Deed Restrictions. Deed restrictions provided by the City and recorded against title to the below market rate unit shall be required as a condition of sale for all owner-occupied below market rate units and shall include, but are not limited to, the City’s purchase option, resale restrictions, and procedures and policies regarding changes in title to ensure that owner-occupied below market rate units
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 929
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
remain affordable in perpetuity. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010:
Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.110)
18.16.100 Rental units.
A. Initial Rents for Below Market Rate Units. The initial rent of below market rate units shall be set by the City at least thirty days prior to marketing of the below market rate units so that the eligible households will pay an affordable rent. The initial rent shall be based on a schedule provided by the San Mateo County Housing Authority and the formula for calculating rents contained in the below market rate housing agreement. The City shall provide the builder with an estimate of the initial rent for the below market rate units at an earlier date upon written request by the builder.
B. Selection of Tenants. Rental units will be offered to eligible households at an affordable rent. If no eligible households are identified by the City pursuant to Section 18.16.080, the owners of rental below market rate units shall fill vacant units by selecting income-eligible households from the San Mateo County Office of Housing Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program or similar program. If no eligible households are identified from the County program or similar program, owners may fill vacant units through their own selection process; provided, that they publish notice of the availability of below market rate units according to guidelines established by the Administrator.
C. Certification of Eligibility. The owner of rental below market rate units shall certify each tenant household’s income to the City or City’s designee at the time of initial rental and annually thereafter. The owner shall obtain and review documents from each tenant household that provide written verification of income, including but not limited to such documents as income tax returns for the previous calendar year, W-2 statements, and pay stubs. Income verification shall be submitted on a form approved by the City.
D. Nondiscrimination. When selecting tenants, the owners of below market rate units shall follow all fair - housing laws, rules, regulations, and guidelines. The owner shall apply the same rental terms and conditions to tenants of below market rate units as are applied to all other tenants, except as required to comply with this chapter (for example, rent levels and income requirements) or with other applicable government subsidy programs.
E. Move-In Costs. Total deposits, including security deposits, required of households occupying a below market rate unit shall be limited to first and last month’s rent plus a cleaning deposit not to exceed one month’s rent.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 930
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
F. Annual Report. The owner shall submit an annual report summarizing the occupancy of each below market rate unit for the year, demonstrating the continuing income eligibility of each tenant, and the rent charged for each below market rate unit. The Administrator may require additional information to confirm household income and rents charged for the unit if he or she deems it necessary.
G. Periodic Audit. The City maintains the right to periodically audit the information supplied to the City for the annual report if deemed necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. In addition, owners of below market rate units shall cooperate with any audits conducted by the City, State agencies, Federal agencies, or their designees.
H. Rent Regulatory Agreements. A rent regulatory agreement provided by the City shall be recorded against any residential rental development prior to final inspection or issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit in the residential development. The rent regulatory agreement shall include the developer’s agreement to rent the below market rate units at affordable rents in perpetuity.
The rent regulatory agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the limitations on rents required by this section, provisions for selection of tenants and tenant eligibility, provisions for nondiscrimination and monitoring, and other provisions required to ensure compliance with this chapter.
I. Changes in Tenant Income. If, after moving into a below market rate unit, a tenant’s household income exceeds the limit for that unit, the following shall apply:
1. If the tenant’s income does not exceed the income limits of other below market rate units in the residential development, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit and re-designate the unit as affordable to households of a higher income level, as long as the next vacant unit is redesignated for the income category previously applicable to the tenant’s household. Alternatively, if a below market rate unit meeting the tenant’s revised income threshold becomes available within six months and the tenant meets the income eligibility for that unit, the owner shall allow the tenant to apply for that unit.
2. If there are no units designated for a higher income category within the residential development that may be substituted for the original unit, the owner may raise the tenant’s monthly rent to an amount, net of utilities, that is the lesser of rent for a comparable market rate unit in the residential development or one-twelfth of thirty percent of the tenant’s household income. Upon vacancy by the tenant, the unit must be rented to a household in the income category previously applicable to the unit.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 931
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
3. If the tenant’s income exceeds the income designated for all below market rate units in the residential development, the tenant shall be given six months’ notice to vacate the unit. If within those six months another unit in the residential development is vacated, the owner may, at the owner’s option, allow the tenant to remain in the original unit, increase the rent to that for a comparable market rate unit in the residential development, and designate the ne wly vacated unit as a below market rate unit affordable at the income level previously applicable to the unit converted to market rate. The newly vacated unit shall be comparable in size (for example, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, etc.) to the original unit. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004.
Formerly 18.200.120)
18.16.110 Below market rate fund.
A. Trust Fund. A fund for the deposit of fees established under this and similar prior municipal codes exists as Fund 29 (the “fund”). This fund shall receive all fees contributed under this chapter and may also receive monies from other sources.
B. Purpose and Limitations. Monies deposited in the fund shall be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. Monies may also be used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this chapter.
C. Administration. The fund shall be administered by the Administrator, who may develop procedures to implement the purposes of the fund consistent with the requirements of this chapter and subject to any adopted budget of the City.
D. Expenditures. Fund monies shall be used in accordance with the City’s Housing Element, or subsequent plans adopted by the City Council to maintain or increase the quantity, quality, and variety of affordable housing units or assist other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to do so. Permissible uses include, but are not limited to, land acquisition, debt service, parcel assemblage, gap financing, housing rehabilitation, grants, unit acquisition, new construction, and other p ursuits associated with providing affordable housing. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.130)
18.16.120 Periodic review and enforcement.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 932
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
A. Periodic Review. It is the intent of the City Council to review the provisions of this chapter concurrently with the review of the City’s Housing Element, including provisions for income targeting, funding priorities, fees, and other provisions, to ensure that such provisions are economically feasible and are designed to serve the community’s highest priorities for the provision of affordable housing.
B. Penalty for Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provision of this chapter. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall also be a misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person a below market rate unit or density bonus BMR unit at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this chapter or Chapter 18.17 or to sell or rent a below market rate unit or density bonus BMR unit to a household not qualified under this chapter. It shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete information to the City or to a seller or lessor of a below market rate unit or density bonus BMR unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible.
C. Legal Action. The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter, including:
1. Actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval;
2. Actions to recover from any violator of this chapter civil fines, restitution to prevent unjust enrichment from a violation of this chapter, and/or enforcement costs, including attorneys’ fees;
3. Eviction or foreclosure; and
4. Any other appropriate action for injunctive relief or damages. Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not excuse any person, owner, hous ehold or other party from the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015: Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010: Ord. 1340 § 1 (part), 2004. Formerly 18.200.140)
18.16.130 Waivers of affordable housing requirements.
A. Requests for waivers shall be made concurrent with application submittal. As part of an application for the first approval of a residential development, a builder may request that the requirements of this chapter be reduced, adjusted, or waived based upon a showing that applying the requirements of this chapter would result in an unconstitutional taking of property or would result in any other unconstitutional result. Any such request shall be submitted concurrently with the below marke t rate housing plan required
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 933
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
by this chapter. The builder shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation, and shall bear the burden of presenting the requisite evidence to demonstrate the alleged unconstitutional result. The City may assume each of the following when applicable:
1. The builder will benefit from the incentives set forth in the municipal code; and
2. If required to provide below market rate units, the builder will provide the most economical affordable housing units feasible in terms of financing, construction, design, location and tenure.
B. The City Council, based upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the City Attorney, may approve a reduction, adjustment, or waiver if the Council determines that applying the requirements of this chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The reduction, adjustment, or waiver may be approved only to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result after adoption of written findings, based on legal analysis and the evidence. If a reduction, adjustment, or waiver is granted, any change in the residential development shall invalidate the reduction, adjustment, or waiver, and a new application shall be required for a reduction, adjustment, or waiver. (Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 3 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.200.150)
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 934
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
Chapter 18.17
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
Sections:
18.17.010 Purpose.
18.17.020 Definitions.
18.17.030 City incentives for below market rate units.
18.17.040 State mandated density bonuses.
18.17.050 State mandated concessions and incentives, waivers, and parking reductions.
18.17.060 Review procedures for State mandated density bonuses, concessions, incentives , waivers, and parking reductions.
18.17.070 Requirements for density bonus below market rate units.
18.17.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide procedures for granting incentives for the construction of affordable housing to encourage the production of affordable housing and to achieve the f ollowing additional goals:
A. Housing Element Goals and Policies. To implement goals and policies contained in the Housing Element providing for incentives for the construction of affordable housing.
B. Compliance with State Law. To comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915 et seq. (“State Density Bonus Law”), which mandates the adoption of a City ordinance specifying procedures for providing the density bonuses and other incentives and concessions required by th ose sections. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.204.010)
18.17.020 Definitions.
Terms defined in Section 18.16.020 shall have the same meaning in this chapter. In addition, the following terms shall have the following meanings when used in this chapter:
A. “Bonus units” means dwelling units allowed pursuant to Section 18.17.030(A) or Section 18.17.040 that exceed the otherwise allowable maximum gross residential density for a housing development.
B. “Concessions and incentives” means regulatory concessions and incentives as defined by Government Code Section 65915(k).
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 935
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
C. “Density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise allowable maximum gross residential density for a housing development, pursuant to Section 18.17.030(A) or Section 18.17.040.
D. “Density bonus below market rate (BMR) unit” means a dwelling unit that is offered at an affordable rent or affordable ownership cost to moderate-, low- or very low-income households; and qualifies a housing development for a density bonus pursuant to Section 18.17.040.
E. “Development standard” means a site or construction condition that applies to a housing development pursuant to any ordinance, General Plan element, specific plan, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. A “site and construction condition” is a development regulation or law that specifies the physical development of a site and buildings on the site in a housing development.
F. “Maximum allowable gross residential density” means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a housing development by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and by the Land Use Element of the General Plan on the date that the application for the housing development is submitted, excluding any density bonus. If the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Land Use Element density shall prevail.
G. “Senior citizen housing development” means a housing development with at least thirty-five dwelling units, meeting the definition of a senior citizen housing development set forth in California Civil Code Section 51.3 or a mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.204.020)
18.17.030 City incentives for below market rate units.
The incentives provided by this section are available to housing developments that provide on-site below market rate units in compliance with Chapter 18.16. Housing developments which have been granted a density bonus pursuant to Section 18.17.040 are not eligible for the City density bonus described in subsection A of this section but may be granted another incentive included in this section as a concession or incentive granted pursuant to Section 18.17.050.
A. City Density Bonus.
1. Bonus for Owner-Occupied Units: Upon the discretionary issuance of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission, residential owner-occupied developments with one or more on-site below market rate units that are affordable to low-income households, or to a lower income
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 936
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
category, may be granted one additional unit for each unit affordable to low -income households or to a lower income category. This density bonus shall not apply to single-family residential developments and is an alternative to density bonuses allowed under California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 18.17.040.
2. Bonus for Rental Units: Upon the discretionary issuance of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission, residential rental developments with one or more on-site below market rate units that are affordable to low-income households may be granted two additional units for each unit affordable to low-income households. Residential rental developments with one or more on-site below market rate units that are affordable to very low-income households, or to a lower income category, may be granted four additional units for each unit affordable to very low-income households or to a lower income category. This density bonus shall not apply to single-family residential developments and is an alternative to density bonuses allowed under California Government Code Section 65915 and Section 18.17.040.
B. Modified Development Standard Calculations. Bonus unit(s) approved under the density bonus incentive described in subsection A of this section shall be exempted from floor area ratio and density requirements. In addition, the bonus unit(s) will not be counted in determining the required number of below market rate units.
C. Flexible Parking Standards. Residential developments with one or more on -site below market rate units shall be allowed limited reductions in the parking requirements related to any dwelling units or allowed limited use of tandem and/or shared parking arrangements or allowed a combination of these modified parking standards.
D. Flexible Setback Allowance. Residential developments with one or more on -site below market rate units may be allowed limited reductions in the minimum setback requirements if the following findings are made through the design review process:
1. That the proposed alternative design at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, peace, safety, comfort, general welfare or convenience; and
2. The proposed alternative design shall not significantly reduce the privacy of the adjoining property owners or significantly reduce sunlight into adjoining properties.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 937
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
E. Permit Streamlining. In certain zoning districts, the requirement of a conditional use permit for dwelling units above the ground floor may be eliminated for residential developments with one or more on-site below market rate units.
F. Financial Assistance. To the extent budgeted by the City Council and otherwise available, financial assistance from the City or from sources as may be available to the City may be available to the builder in the form of loans or grants for the below market rate housing component of the residential development.
The builder shall be responsible for complying with all requirements associated with the particular funding source(s), including any requirements imposed by the State for payment of prevailing wages. Rental residential developments that offer the deepest affordability and which lack alternative funding sources shall be given the highest priority for financial assistance, in particular, rental residential developments affordable to very low- and low-income households.
G. Below Market Rate Housing Plan. All requests for City incentives provided pursuant to this sec tion shall be submitted with the below market rate housing plan required by Section 18.16.060(B). The builder shall include the following additional information in the below market rate housing plan:
1. A site plan depicting the number and location of all market rate, below market rate and bonus units.
2. A calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for the residential development, excluding any density bonus.
3. Description of any City incentives requested pursuant to this section. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.204.030)
18.17.040 State mandated density bonuses.
A. Eligibility for Density Bonus. A “housing development” as defined in State Density Bonus Law shall be eligible for a density bonus and other regulatory incentives that are provided by State Density Bonus Law when the builder seeks and agrees to provide affordable and other types of housing in the threshold amounts specified in State Density Bonus Law. A “housing development” includes only the residential component of a mixed-use project.
B. Calculation of State Mandated Density Bonus.
1. The amount of density bonus to which a housing development is entitled shall be as specified in State Density Bonus Law. Each housing development is entitled to only one density bonus,
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 938
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
which may be selected on the basis of only one category, as described in the subparagraphs of Government Code Section 65915(b)(1). Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined.
2. When calculating the number of permitted bonus units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded to the next larger whole number, including base density and bonus density.
3. The bonus units shall not be included when determining the number of density bonus BMR units required to qualify for a density bonus. When calculating the required number of density bonus BMR units, any calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded to the next larger integer.
4. The builder may request a lesser density bonus than the housing development is entitled to, but no reduction will be permitted in the minimum percentages of required density bonus BMR units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Regardless of the number of density bonus BMR units, no housing development may be entitled to a density bonus of more than that authorized by State Density Bonus Law.
18.17.050 State mandated concessions and incentives, parking reductions, and waivers.
A. Eligibility for Concessions and Incentives. A builder may request concessions and incentives pursuant to this section only when the builder is eligible for a State density bonus pursuant to Section 18.17.040. The number of incentives that may be requested shall be based upon the number the applicant is entitled to pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
B. Concessions Not Requiring Evidence of Cost Reduction from Applicant. The following concessions and incentives shall be available to the builder without any requirement that the builder submit reasonable documentation to the City demonstrating that the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable and actual cost reductions:
1. A reduction in the usable open space requirement;
2. An increase in the maximum lot coverage requirement;
3. A reduction in minimum lot dimensions;
4. A reduction in minimum distance between buildings;
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 939
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
5. A reduction in landscaping area requirements;
6. Deferral until occupancy of development impact fees;
7. Any of the City incentives listed in Section 18.17.030(A) through (E), inclusive.
C. Concessions Requiring Evidence of Cost Reduction from Applicant. All other concessions and incentives shall require the builder to demonstrate to the City Council through the provision of reasonable documentation that the requested concession or incentive results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the housing development to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
D. Parking Reduction. If a housing development is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Section 18.17.040(A), the builder may request an on-site vehicular parking ratio that does not exceed the number of spaces specified in Government Code Section 65915(p). A builder may request this parking reduction in addition to concessions and incentives permitted by subsection A of this section.
E. Waiver. Applicants may seek a waiver of any development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development that is eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Section 18.17.040(A) at the densities or with the concessions and incentives permitted by Section 18.17.040 or Section 18.17.050.A. The builder shall provide reasonable documentation demonstrating that the development standards that are requested to be waived will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the concessions and incentives permitted by Section 18.17.040 or Section 18.17.050.A.
F. City Financial Participation Not Required. Nothing in this chapter requires the provision of direct financial incentives for the housing development, including but not limited to the provision of financial subsidies, publicly owned land, fee waivers, or waiver of dedication requirements. The City at its sole discretion may choose to provide such direct financial incentives.
G. Prevailing Wages. Financial and certain other incentives may require payment of prevailing wages by the housing development if required by State law. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.204.050)
18.17.060 Review procedures for State mandated density bonuses, concessions, incentives, waivers, and parking reductions.
A. Below Market Rate Housing Plan. All requests for density bonuses, concessions and incentives, City incentives, parking reductions, and waivers provided pursuant to Sections 18.17.040 and 18.17.050 shall
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 940
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
be submitted with the below market rate housing plan required by Section 18.16.060(B). The builder shall include the following additional information in the below market rate housing plan:
1. A tentative map or site plan or both, drawn to scale, depicting the number and location of all market rate units, below market rate units, density bonus BMR units, and bonus units.
2. Summary table showing the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for the housing development, excluding any density bonus, proposed density bonus BMR units by income level, calculation of proposed bonus percentage, number of bonus units proposed, total number of dwelling units proposed on the site, and resulting density in units per acre..
3. The zoning and general plan designations and assessor's parcel number(s) of the housing development site.
4. A description of all dwelling units existing on the site in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal of the application and identification of any units rented in the five-year period. If dwelling units on the site are currently rented, income and household size of all residents of currently occupied units, if known. If any dwelling units on the site were rented in the five -year period but are not currently rented, the income and household size of residents occupying dwelling units when the site contained the maximum number of dwelling units, if known.
5. Description of any recorded covenant, ordinance, or law applicable to the site that restricted rents or prices to levels affordable to very-low or lower income households in the five-year period preceding the date of submittal of the application.
6. If a density bonus is requested for a land donation, the location of the land to be dedicated, proof of site control, and reasonable documentation that each of the requirements included in California Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (g) can be met.
7. If the application proposes any concessions or incentives pursuant to Section 18.17.050, the below market rate housing plan shall also include the following information:
a. The City’s usual regulatory requirement and the requested regulatory incentive, described both in writing and shown on the submitted site plans elevations, or other submitted plans, as appropriate.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 941
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
b. Except where mixed-use zoning is proposed as a concession or incentive pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(k)(2), reasonable documentation to show that any requested incentive will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
c. If approval of mixed-use zoning is proposed, reasonable documentation that nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and that the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the housing development and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing development will be located . .
8. If the application proposes waivers of development standards, the below market rate housing plan shall also include the following information:
a. The City’s usual development standard and the requested development standard, described both in writing and shown on the submitted site plans elevations, or other submitted plans, as appropriate.
b. Reasonable documentation that the development standards for which each waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with the concessions, or incentives permitted by State Density Bonus Law.
9. If the application proposes a reduction of parking standards, the below market rate housing plan shall also include a table showing parking required by the zoning regulations, parking proposed under Section 65915, subdivision (p), and reasonable documentation that the project is eligible for the requested parking reduction.
10. If a density bonus or concession is requested for a child care facility or condominium conversion, the below market rate housing plan shall provide reasonable documentation that the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(h) or 65915.5, as appropriate, can be made.
11. Other requested information included on the City’s application forms.
12. Payment of any fee in an amount set by resolution of the City Council for City costs necessary to determine compliance of the application with State Density Bonus Law.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 942
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
B. City Review of Application for State Mandated Density Bonus, Concessions, and Inc entives. Any request for a density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers, or parking reductions provided pursuant to Sections 18.17.040 and 18.17.050 shall be submitted concurrently with the filing of the planning application for the first discretionary permit required for the housing development and shall be processed, reviewed, and approved or denied by the decision-making body (Planning Commission or City Council) concurrently with the below market rate housing plan required for the housing development. The applicant shall be informed whether the application is complete consistent with Government Code Section 65943.
In accordance with State law, neither the granting of a concession or incentive, nor the granting of a density bonus, shall be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan amendment, zoning code amendment, zone change, or other discretionary approval, or the waiver of a city ordinance or provisions of a city ordinance unrelated to development standards.
C. Eligibility for State Mandated Density Bonus, Concessions and Incentives, Waivers, and Parking Reductions. To ensure that an application for a housing development conforms with the provisions of State Density Bonus Law, the staff report presented to the decision-making body shall state whether the application conforms to the following provisions of State Density Bonus Law as applicable:
1. The housing development is eligible for a density bonus and any concessions, incentives, waivers, or parking reductions requested and has complied with requirements for the replacement of units as required by State Density Bonus Law.
2. If an incentive or concession is requested, any requested incentive or concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing or costs or rents; except that, if a mixed-use development is requested, the application must instead meet all of the requirements of Government Code Section 65915, subdivision (k)(2).
3. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, the requirements of Government Code Section 65915(g) have been met.
4. If the density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or parking reduction is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care facility or condominium conversion, the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(h) or 65915.5, as appropriate, have been met.
5. If a waiver is requested, the housing development project is eligible for a waiver, and the development standards for which a waiver is requested would have the effect of physically
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 943
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
precluding the construction of the housing development at the densities or with concessions or incentives permitted.
D. Findings for Denial of Incentives, Concessions or Waivers.
1. Denial of Concessions and Incentives. The decision-making body may deny a concession or incentive only if it makes a written finding, supported by substantial evidence, of any of the following:
a. The proposed incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for affordable rents, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, for the BMR density bonus units.
b. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
For the purpose of this subsection, “specific adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the housing development was deemed complete.
c. The concession or incentive would be contrary to State or Federal law.
2. Denial of Waivers. The decision-making body may deny a waiver only if it makes a written finding, supported by substantial evidence, of any of the following:
a. The waiver would have a specific adverse impact upon health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this subsection, “specific adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, and identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application was deemed complete.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 944
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
SJ - San Jose #4876-9821-0079 v1
DRAFT
1553\08\3286250.2
5/9/2022
b. The waiver would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
c. The waiver would be contrary to State or Federal law.
3. Denial of Incentive or Bonus for Child Care Center. If a child care center complies with the requirements of subsection (h) of Government Code Section 65915, the decision-making body may deny a density bonus, incentive, or concession that is based on the provision of child care facilities only if it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that the City already has adequate child care facilities. (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010.
Formerly 18.204.060)
18.17.070 Requirements for density bonus below market rate units.
In addition to any requirements included in Sections 18.17.040 and 18.17.050, density bonus BMR units shall conform to the following provisions applicable to below market rate units:
A. Below market rate unit standards (Section 18.16.050), except that for-rent density bonus BMR units that are affordable to very low- and low-income households that are not also BMR units required by Section 18.16.030 shall be affordable for fifty-five years or as long a period of time as permitted by current law. All for-sale density bonus BMR units shall be affordable in perpetuity. .
B. Compliance procedures (Section 18.16.060), except that the below market rate housing plan shall also include the provisions described in Section 18.17.040.A.
C. Eligibility for below market rate units (Section 18.16.080).
D. Owner-occupied below market rate units (Section 18.16.090).
E. Rental units (Section 18.16.100). (Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2011: Ord. 1416 § 4 (Exh. A (part)), 2010. Formerly 18.204.070)
18.17.080 Interpretation.
If any portion of this chapter conflicts with State Density Bonus Law or other applicable state law, state law shall supersede this chapter. Any ambiguities in this chapter shall be interpreted to be consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
7.v.2
Packet Pg. 945
Attachment: Proposed Chapter 18 Amendments (Clean Version) (BMR Ordinance1583)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Adopt Ordinance 1584 Amending San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 - Zoning, Consisting of Modifications to Chapter 18.23.210 - Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1584 to amend San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 - Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation, n or is additional appropriation needed for this action.
BACKGROUND:
On October 26, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1566 to amend the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code, in order to bri ng accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior dwelling units (“JADUs”) into compliance with State law.
Since its adoption, staff has administered these amended requirements to all incoming ADU and JADU applications and has assisted members of the public with the application of these requirements to unique individual lots. Staff has prepared several recommendations to both clarify the original intent of these requirements and to reduce unintended obstacles to the construction of ADUs and JADUs in adherence with State law.
On April 18, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Municipal Code and recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Municipal Code changes.
Subsequently, staff decided to bring this item forward to the City Council as a study session to obtain the Council’s feedback.
On May 9, 2022, the City Council conducted a study session and reviewed the proposed changes to the Ordinance. At that time, the Council asked for further clarification on the number of c orner and reverse corner lots within the city. In addition, the Council asked for additional information about neighboring jurisdictions’ setback requirements for ADUs on reverse corner lots.
7.w
Packet Pg. 946
2 At its June 13, 2022 meeting, the City Council reviewed the pr oposed changes to Section
18.23.210 of the San Carlos Municipal Code and introduced Ordinance 1584 without any additional changes.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Amendments
Staff recommends the following amendments to the Zoning Code. The specific section of the Municipal Code is italicized. Section 18.23.210 of the Municipal Code is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1 and includes redlines to demonstrate the proposed changes.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
1. 18.23.210 (C)(1) and 18.23.210(E)(3)(a): Clarifies that JADUs may only be included in existing residence walls or as part of a new house. The California Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) has clarified that additions to existing residences to accommodate JADUs are not permitted.
2. 18.23.210(E)(3)(g): Clarifies that the balconies, decks, and open stair landings shall not face the rear or nearest side property line (except as to allow ingress and egress), above the first floor only.
Accessory Dwelling Units
1. 18.23.210 (D)(2) : Clarifies that A DUs may only be sold separately from the main residence when allowed by State law. For example, AB 345 allows qualified non -profit builders or developers to sell units individually, in very specific cases.
2. 18.23.210(E)(4)(d): Clarifies that setbacks for first floor ADUs (4’ minimum side and rear setbacks and a front setback equal to the front setback require ments for the main residence.) Includes new language to allow attached second floor ADUs on reverse corner lots only to have a minimum 5’ rear setback.
A reverse corner lot is shown in the area outlined in red below. Reverse corner lots’ rear yards align with the front and side yard of the interior lot of the property next door.
7.w
Packet Pg. 947
3 As staff has received inquiries and proposals for these lots, it has become clear that a reduced second floor rear setback would assist with the development of ADUs for several reasons:
Reversed corner lots have a rear yard that is adjacent to a neighbor’s side yard (on key lots) , and oftentimes appear to be a side yard du e to the layout of the house on the lot. Second story side setbacks on the key lots located to the rear of the reverse corner lots range from 5’- 9’ on RS-6 lots and 10’ - 14’ feet on RS- 3 lots.
Garages on reversed corner lots are generally located towar ds the rear of the lot and building an ADU above a single-story garage is attractive to homeowners for aesthetic reasons, cost to build, and their relation to neighboring properties. Reversed corner lots are required to set back their house from the stree t side even further for a portion of the length of their lot:
o SCMC 18.04.30(E): Street Side Setbacks on Lots with Reversed Frontage. The exterior side setback in the rear twenty -five percent of a reversed corner lot shall not be less than the front yard re quired or existing, whichever is less, on the adjoining key lot.
Due to the unique circumstances of reverse corner lots, Staff believes the proposed changes are needed to remove obstacles to the construction of ADUs on these types of lots.
7.w
Packet Pg. 948
4 At the May 9, 2022 study session, staff presented a rear setback of 5’ for ADUs located on the second floor of reverse corner lots. The Council asked staff to return with additional information to better understand the impact of this change.
Staff surveyed the ADU ordinances of eight jurisdictions to determine their rear and side setback requirements for attached ADUs on second stories in single -family residential zoning districts. These jurisdictions included Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Foster City, Millbrae, Pa lo Alto, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Santa Monica.
The majority of jurisdictions in the surrounding area require 4 -foot side and rear setbacks for ADUs, including those that are attached to the main building on the second story. The City of Belmont and the City of Palo Alto require that ADUs attached to the main building meet the required setbacks of the main building. The Town of Atherton requires 4 -foot side and rear setbacks, but offers bonus floor area exemptions if the ADU meets the setbacks of the main building. In these circumstances, the structure may still encroach up to 20% of required main building setbacks to achieve bonus floor area exemptions. No nearby jurisdictions specifically regulate the required setbacks for attached second-story ADUs on reverse frontage corner lots.
7.w
Packet Pg. 949
5 At the May 9, 2022 study session, the City Council also requested that staff return with information on the number of reverse corner lots within the City to better understand the impact of a revised setback for attached, second story ADUs. Based on analysis done through GIS, there are 693 lots that are “reverse corner lots”. This is equal to approximately 8.4% of all of the lots within the RS-3 and RS-6 zoning districts. However, when analyzing all lots that are located on a corner, reverse corner lots comprise about 74% of the total number of corner lots.
Lot Type Number of
Lots
Percent of Total
Non-Reverse Corner Lots 241 3%
Reverse Corner Lots 693 8.4%
Other Lot Types 7,319 88.6%
Total 8,253 100%
3. 18.23.210(E)(4)(g): Clarifies that balconies, decks, and open stair landings shall not face the rear or nearest side property line (except as to allow ingress and egress), above the first floor only. Removes the requirement for obscure glass and minimum window sil l heights for the first floor. Allows the Director to determine whether windows on the second floor of an ADU shall be obscured and/or have a minimum sill height, based on the specific conditions of the proposal.
4. 18.23.210 (E)(4)(i) : Language has been add ed to clarify that additions to existing accessory structures to accommodate ADUs must comply with all current requirements, including setback, height, etc.
Environmental Determination
This project implements the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan and is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . No new environmental effects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no ad ditional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.
Next Steps
Should the City Council adopt Ordinance 1584 at its June 27, 2022 meeting, the proposed amendments would become effective July 27, 2022.
ALTERNATIVES:
The options available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt Ordinance 1584 amending San Carlos Municipal Code Section 18.23.210 - Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
2. Do not adopt Ordinance 1584; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
7.w
Packet Pg. 950
6 Respectfully submitted by:
Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director
Andrea Mardesich, Principal Planner
Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance with Exhibit A
7.w
Packet Pg. 951
ORDINANCE NO. 1584
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS AMENDING SAN CARLOS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18 - ZONING, CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO CHAPTER 18.23.210 - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS/JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
___________________________________________________________________________ The City Council of the City of San Carlos does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1:
WHEREAS, the City of San Carlos is proposing an amendment to Section 18.23.210, Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units of the San Carlos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance would ensure that the San Carlos Municipal Code conforms with State laws of California pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) with the intent to facilitate the development of ADUs and JADUs in the City of San Carlos;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65853 and 65850 and San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35, when amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code are found necessary, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider such changes and render its decision to the City Council as the official recommending body to the City Council on matters concerning land use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.35 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 6509, a Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice was published on April 7, 2022 for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in the newspaper; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with the proposed amendments of the Zoning Ordinance on April 18, 2022 in consideration of a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the San Carlos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carl os Municipal Code Chapter 18.35, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2022-05 recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning text amendments, and including the reasons for the recommendation, and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the applicable General Plan pursuant to Chapter 18.35.
SECTION 2:
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, the City Council held a study session to review the proposed ordinance changes and provide additional direction; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Carlos Municipal Code Chapter 18.27.060 and the California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091, a Public Hearing Notice was published June 2, 2022 for the Amendments to Title 18, Zoning Ordinance in the newspaper; and
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 952
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance text were released for public review on June 9, 2022 and incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission as recommended in Resolution of the Planning Commission No. PC2022-05; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with a proposed amendments of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on June 13, 2022 in consideration of adoption of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the public hearing on amendments to the San Carlos Zoning Ordinance to hear and consider all comments of all persons interested in or concerned with a pr oposed amendments of the City of San Carlos Municipal Code on October 22, 2018 in consideration of adoption of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings for the proposed amendments to the San Carlos Municipal Code Title 18 Zoning Ordinance relative to implementation of the 2030 General Plan.
SECTION 3: The City Council makes the following findings:
1) Findings:
1. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
Basis for finding: The 2030 General Plan Housing Element includes Goal HOU-4, which states “Promote the development of second units to increase housing opportunities,” and Policy HOU -4.3, which states “Encourage the development of well -designed new secondary dwelling units in existing neighborhoods by implementing objective standards for the approval of a second unit and continuing to evaluate the Zoning Ordinance to create opportunities for new second units.” One of the primary goals of this proposed amendments is to en sure that San Carlos’s development standards pertaining to accessory dwelling units (formerly known as “second dwelling units”) and junior accessory dwelling units are consistent with State law, which is intended to expand housing opportunities by reducing barriers, better streamline approval and expand capacity to accommodate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
2. The ordinance amendment is consistent with the purpose of this zoning title to promot e the growth of the city in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.
Basis for finding: The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the 2030 General Plan and as such promote the location, design, and placement of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in an orderly manner while continuing to protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare.
SECTION 4: Replacement of Code. Chapter 18.23.210 – Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units is hereby replaced with the language in Exhibit A.
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 953
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
SECTION 5: California Environmental Quality Act Determination . The City Council hereby finds that this project is consistent with the programs and policies of the San Carlos 2030 General Plan, is within the scope of the activities and impacts identified in San Carlos 2030 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and no new environmental e ffects have been found and no new mitigation is necessary. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168.
SECTION 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and such section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7 : That the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8: This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption.
* * * * *
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 13th day of June, 2022 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Carlos held on the 27th day of June, 2022 by the following vote:
______________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Amendments to the Municipal Code, Section 18.23.210 AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 954
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
EXHIBIT A - Amendments to the Municipal Code, Section 18.23.210.
Changes are shown in red.
18.23.210 Accessory dwelling units/junior accessory dwelling units.
A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this section is to:
1. Provide for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of State law.
2. Maintain the character of single-family residential neighborhoods in the City to the greatest extent possible.
3. In cases of conflict between this chapter and any other provision of this title, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is in conflict with State law, the applicable provision of State law shall control, but all other provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect.
B. Land Use Regulations. Accessory dwelling units shall be a permitted use in residential (R) zoning districts, mixed-use (MU) zoning districts and in any planned development (PD) zoning district where residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted as part of an approved planned development plan. Junior accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in the single- family (RS) zoning districts within an existing single-unit dwelling, or as part of a proposed new single-unit dwelling.
C. Number of Units and Location.
1. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Number.
a. Where permitted, one (1) junior accessory dwelling unit may be developed on any legally created lot and shall be located within the walls of an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. New additions to an existing residence shall not contain JADUs.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units, Number.
a. Multifamily Dwelling Structures, Accessory Dwelling Units Inside an Existing Multifamily Dwelling Structure. Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the number of
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 955
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
existing multifamily units in the building, but at least one (1) unit, shall be allowed in existing multifamily dwelling structures within the portions of the structure that are not used as livable space; provided, that the unit complies with the California Building Standards Code as set forth in Title 15 of this Code for dwellings. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be created within any portion of the habitable area of an existing dwelling unit in a multifamily structure.
b. Multifamily Dwelling Structures, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Up to two (2) detached accessory dwelling units on a lot with an existing multifamily dwelling structure; provided, that the height of the detached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed sixteen (16) feet and has no less than four (4) foot side and four (4) foot rear yard setbacks.
c. Single-Family Residential Lots. One (1) accessory dwelling unit is permitted per residential lot containing an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be allowed in conjunction with a junior accessory dwelling unit when the requirements of subsection E of this section (Development Standards) are met.
3. Accessory Dwelling Units, Location. Where permitted, one (1) accessory dwelling unit may be located in any of the following places on a legally created lot:
a. Attached to an existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; b. Located within the walls of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling, including all or a portion of an attached garage, or an existing multifamily structure; c. Located within an existing accessory structure;
d. Detached from the existing single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure, but located on the same lot as the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling or multifamily structure;
e. Located over a legally established detached garage.
D. Rental Standards.
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 956
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
1. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence.
b. Junior accessory dwelling units may be rented independently of the primary residence.
c. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be rented for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
d. Either the single-unit dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be owner-occupied.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units.
a. Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary residence, unless permitted by State Law.
b. Accessory dwelling units may be rented independently of the primary residence. c. Accessory dwelling units shall not be rented for fewer than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days.
d. Either the single-unit dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be owner- occupied. For applications received prior to January 1, 2025, there is no owner- occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units.
E. Development Standards.
1. Junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units shall conform to the height, setbacks, lot coverage, and any other development or supplemental standards of any applicable zoning district(s), the development standards below, other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City codes. In any case of conflict between this section and any other part of the San Carlos Municipal Code, the standards specific to this section shall take precedence.
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 957
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
2. Building Code Requirements. Junior accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable building code requirements, except fire sprinklers shall not be required in a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit if they are not required for the single-unit dwelling.
3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
a. Junior accessory dwelling units shall be contained entirely within the walls of a single-unit dwelling, and shall contain at least an efficiency kitchen equipped with a sink, a built-in cooking facility with appliances (e.g., microwave, toaster oven, hot plate) as well as a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the junior dwelling unit. New additions to an existing residence shall not contain JADUs.
b. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall be no larger than five hundred (500) square feet in size; and no junior accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
c. A junior accessory dwelling unit may, but is not required to, include separate sanitation facilities. If separate sanitation facilities are not provided, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall share sanitation facilities with the single-unit dwelling. d. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate external entrance from the primary dwelling unit. The entrance of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be located along any street-facing facade unless infeasible as determined by the Community Development Director.
e. The maximum size of a junior accessory dwelling unit shall maintain a limit in size of five hundred (500) square feet. The single-family unit first floor side and rear setbacks may be reduced to no less than four (4) feet to accommodate access to a ground floor junior accessory dwelling unit, or an exterior stair and landing that provide required access to the unit if it is located on the second story. f. The architectural design, exterior materials and colors, roof pitch and style, type of windows, and trim details of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall be substantially
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 958
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
the same as the single-unit dwelling. Junior accessory dwelling units shall satisfy applicable design criteria and conform to any applicable design guidelines. g. Balconies, decks, and open stair landings above the first floor shall not face the side property lines, except as needed to meet minimum requirements to allow ingress and egress, as determined by the Building Official.
h. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide for any additional parking and, unlike accessory dwelling units, are required to provide replacement parking for any parking displaced by their construction, including full or partial conversion of an existing garage.
i. Junior accessory dwelling units must be allowed within a single-unit dwelling, including nonconforming single-unit dwellings. A permit to construct a junior accessory dwelling unit in a nonconforming single-unit dwelling shall not require nonconforming conditions to be corrected, unless otherwise required for health and safety.
4. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
a. Limits on Lot Coverage, Maximum Floor Area (MFA), and Natural State.
Accessory dwelling units shall comply with lot coverage requirements, MFA, and natural state and open space requirements when applicable, as well as other applicable development standards, except that: a maximum of eight hundred (800) square feet of ADU floor area is exempt from the MFA requirement that applies to the RS-6 zoning district; an ADU of up to eight hundred (800) square feet and up to sixteen (16) feet in height, and with minimum four (4) foot side and minimum four (4) foot rear yard setbacks is not required to meet lot coverage standards, MFA and floor area standards, and natural state or open space requirements (which is defined as a “statewide exemption ADU”; front yard setbacks shall not preclude a statewide exemption ADU, and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of accessory dwelling units.
b. Notwithstanding the development standards set forth in subsection (E)(4)(a) of this section, if there is no alternative to constructing an accessory dwelling unit in accordance with the development standards listed in subsection (E)(4)(a) of this
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 959
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
section, one (1) or more of these development standards may be waived only to the extent necessary to allow a statewide exemption ADU of up to eight hundred (800) square feet with a maximum of sixteen (16) feet in height, with minimum four (4) foot side and four (4) foot rear yard setbacks. The proposal must meet all other development standards. The applicant must also demonstrate that an accessory dwelling unit cannot be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards.
c. Entrances. An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate external entrance from the single-unit dwelling.
d. Setbacks. Except as indicated in this subsection, an accessory dwelling unit shall be required to comply with the setback requirements of the zone in which the unit is to be located. Detached accessory dwelling units must be set back a minimum of four (4) feet from rear and four (4) feet from the side property lines. Accessory dwelling units that are not classified as statewide exemption ADUs must meet the required front setback unless located within a legal, nonconforming structure. No setback is required for an existing living area or an existing accessory structure converted to an accessory dwelling unit, or for a new accessory dwelling unit constructed in the same location and built to the same dimensions as an existing structure. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks between an accessory dwelling unit and the single-unit dwelling; however, all proposals shall meet any applicable building and fire requirements. Newly constructed attached ADUs shall meet minimum 4’ side and 4’ rear setbacks on the first floor and shall meet the required front setback for the main residence, unless classified as a statewide exemption ADU. Accessory Dwelling Units attached to the main residence, and located on the second floor shall conform to the minimum second floor setbacks for the main residence. On reversed corner lots (as defined in San Carlos Municipal Code 18.41.020), the rear setback for an attached ADU located on the second floor shall be a minimum of 5’. e. Maximum Size. The floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed eight hundred fifty (850) square feet for a studio or one (1) bedroom, and shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit that contains more than one (1) bedroom when the accessory dwelling unit meets all development standards of any applicable zoning districts, except that: conversions of garages, sheds, barns, and
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 960
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
other existing accessory structures, either attached or detached from a single-unit dwelling, are not subject to any additional development standard, such as unit size, height, and lot coverage requirements. If the accessory dwelling unit does not meet all development standards of the applicable zoning district, the maximum floor area permitted is eight hundred (800) square feet, regardless of number of bedrooms, subject to the provisions of subsection (E)(4)(b) of this section. No accessory dwelling unit shall be smaller than the size required to allow an efficiency unit pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.
f. Architectural Compatibility. An accessory dwelling unit, whether attached or detached, shall use any combination of the following elements to maintain architectural and design compatibility between the single-unit dwelling and the proposed accessory dwelling unit: architectural style, exterior materials, fenestration (windows and openings), and colors of the existing or proposed single-unit dwelling; however, the quality of the materials shall be the same or exceed that of the single- unit dwelling. Accessory dwelling units shall conform to any applicable objective design guidelines.
g. Balconies and Openings. Balconies, decks or open stair landings above the first floor and within ten (10) feet of a side or rear property line that face the rear or side property line nearest the accessory dwelling unit shall not be permitted, except as needed to allow ingress and egress meet minimum requirements to allow ingress and egress, as determined by the Building Official, but in no case shall be less than 3’ from the property line.
Windows above the first floor and within ten (10) feet of the property line may be required to be obscured or have at least five (5) foot sills depending on the existing and proposed conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director.
Windows within ten (10) feet of the property line shall be obscured and have at least five (5) foot sills to maximize privacy for neighbors.
h. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be no greater than sixteen (16) feet in height as measured in accordance with Section 18.03.050 (Measuring height).
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 961
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
i. Accessory dwelling units developed within an existing accessory structure on a lot with a single-unit dwelling may include an expansion of up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet beyond the existing physical structure of the accessory structure only to accommodate ingress and egress if the side and rear setbacks are sufficient for safety. Any other additions to an existing accessory structure shall comply with all other standards in effect including, but not limited to setbacks, height, and lot coverage.
5. Additional Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units Located Above Detached Garages. In addition to the standards specified in subsections (E)(4)(a) through (i) of this section, accessory dwelling units that are located over detached garages are subject to the following additional requirements:
a. The accessory dwelling unit must meet the minimum required front setback of the zoning district in which the lot is located, unless it meets the criteria of a statewide exemption ADU.
b. The footprint of the accessory dwelling unit may not extend past the footprint of the garage with the exception of stairs or entryway to access the unit. No portion of the accessory dwelling unit may be located at ground level except for stairs or an entryway to access the unit above the garage.
c. Balconies and decks shall not face rear and side property lines. d. The maximum height of the structure shall be twenty (20) feet as measured in accordance with Section 18.03.050 (Measuring height).
e. Stairs or access to the accessory dwelling unit shall not encroach into any required parking area. Stairs may encroach into the parking area of a garage; provided, that the front end of a standard size automobile can fit under the stair projection. The bottom of the stairwell (including exterior finish) shall be a minimum of five feet above the garage floor.
F. Parking. Parking for a junior accessory dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit shall be provided in compliance with the following standards:
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 962
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
1. Except as provided in subsection (F)(3) of this section, one (1) parking space shall be provided per accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling unit parking requirements are in addition to the parking required for the single-unit dwelling as provided in Chapter 18.20.
2. Parking spaces may be provided as tandem parking on a driveway or in setback areas unless the Community Development Director finds that tandem parking and parking in setback areas are not feasible because of specific topographical conditions and/or other conditions that would pose a risk to health and safety. No parking may extend into a public sidewalk or right-of-way that would require walking into the street. A minimum of eight and one-half (8.5) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in depth is required for any uncovered parking space.
3. No parking shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit if any of the following apply:
a. The accessory dwelling unit is contained within an existing single-unit dwelling or accessory structure, or proposed single-unit dwelling.
b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half (.50) mile walking distance of public transit. For purposes of this section, “public transit” means a bus stop or train station where public transportation runs on fixed routes. c. The accessory dwelling unit is located within an architecturally and historically significant district.
d. Where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupants of the accessory dwelling unit.
e. When a designated parking area for one (1) or more car-share vehicles is located within one (1) block of the accessory dwelling unit. f. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, the parking spaces for the primary residence need not be replaced.
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 963
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
4. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not be required to provide for any additional parking, except that any parking displaced by their construction, including full or partial conversion of an existing garage, shall be replaced.
G. Utilities and Impact Fees.
1. No junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted if it is determined that there is not adequate water or sewer service to the property.
2. Except as provided in subsection (G)(3) of this section, an accessory dwelling unit may be required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility. A connection fee or capacity charge may be charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the accessory dwelling unit or its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit.
3. The following accessory dwelling units shall be exempt from any requirement to install a new or separate utility connection and to pay any associated connection or capacity fees or charges:
a. Junior accessory dwelling units.
b. Standard accessory dwelling units converted from interior space unless the unit is constructed within a new single-unit dwelling.
4. All utility extensions shall be placed underground if required for the single-unit dwelling.
5. Impact Fees.
a. No impact fees may be imposed on a junior accessory dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit that is less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in size. For purposes of this section, “impact fees” includes the fees specified in Sections 66000 and 66477 of the Government Code, but does not include utility connection fees or capacity charges.
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 964
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
b. For accessory dwelling units that have a floor area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet or more, impact fees shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the single-unit dwelling.
H. Delay of Enforcement of Building Standards.
1. Prior to January 1, 2030, the owner of an accessory dwelling unit that was built before November 25, 2020, may submit an application to the Building Official requesting that correction of any violation of building standards be delayed for five (5) years. For purposes of this section, “building standards” refers to those standards enforced by local agencies under the authority of Section 17960 of the California Health and Safety Code.
2. The Building Official shall grant the application if the Building Official determines that enforcement of the building standard is not necessary to protect health and safety. In making this determination, the Community Development Director shall consult with the Fire Marshal and Building Official.
3. No applications pursuant to this section shall be approved on or after January 1, 2030. However, any delay that was approved by the City of San Carlos before January 1, 2030, shall be valid for the full term of the delay that was approved at the time of the approval of the application.
4. Until January 1, 2030, any notice to correct a violation of building standards that is issued to the owner of an accessory dwelling unit built before November 25, 2020, shall include a statement that the owner has a right to request a delay in enforcement of the building standard for an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to this section.
5. This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 2035, and as of that date is repealed. (Ord. 1566 (Exh. A), 2020: Ord. 1480 (Exh. C (part)), 2015; Ord. 1438 § 4 (Exh.
A (part)), 2011)
7.w.1
Packet Pg. 965
Attachment: Ordinance with Exhibit A (ADU Ordinance 1584)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Receive a Presentation from Cal Water on Drought Updates.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from California Water Service – Bayshore District (“Cal Water”) on the work and services that they provide to the City of San Carlos.
BACKGROUND:
The presentation will provide the City Council with an overview of the services that Cal Water provides. It is also timely that the City Council receiv e a report on the status of the drought and learn about the important tips to save water in our community. Cal Water’s Bayshore District Manager Ross Molian and Cal Water’s Conservation Coordinator Anthony Meyer will make the presentation.
Cal Water’s Bay shore District serves the cities of San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. The Bayshore District serves approximately 10,340 customers and was formed in 1931 with the purchase of South San Francisco Water Company, the San Carlos Water Company, and the Pacific Water Company in San Mateo.
The San Carlos distribution system is served by 21 storage tanks and 29 water booster pumps and approximately 112 miles of pipe. All the water provided to San Carlos is purchased from the City and County of San Francisco, also known as SFPUC.
No action is required by the City Council this evening.
Respectfully submitted by:
Steven Machida,
Public Works Director
8.a
Packet Pg. 966
2 Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
8.a
Packet Pg. 967
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving and Adopting the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc. for the City of San Carlos Dated July 14, 2021.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc. for the City of San Carlos dated July 14, 2021.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Potential revenue as established by the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study will vary depending on the size of the proposed project.
BACKGROUND:
In 2017, City Council directed staff to work with consultants Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (“EPS”) to identify funding s trategies and explore various fees or charges on new development to mitigate the demand for child care based on the expected increase in residents and employers in San Carlos. In 2019, EPS developed the technical analysis and prepared the required Nexus Study to support potential implementation of a child care development fee. The City currently has several development impact fees, none of which are for child care.
The purpose of the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study is to establish the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required for new development in the City of San Carlos. While this Nexus Study supports the maximum-justifiable fee levels, the Council may choose to adopt fees below the maxim um and charge only certain land use categories.
ANALYSIS:
The Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study provides legal context, assumptions, child care facility cost estimates, child care fee calculations, and program implementation and administration (see Attachment 2 for the full Nexus Study). The report establishes that a child care impact fee program would need to be enacted through the adoption of a new City Ordinance supporting the addition of a new fee category for child care facilities. The Nexus Study also summarizes the maximum fee amount that the City may set based on demographic, employment, and land use
9.a
Packet Pg. 968
2 assumptions. These maximum fee amounts vary by land use category of new development.
The Study found a nexus between the impact of development and the need for childcare in San Carlos, and that the maximum fee is proportionate to that impact. The main goal of the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study is to address the shortage of child care spaces in San Carlos by establishing a funding mechanism that aims to expand the supply of child care spaces.
ALTERNATIVES:
The options available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a resolution approving and adopting the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems Inc. for the City of San Carlos dated July 14, 2021; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director
Sajuti Haque, Senior Management
Analyst
Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution - Child Care Nexus Study
2. Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report
9.a
Packet Pg. 969
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE CHILD CARE IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY PREPARED BY ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS INC. FOR THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS DATED JULY 14, 2021.
___________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, in 2019, at the direction of the City Council, the City retained consultant Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (“EPS”) to conduct an initial study of regulatory and financing options to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demands based on expected increase of residents and employers in San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020 and July 2021, EPS prepared and then updated the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) for the City, which established the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis supporting a schedule of development impact fees intended to mitigate the demand for child care spaces in the City that results from new developments; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study f ound that there is a nexus between development in San Carlos and the need for additional child care and that the maximum fee justified by the study is roughly proportionate to the impact of such developments; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study was introduced to the Child Care Subcommittee and City Council in 2020 and a Study Session was held in March 2022 to discuss the fee levels established by the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wished to approve and adopt the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by EPS for the City of San Carlos dated July 14, 2021 to support the implementation of a child care impact fee program to expand the supply of child care spaces in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby approves and adopts the Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by EPS for the City of San Carlos dated July 14, 2021.
* * * * * * *
I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was p assed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a scheduled meeting thereof held on the 27th day of June, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________ ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________________
9.a.1
Packet Pg. 970
Attachment: Resolution - Child Care Nexus Study (Nexus Study)
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
9.a.1
Packet Pg. 971
Attachment: Resolution - Child Care Nexus Study (Nexus Study)
Draft Report
Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Prepared for:
City of San Carlos
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
July 14, 2021
EPS #211028
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 972
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES ......................................................................... 1 Summary of Maximum Fee Levels ............................................................................. 1 Report Background and Legal Context ........................................................................ 2
2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS .............................................. 4 Current Population and Households in San Carlos ........................................................ 4 Age Cohorts ........................................................................................................... 5 Labor Force Participation .......................................................................................... 5 Child Care Choice .................................................................................................... 6 Population Density .................................................................................................. 7 Employment Density ............................................................................................... 8
3. CHILD CARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................... 9
4. CHILD CARE FEE CALCULATIONS .............................................................................. 10 Residential Fees .................................................................................................... 10 Nonresidential Fees ............................................................................................... 11
5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ...................................................................... 13
6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 14 Fee Collection and Amount ..................................................................................... 14 Annual Review and Five-Year Review ....................................................................... 15 Accounting, Reporting, and Updates ........................................................................ 16
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 973
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Child Care Impact Fees by Land Use Category ................................... 2 Table 2. Population and Households ............................................................................... 4 Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County ......................................................................... 5 Table 4. Labor Force Participation .................................................................................. 6 Table 5. Child Care Choice ............................................................................................ 7 Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure .................................. 8 Table 7. Employment Density ........................................................................................ 8 Table 8. Average Cost per Child Care Space by Type of Facility .......................................... 9 Table 9. Child Care Fees for Residential Development ..................................................... 10 Table 10. Child Care Fees for Nonresidential Development ................................................ 11
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 974
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES
This report establishes the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos. In October 2017, the City Council considered strategies to address the shortage of child care facilities serving the community. This was a response to a study initiated by the San Mateo County’s Office of Education, which identified significant shortages of child care spaces in the County, generally, and San Carlos, specifically. At Council’s direction, staff was directed to study the regulatory and financing options available to the City to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demand based on the expected increase in residents and jobs in San Carlos.
The issues were studied, and the Council’s Child Care Subcommittee held collaborative working sessions with City staff to review findings and develop strategies. In the fall of 2019, the City Council affirmed that addressing the City’s child care needs is a priority, and one of the funding strategies identified was to explore various fees or charges on new development to mitigate the demand for child care from new residents and employees in the City. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained to develop the technical analysis and prepare the required Nexus Study to support potential implementation of a child care development impact fee, as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq.).
While this Nexus Study supports the maximum-justifiable fee levels, the Council may choose to adopt fees below the maximum, charge only certain land use categories, or not adopt fees at all.
Summary of Maxi mum Fee Levels
At the Council’s discretion, a new child care development impact fee could be charged to all new residential and/or nonresidential development and at fee levels up to the maximum justifiable through this Nexus Study. The technical analysis included in this report presents the methodology and analysis to support the maximum-justifiable fee levels in the City of San Carlos, as shown below in Table 1.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 975
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 1. Summary of Child Care Impa ct Fees by Land Use Category
Report Background and Legal Context
This report is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis supporting a schedule of development impact fees intended to mitigate the demand for child care spaces in the City that results from new residential and commercial development. The City currently has several development impact fees, none of which is for child care. A new fee program for child care, if approved, will need to be enacted through the adoption of a new City Ordinance(s) supporting the addition of a new fee category for child care facilities. The new enabling Ordinance would allow the City to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount without requiring amendments to the enabling Ordinance.
The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed Fee Program are as follows:
Collected for Capital Facility, Equipment, and Infrastructure Improvements. Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital facilities and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the City.
However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operations and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/deficiencies in City capital facilities or infrastructure. Thus, the cost of capital projects or facilities designed to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources to meet overall funding requirements.
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family $12,257 per unit
Multifamily $9,355 per unit
Non-Residential
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.
Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.
Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum Fee [1]
[1] The analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children, regardless of their parents’ working status, require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 976
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Must Be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 977
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Chapter describes the demographic, employment, and land use assumptions utilized in this Study that are important drivers of the maximum development impact fee estimates. The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculations:
Population and household count data is used to relate the number of children in the City to the supply of housing units. This data is shown on Table 2. Estimates of the number of children within certain age cohorts (e.g., infant, preschool, school-age) are used to estimate potential demand from each cohort and are shown on Table 3.
Estimates of parental labor force participation by age cohort are used to understand the share of households needing child care and are shown on Table 4. Estimates of the share of children whose parents/guardians need a child care arrangement and who will choose a child care center type of facility are provided in Table 5. Estimates related to population density (e.g., persons per housing unit) are shown on Table 6 and are used to differentiate costs between residential land uses. Estimates related to employment density (e.g., employees per square foot) are shown on Table 7 and are used to differentiate costs between non-residential land uses.
Current Population and Ho useholds in San Carlos
Population and household counts are shown in Table 2 and are used to relate the number of children in the City to the overall population as well as to the supply of housing units.
Table 2. Population and Households
Item Total
Population in Households 30,024
Total Households 11,689
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 978
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Age Cohorts
EPS developed a distribution of the number of children within certain age cohorts based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). Because parents/guardians make different child care decisions at different times in their children’s lives, this data is used to support estimates of child care demand for different age cohorts. The Census-based age breakdown of children at the City level is not as detailed as the Department of Finance’s estimates for San Mateo County. Accordingly, EPS used the County’s age cohort distribution and applied those shares to the City’s population under 18 years of age. These estimates are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County
Labor Force Participation
The U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019) reports the number of children whose parents are working. The data reports the number of children in single parent households in which that parent is working, as well as the number of children in two-parent households in which both parents are working. These estimates are provided in Table 4.
Item Number
Percent of
Total
San Mateo County
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 170,296
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 17,183 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 31,932 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 121,182 71.2%
San Carlos [1]
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 7,469
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 754 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 1,400 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 5,315 71.2%
[1] County age distribution among population under age 18 (DOF, 2019) is applied to City's total population under age 18 as reported by Census.
Source: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year Increments; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Communi ty Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 979
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 4. Labor Force Participation
Child Care Choice
There are a range of child care options potentially available to families requiring non-parental child care, including other relatives, nanny shares, live-in au pairs, child care centers, home- based day care, etc. As such, another adjustment to the data is needed to estimate the number of children whose parents/guardians need a child care arrangement and who will choose a child care center type of facility (i.e., the type of facility for which the impact fee revenue can be used). Table 5 draws upon data collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, which reports the number of children participating in various early childhood programs.
Item Estimate
Total Children [1] 7,341
Under 6 Years 2,382
Living with Two Parents 2,238
Both Parents in Labor Force 1,587
Living with One Parent 144
Parent in Labor Force 137
All Parents in Labor Force 1,724
Labor Force Participation 72.4%
6 to 17 Years 4,959
Living with Two Parents 4,131
Both Parents in Labor Force 2,897
Living with One Parent 828
Parent in Labor Force 763
All Parents in Labor Force 3,660
Labor Force Participation 73.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Universe of data is "Own children under 18 years
in families and subfamilies."
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 980
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 5. Child Care Choice
Population Density
EPS has developed persons per household estimates based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). This data has been used to develop estimates of the number of persons per occupied household specific to each residential development type. These estimates are provided in Table 6.
Age Cohort
Number of
Children in
Survey
Children in
Parental Care
Arrangements
Children in
Non-Parental Care
Arrangements
Number Percent
Total 21,362 8,609 12,753 7,742 60.7%
Infant
Under 1 Year Old 4,724 2,487 2,237 888 39.7%
1 to 2 Years Old 8,552 3,932 4,619 2,504 54.2%
Weighted Average 13,276 6,420 6,856 3,392 49.5%
Preschool [1]
3 to 5 Years Old 8,087 2,190 5,897 4,350 73.8%
[1] While the data suggests that 73.8% of preschoolers who need childcare will opt for center-based care or care in a non- relative's home, the analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016).
Children in Center-Based
Care or Care in a Non-
relative’s Home
Note: Numbers are in thousands.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 981
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure
Employment Density
The gross building square footage assumptions of workspace required on average to accommodate jobs in different land use categories are generally consistent with industry- standard employment densities and are reflected in Table 7. As shown, the average square feet required per job ranges from 333 square feet on average for office/R&D development to 1,000 square feet on average for industrial development. Stated in another way, office developments are assumed to have the highest employment density with about 3 jobs per 1,000 square feet relative to 1 job per 1,000 square feet of industrial development.
Table 7. Employment Density
Item
Single Family
1-Unit in Structure
Multifamily [1]
2 + Units in Structure Total
Total Households 8,590 3,099 11,689
Share 73.5% 26.5% 100.0%
Population in Households 23,542 6,482 30,024
People per HH 2.74 2.09 2.57
[1] Total includes mobile homes to account for the City's total population in households.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Co mmunity Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
Employment Density by Land Use Category
Square Feet per Job
Office/R&D 333 sq.ft. per job
Retail 667 sq.ft. per job
Hotel 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Industrial 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.
Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.
Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Assumption
Sources: City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 982
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
3. CHILD CARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
The high cost of real estate and limited availability of land are factors that greatly influence the supply of child care facilities in high-cost counties, such as San Mateo. Of course, the cost of providing new child care spaces will vary on a project-by-project basis, depending on the size of the facility and the overall development program. Typical costs associated with developing new child care spaces in San Mateo County, excluding land, are provided in the 2017 San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment and shown below in Table 8. Costs range from $27,500 to $58,000 per space in 2021 dollars depending on the type of facility and include the structure, site design, preparation, general site improvement, and installation—but not land. The average cost is $43,391 per space, which is considered a reasonable average planning-level cost estimate for the purposes of establishing this fee. With land costs included, the cost per space is higher, at $80,391 per space.
Table 8. Average Cost per Child Care Space by Type of Facility
Construction Type
Avg. Cost /
Space (2017)1
Avg. Cost /
Space (2021)2
Development Cost
New Building $43,183 $46,743
New / Existing Commercial Space $53,800 $58,235
Expansion of Existing Center $37,003 $40,053
Portable Building $25,412 $27,507
Employer-based Center $41,033 $44,415
Average, Development Cost $43,391
Land Cost (Rounded)
3 $37,000
Total, Land and Average Development Costs $80,391
[1] Average cost per early learning space for child care facilities in San Mateo County, according to the San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017). [2] Average cost per early learning space has been adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 2%.
Sources: San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[3] Assumes 175 square feet of land area per child care space, reflecting the indoor, outdoor, administrative, public, and mechanical functions. The per acre land value assumption is $9 million based on current land values in San Carlos.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 983
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fee Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Carlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
4. CHILD CARE FEE CALCULATIONS
The Mitigation Fee Act maximum child care development impact fee calculations are driven by:
(1) demand for child care from residential and nonresidential development, (2) child care facility cost estimates, and (3) persons per household and employment density assumptions. The residential fees are shown in Table 9 and the nonresidential fees are shown in Table 10.
Residential Fees
Table 9. Child Care Fees for Residential Development
As shown in Table 9, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new residential development is approximately 6 spaces per 100 residents. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the Item Assumption Amount Notes
Total Population 30,024 See Table 2
Total Households 11,689 See Table 2
Population Under Age 18 7,469 See Table 3
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 10.1% 754 See Table 3
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 18.8% 1,400 See Table 3; Includes 1/2 of 5-year olds Population per Household
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 0.06
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 0.12
Population per Household, Needing Childcare
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 72.4% 0.05 See Table 4
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 72.4% 0.09 See Table 4
Population per Household, Choosing Center-based Care or Non-relative Care in Someone Else's Home Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 49.5% 0.02 Reflects weighted average of under 1 and 1-2 year olds cohorts; See Table 5
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 100.0% 0.12 Reflects Countywide Universal Preschool Policy Objective
Childcare Spaces Needed in Licensed Centers 1,670 Spaces needed for every 11,689 households Childcare Spaces per Resident 0.0556
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Cost per Resident $4,472
Number of people per Single Family Household 2.74 See Table 6 Number of people per Multifamily Household 2.09 See Table 6 Cost per Single Family Household $12,257
Cost per Multifamily Household $9,355
Sources: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 20 60 in 1- year Increments; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surv eys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016), Table was prepared December 2017; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 984
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx cost per resident is $4,472. Based on the residential density assumptions, the cost per resident can be expressed as a cost per residential unit.
Nonresidential Fees
As shown in Table 10 and based on data reported in the 2017 San Mateo County Early Learning Facilities Study, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new nonresidential development is approximately 4 spaces per 100 employees. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the cost per employee is $3,352. Based on the employment density assumptions, the cost per employee can be expressed as a cost per square foot.
Table 10. Child Care Fees for Nonresidential Development
As shown, the maximum development impact fees are:
Single-Family. $12,257 per single family unit.
Multifamily. $9,355 per multifamily/apartment unit.
Accessory Dwelling Units. Note that Senate Bill 13 (effective 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2024) precludes jurisdictions from charging impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet. Office/R&D. $10.07 per office/R&D building square foot. Retail. $5.03 per retail building square foot.
Hotel. $3.35 per hotel building square foot.
Industrial. $3.35 per industrial building square foot.
While these maximum child care development impact fees are driven by marginal demand and average costs (rather than the City’s capital improvement list), the City has provided some examples of how it may use the revenue to invest in child care facility expansion throughout San Item Notes
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Childcare Space Demand per Employee 0.0417 San Mateo County ELF Study, 2017 Cost per Employee $3,352
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.
Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.
Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Fee by Land Use Category
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.
Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.
Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.
Sources: Brion Economics Team; City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Econom ics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Assumption
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 985
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Carlos. More detailed plans will be developed as part of the City’s future planning efforts and/or through negotiations with prospective developers.
City contribution to new child care facilities located within new or existing private developments.
Loans or grants to providers operating Small or Large Family Child Care Homes, seeking to create/expand capacity.
Loans or grants to providers operating Child Care Centers, seeking to create/expand capacity.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 986
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
Development impact fees can be charged to new development under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee, 2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility improvements and the type of development, 4) the relationship between the need for the facility improvements and the type of development, and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided support these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will support provision of adequate levels of child care facility spaces in the City as new development occurs and will help ensure that new development pays its fair share of child care facility costs.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will contribute funding towards the creation or expansion of new child care spaces in the City.
Relationship
New residential and nonresidential development and the associated new residents and workers in San Carlos will increase demand for child care spaces. Fee revenue from this new development will be used to increase the number of child care spaces thereby increasing the availability of child care spaces and addressing demand from the new residents and workers.
Need
There is a demonstrated shortage of child care spaces in the City, and each new residential and nonresidential development project adds to the need for quality child care spaces. While this fee program cannot be used to address existing deficiencies, new child care spaces are necessary to avoid exacerbating the current shortage.
Proportionality
The marginal demand for child care spaces from new residents and employees in the City and the average cost of developing those spaces are used to ensure that new development funds a sufficient number of child care spaces to mitigate its own demand, but no more. In this way, the contribution of new development is proportional to its impact and is not expanded beyond its appropriate share.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 987
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The child care development impact fee will need to be adopted by City Resolution as enabled by a new Ordinance. The Ordinance will allow the City Council to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. It is anticipated that the City will develop a new Ordinance as part of this study process. This new Ordinance addresses the primary implementation and administrative issues and procedures associated with the fee program. A brief summary of the key implementation and administrative elements is provided below.
Fee Collection and Amount
Applicable Land Uses
All new development that occurs within the City of San Carlos, except as specifically exempted by the Ordinance, shall pay the child care development impact fee. While the maximum fee amount will be determined by the Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of reasons and under certain circumstances, as [will be] described in the Ordinance. In any case, the applicable fees will be published in a Fee Schedule made available by the City and updated periodically. The amount will vary by land use, as shown in Table 1.
It is possible that certain projects may not fit neatly into the identified categories. In cases where such ambiguity exists, the City’s Community Development Director will need to make a determination as to the applicable fees. The Fee Ordinance articulates guidelines for resolving discrepancies and/or disputes.
Exemptions
The City may also elect not to impose fees for certain categories of development, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided. For example, the City may elect to exempt developers from paying fees on any affordable housing units they build. Likewise, the City may enter into a Development Agreement that specifically exempts all or a portion of the City fees.
Alternative Means of Satisfying Fee Requirement
As [will be] described in the Ordinance, the City may specify alternative means of satisfying the child care fee requirement, when doing so accelerates or enhances the number of child care spaces available in the City. For example, new non-residential development greater than 50,000 square feet may meet its fee obligation by building child care space onsite at a ratio of 10 percent, such that a 50,000 sq.ft. development provides at least 5,000 sq.ft. of child care space) and contracting with a licensed child care provider to operate the child care facility. This threshold of 50,000 sq.ft. ensures that the size of the child care facility is sufficient to serve enough children (approx. 50) to support efficient operations. This option may only be exercised if a child care use onsite is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. In addition, the City will
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 988
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx need to coordinate with the applicant to ensure that the child care space will be able to meet state licensing requirements (for indoor and outdoor space).
The City also may be willing to consider the development of an off-site child care center in-lieu of paying the child care impact fees.
Timing of Establishing Effective Fees
Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” requires jurisdictions to charge the fees in effect at the time an application for development is submitted, regardless of when the fees are to be paid. Jurisdictions may not increase fees during a project’s application period, unless the increase is related to an annual fee adjustment as described below.
Fee Escalation
The ordinance allows for an automatic adjustment of the fee to keep pace with inflationary increases in construction costs. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation without requiring an annual approval process. This adjustment is based on the Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), a source widely used in the construction industry, and by many jurisdictions as a basis for making annual inflation adjustments to their development impact fees. ENR’s CCI has been published consistently every month since 1967. As such ENR is one of the most reliable and consistent indices that track trends in construction costs.
Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” allows fee increases during a project’s application period if the fee increases are the result of an annual fee adjustment based on an independently published cost index and referenced within the relevant establishing ordinance or resolution.
Timing and Manner of Payment
The City’s Ordinance addresses issues related to the timing and manner of payment for the fee including the potential for fee deferrals, payment plans, credits and reimbursements, exemptions, and related adjustments.
Annual Review and Five-Year Review
Annual Review
This Report and the technical information contained herein should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City as necessary to ensure alignment of facility needs and new development and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or development potential changes over time, the Fee Program may need to be updated. Specifically, AB 1600 (at Gov. Code §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
A description of the type of fee in the account
The amount of the fee
The beginning and ending balance of the fund
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 989
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of the improvements constructed
The total cost of the improvements constructed
The fees expended to construct the improvement
The percent of total costs funded by the fee
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, the City should monitor development activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. Formal annual review of the fee program should occur, at which time adjustments should be made.
Five-Year Review
Fees will be collected from new development within the City immediately; however, use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. Per Government Code Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the Fee account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put;
Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
Designate the approximate dates on that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.
Once sufficient funds have been collected to complete the specified projects, the City must commence construction within 180 days. If they fail to do this, the City is required to refund the unexpended portion of the fee and any accrued interest to the then current owner.
Accounting, Reporting, and Updates
Accounting
Surplus Funds
AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 990
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them.
Credits and Reimbursements
It is recommended that, under certain and limited circumstances as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Ordinance allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. Fee credits, reimbursements, or exemptions should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to a case-by-case review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate.
A fee credit—as defined by an annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost—may be allowed if a developer provides a particular off-site facility or improvement that is of citywide benefit. For example, the City may elect to offer a fee credit to developers who develop child care facilities off-site and of citywide benefit. In the event there is a discrepancy between the estimated and actual costs of construction for a project where a fee credit is being provided, if the actual construction costs are less than the estimate, the City will not reimburse the developer for any difference between the actual and estimated costs; and if the actual construction costs are more than the estimate, the City will not provide any additional funding to the developer.
Reimbursements should be considered for developers who contribute more funding and/or build and dedicate infrastructure items that exceed their proportional obligation if the project funded is of high priority. Such reimbursements should be provided as fee revenue becomes available and should include a reasonable factor for interest earned on the reimbursable amount. It should not compromise the implementation of other priority capital projects. A provision for including such interest payments as additional costs in subsequent fees can be included in the Ordinance.
Reimbursements would be granted on a discretionary basis only and not granted as a right.
Internal Loaning of Funds
Loans between the impact fee funds may be used from time to time to facilitate the construction of needed facilities and assure adequate cash flow. Any such loan shall be made in accordance with applicable law, as interpreted by the City Attorney of the City of San Carlos, and all funds shall be placed in separate accounts.
Reporting
AB 1483 (at Gov. Code §§ 65940.1(a)) requires all jurisdictions make available on their website the following:
A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements; All zoning ordinances and development standards;
The current and five previous annual fee reports or annual financial reports; and An archive of impact fee nexus studies conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 991
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Updates
Additionally, it is common for cities to undertake a comprehensive update of nexus studies and associated development impact fee programs every five to eight years to account for changes in facility development costs among other factors.
9.a.2
Packet Pg. 992
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Nexus Study)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Introducing an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.52 to the San Carlos Municipal Code Establishing a Child Care Development Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Developments in the City of San Carlos.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider introducing an Ordinance adding Chapter 8.52 to the San Carlos Municipal Code establishing a child care development impact fee for new nonresidential developments in the City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
As a per square foot fee derived from new nonresidential development, potential revenue will vary depending on the size of the proposed project.
BACKGROUND:
One of the Council’s ongoing strategic goals is to increase access to child care by reducing regulatory and financial barriers to the creation and expansion of child care facilities in the city.
In October 2017, the City Council received an informational presentation from staff describing potential strategies to address the shortage of child care facilities serving our community. This presentation was a response to information provided by San Mateo County’s Early Learning Support Services which highlighted the need for additional child care . At that time, there was a shortage of more than 650 spaces for infant and preschool-aged children.
At the Council’s direction, staff initiated a study into the issue. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) was retained to conduct an initial study of regulatory and financing optio ns to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate future demand based on the expected increase in residents and employers in San Carlos. In 2021, the Council approved the Municipal Code changes summarized below to remove regulatory barriers:
Updated Municipal Code Sections 18.04 and 18.05 to remove the minor use permit requirement for commercial child care centers in specific zoning districts. Updated Municipal Code Section 18.23.090 (Standards for Specific Uses and Act ivities) to (1) remove the outdoor space requirement; (2) allow staff level review for pick -up and drop- off plans and require a minor use permit for parking non -compliance; and (3) update hours of operation.
10.a
Packet Pg. 993
2 Updated Municipal Code Sections 18.23.0 90, 18.2 3.040, and 5.04.020 to ensure compliance with State law for small and large family in-home day care.
Beyond the changes to the local regulatory landscape summarized above, staff and consultants were asked to evaluate different approaches to creating new child care spaces, specifically focusing on child care development impact fees. In July 2020, Council received a presentation on child care development impact fees and requested further evaluation of funding options.
Since then, Staff held two collaborativ e working sessions with the Child Care Subcommittee (June 2021 and November 2021) , Councilmember Parmer -Lohan, and Mayor McDowell to review findings and develop preliminary recommendations for Council discussion and feedback.
During these working session s, the Subcommittee evaluated a range of funding strategies and considered options for potential partnerships with the 4Cs of San Mateo County. Because development of onsite child care may not always be appropriate from a General Plan perspective and/or may not be feasible for smaller projects, the Subcommittee indicated that an onsite requirement (with an associated in-lieu fee option) may not be viable at this time.
On March 14, 2022, City Council held a study session to discuss the child care developme nt impact fee program parameters. Staff received direction to move forward with crafting an ordinance that incorporated the following fee parameter recommendations : adoption of a reduced fee level, only applying it to nonresidential developments, and inclu ding a build on -site option. Accordingly, the following analysis highlights the parameters of a child care development impact fee program that would be established by the new Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
Nexus-Based Fees.
Development impact fees authorized un der the Mitigation Fee Act require the preparation of a nexus study to evaluate the impact of new development on the need for the identified facilities.
The study must ensure that the fee levels are proportionate to the ir impact. EPS prepared a nexus study in January 2020 and updated it in July 2021 (see attachment 2). The nexus study evaluates the impact of new residential and non -residential development; however, the Subcommittee and the Council previously provided direction not to apply the fee to new residential development. The nexus -based fees are the maximum fees that can be justified given the current cost of developing new child care spaces. The Council indicated their interest in adopting the reduced fees (lower than the nexus-justified fees) as a policy decision, based on feasibility and/or other considerations.
This fee is a one -time charge on new development set according to “nexus logic.” The funds collected can only be used to fund capital projects (not maintenance or operations). For instance, the City could potentially use the funds to contribute to new child care facilities; land acquisition costs; loans or grants to providers seeking to create or expand capacity. It is important to note that these funds cannot be used to subsidize operatio ns or direct assistance with child care costs.
The amount of the proposed fee established by the Impact Fee Nexus Study or subsequent nexus studies will be adjusted annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the “Engineering News Record” or a reasonable replacement index. The information below focuses on the potential maximum fee amount that the City can adopt and the methodology.
10.a
Packet Pg. 994
3 Nexus Methodology.
Based on data reported in the 2017 San Mateo County Early Learning Facilities Study, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new nonresidential development is approximately four spaces per 100 employees. At an estimated cost of $80,391 per space (including land), the cost per employee is $3,352. Based on employment density assumption s, the cost per employee can be expressed as a cost per square foot as seen in the table below:
Maximum Fees for Non-Residential Development
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.
Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.
Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.
Feasibility Considerations.
In considering a potential new child care development impact fee and appropriate fee levels, it is helpful to understand how similar fees and programs are being implemented in comparable jurisdictions. The table below compares chil d care policies and fee programs in three Bay Area jurisdictions.
Overview of Comparable Jurisdictions
Redwood
City
Robust city-led child care program housed in the Parks and Recreation and Community Services Department
Employs a full-time Child Care Coordinator who works with other departments and the community to implement programs to increase the quantity and quality of child care and early education
Waives the planning fees associated with large family child care facilities Does not charge child care impact fees
South
San
Francisco
Child care program housed in the Parks Division
Program includes three preschools for children ages 2.5 to 5 years Child care impact fee program for nonresidential development San
Mateo
The City partners with the Child Care Coordinating Council (4Cs) to support parents, providers, and local communities in finding, planning for, paying for, and accessing affordable, quality child care San Mateo has a child care impact fee program for nonresidential development
Other Bay A rea cities that charge child care impact fees include San Francisco, Berkeley, Livermore, San Ramon, and Clayton. In Southern California, Santa Monica has a robust child
10.a
Packet Pg. 995
4 care impact fee program. While the table below highlights the fee ranges from a few ci ties, Attachment 3 provides a comprehensive overview.
City Fees per Square Feet of Nonresidential Development South San Francisco $0.18 to $0.68
San Mateo $1.08
San Francisco $1.95
Berkeley $0.75 to $1.50
Livermore $5.00 to $7.00 (broader “Social and Human Services Fee”) Santa Monica $3.00 to $7.00
Fee Burden Analysis.
In addition to reviewing what other cities are doing, the Child Care Subcommittee also requested an analysis of how adding a new child care development impact fee changes the existing fee burden. Currently, the fee burden for all Office/R&D, Retail, Hotel, and Industrial Developments includes the sewer capacity fee, commercial linkage fee, and the traffic impact fee. The table below shows the impact on the existing aggregate fee levels for nonresidential development if a new child care development impact fee were to be implemented, both at the maximum-allowed and 50 percent reduced fee levels.
For example, new office development is currently required to pay, in aggregate, approximately $30.00 per square foot of new development. At a maximum-allowed fee of $10.07 per square foot, the child care impact fee would increase the existing fee burden by 34% and at a reduced fee of $5.00 per square foot, the child care impact fee would increase the existing fee burden by 17%. At the reduced fee levels, the child care fee represents 14% of the aggregate fee burden for office, 16% of the aggregate fee burden for R&D, 7% of the aggregate fee burden for retail and hotel, and 19% of the aggregate fee burden for industrial.
Land Use Current Fee
Obligation
Total Fee Obligation
with Max-Allowed
Child Care Fee
%
Increase
at Max
Total Fee
Obligation with
50% Reduced
Child Care Fee
(Recommended)
%
Increase
at
Reduced
Office/R&D $29.89 per sq.ft. $39.96 per sq.ft. 34% $34.89 per sq.ft. 17% Retail $31.79 per sq.ft. $36.82 per sq.ft. 16% $34.29 per sq.ft. 8% Hotel $20.21 per sq.ft. $23.56 per sq.ft. 17% $21.81 per sq.ft. 8% Industrial $6.84 per sq.ft. $10.19 per sq.ft. 49% $8.44 per sq.ft. 23%
At the March Study Session, Council asked staff to assess the aggregate fee burden (per sq.ft.) through a comparative analysis with other cities that implement child care fees. The purpose behind this analysis is to understand how San Carlos’ aggregate fees (with and without child care fees) compare to other cities to assess where San Carlos falls within the fee spectrum. For most of the nonresidential land use categories, the aggregate fees (including child care fees) for San Carlos align well with other cities. See Attachment 4 for the full analysis chart.
At the March Study Session, City Council also directed staff to develop an ordinance adopting the reduced child care impact fee levels (highlighted in blue in the table above). This is because adopting the maximum-justified child care development impact fees may affect the interest of some developers building in the City of San Carlos if the fees are considered too high. Higher fees will also impact the amount of community benefit dollars that would other wise be available
10.a
Packet Pg. 996
5 for other City Council community priorities such as the Downtown, Housing, Parks, and Open Space amenities. Thus, staff recommends adopting the reduced fee levels because it addresses the issue of child care shortage without impacting the aggregate fees dramatically.
Adopting the reduced fee levels is consistent with other jurisdictions and justified within the Nexus Study.
Fee Program Recommendations.
Child Care Development Impact Fee Parameters
Based on the City Council direction ’s, f eedback from the Child Care Subcommittee, and the preceding feasibility evaluation, the following fee program parameters are recommended:
Apply child care development impact fee only to new nonresidential development. Adopt the following reduced fee levels (50% reduced from the maximum fee levels) when staff returns with the Fee Resolution at the Second Reading of the Ordinance.
Office/R&D $5.00 per sq.ft.
Retail $2.50 per sq.ft.
Hotel $1.60 per sq.ft.
Industrial $1.60 per sq.ft.
Child Care Build Onsite Option
It is also recommended that a build onsite option is included so developers have the option to build the child care facility onsite as an alternative to paying the child care development impact fee. A development would qualify for this option if the project is greater than 50,000 sq.ft. They would meet their obligation by building the child care facility onsite and contracting with a licensed child care provider.
The child care center would be approximately 10% of total square footage, thus the 50,000 sq.ft. project-size threshold to be eligible for the onsite option. A child care center (as opposed to a daycare in a family home) needs to be a minimum of approximately 5,000 square feet to operate effectively and efficiently.
To ensure implemen tation, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the developer would be needed to establish the appropriate size of an onsite child care center. The center would be required to meet all state and lo cal licensing requirements and a contract with a licensed provider would be required to ensure the space would be operated. The Ordinance includes language on this.
Potential Use of Fee Revenue.
A development impact fee program will generate revenue for the creation of new child care spaces at existing or new f acilities. As stated above, fee revenue can be put towards the construction of new child care facilities, land acquisition for child care facilities, or a revolving loan or grant program for home daycare providers who need assistance funding capital improvements that result in increased capacity. The Mitigation Fee Act is clear that impact fee revenue cannot be used to subsidize operations or provide direct assistance with child care costs.
If the child care impact fee is adopted and the first reading of t he Ordinance is approved at the June 27, 2022 City Council meeting, the second reading would occur at the August 8, 2022 City Council meeting, and the Ordinance would become effective on September 8, 2022.
10.a
Packet Pg. 997
6 Summary of Recommendations.
Child Care Development Impact Fee Parameters
Staff recommends adopting the Ordinance adding Chapter 8.52 to the Municipal Code Establishing a Child Care Development Impact Fee that only applies to new nonresidential developments.
Build Onsite Option
Staff recommends allowing developments that are 50,000 sq.ft. or greater the option to build the child care facility (minimum size 5,000 sq.ft.) onsite and contract with a licensed child care operator. This option would require an MOU with the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
The options available to the City Council include:
1. Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 8.52 to the San Carlos Municipal Code Establishing a Child Care Development Impact Fee for New Nonresidential Developments in the City; or
2. Do not introduce the Ordinance; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Al Savay, AICP
Community Development Director
Sajuti Haque, Senior Management
Analyst
Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee
2. Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report
3. Aggregate Fee Burden
4. Appendix A-1 - Model Update
10.a
Packet Pg. 998
1 ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS ADDING CHAPTER 8.52 TO THE SAN CARLOS MUNUCIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR NEW NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, as part of the 2022 City Council Strategic Goals, the City Council expressed interest in adopting a Child Care Development Impact Fee (“Fee”) under the authority of Sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (“Mitigation Fe e Act”) that applies to nonresidential development projects in the City to address the shortage of child care facilities in San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Child Care Needs Assessment prepared by the San Mateo County Child Care Partnership C ouncil in 2017 states that there is a shortage of more than 650 spaces for infant and preschool-aged children; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, staff retained Economic & Planning Systems Inc. (“EPS”) to conduct an initial study of regulatory and financing options to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demands based on an expected increase of residents and employers in San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, in January 2020 and July 2021 a study was prepared and then updated for the City by EPS entitled Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”) which established the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, a City Council Study Session was held to discuss and evaluate the feasibility of implementing a child care development impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including testimony and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said study session; and
WHEREAS, ten (10) days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Ordinance was introduced was given by publication in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the proposed project does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environ ment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require environmental review. The proposed Ordinance also is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment, in that its provisions requiring the provision of affordable housing would not have any effect on the physical environment.
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 999
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Carlos as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby finds and declares that the forgoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein. The City Council further finds as follows:
1) The City Council established priorities that acknowledge the critical role that child care plays in facilitating the lives of working parents and guardians in the City and directed City staff to evaluate options to encourage an adequate and diverse supply of child care facilities citywide and to implement a child care impact fee on new nonresidential development due to its impacts on child care needs; and
2) New, nonresidential development can reasonably be anticipated to increase the capacity for new businesses and new job growth in the City, and some new employees occupying the new development may require child care services so that their children may be well-cared for while they work; and
3) An Early Learning Facilities Needs Assessment conducted by San Mateo County Human Services Agency, First 5 San Mateo County, and the Child Care Partnership Council established that there is already a shortage of quality child care options in San Carlos, and, if unmitigated, new development will place additional, and cumulatively overwhelming, burdens on the child care system; and
4) As a condition of project approval, new nonresidential development must mitigate its adverse impact of increased demand for child care generated by the development. Child care impact fees are a necessary financing tool to generate revenue that can be used to expand the capacity of the child care system so that new development does not exacerbate the existing child care shortage. A child care impact fee program further enables developers of new development to pay their fair share of the costs needed to build more child care to mitigate the impact of new development; and
5) As established by the Nexus Study, adopted by the City Council on June 27, 2022, there is a reasonable relationship between the type and amount of new development and the number of new child care spaces required; and between the number of new child care spaces required and the use of the fee; and
6) The fee established by the Nexus Study and under this Ordinance is proportional to the impacts created by voluntary development in the City; and 7) The amount of the proposed fee shall be established by City Council resolution and not exceed the fee established by the adopted Impact Fee Nexus Study dated July 14, 2021 or subsequent nexus studies, which shall be adjusted annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or a reasonable replacement index.
The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to provide funding to expand the number of quality child care spaces available to residents and employees in San Carlos through the use of
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1000
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 3 development fees consistent with state law, in order to implement the child care policies prioritized in the 2022 City Council Strategic Goals. The intent of this chapter is not to raise general revenues. Instead, the intent is to provide for the capital improvements and augmentation to the child care system to help satisfy the child care needs generated by growth from new development, in a balanced and efficient manner which will mitigate the adverse impacts on the child care system and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
SECTION 2: Chapter 8.52: CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES is added to the municipal code as follows:
Chapter 8.52
CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
8.52.010 Authority.
8.52.020 Purpose.
8.52.030 Definitions.
8.52.040 Application and Payment of Fee
8.52.050 Fee payment.
8.52.060 Alternative Means of Satisfying Fee Obligation.
8.52.070 Exemptions.
8.52.080 Credits and fee adjustments and appeals.
8.52.090 Use of fee.
8.52.100 Refund of fee.
8.52.110 Annual review.
8.52.010 Authority.
This chapter is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.
8.52.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide funding to expand the number of quality child care spaces available to residents and employees in San Carlos through the use of development fees consistent with state law, in order to implement the child care policies prioritized in the 2022 City Council Strategic Goals. The intent of this chapter is not to raise general revenues.
Instead, the intent is to provide for the capital improvements and augmentation to the child care system to help satisfy the child care needs generated by growth from new development, in a balanced and efficient manner which will mitigate the adverse impacts on the child care system and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
8.52.030 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
A. “Building permit” includes full structural building permits as well as partial permits such as foundation-only permits.
B. “Child care development impact fee” means the fee charged to new nonresidential development in the City of San Carlos on a per square foot of floor area basis.
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1001
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 4 C. “Development Agreement” means a written agreement with applicants for development projects as provided by Municipal Code Chapter 18.37.
D. “Floor area measurement” includes exterior façade of building wall planes or from the center line of party walls; parking areas and exterior walkways are not included.
E. “Mitigation Fee Act” authorizes a local government agency to impose development impact fees on specific development projects to defray the cost of new or additional public facilities that are needed to serve those developments.
F. “Nonresidential development” includes land uses categories identified in the City’s Zoning Code, Title 18 of the Municipal Code, including office/R&D, retail, hotel and industrial.
G. “Nexus Study” is the study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) on July 14, 2021 that established the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos. “Zoning administrator” means the Zoning Administrator of the City of San Carlos, or his or her designee. (Ord. 1533 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2018: Ord. 1525 § 2(3) (Exh. C (part)), 2017)
H. “Use Permit” means a discretionary permit, such as a minor use or conditional use permit, which may be granted by the appropriate City of San Carlos authority to provide for the accommodation of land uses with special site or design requirements, operating characteristics, or potential adverse effects on surroundings, which are not permitted as of right but which may be approved upon completion of a review process and, where necessary, the imposition of special conditions of approval by the permit granting authority.
8.52.040 Application and Payment of Fee.
The child care development impact fee enabled in this chapter is charged to new nonresidential development in the City of San Carlos on a per square foot of floor area basis. Floor area measurement shall be to the exterior facade of building wall planes or from the center line of party walls. Parking areas and exterior walkways are not included in the child care impact fee calculation.
This chapter does not replace normal subdivision map exactions or other measures required to mitigate site specific impacts of a development project including, but not limited to, mitigations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; regulatory and processing fees; fees required pursuant to a development agreement; funds collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement that exceed the developer’s share of public improvement costs; or assessment district proceedings, benefit assessments, or taxes.
A. General. The amount of the proposed fee shall be established by City Council resolution and not exceed the fee established by the adopted Impact Fee Nexus Study dated July 14, 2021 or subsequent nexus studies, which shall be adjusted annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or a reasonable replacement index. The fee imposed under this chapter is based on the consideration that new development contributes to expanding the need for additional
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1002
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 5 quality child care spaces in the City, based on employment generation and employee demand for child care.
B. Types of Development Subject to the Fee. The fee shall be applicable to new development and redevelopment projects which require a planning application, expansion of floor area of existing uses which require a planning application, and changes of use requiring a use permit as follows:
1. Nonresidential Construction. Fees shall be charged based on employment generation and employee demand for child care, as established in the Child care Impact Fee Nexus Study. No fee is applicable for remodeling or restoration only, where the floor area is improved or replaced but not increased.
Floor area measurement shall be to the exterior facade of building wall planes or from the center line of party walls. Parking areas and exterior walkways are not included in the child care need generation calculation.
2. Changes of Use Requiring a Use Permit. Fees shall be charged upon the incremental difference between the fee calculated for the floor area of a prior legal use and the fee calculated for the floor area of the proposed new use.
C. Land Use Categories Subject to the Fee. All nonresidential land use categories identified in the City’s Zoning Code, Title 18 of the City’s Municipal Code, which generate employment are subject to the fee.
D. Authority of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall have authority to render final determinations regarding the appropriate classification of land use and the correct calculation of gross building floor area for a particular development project. (Ord. 1562 § 2 (part), 2020; Ord. 1400 § 1 (part), 2008)
8.52.050 Fee payment.
The child care impact fee shall be paid in full to the City of San Carlos before the first building permit is issued. If no building permit is required, the fee shall be paid before a conversion of use may take place. The fee shall not apply to any project submitted for a building permit or to any project application that was submitted and considered complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, except where otherwise subject to an existing development agreement. (Ord. 1400 § 1 (part), 2008)
8.52.060 Alternative Means of Satisfying Fee Obligation.
Nonresidential projects of 50,000 sq.ft. or larger may meet the child care impact fee obligation by building child care space onsite, at a ratio of 10% of total square footage, and contracting with a licensed child care provider. Any child care provided through this option would need to meet state licensing requirements and local regulatory requirements (as specified in Section
18.23.090 of the Municipal Code) and would need to be mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City.
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1003
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 6 If mutually agreed upon by the Developer and the City, alternative means of satisfying the fee obligation may be identified and articulated in a Development Agreement, or similar mutually agreed upon Agreement.
8.52.070 Exemptions.
The following exemptions from the requirements for fees and exactions are imposed:
1. Any type of project determined by the city council to have a reduced or insignificant child care impact.
2. Residential uses. Residential uses including single family, multifamily, senior housing, affordable housing, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.
3. Repairs or Replacement. No fee is applicable for repairing, remodeling, modifying, reconstructing, replacing only, where the floor area is improved or replaced but not increased. This includes residential and nonresidential square footage being replaced due to natural disaster.
4. Public Project. Projects undertaken by a public agency except projects undertaken by a private developer on public property, and except property not used exclusively for a governmental purpose.
5. Project with Complete Application Prior to Effective Date of Ordinance. Project submitted for a building permit or any project application that was submitted and considered complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, except for any project which is required to comply with these measures pursuant to the provisions of a development agreement.
8.52.080 Credits and Fee Adjustments and Appeals.
A. Credits. If a project is changing its use and adding net new square footage, a credit in the amount offsetting the impact of its prior use shall be applied. For example, a development project converting existing industrial square footage into office/R&D will have the fee for the proposed office/R&D space (including any addition) calculated and the fee for the existing industrial space calculated, and the existing industrial space will be credited against the new office/R&D use. In the event that the credit exceeds the new fee, the fee shall be zero and no refunds are applicable. No credits or exemptions will be given to properties that have been vacant for more than three years by the time of applying for building permit.
B. Fee adjustments and appeals. The developer of a project subject to this chapter may appeal the imposition and/or calculation of the fee.
1. The appeal shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 1.25 of this code.
An appeal by a developer of a project not requiring a planning application shall be to the zoning administrator.
2. Notice of the appeal shall be provided in accordance with applicable provisions of this code.
3. The appellant shall state in detail the factual basis for the appeal and shall bear the burden of proof in presenting substantial evidence to support the appeal.
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1004
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 7 4. The appeal body shall uphold the fee and deny the appeal if it finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the development project’s impact on employee generation and the need for child care spaces and the amount of the fee. The appeal body shall consider the land use category determination, and the substance and nature of the evidence, including the fee calculation method, supporting technical documentation, and the appellant’s technical data. Based on the evidence, the appeal body may also modify the fee. (Ord. 1400 § 1 (part), 2008)
8.52.090 Use of Fee.
Upon receipt, child care impact fees shall be deposited, invested, accounted for, and expended as required per the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66001, or successor statute.
Revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account, shall be used to fund contributions towards the expansion of new child care spaces in the City, including but not limited to:
1. Acquiring land on which a new child care facility may be developed
2. Funding child care facility development costs
3. Providing loans or grants to licensed in-home child care providers
4. And/or other capital expenditures related to expanding child care in the City otherwise consistent with the law.
8.52.100 Refund of fee.
Under certain circumstances, refund of the fees paid may be warranted.
A. If a building permit or use permit expires, is canceled, or is voided and any fees paid pursuant to this chapter have not been expended, no construction has taken place, and the use has never occupied the site, the Director of Community Development may, upon the written request of the applicant, order return of the fee and interest earned on it, less administrative costs.
B. The City Council shall make a finding with respect to any fee revenue not expended or committed five years or more after it was paid. If the City Council finds that the fee revenue is not committed, it shall authorize a refund to the then owner of the property for which the fee was paid, pursuant to Government Code Section 66001 or successor legislation. (Ord. 1400 § 1 (part), 2008)
8.52.110 Annual review.
The child care impact fee authorized by this chapter, implementing Council resolutions, and supporting documentation, shall be reviewed annually by the City Council in order to make any findings required by State law, and to make any adjustments in the amount of the fee. (Ord. 1400 § 1 (part), 2008)
SECTION 3: The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that any provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason any sentence,
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1005
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee) 8 paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be published and posted according to law and shall take effect and be in force from and after 30 days after its passage and adoption.
*****
I, City Clerk Crystal Mui, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced on the 27th day of June, 2022 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Carlos held on the ____ day of ___, 2022 by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
10.a.1
Packet Pg. 1006
Attachment: Ordinance - Child Care Dev Impact Fee (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Draft Report
Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Prepared for:
City of San Carlos
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
July 14, 2021
EPS #211028
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1007
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES ......................................................................... 1 Summary of Maximum Fee Levels ............................................................................. 1 Report Background and Legal Context ........................................................................ 2
2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS .............................................. 4 Current Population and Households in San Carlos ........................................................ 4 Age Cohorts ........................................................................................................... 5 Labor Force Participation .......................................................................................... 5 Child Care Choice .................................................................................................... 6 Population Density .................................................................................................. 7 Employment Density ............................................................................................... 8
3. CHILD CARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES ....................................................................... 9
4. CHILD CARE FEE CALCULATIONS .............................................................................. 10 Residential Fees .................................................................................................... 10 Nonresidential Fees ............................................................................................... 11
5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS ...................................................................... 13
6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................... 14 Fee Collection and Amount ..................................................................................... 14 Annual Review and Five-Year Review ....................................................................... 15 Accounting, Reporting, and Updates ........................................................................ 16
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1008
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Child Care Impact Fees by Land Use Category ................................... 2 Table 2. Population and Households ............................................................................... 4 Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County ......................................................................... 5 Table 4. Labor Force Participation .................................................................................. 6 Table 5. Child Care Choice ............................................................................................ 7 Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure .................................. 8 Table 7. Employment Density ........................................................................................ 8 Table 8. Average Cost per Child Care Space by Type of Facility .......................................... 9 Table 9. Child Care Fees for Residential Development ..................................................... 10 Table 10. Child Care Fees for Nonresidential Development ................................................ 11
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1009
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
1. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FEES
This report establishes the maximum child care development impact fees justifiable under the Mitigation Fee Act that could be required of new development in the City of San Carlos. In October 2017, the City Council considered strategies to address the shortage of child care facilities serving the community. This was a response to a study initiated by the San Mateo County’s Office of Education, which identified significant shortages of child care spaces in the County, generally, and San Carlos, specifically. At Council’s direction, staff was directed to study the regulatory and financing options available to the City to increase the supply of child care facilities and develop strategies to mitigate the future demand based on the expected increase in residents and jobs in San Carlos.
The issues were studied, and the Council’s Child Care Subcommittee held collaborative working sessions with City staff to review findings and develop strategies. In the fall of 2019, the City Council affirmed that addressing the City’s child care needs is a priority, and one of the funding strategies identified was to explore various fees or charges on new development to mitigate the demand for child care from new residents and employees in the City. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained to develop the technical analysis and prepare the required Nexus Study to support potential implementation of a child care development impact fee, as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000 et seq.).
While this Nexus Study supports the maximum-justifiable fee levels, the Council may choose to adopt fees below the maximum, charge only certain land use categories, or not adopt fees at all.
Summary of Maxi mum Fee Levels
At the Council’s discretion, a new child care development impact fee could be charged to all new residential and/or nonresidential development and at fee levels up to the maximum justifiable through this Nexus Study. The technical analysis included in this report presents the methodology and analysis to support the maximum-justifiable fee levels in the City of San Carlos, as shown below in Table 1.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1010
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 1. Summary of Child Care Impa ct Fees by Land Use Category
Report Background and Legal Context
This report is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis supporting a schedule of development impact fees intended to mitigate the demand for child care spaces in the City that results from new residential and commercial development. The City currently has several development impact fees, none of which is for child care. A new fee program for child care, if approved, will need to be enacted through the adoption of a new City Ordinance(s) supporting the addition of a new fee category for child care facilities. The new enabling Ordinance would allow the City to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount without requiring amendments to the enabling Ordinance.
The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed Fee Program are as follows:
Collected for Capital Facility, Equipment, and Infrastructure Improvements. Impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of constructing capital facilities and infrastructure improvements required to serve new development and growth in the City.
However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operations and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover the cost of existing needs/deficiencies in City capital facilities or infrastructure. Thus, the cost of capital projects or facilities designed to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources to meet overall funding requirements.
Land Use Category
Residential
Single Family $12,257 per unit
Multifamily $9,355 per unit
Non-Residential
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.
Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.
Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum Fee [1]
[1] The analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children, regardless of their parents’ working status, require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1011
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Must Be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1012
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
2. DEMOGRAPHIC, EMPLOYMENT, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Chapter describes the demographic, employment, and land use assumptions utilized in this Study that are important drivers of the maximum development impact fee estimates. The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculations:
Population and household count data is used to relate the number of children in the City to the supply of housing units. This data is shown on Table 2. Estimates of the number of children within certain age cohorts (e.g., infant, preschool, school-age) are used to estimate potential demand from each cohort and are shown on Table 3.
Estimates of parental labor force participation by age cohort are used to understand the share of households needing child care and are shown on Table 4. Estimates of the share of children whose parents/guardians need a child care arrangement and who will choose a child care center type of facility are provided in Table 5. Estimates related to population density (e.g., persons per housing unit) are shown on Table 6 and are used to differentiate costs between residential land uses. Estimates related to employment density (e.g., employees per square foot) are shown on Table 7 and are used to differentiate costs between non-residential land uses.
Current Population and Ho useholds in San Carlos
Population and household counts are shown in Table 2 and are used to relate the number of children in the City to the overall population as well as to the supply of housing units.
Table 2. Population and Households
Item Total
Population in Households 30,024
Total Households 11,689
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1013
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Age Cohorts
EPS developed a distribution of the number of children within certain age cohorts based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). Because parents/guardians make different child care decisions at different times in their children’s lives, this data is used to support estimates of child care demand for different age cohorts. The Census-based age breakdown of children at the City level is not as detailed as the Department of Finance’s estimates for San Mateo County. Accordingly, EPS used the County’s age cohort distribution and applied those shares to the City’s population under 18 years of age. These estimates are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Age Cohorts in City and County
Labor Force Participation
The U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019) reports the number of children whose parents are working. The data reports the number of children in single parent households in which that parent is working, as well as the number of children in two-parent households in which both parents are working. These estimates are provided in Table 4.
Item Number
Percent of
Total
San Mateo County
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 170,296
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 17,183 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 31,932 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 121,182 71.2%
San Carlos [1]
Total Population under 18 Years of Age 7,469
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 754 10.1%
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 1,400 18.8%
School Age (5 to 18 Years) 5,315 71.2%
[1] County age distribution among population under age 18 (DOF, 2019) is applied to City's total population under age 18 as reported by Census.
Source: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year Increments; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Communi ty Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1014
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 4. Labor Force Participation
Child Care Choice
There are a range of child care options potentially available to families requiring non-parental child care, including other relatives, nanny shares, live-in au pairs, child care centers, home- based day care, etc. As such, another adjustment to the data is needed to estimate the number of children whose parents/guardians need a child care arrangement and who will choose a child care center type of facility (i.e., the type of facility for which the impact fee revenue can be used). Table 5 draws upon data collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, which reports the number of children participating in various early childhood programs.
Item Estimate
Total Children [1] 7,341
Under 6 Years 2,382
Living with Two Parents 2,238
Both Parents in Labor Force 1,587
Living with One Parent 144
Parent in Labor Force 137
All Parents in Labor Force 1,724
Labor Force Participation 72.4%
6 to 17 Years 4,959
Living with Two Parents 4,131
Both Parents in Labor Force 2,897
Living with One Parent 828
Parent in Labor Force 763
All Parents in Labor Force 3,660
Labor Force Participation 73.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
[1] Universe of data is "Own children under 18 years
in families and subfamilies."
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1015
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 5. Child Care Choice
Population Density
EPS has developed persons per household estimates based on data from the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census American Community Survey (5-year estimate, 2015-2019). This data has been used to develop estimates of the number of persons per occupied household specific to each residential development type. These estimates are provided in Table 6.
Age Cohort
Number of
Children in
Survey
Children in
Parental Care
Arrangements
Children in
Non-Parental Care
Arrangements
Number Percent
Total 21,362 8,609 12,753 7,742 60.7%
Infant
Under 1 Year Old 4,724 2,487 2,237 888 39.7%
1 to 2 Years Old 8,552 3,932 4,619 2,504 54.2%
Weighted Average 13,276 6,420 6,856 3,392 49.5%
Preschool [1]
3 to 5 Years Old 8,087 2,190 5,897 4,350 73.8%
[1] While the data suggests that 73.8% of preschoolers who need childcare will opt for center-based care or care in a non- relative's home, the analysis assumes that 100 percent of preschool-aged children require child care. This is in support of the County’s overall policy to promote Universal Preschool.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016).
Children in Center-Based
Care or Care in a Non-
relative’s Home
Note: Numbers are in thousands.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1016
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Table 6. Population and Households by Number of Units in Structure
Employment Density
The gross building square footage assumptions of workspace required on average to accommodate jobs in different land use categories are generally consistent with industry- standard employment densities and are reflected in Table 7. As shown, the average square feet required per job ranges from 333 square feet on average for office/R&D development to 1,000 square feet on average for industrial development. Stated in another way, office developments are assumed to have the highest employment density with about 3 jobs per 1,000 square feet relative to 1 job per 1,000 square feet of industrial development.
Table 7. Employment Density
Item
Single Family
1-Unit in Structure
Multifamily [1]
2 + Units in Structure Total
Total Households 8,590 3,099 11,689
Share 73.5% 26.5% 100.0%
Population in Households 23,542 6,482 30,024
People per HH 2.74 2.09 2.57
[1] Total includes mobile homes to account for the City's total population in households.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Co mmunity Survey 5-Year Estimates; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
Employment Density by Land Use Category
Square Feet per Job
Office/R&D 333 sq.ft. per job
Retail 667 sq.ft. per job
Hotel 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Industrial 1,000 sq.ft. per job
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.
Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.
Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Assumption
Sources: City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1017
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
3. CHILD CARE FACILITY COST ESTIMATES
The high cost of real estate and limited availability of land are factors that greatly influence the supply of child care facilities in high-cost counties, such as San Mateo. Of course, the cost of providing new child care spaces will vary on a project-by-project basis, depending on the size of the facility and the overall development program. Typical costs associated with developing new child care spaces in San Mateo County, excluding land, are provided in the 2017 San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment and shown below in Table 8. Costs range from $27,500 to $58,000 per space in 2021 dollars depending on the type of facility and include the structure, site design, preparation, general site improvement, and installation—but not land. The average cost is $43,391 per space, which is considered a reasonable average planning-level cost estimate for the purposes of establishing this fee. With land costs included, the cost per space is higher, at $80,391 per space.
Table 8. Average Cost per Child Care Space by Type of Facility
Construction Type
Avg. Cost /
Space (2017)1
Avg. Cost /
Space (2021)2
Development Cost
New Building $43,183 $46,743
New / Existing Commercial Space $53,800 $58,235
Expansion of Existing Center $37,003 $40,053
Portable Building $25,412 $27,507
Employer-based Center $41,033 $44,415
Average, Development Cost $43,391
Land Cost (Rounded)
3 $37,000
Total, Land and Average Development Costs $80,391
[1] Average cost per early learning space for child care facilities in San Mateo County, according to the San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017). [2] Average cost per early learning space has been adjusted for inflation at an annual rate of 2%.
Sources: San Mateo Early Learning Needs Assessment (2017); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
[3] Assumes 175 square feet of land area per child care space, reflecting the indoor, outdoor, administrative, public, and mechanical functions. The per acre land value assumption is $9 million based on current land values in San Carlos.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1018
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fee Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San Carlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
4. CHILD CARE FEE CALCULATIONS
The Mitigation Fee Act maximum child care development impact fee calculations are driven by:
(1) demand for child care from residential and nonresidential development, (2) child care facility cost estimates, and (3) persons per household and employment density assumptions. The residential fees are shown in Table 9 and the nonresidential fees are shown in Table 10.
Residential Fees
Table 9. Child Care Fees for Residential Development
As shown in Table 9, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new residential development is approximately 6 spaces per 100 residents. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the Item Assumption Amount Notes
Total Population 30,024 See Table 2
Total Households 11,689 See Table 2
Population Under Age 18 7,469 See Table 3
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 10.1% 754 See Table 3
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 18.8% 1,400 See Table 3; Includes 1/2 of 5-year olds Population per Household
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 0.06
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 0.12
Population per Household, Needing Childcare
Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 72.4% 0.05 See Table 4
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 72.4% 0.09 See Table 4
Population per Household, Choosing Center-based Care or Non-relative Care in Someone Else's Home Infant (Birth to 24 Months) 49.5% 0.02 Reflects weighted average of under 1 and 1-2 year olds cohorts; See Table 5
Preschool (2 to 5 Years) 100.0% 0.12 Reflects Countywide Universal Preschool Policy Objective
Childcare Spaces Needed in Licensed Centers 1,670 Spaces needed for every 11,689 households Childcare Spaces per Resident 0.0556
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Cost per Resident $4,472
Number of people per Single Family Household 2.74 See Table 6 Number of people per Multifamily Household 2.09 See Table 6 Cost per Single Family Household $12,257
Cost per Multifamily Household $9,355
Sources: CA Department of Finance: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 20 60 in 1- year Increments; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surv eys Program (ECPP-NHES:2016), Table was prepared December 2017; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1019
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx cost per resident is $4,472. Based on the residential density assumptions, the cost per resident can be expressed as a cost per residential unit.
Nonresidential Fees
As shown in Table 10 and based on data reported in the 2017 San Mateo County Early Learning Facilities Study, the demand for child care spaces resulting from new nonresidential development is approximately 4 spaces per 100 employees. At a cost of $80,391 per space, the cost per employee is $3,352. Based on the employment density assumptions, the cost per employee can be expressed as a cost per square foot.
Table 10. Child Care Fees for Nonresidential Development
As shown, the maximum development impact fees are:
Single-Family. $12,257 per single family unit.
Multifamily. $9,355 per multifamily/apartment unit.
Accessory Dwelling Units. Note that Senate Bill 13 (effective 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2024) precludes jurisdictions from charging impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet. Office/R&D. $10.07 per office/R&D building square foot. Retail. $5.03 per retail building square foot.
Hotel. $3.35 per hotel building square foot.
Industrial. $3.35 per industrial building square foot.
While these maximum child care development impact fees are driven by marginal demand and average costs (rather than the City’s capital improvement list), the City has provided some examples of how it may use the revenue to invest in child care facility expansion throughout San Item Notes
Cost per Childcare Space $80,391 See Table 8
Childcare Space Demand per Employee 0.0417 San Mateo County ELF Study, 2017 Cost per Employee $3,352
Jobs per Square Foot
Office/R&D 0.0030 jobs per sq.ft.
Retail 0.0015 jobs per sq.ft.
Hotel 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Industrial 0.0010 jobs per sq.ft.
Fee by Land Use Category
Office/R&D $10.07 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.03 per sq.ft.
Hotel $3.35 per sq.ft.
Industrial $3.35 per sq.ft.
Sources: Brion Economics Team; City of San Carlos Linkage Fee Nexus Study, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Econom ics; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Assumption
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1020
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Carlos. More detailed plans will be developed as part of the City’s future planning efforts and/or through negotiations with prospective developers.
City contribution to new child care facilities located within new or existing private developments.
Loans or grants to providers operating Small or Large Family Child Care Homes, seeking to create/expand capacity.
Loans or grants to providers operating Child Care Centers, seeking to create/expand capacity.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1021
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
5. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
Development impact fees can be charged to new development under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Nexus findings are provided below addressing: 1) the purpose of the fee, 2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility improvements and the type of development, 4) the relationship between the need for the facility improvements and the type of development, and 5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to development. The technical information and calculations provided support these nexus findings/requirements.
Purpose
The fee will support provision of adequate levels of child care facility spaces in the City as new development occurs and will help ensure that new development pays its fair share of child care facility costs.
Use of Fee
Fee revenue will contribute funding towards the creation or expansion of new child care spaces in the City.
Relationship
New residential and nonresidential development and the associated new residents and workers in San Carlos will increase demand for child care spaces. Fee revenue from this new development will be used to increase the number of child care spaces thereby increasing the availability of child care spaces and addressing demand from the new residents and workers.
Need
There is a demonstrated shortage of child care spaces in the City, and each new residential and nonresidential development project adds to the need for quality child care spaces. While this fee program cannot be used to address existing deficiencies, new child care spaces are necessary to avoid exacerbating the current shortage.
Proportionality
The marginal demand for child care spaces from new residents and employees in the City and the average cost of developing those spaces are used to ensure that new development funds a sufficient number of child care spaces to mitigate its own demand, but no more. In this way, the contribution of new development is proportional to its impact and is not expanded beyond its appropriate share.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1022
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx
6. FEE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
The child care development impact fee will need to be adopted by City Resolution as enabled by a new Ordinance. The Ordinance will allow the City Council to adopt, by Resolution, a fee schedule consistent with supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount that may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance. It is anticipated that the City will develop a new Ordinance as part of this study process. This new Ordinance addresses the primary implementation and administrative issues and procedures associated with the fee program. A brief summary of the key implementation and administrative elements is provided below.
Fee Collection and Amount
Applicable Land Uses
All new development that occurs within the City of San Carlos, except as specifically exempted by the Ordinance, shall pay the child care development impact fee. While the maximum fee amount will be determined by the Mitigation Fee Act Nexus Study, the City may elect to charge less for a variety of reasons and under certain circumstances, as [will be] described in the Ordinance. In any case, the applicable fees will be published in a Fee Schedule made available by the City and updated periodically. The amount will vary by land use, as shown in Table 1.
It is possible that certain projects may not fit neatly into the identified categories. In cases where such ambiguity exists, the City’s Community Development Director will need to make a determination as to the applicable fees. The Fee Ordinance articulates guidelines for resolving discrepancies and/or disputes.
Exemptions
The City may also elect not to impose fees for certain categories of development, though alternative funding sources to offset a loss in fee revenue would need to be provided. For example, the City may elect to exempt developers from paying fees on any affordable housing units they build. Likewise, the City may enter into a Development Agreement that specifically exempts all or a portion of the City fees.
Alternative Means of Satisfying Fee Requirement
As [will be] described in the Ordinance, the City may specify alternative means of satisfying the child care fee requirement, when doing so accelerates or enhances the number of child care spaces available in the City. For example, new non-residential development greater than 50,000 square feet may meet its fee obligation by building child care space onsite at a ratio of 10 percent, such that a 50,000 sq.ft. development provides at least 5,000 sq.ft. of child care space) and contracting with a licensed child care provider to operate the child care facility. This threshold of 50,000 sq.ft. ensures that the size of the child care facility is sufficient to serve enough children (approx. 50) to support efficient operations. This option may only be exercised if a child care use onsite is consistent with the General Plan and zoning. In addition, the City will
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1023
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx need to coordinate with the applicant to ensure that the child care space will be able to meet state licensing requirements (for indoor and outdoor space).
The City also may be willing to consider the development of an off-site child care center in-lieu of paying the child care impact fees.
Timing of Establishing Effective Fees
Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” requires jurisdictions to charge the fees in effect at the time an application for development is submitted, regardless of when the fees are to be paid. Jurisdictions may not increase fees during a project’s application period, unless the increase is related to an annual fee adjustment as described below.
Fee Escalation
The ordinance allows for an automatic adjustment of the fee to keep pace with inflationary increases in construction costs. This allows the fee level to keep pace with inflation without requiring an annual approval process. This adjustment is based on the Construction Cost Index (CCI) published by the Engineering News Record (ENR), a source widely used in the construction industry, and by many jurisdictions as a basis for making annual inflation adjustments to their development impact fees. ENR’s CCI has been published consistently every month since 1967. As such ENR is one of the most reliable and consistent indices that track trends in construction costs.
Senate Bill 330, the “Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” allows fee increases during a project’s application period if the fee increases are the result of an annual fee adjustment based on an independently published cost index and referenced within the relevant establishing ordinance or resolution.
Timing and Manner of Payment
The City’s Ordinance addresses issues related to the timing and manner of payment for the fee including the potential for fee deferrals, payment plans, credits and reimbursements, exemptions, and related adjustments.
Annual Review and Five-Year Review
Annual Review
This Report and the technical information contained herein should be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City as necessary to ensure alignment of facility needs and new development and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that improvement requirements, costs, or development potential changes over time, the Fee Program may need to be updated. Specifically, AB 1600 (at Gov. Code §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. This information includes the following:
A description of the type of fee in the account
The amount of the fee
The beginning and ending balance of the fund
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1024
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx The amount of fees collected and interest earned
Identification of the improvements constructed
The total cost of the improvements constructed
The fees expended to construct the improvement
The percent of total costs funded by the fee
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund the construction of an improvement, the agency must specify the approximate date for construction of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of growth and infrastructure requirements, the City should monitor development activity, the need for improvements, and the adequacy of the fee revenues and other available funding. Formal annual review of the fee program should occur, at which time adjustments should be made.
Five-Year Review
Fees will be collected from new development within the City immediately; however, use of these funds may need to wait until a sufficient fund balance can be accrued. Per Government Code Section 66006, the City is required to deposit, invest, account for, and expend the fees in a prescribed manner. The fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the Fee account or fund, and every five years thereafter, the City is required to make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended:
Identify the purpose for which the fee is to be put;
Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged;
Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements; and
Designate the approximate dates on that the funding referred to in the above paragraph is expected to be deposited in the appropriate account or fund.
Once sufficient funds have been collected to complete the specified projects, the City must commence construction within 180 days. If they fail to do this, the City is required to refund the unexpended portion of the fee and any accrued interest to the then current owner.
Accounting, Reporting, and Updates
Accounting
Surplus Funds
AB 1600 also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or uncommitted in an account for five years or more after deposit of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once each year: (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1025
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx If adequate funding has been collected for a certain improvement, an approximate date must be specified as to when construction on the improvement will begin. If the findings show no need for the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must refund them.
Credits and Reimbursements
It is recommended that, under certain and limited circumstances as determined by the City, the Impact Fee Ordinance allow developers subject to the fee to obtain credits, reimbursements, or exemptions. Fee credits, reimbursements, or exemptions should not be allowed by right but rather should be subject to a case-by-case review by City staff and Council to ensure that such credits or reimbursements are warranted and appropriate.
A fee credit—as defined by an annual cost review or other recent evaluation of cost—may be allowed if a developer provides a particular off-site facility or improvement that is of citywide benefit. For example, the City may elect to offer a fee credit to developers who develop child care facilities off-site and of citywide benefit. In the event there is a discrepancy between the estimated and actual costs of construction for a project where a fee credit is being provided, if the actual construction costs are less than the estimate, the City will not reimburse the developer for any difference between the actual and estimated costs; and if the actual construction costs are more than the estimate, the City will not provide any additional funding to the developer.
Reimbursements should be considered for developers who contribute more funding and/or build and dedicate infrastructure items that exceed their proportional obligation if the project funded is of high priority. Such reimbursements should be provided as fee revenue becomes available and should include a reasonable factor for interest earned on the reimbursable amount. It should not compromise the implementation of other priority capital projects. A provision for including such interest payments as additional costs in subsequent fees can be included in the Ordinance.
Reimbursements would be granted on a discretionary basis only and not granted as a right.
Internal Loaning of Funds
Loans between the impact fee funds may be used from time to time to facilitate the construction of needed facilities and assure adequate cash flow. Any such loan shall be made in accordance with applicable law, as interpreted by the City Attorney of the City of San Carlos, and all funds shall be placed in separate accounts.
Reporting
AB 1483 (at Gov. Code §§ 65940.1(a)) requires all jurisdictions make available on their website the following:
A current schedule of fees, exactions, and affordability requirements; All zoning ordinances and development standards;
The current and five previous annual fee reports or annual financial reports; and An archive of impact fee nexus studies conducted on or after January 1, 2018.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1026
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study
Draft Report 7/14/21
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 Z:\Shared\Projects\Oakland\211000s\211028_San Carlos Childcare Fe e Update\Report\211028_Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study_San C arlos_Draft Report_2021July14.docx Updates
Additionally, it is common for cities to undertake a comprehensive update of nexus studies and associated development impact fee programs every five to eight years to account for changes in facility development costs among other factors.
10.a.2
Packet Pg. 1027
Attachment: Child Care Impact Fee Nexus Study Draft Report (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
10.a.3
Packet Pg. 1028
Attachment: Aggregate Fee Burden (Child Care Development Impact Fee) Appendix A-1
Childcare Development Impact Fee Survey
San Carlos Childcare Fee Study, EPS #181090
Residential Commercial
San Francisco San Francisco Child Care Impact Fee 2016 (Residential) 1985 (Commercial) 2021 $1.18 - $2.35 per sq.ft. depending on project size $2.02 per sq.ft.
Replacement of use and plan area fees
are different. Some plan area fees have
a percentage going to child care.
Link
Santa Monica Los Angeles Child Care Linkage Fee 2006 2019 $154.69 per unit (multifamily) Hotel $3.68 per sq.ft.
Retail $5.25 per sq.ft.
Office $7.34
per sq.ft.
Link
Berkeley Alameda Child Care Mitigation Fee 1993 2012 N/A Hotel $1.50 per sq.ft
Retail/Restaurant $1.25 per sq.ft
Office $1.25 per sq.ft
Industrial/Manufacturing $0.75 per sq.ft
Warehouse/Storage $0.62 per sq.ft.
R&D $0.80
per sq.ft
Link (Fee Range)
Link (Fee by Usage)
San Mateo San Mateo Child Care Development Fee 2004 2021 N/A $1.09 per sq.ft. Link South San Francisco San Mateo Childcare Impact Fee 2001 2020 $1,851 - $1,979 per unit
depending on du/ac. Other is
$1.28 per sq.ft.
Hotel $0.18 per sq.ft.
Retail/Commercial $0.68 per sq.ft.
Office/R&D $0.57 per sq.ft.
Industrial $0.54 per sq.ft.
Link
Livermore Alameda Social and Human Services
Facility Fee 2008 2021
$1,298 per unit (multifamily);
$1,415 per unit (single family
attached); $1,677 per unit (single
family detached)
Service $5 per sq.ft.
Retail $5 per sq.ft.
Office $7 per sq.ft.
R&D/ Manufacturing $3 per sq.ft.
Fee revenues used for child care
facilities, senior facilities, and facilities
for the homeless.
Link
San Ramon Contra Costa School Age Child Care Fee 1988 2021 $959.18 per unit (single-family) $516.82 per unit (multifamily)
Hotel $0.17 per sq.ft.
Retail $0.28 per sq.ft.
Office $0.61 per sq.ft.
Industrial $0.19
per sq.ft.
Link
Clayton Contra Costa Childcare Fee 1988 2020 $205 per unit (single-family) $205 per unit (multifamily) $0.10 per sq. ft Fee was last updated in 2009 and remains the same in 2020. Link
Sources: Websites of individual jurisdictions; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Description Link/SourceCity County Fee Name Date Implemented Latest Fee Year Available
Fee Levels
10.a.4
Packet Pg. 1029
Attachment: Appendix A-1 - Model Update (Child Care Development Impact Fee)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the Park Facility Development Fee, Sewer Capacity Charge and Traffic Impact Fee for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing adjustments to the Park Facility Development Fee, Sewer Capacity Charge , and Traffic Impact Fee for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
If adopted, these impact fees will result in a net revenue increase of approximately $ 215,569 across all City Funds based on estimated activity. The table below shows how this estimated revenue increase would be split among the three impact fees.
The new fees would be effective Augus t 29, 2022, as a minimum 60 -day notice is required for new development fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 66017.
BACKGROUND:
All fee changes must be approved by the City Council. The proposed changes are coming before the City Council for its consideration this evening.
10.b
Packet Pg. 1030
2 Every year, staff reviews the appropriate increases to three of the City’s impact fees based on the application of the appropriate indices in accordance with the Municipal Code. These fees are the Park Facility Development Fee, the Sewer Capacity Charge, and Traffic Impact Fee as shown in Exhibit A.
ANALYSIS:
The City’s impact fees will be adjusted in accordance with the requirements of corresponding sections of the City’s Municipal Code, as follows:
1) Park Facility Development Fee. Per Municipal Code Chapter 3.34.040 E, “The fee… shall be increased annually by the percentage increase of park construction costs cited in the Engineering News Record, for the San Francisco Bay Area.” For FY 2022-23, this would result in an increase of 15.15%.
2) Sewer Capacity Charge . Per Municipal Code Chapter 13.04.025 E , “The sewer capacity charge shall be adjusted annually based on the change in the Engineering News Record – Construction Cost Index (20 -Cities Average) fro m the March 2016 Index.” For FY 2022-23, this would result in an increase of 8.0%.
3) Traffic Impact Fee. “The amount of the Traffic Impact Fee shall be adjusted annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record” as approved under Ordinance #1562. For FY 2022-23, this would result in an increase of
15.15%.
The Construction Cost Index is based on the labor rates and material costs. These costs have increased due to supply chain issues and increasing fuel costs associat ed with obtaining and delivering the materials.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing adjustments to the Park Facility Development, Sewer Capacity Charge and Traffic Impact Fee for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022-23; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Rebecca Mendenhall,
Administrative Services Director
10.b
Packet Pg. 1031
3 Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A to Resolution - Impact Fees
10.b
Packet Pg. 1032
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, PARK FACILITY DEVELOPMENT FEE, SEWER CAPACITY CHARGE AND TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23. ____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, all fee changes must be approved by the City Council, and WHEREAS, every year staff reviews the appropriate increases to three of the City’s impact fees based on the application of the appropriate indices in accordance with the Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to revise the Park Faci lity Development impact fee, Sewer Capacity Charge, and Traffic impact fee at this time; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to use the Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Indices for future increases to the Park Facility Development and Sewer Capacity Charge impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to use the Construction Cost Index for future increases to the Traffic impact fees.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Carlos hereby approves the amended Impact Fees (Exhibit A), effective August 29, 2022. * * * * *
I, Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of June 2022, by the following vote:
________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibit A: Amended Impact Fees
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
10.b.1
Packet Pg. 1033
Attachment: Resolution (FY 22-23 Impact Fee Update)
Impact Fees ‐ FY22‐23 Proposed Changes
PARK FACILITY DEVELOPMENT FEE (Municipal Code Chapter 3.34) E. Annual Increase. The fee set forth in subsection B of this section shall be increased annually by the percentage increase of park construction costs cited in the Engineering News Record, for the San Francisco Bay Area, as determined by City Engineer.
Existing Proposed
Fee per bedroom 2,302$ 2,651$ ENR City Cost Index Annual Change (March 2021 to March 2022) 15.15% SEWER CAPACITY CHARGES (Municipal Code Chapter 13.04)
E. The sewer capacity charge shall be adjusted annually based on the change in the Engineering News‐Record Construction Cost Index (20‐Cities Average) from the January 2022 index.
Existing Proposed
RESIDENTIAL (charge per residential dwelling unit)
Single Family 12,263$ 13,242$ Multi‐Family (includes Duplexes, Apartments,
Condos & Co‐op Projects) 5,672$ 6,125$ NON‐RESIDENTIAL (charge per 100 gpd of estimated wastewater discharge) Commercial, Retail, Professional, Institutional &
Industrial Users 100 gpd 6,454$ 6,969$ 1gpd 65.00$ 70.00$
ENR Construction Cost Index Change (see note below ‐ January 2021 to Jan 2022) 8.0% Note ‐ the % change for the FY22‐23 Sewer Capacity Charge was calculated from the change in the CCI from January 2021 to January 2022 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (Municipal Code Chapter 8.50)
E. Annual Increase. Effective October 28, 2020, per Ordinance 1562, the amount of the Traffic Impact Fee shall be $6,196 per p.m. peak hour trip, adjusted annually based on the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record.
Land Use ITE Trip Rate Unit Existing Existing Calculated Fee Proposed Proposed Calculated Fee Office 1.15 1000 sf 6,354$ 7,307$ 7,316$ 8,413$ Research & Development 0.49 1000 sf 6,354$ 3,113$ 7,316$ 3,585$ Manufacturing 0.67 1000 sf 6,354$ 4,257$ 7,316$ 4,902$ Warehousing 0.19 1000 sf 6,354$ 1,207$ 7,316$ 1,390$ Restaurant 9.77 1000 sf 6,354$ 62,079$ 7,316$ 71,477$ Retail 3.81 1000 sf 6,354$ 24,209$ 7,316$ 27,874$ Single‐Family 0.99 Unit 6,354 $ 6,290$ 7,316$ 7,243$ Multi‐Family (Condos/Apts) 0.56 Unit 6,354 $ 3,558$ 7,316$ 4,097$ Condo/Townhome 0.56 Unit 6,354 $ 3,558$ 7,316$ 4,097$ Hotel 0.6 Rooms 6,354$ 3,812$ 7,316$ 4,390$ Medical Office 3.46 1000 sf 6,354$ 21,985$ 7,316$ 25,313$ ENR Construction Cost Index Change (March 2021 to March 2022) 15.15% 15.15%
10.b.2
Packet Pg. 1034
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution - Impact Fees (FY 22-23 Impact Fee Update)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing Adjustments to the Cost of Services Schedule (User Fees) and the Approval of an Additional Budget Appropriation in the Amount of $10,0 00 from the General Fund Unassigned Balance to Establish a Field Use Fee Scholarship Program for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and to Adopt Guidelines for Future Fee Increases.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve a resolution authorizing adjustments to the City of San Carlos Cost of Services Schedule (User Fees) and the approval of an additional budget appropriation in the amount of $10,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Balance to establish a Field Use Fee Scholarship Program for Fiscal Year 2022-23 as proposed in Attachments 2-70 of this report and adopt guidelines for future cost of services increases.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The recommended Master Fee Schedule s (Attachment 2-7), if adopted, would result in a net increase to the General Fund of approximately $2.2 million based on current activity levels.
Department/Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Total Cost of
Providing
Services
Current
Cost
Recovery
%
Estimated
Annual
Revenue
Recommended
Fees
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Administrative Fees $ 325 $ 497 65% $ 325 65% Planning 695,121 1,479,859 47% 1,015,521 69%
Public Works/Engineering 817,352 863,928 95% 806,678 93% Building 5,344,680 6,899,937 77% 6,740,870 98%
Police 127,545 365,273 35% 127,545 35%
Parks and Recreation * 108,604 161,481 67% 117,892 73%
General Plan Surcharge 86,760 1,317,813 7% 658,906 50%
Technology Surcharge 121,870 35,855 340% 35,855 100%
TOTAL $7,302,257 $11,124,643 66% $9,503,593 85%
*Recreation ou tcomes reflect permitted activities and processing fees only. Programs and facility rentals are excluded from this table.
The City is currently recovering approximately 66% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. At th e recommended level, the City will recover approximately 85% of the costs. For those fees that are not set at 100% cost recovery, the General Fund
10.c
Packet Pg. 1035
2 subsidizes the costs. The additional revenue collected through the increase in cost recovery will help offset some of the subsidy from the General Fund.
Once adopted, the administrative and police fees will become effective on July 1, 2022 and the recreation and development fees will become effective on August 29, 2022. A minimum 60-day notice is required for implementation of any new development fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 66017.
There are sufficient funds available in the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance to cover the creation of the Field Use Fee Scholarship Program. Approva l of the Resolution will appropriate the funds accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
On May 23, 2022, the City Council held a study session to discuss the outcomes of the comprehensive overhead allocation review and fee and rate study (“Fee Study”) performed by NBS. The purpose of the Fee Study is to ensure that the City is utilizing comprehensive overhead rates and accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various programs and services within City operations. It is the City’s goal to have a well -documented and defensible cost allocation plan that will incorporate general and administrative cost allocations into the budget, identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for grants, fees, federal reimbursements, and other billings, and develop charges for user fees that comply with Proposition 218.
The distinction between a tax and fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as a part of the common burden, while a fee is a payment for a special benefit or privileg e. A tax is a charge on an individual or business that pays for governmental services or facilities that benefit the public broadly. There need not be any direct relationship between how much tax a person pays and how much service he or she receives from g overnment. Example of taxes include property tax, sales tax, and hotel occupancy tax.
A fee is a charge imposed on an individual or business for a service or facility provided directly to that individual or business. Local governments charge fees for a wide range of purposes, from park and recreation fees to building plan check fees. The amount of the fee may not exceed the cost of government to provide the service. However, as noted above, any fee that is not recovered at 100% is subsidized by the General Fund.
The Fee Study was used to provide staff with a baseline for recommended revisions and changes to the current fee schedule. In addition, a comparison of the City’s fees to other agencies was also conducted to gauge the market consistency of the City’s service charges.
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Planning and Building Fees . During the Study Session, Council expressed concerns with the large increase in fees related to residential development and other various fees. In response, several of t he recommended fee increases related to Planning and Building Fees have been split to fully recover the costs over two years . Those fees have been highlighted in Attachments 9 and 10 and are also summarized below.
Community Development – Planning Fees. There was also a discussion regarding the arborist fees for dead trees. An inspection is still required by the arborist but the cost for
10.c
Packet Pg. 1036
3 inspection will be less than the time (cost) spent to inspect a healthy tree. Arborist fees are billed at actual costs. Since these fees are primarily related to development, they are subject to the 60 day noticing requirement. The new fee schedule (Attachment 4) will become effective August 29, 2022.
Design Review - Single Family
Single Family, New Home (RDRC) 6,320$ 8,216$ 78% 10,485$ 100% Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC) 4,214$ 5,689$ 76% 7,489$ 100% Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC) 6,320$ 8,216$ 78% 10,485$ 100% Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff) 1,264$ 1,959$ 65% 2,996$ 100% Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff) 2,107$ 3,161$ 70% 4,493$ 100% Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, IND) - Planning Commission Review / Approval New Building (Planning Commission) 8,427$ 13,483$ 63% 21,269$ 100% Major Alteration (Planning Commission) 5,056$ 9,101$ 57% 15,877$ 100% Minor Alteration (Planning Commission) 3,371$ 6,573$ 51% 12,881$ 100% Design Review (Other)
Outdoor Uses Dining & Retail Sales 948$ 1,327$ 74% 1,797$ 100% Sign Program 2,107$ 3,371$ 56% 5,991$ 100% Signs - (Planning Commission) 2,107$ 3,055$ 68% 4,493$ 100% Signs (Staff) 422$ 717$ 60% 1,198$ 100% Domestic Fowl and Non-Household Pets 301$ 900$ 50% 1,797$ 100% Historic Preservation
City Processing Fee 210$ 400$ 67% 599$ 100% Mills Act Contract 1,005$ 2,000$ 45% 4,493$ 100% Plan Check for Building Permits
Major (New Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, Commercial, Industrial) 2,529$ 3,035$ 84% 3,595$ 100% Moderate (New Single-Family, Commercial
additions/alterations) 1,054$ 1,265$ 84% 1,498$ 100% Minor (Single-Family Additions, Accessory Dwelling Units) 210$ 399$ 44% 899$ 100% Accessory Dwelling Units (Not a Part of The Previous
Approval) N/A 399$ 44% 899$ 100%
Pre-Application Development Review
Major 4,741$ 6,500$ 72% 8,987$ 100% Minor 2,107$ 3,500$ 58% 5,991$ 100% FY22-23
New
Proposed
Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed
Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed
Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed
Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
Service Fee Per Project
FY21-22
Current Fee
/ Deposit
Community Development – Building Fees. Similar to the Planning fees, staff recommend s that some of the building fees are tiered in order to spread the increase over two years. Since these fees are primarily related to development, they are subject to the 60 day noticing requirement. The new fee schedule (Attachment 5) will become effective on August 29, 2022.
10.c
Packet Pg. 1037
4 Building Permits (single Family Residential)
Less Than $5,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under
$5,000 134$ 200$ 65% 309$ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee under
$5,000 102$ 175$ 68% 258$ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $5,000 266$ 309$ 100% 309$ 100% each add'l $1,000
or fraction thereof 7.81$ 15.00$ 56% 26.78$ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $5,000 200$ 258$ 100% 258$ 100% each add'l $1,000
or fraction thereof 5.85$ 15.00$ 81% 18.54$ 100% Building Permits (Multi-Family Residential / Commercial / Industrial) Less Than $10,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under
$10,000 134$ 250$ 49% 515$ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee under
$10,000 102$ 300$ 36% 824$ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $10,000 266$ 400$ 78% 515$ 100% each add'l $1,000
or fraction thereof 7.81$ 20$ 44% 45$ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $10,000 200$ 450$ 55% 824$ 100% each add'l $1,000
or fraction thereof 5.85$ 10$ 54% 19$ 100% $10,000 - $24,999
$5,000 - $24,999
Fee Unit / Type
FY21-22
Current Fee
/ Deposit
Service Fee Per Project
FY22-23
New
Proposed
Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed
Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed
Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed
Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
Public Works/Engineering Fees. There were no changes recommended to the proposed fee schedule. Since these fees are primarily related to development , they are subject to the 60 day noticing requirement. The new fee schedule (Attachment 6) will become effective on August 29, 2022.
General Plan Surcharge. There were no changes recommended to the proposed rate. This fee is applied to new construction and additions to existing square footage so these fees are subject to the 60 day noticing requirement. The new fee (Attachment 5) will become effective on August 29, 2022.
Technology Surcharge. There were no changes recommended to the proposed rate. This fee is intended to recover the costs of implementation and future upgrades of the City’s permitting and cashiering software applications. Since the primary users of these systems are the Community Development and Public Works Departments, these fees are subject to the 60 day noticing requirement. The new fee (Attachment 5) will become effective on August 29, 2022.
Parks and Recreation Fees . As discussed at the study session, the per player field use fee increase to recover 100% of the total costs has been tiered over two yea rs. In addition to tiering the fee, the Council requested that some funding be set aside to allow for a scholarship program so that the field use fee would not be a barrier to participation. As such, staff has recommended an allocation of $10,000, equally divided across the sports leagues to supplement approximately 5% of each league’s current registration numbers of the proposed per player fee. This information was relayed to the San Carlos Athletic Sites Advisory Council (“ASAC”) at their meeting held on May 31, 2022. If additional funds are needed, staff will return to Council to request an additional appropriation.
10.c
Packet Pg. 1038
5 Although Park and Recreation fees are not subject to the 60 day noticing requirement , the updated fee schedule (Attachment 7) will become ef fective on August 29 , 2022 to give the sports organizations time to implement the fees into their schedules.
Administrative Fees . There were no changes recommended to the proposed schedule.
Administrative fees are not subject to the 60 day noticing requi rement so the updated fee schedule (Attachment 2) will become effective on July 1, 2022.
Police Fees. There were no changes recommended to the proposed schedule. Administrative fees are not subject to the 60 day noticing requirement so the updated fee sch edule (Attachment 3) will become effective on July 1, 2022.
Fire Department Fees. Fire prevention fees are separate from the Fee Study’s scope of review, since these services are contracted from the City of Redwood City. As done in prior years, staff recommends adopting user fees based on the Redwood City User Fee Schedule upon its effective date, as applicable.
Future Fee Increases . As done in prior years, staff recommends that the Council adopt guidelines to adjust most fees annually based on the San F rancisco-Oakland-San Jose (Bay Area) Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Consumer Price Index (CPI -W). As noted during the study session, conducting a comprehensive user fee study is not an annual requirement and only becomes valuable over time, follow ing significant shifts in the organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements. Even though the City has chosen to spread the costs of certain fees over two years, the second year would still be subject to any increases in CPI to remain consistent with the fee schedule.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing adjustments to the City of San Carlos Cost of Services Schedule (User Fees) as proposed on Attachments 2-8 of this report, the approval of an additional budget appropriation in the amount of $10,000 from the General Fund Unassigned Balance to establish a Field Use Fee Scholarship Program for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and adopt guidelines for future cost of services increases; or
2. Do not adopt the Resolution; or
3. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Rebecca Mendenhall,
Administrative Services Director
10.c
Packet Pg. 1039
6 Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Resolution - Master Fee Schedule (MFS)
2. Exhibit A to Resolution – MFS Administrative Services
3. Exhibit B to Resolution - MFS Police
4. Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning
5. Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building
6. Exhibit E to Resolution - MFS Public Works
7. Exhibit F to Resoultion - MFS Parks and Recreation
8. MFS Fire
9. MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning
10. MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building
11. 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments
10.c
Packet Pg. 1040
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS
AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE COST OF SERVICES SCHEDULE (USER FEES),
AND THE APPROVAL OF AN ADDITIONAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE TO ESTABLISH A FIELD USE FEE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND TO ADOPT GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE FEE INCREASES.
____________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City contracted with NBS to provide an overhead cost allocation review and comprehensive fee and rate study (‘Fee Study”) to ensure that the City is utilizing comprehensive overhead rates and accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various programs and services within City operations; and
WHEREAS, conducting a comprehensive user fee study is not an annual requirement and only becomes valuable during significant shifts in the organization, local practices, legislative values, or when there are changes in legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, On May 23, 2022, the City Council held a study session to discuss the outcomes of the Fee Study performed by NBS and gave staff direction to tier the increase of certain fees over the span of two years; and
WHEREAS, the C ity Council requested that some funding be set aside to allow for a scholarship program so that the field use fee would not be a barrier to participation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to revise said fee schedule at this time; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to use the San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose (Bay Area) Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) as a guideline for future annual increases for user fees.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Cou ncil of the City of San Carlos hereby approves the amended User Fees Schedule for Administration and Police Service Fees with an effective date of July 1, 2022 (Exhibits A & B) and the Recreation and Development Fees with an effective date of August 29, 20 22 (Exhibits C - F) and the additional appropriation from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance in the amount of $10,000 to establish a Field Use Fee Scholarship Program.
* * * * *
I Crystal Mui, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of San Carlos at a regular meeting thereof held on the 27th day of June 2022, by the following vote:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
10.c.1
Packet Pg. 1041
Attachment: Resolution - Master Fee Schedule (MFS) (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) ________________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of San Carlos
APPROVED:
___________________________
MAYOR of the City of San Carlos
Exhibits:
A. Administrative Services Master Fee Schedule FY 23
B. Police Master Fee Schedule FY 23
C. Planning Master Fee Schedule FY 23
D. Building Master Fee Schedule FY 23
E. Public Works Master Fee Schedule FY 23
F. Parks and Recreation Master Fee Schedule FY 23
10.c.1
Packet Pg. 1042
Attachment: Resolution - Master Fee Schedule (MFS) (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Administrative Services Fees (Effective on July 1st, 2022) Returned Check [1]
First Item Per First Check 25$
Each Additional Item Per Subsequent
Check 35$
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost Copy Charges: Per Page $.10/page
Copy Charges - CD Per CD $0.50/CD
Copies of City Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Municipal Code Book, Standard Bid Specifications, Standard Detail, Work Program Free/website, or
Copy Charge
Document Certification Per Request Fee Waived
Agenda or Minutes Subscription Free/website, or
Copy Charge
Research Per Hour, or
Fraction Thereof 193$
Wheeler Plaza Electrical Vehicle Charging Fee Per kWh $0.25/kWh For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time:
Finance Division Staff (Per Hour) Per Hour 193 $
City Clerk Department Staff (Per Hour) Per Hour 193 $
[Notes]
[1] Fee set by California Civil Code Ch. 522 Section 1719. Additional charges may apply if not paid within 30 days of receipt of written demand for payment letter
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
10.c.2
Packet Pg. 1043
Attachment: Exhibit A to Resolution – MFS Administrative Services (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Police Department Fees
(Effective on July 1st, 2022)
Accident Report [1]
Property damage only per report 2$
Property damage with injuries per report 2$
Fatality per report 2$
County Jail Booking Fee County fee
Crime Report per report 2$
False Alarm Response
First Response first call Fee Waived
Subsequent Calls per call 205$
Impounded Vehicle [2]
Towed for criminal offenses per instance 101$
Towed for all other offenses (abandoned, blocking
driveways, etc.) per instance 101$
Unruly Gatherings
First Call -$
Subsequent Calls per hour 306$
Alarm Permit
New initial fee Fee Waived
Processing Permit for Excessive Cats & Dogs per instance 101$ Processing Police Officer Subpoena per hour [3] $275/day deposit per GC
Tape of Radio/Video Transmission, Digital or Hard-copy
Photographs Per Request actual cost of
materials
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost Non-Sworn Staff Members of the Police Department: per hour 101$ Sworn Staff Members of the Police Department: per hour 306$ For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
10.c.3
Packet Pg. 1044
Attachment: Exhibit B to Resolution - MFS Police (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Police Department Fees
(Effective on July 1st, 2022)
[Notes]
[1] CA VC 20012 allows for recovery of the actual cost of providing accident report copies
[2] Towing charges are separate
[3] As set by GC 68096
2 of 2
10.c.3
Packet Pg. 1045
Attachment: Exhibit B to Resolution - MFS Police (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Appeal, Planning Commission Per Appeal 2,000$
Appeal, City Council Per Appeal 2,000$
Attorney's Fees
Support to Planning projects that require Deposit Per Project Actual Cost / + $2,500 Minimum Deposit
Support to Projects on a "Fixed"/"Flat" Fee Basis Per Project Actual Cost - 2 Hours Minimum
Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Plan Per Project 2,097$ Below Market Rate (BMR), Builder Alternative Per Project 2,097$ Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Agreement Per Project 2,696$ CEQA
Document Filing Per Project 300$
Categorical Exemption
City Processing Fee Per Project 599$
Department of Fish and Game / County Recording Fees Per ProjectActual Cost of DFG / County Fees
Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative/EIR City Processing Fee Per Project Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit
Mitigation Monitoring Per Project Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Cell Tower Application [3]
6409 Application Each 1,198$
Other Applications Each Actual Cost / T&M
Creek Exception
City Processing Fee Per Project 4,493$
Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
Design Review - Single Family
Single Family, New Home (RDRC) Per Project 8,216$
Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC) Per Project 5,689$ Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC) Per Project 8,216$ Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff) Per Project 1,959$ Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff) Per Project 3,161$ Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, IND) - Staff Review / Approval New Building Per Project 12,641$
Major Alteration Per Project 7,837$
Minor Alteration Per Project 5,731$
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
10.c.4
Packet Pg. 1046
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, IND) - Planning Commission Review / Approval
New Building (Planning Commission) Per Project 13,483$
Major Alteration (Planning Commission) Per Project 9,101$ Minor Alteration (Planning Commission) Per Project 6,573$ Design Review (Other)
A - Frames Per Project 150$
Accessory Structures (Includes large decks) Per Project 1,797$ Architectural Peer Review Per Project $3,000 Initial Deposit Mills Acts Designated Projects
City Processing Fee Per Project 1,797$
Historic Consultant Review Per Project [4] $5,000 Initial Deposit Miscellaneous (awnings, trash, replacement materials, site plan review, landscape) Per Project 599$
Outdoor Uses Dining & Retail Sales Per Project 1,327$
Sign Program Per Project 3,371$
Signs - (Planning Commission) Per Project 3,055$
Signs (Staff) Per Project 717$
Temporary Banner Per Project 300$
Minor Alterations Per Project 1,198$
Document Imaging Per 1/2 Hour - 1/2
Hour Minimum 150$
Domestic Fowl and Non-Household Pets Per Project 900$
Excessive Noise Compliance Permit Per Project 599$
Final Inspection, Single-Family Per Project 599$
Final Inspection, Other Per Project 1,198$
General Plan Amendment Per Project 11,983$
Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate Per Project 2,996$
Historic Preservation
City Processing Fee Per Project 400$
Historic Assessment - Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit
Mills Act Contract Per Project 2,000$
Interdepartmental Plan Review
Building Per Project
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
Engineering Per Project
See Engineering Fee
Schedule and / or
Hourly Rates Apply
Fire Per Project See Fire Fee Schedule
Police Per Project
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates Apply
Economic Development - Housing Per Project Planning Hourly Rate Applies
2 of 5
10.c.4
Packet Pg. 1047
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Other City Commission Review Per Project 1,198$
Plan Check for Building Permits
Major (New Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, Commercial,
Industrial) Per Project 3,035$
Moderate (New Single-Family, Commercial
additions/alterations) Per Project 1,265$
Minor (Single-Family Additions, Accessory Dwelling Units) Per Project 399$ Accessory Dwelling Units (Not a Part of The Previous
Approval) Per Project 399$
Pre-Application Development Review
General/Initial Questions Per Project No Charge
Major Per Project [2] 6,500$
Minor Per Project [1] 3,500$
Protected Tree Removal Permit / Pruning Permit
City Processing Fee Per Project 300$
Arborist Per Project $500 Initial Deposit
Investigative Report Each $500 Initial Deposit
Illegal Tree Removal (additional arborist report fees apply) Penalty Double the
Application Fee, plus
assessed penalties per
Muni Code
Protected Tree Notice Each 150$
Tree Replanting Fee Per Tree See Public Works Fee
Schedule
Public Notice Fee
City Processing Fee Per Hearing 599$
Restrictive Covenants Each 599$
San Mateo County Recording Fees
City Processing Fee Each 599$
County Fee Each Per County fee
schedule
Subdivisions
Subdivision, Major (5 or more lots) Per Project 23,965$ Subdivision, Minor (up to 4 lots) or for Condominium Maps Per Project 3,595$ Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel Mergers Per Project 1,198$
Conditional Exceptions Per Project 5,991$
Lot Verification Per Project [5] 599$
Map Extension Per Project 1,198$
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
City Staff Review Per Project 4,194$
Consultant Review Per Project $700 Initial Deposit
3 of 5
10.c.4
Packet Pg. 1048
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Review
Annual Each $500 Initial Deposit
5-Year Each $500 Initial Deposit
Consultant Review Deposit / Actual
Cost $700 Initial Deposit
Use Permits
Conditional Use Permit- Planning Commission Per Project 8,987$ Minor Use Permit - Zoning Administrator Per Project 4,493$ Use Permits (Development Standards) Per Project 3,595$
Temporary Per Project 2,397$
Amendment Per Project 3,595$
Variance Per Project 11,983$
Waivers Per Project 1,198$
Zoning Administrator Determination Per Project 2,397$
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Major Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 23,965$
Moderate Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 11,983$
Minor Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 5,991$
Minor staff review
ABC/DMV Zoning Affidavit Review Per Project 599$
Business Registration Per Project 101$
Home Occupations Per Project 101$
Home Occupation Revocation Hearing Per Project 2,397$
Massage Per Project 899$
Other Zoning Affidavit Review Per Project 1,198$
Parking Calculation Per Project 899$
Search and Determination Per Project [6] 599$
Code Compliance Per Project 1,198$
Technology Fee Per Permit 0.4% of Total
Permit Fee Amount
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Staff SupportPer Project 1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on Building
Permit
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Contract ServicesPer Project
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on Building
Permit
4 of 5
10.c.4
Packet Pg. 1049
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost SB-9 Application
No Lot Split Each 10,485$
Lot Split Each 10,485$
For services requested of City Staff for which no fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate
fee/deposit based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service.
Planning Division Staff Per Hour 300$
[Notes]
[7] Per the City's Tree Ordinance, the arborist may request a fee in lieu of tree replanting if there is no possibility to plant on site [6] Not charged for public records requests
[1} Includes up to 2, 1-hour meetings with multiple departments [2] Other City department fees/deposits may apply
[3] Governed by FCC, section 6409
[4] Fees for historical consultants apply
[5] Public Works fees apply
5 of 5
10.c.4
Packet Pg. 1050
Attachment: Exhibit C to Resolution - MFS Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Less Than $5,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under $5,000 200$
Plan Check Fee base fee under $5,000 175$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $5,000 309$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 15.00$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $5,000 258$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 15.00$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $25,000 927$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 28.84$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $25,000 695$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 22.66$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,648$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 28.84$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,236$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 22.66$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $100,000 3,090$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 8.24$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $100,000 2,318$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.18$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $500,000 6,592$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.18$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $500,000 4,944$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 4.12$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 9,888$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 7.42$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 7,416$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.56$
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 and Up
Service
Building Permits (single Family Residential)
$5,000 - $24,999
Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1051
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Service Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
Less Than $10,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under
$10,000 250$
Plan Check Fee base fee under
$10,000 300$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $10,000 400$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 20.00$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $10,000 450$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 10.00$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $25,000 1,545$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 37.08$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $25,000 1,236$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 32.96$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000 2,472$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 41.20$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000 2,060$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 32.96$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $100,000 4,532$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 14.42$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $100,000 3,708$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 10.30$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $500,000 9,888$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 16.48$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $500,000 7,416$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 14.42$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 17,716$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 8.24$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 14,832$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 53.56$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $10,000,000 88,580$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 8.86$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $10,000,000 41,200$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 7.42$
$1,000,000 - $9,999,999
$10,000,000 - $19,999,999
$10,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
Building Permits (Multi-Family Residential / Commercial / Industrial) $100,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
2 of 6
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1052
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Service Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $20,000,000 177,160$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 3.54$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $20,000,000 115,360$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 3.44$
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000,000 283,456$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 4.25$
Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000,000 218,360$
each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 4.37$
Permitted Values for Construction:
per sq. ft. 232$
Interior Remodels per sq. ft. 117$
per sq. ft. 48$
Decks per sq. ft. 39$
Commercial Shell per sq. ft. 57$
Tenant Improvements per sq. ft. 57$
Electrical Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.08$
Residential: Addition & Remodel
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.08$
Residential: New Multiple Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.08$
Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 3,000 sq. ft. min. 2,060$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.46$
Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 247$
Temporary Power Pole Per Permit 247$
Main Electrical Service Per Permit 247$
Per Permit 103$
New or Replacement Sub-Panel Per Permit 247$
Miscellaneous Electrical Permit Per Permit 206$
PV Solar Fee Per Permit 309$
New or Replacement Circuit for HVAC or Other
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
$20,000,000 - $49,999,999
$50,000,000 and Up
New Residential and Additions
Garages and Accessory Structures
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes, Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
3 of 6
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1053
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Service Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
Plumbing Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Residential: Addition & Remodel
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Residential: New Multiple Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 3,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum 2,060$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.46$
Miscellaneous Plumbing Permit Per Permit 206$
Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 206$
Water Heater Replacement Per Permit 104$
Gas Piping Extension for New FAU or HVAC Per Permit 103$ Mechanical Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Residential: Kitchen & Bath Remodel Per Permit 103$
Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$
Permit 3000 sq. ft. min. 618$
Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.14$
New FAU or HVAC Installations Per Permit 330$
Replacement FAU or HVAC Per Permit 206$
Miscellaneous Mechanical Per Permit 206$
Miscellaneous Building Fees
Grading Permit Fee for Swimming Pools Per Permit 103$
Grading Permit Fee for Other than Swimming Pools Per Permit 103$ Accessibility Plan Check of Building Permit 1 hour min. 206$ Each additional houreach add'l hr. 206$
Imaging Fees per page (standard size) Per Page 2.06$
Imaging Fees per page (oversize) Per Page 4.12$
Planning Application Review Per Permit 206$
During Normal Business Hours 1 hour min. 206$
Each additional houreach add'l hr. 206$
Outside Business Hours 2 hour min. 444$
Each additional houreach add'l hr. 222$
Code Enforcement-City Attorney 1 hour min. [1] 295$
Each additional houreach add'l hr. [1] 295$
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes, Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes, Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
Fees for Second and Each Additional Re-inspection:
4 of 6
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1054
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Service Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
Dirt Haul Permit n/a reference PW fee
schedule
Municipal Code Violation Fees
First Violation Per Violation 100$
Per Violation 200$
Per Violation 500$
GEO Plan Review / Soils Report Review n/a Actual Cost per Geologist
Per Instance 103$
Additional Plan Check Fee Per Hour 206$
Re-Inspection Fee Per Hour 206$
Demolition Per Instance 206$
Address Change Per Instance 206$
Green Building Review Per Review 206$
Energy Calculation Review Fee Per Review 103$
Apartment Inspection Annual Fee
Per Residential Building Per Year 257$
Per Dwelling Unit within each Building Per Year 13$
Per Permit
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
Per Project
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
Per Project
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
Construction Time Limits Extension Fee
Fees for Additional Extensions
1st 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 0.5% of Total
Value of Project
2nd 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 1.0% of Total
Value of Project
3rd 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 1.5% of Total
Value of Project
Construction Time Limits Completion Penalties
Period of Time That Projects Remain Incomplete Beyond Applicable Time Limits 30 Day Grace Period Per Project $0
31st Day Through 60th Day Per Project
0.01% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
61st Day Through 120th Day Per Project
0.015% Per Day
of Total Value of
Project
121st Day & Every Day Thereafter Per Project
0.02% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
Technology Fee
Add'l Violation of the same ordinance within 36-mths
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Staff Support
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Contract Services GIS Mapping: New Construction, Addition, Alteration
Second Violation of the Same Ordinance within 36-mths
5 of 6
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1055
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
2%
Service Proposed Fee /
DepositFee Unit / Type
Notes
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost Building Division Staff Per Hour 206$
Each Additional Hour Each add'l hr. 206$
[Notes]
[1] Subject to change per City Attorney contract
[2] The Building Official may waive an extension fee in the event he/she finds the complexity or size of the project requires a greater time than allotted or the reason for the extension request may be considered beyond the owner's control For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service:
6 of 6
10.c.5
Packet Pg. 1056
Attachment: Exhibit D to Resolution - MFS Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Public Works Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Final Map Review
(Includes up to 3 Reviews)
Parcel (4 lots or less)
City Processing Fee Per Project 2,387$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Subdivision (5 or more lots)
City Processing Fee Per Project 2,769$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
4th and Subsequent Review
City Processing Fee Per Submittal 286$
Consultant Review Per Submittal Deposit / Actual
Cost
Civil Plan Check [1]
(Includes up to 3 Reviews)
Minor Projects
City Processing Fee Per Project 1,910$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Moderate Projects
City Processing Fee Per Project 3,724$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Major Projects
City Processing Fee Per Project 5,443$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
4th and Subsequent Review
City Processing Fee Per Submittal 477$
Consultant Review Per Submittal Deposit / Actual
Cost
Utility Companies Plan Check: [2]
Minor Each 191$
Moderate Each 382$
Major Deposit / Actual
Cost 668$
Proposed Fee /
DepositService
NotesFee Unit / Type
10.c.6
Packet Pg. 1057
Attachment: Exhibit E to Resolution - MFS Public Works (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Public Works Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService
NotesFee Unit / Type
Construction Inspection (Including Utilities) [3]
Minor Projects (1-3 inspections) Per Project 430$
Moderate Projects (4-5 inspections) Per Project 716$
Major Projects (6-10 inspections) Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
Additional Inspection Each 143$
Post Construction Stormwater Device MonitoringPer Device, Every 5 Years 382$
Dirt Hauling Per CY 2.10$
Planning & Building Dept. Plan Check:
Planning Referral
City Processing Fee Per Project 955$
Consultant Review Per Project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Building Referral, Review of On-site Civil Per Project 382$ Debris Box/Storage Container Permit
Duration up to two weeks Per Permit 86$
Monthly Per Permit 286$
Encroachment Permit Administrative Fee Per Permit 95$
Outside Sewer Agreement Fee Deposit / Actual
Cost Deposit $5,000
Community Banner (Hang & Remove):
for-profit organization Each 191$
non-profit organization Each No Charge
Wide Load Processing Each [5] 16$
Sidewalk Dining or Outdoor Display Approval
Initial Each Initial Review 286 $
Annual Each Annual
Review 286$
2 of 4
10.c.6
Packet Pg. 1058
Attachment: Exhibit E to Resolution - MFS Public Works (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Public Works Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService
NotesFee Unit / Type
Temporary NO PARKING Signs Per Sign 1$
Semi-Annual Permit Parking in City Lots
Downtown Employee Parking Program Per Six Month
Permit 95$
East San Carlos Parking Permit Program-Residential Part of the Program Each No Charge
East San Carlos Parking Permit Program-Business part of the Program
Per Six Month
Permit 35$
Exception to the Winter Moratorium on Grading Per Week-long Request 95$
"Street Cut" fee per Ordinance Section 12.08.310.C.2 Per Opening 600$ Video Review of Existing Sewer Lateral Each 143$
Starting Work Without a Permit Per Permit Actual Cost
Grading Bond Policy (per 12.08.100)
<1,000 CY Per City Policy
Valuation of
Improvements +
20% Contingency
>1,000 CY Per City Policy
Valuation of
Improvements +
20% Contingency,
plus Performance
Bond
Industrial / Commercial Business Stormwater C.4 Inspection Fee
Per Hour -
Minimum 1.5
Hours
191$
Technology Fee Per Permit
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost 3 of 4
10.c.6
Packet Pg. 1059
Attachment: Exhibit E to Resolution - MFS Public Works (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Public Works Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Proposed Fee /
DepositService
NotesFee Unit / Type
Parklet Program
Encroachment Permit Administrative Fee Per Permit 95$
Encroachment Permit - Downtown Area Per Permit / Per 6
Months 933$
Encroachment Permit - Other Areas (Industrial Arts, etc.)Per Permit / Per 6 Months 933$
Cleaning Fee Per Linear Foot /
Per 6 Months 12.82$
Tree Replanting Fee Per Tree [4] 1,486$
For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service.
Maintenance Staff per hr. 246$
Engineering Staff per hr. 191$
[Notes]
[1] Minor
One (1) single family residence
o < 1000 CY of grading
o >= 1000 CY of grading
Moderate
Abandonment of R/W or Easement
Two or more (2+) single family residences (<1 acre)
o C.3 Regulated
o Not C.3 Regulated
multi-family/mixed-use/commercial/industrial (< 1 acres) o C.3 regulated
o Not C.3 regulated
Major
Two or more (2+) single family residences (>= 1 acre)
Multi-family/mixed-use/commercial/industrial (>= 1 acres) Major project - new main line installation or replacement including sewer, storm, water, gas, and electric, major point repair, major development projects including offsite improvements. [5] Set by Title 21 of California Code of Regulation Section 1411.3 [2] Minor project - point repair or maintenance, service line repair or replacement, replacement of overhead utilities, traffic control only,
Moderate project - installation of overhead utilities, installation of equipment at a specific location (not linear),
Major project - installation or replacement of underground utilities, [3] Minor project - sewer lateral repair or installation (outside of roadway), sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, traffic control (only), minor utility point repair, installation or maintenance (above ground), discharge, minor roadway improvement,
Moderate project - sewer lateral repair or installation (within roadway), soil boring, moderate utility point repair, installation or maintenance (underground), [4] Amount of fee for the 24th box tree is subject to change based on actual vendor cost 4 of 4
10.c.6
Packet Pg. 1060
Attachment: Exhibit E to Resolution - MFS Public Works (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Parks and Recreation Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Parks, Facility, Room, and Amenity Rentals
Adult Community Center Room Rentals 3-hour minimum
Park View Room [2] R 82$ 787$ 102$ NR 99$ 945$ 122$ NP 58$ 551$ 72$ Patio Room [2] R 65$ 471$ 102$ NR 78$ 565$ 122$ NP 46$ 330$ 72$ Park View Patio Room [2] R 102$ 977$ 102$ NR 122$ 1,172$ 122$ NP 72$ 684$ 72$ Game Room [2] R Not Available 471$ 102$ NR Not Available 565$ 122$
NP Not Available 330$ 72$
Chestnut Room [2] R 65$ 471$ 102$ NR 78$ 565$ 122$ NP 46$ 330$ 72$ Loft [2] R 65$ 471$ 102$ NR 78$ 565$ 122$ NP 46$ 330$ 72$ Rental Application Fee : $25 (non-refundable; will be applied to the rental fee) Patio Fee with ACC rental : $50 (may only be rented in conjunction with the Patio Room, Parkview Room, or Game Room) Kitchen Fee : $50 R, NR and NP (limited use; restrictions apply - information included in the rental packet) Youth Center Facility Rentals 2-hour minimum
Gym (Full) [2][3] R 108$ 297$ 117$ NR 129$ 392$ 141$ NP 75$ 208$ 82$ Gym (Half) [2][3] R 67$ Not Available Not Available NR 80$ Not Available Not Available NP 47$ Not Available Not Available -$
Dance Studio [2][3] R 59$ 202$ 67$ NR 70$ 243$ 80$ NP 41$ 141$ 47$ Arts & Crafts Room [2][3] R 47$ 182$ 59$ NR 56$ 211$ 78$ NP 33$ 128$ 41$ Homework Room [2][3] R 47$ 182$ 59$ NR 56$ 211$ 78$ NP 33$ 128$ 41$ Rental Application Fee : $25 (non-refundable; will be applied to the rental fee) Kitchen Fee : $25 R, NP and NR (limited use; restrictions apply - information included in the rental packet) Additional Services as Required Per Rental (Adult & Youth Centers):
Facility Attendant $30 Per Hour $30 Per Hour
Janitorial Services $220 Per Event or
Actual Cost
$220 Per Event or
Actual Cost
Insurance Actual Cost Actual Cost
Deposit - Parkview, Patio, Billiard Rooms n/a $500 Per Event Deposit - Patio, Chestnut Rooms, Gym n/a $250 Per Event San Carlos Library Community Room Rental $67 Per Hour n/a Service
Notes
Category
(R=Resident,
NR=Non-
Resident,
NP=Non-Profit)
Proposed Fees
Weekday Hourly
(Mon-Fri 5PM)
Weekend (Fri 5PM -
Sun)
Weekend Hourly
Additional
10.c.7
Packet Pg. 1061
Attachment: Exhibit F to Resoultion - MFS Parks and Recreation (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Parks and Recreation Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
Picnic Sites Rentals (March - October)
Laureola West Side Picnic Area, Laureola Park[4] 144$ Per Event Playground Picnic Area, Burton Park [4] 144$ Per Event Les Mundell Grove, Burton Park [4] 98$ Per Event Chestnut Picnic Area, Burton Park [4] 98$ Per Event Tot Lot Picnic Area, Burton Park [4] 75$ Per Event Arguello Park: Sunny Site, Shady Site [4] 75$ Per Event Crestview Park Picnic Area [4] 75$ Per Event Bocce Ball
Court 1, Burton Park 18$ Per Hour Court 2, Burton Park 18$ Per Hour Rental Application Fee 30$ Each Special Event Permit
New Request [1] 400$ Per Event Repeat Request [1] 375$ Per Event City Staff On-Sire Time During Event See Hourly Rate Per Hour Athletics ("Per Season/Per Quarter")
Light Use (Fields) 32$ Per Hour Field Use Fee
R-NP 26$ Per Hour
NR-NP 32$ Per Hour
Sports League Field Use Fee:
San Carlos Youth Softball (Girls) 66$ Per Player Youth Baseball 66$ Per Player Soccer 66$ Per Player
Baseball / Soccer Sports Tournament:
New Request Permit Fee 350$ Per Event Repeat Request Permit Fee 300$ Per Event Tennis:
Tennis Club Permitted Use 14$ Per Hour, Per Court Non-Resident Tennis Club 20$ Per Hour, Per Court Snack Shack Use
Fall Season (August 15 - November 30) 300$ Per Season Spring Season (March 1 - May 31) 300$ Per Season Snack Shack Use (Outside of Primary Youth Sports Seasons) Rental Fee (Mon - Sun) 50$ Per Week Miscellaneous
Park Fitness Group Rental 25$ Per Hour Administrative fees (apply to class registration only)
Registration 10$ Per Registrant Refund 10$ Per Registrant Neighborhood Block Party Permit Fee Waived
Community Events - City Sponsored
Including but not limited to: Farmers Market, Hometown Days, Art & Wine Faire, Night of Holiday Lights, Goblin Walk, Concerts, Downtown Block Party, etc.
Fees charged for City-sponsored Community Events shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director and shall not exceed the estimated and reasonable cost of conducting the event
Per City Council authorization on February 28, 2022, Hometown Days booth fees with the exception of San Mateo County Health Department permit County Health Department permit fees and equipment rental fees will be waived for all non-profit organizations Service
Notes Primary Rate Unit
2 of 3
10.c.7
Packet Pg. 1062
Attachment: Exhibit F to Resoultion - MFS Parks and Recreation (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Parks and Recreation Department Fees
(Effective on August 29th, 2022)
PW Maintenance Staff 246$
Full-Time 177$
Part-Time 30$
Recreational Programs
Fees imposed for recreational programs offered by the City shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director, not to exceed the cost of the individual programs. The City's full cost of implementing an individual program may be calculated as follows:
Program Cost of Service = [ (A x B) + C + D + E + F + G ] A = Estimated time for City staff to implement the individual program.
B = Applicable hourly rates for the staff functions involved in the implementation of the individual program (below).
C = Actual cost incurred by the City for any outside service provider involved in the individual program.
D = Actual Cost incurred by the City for any specific materials acquired for use during the individual program E = Prevailing facility rental and/or field use fees imposed by the City and reflected in its Master Fee Schedule F = Prevailing department / City administrative fee
G = Actual costs incurred by the City to rent and/or use facilities/fields from other entities The calculated cost of service above represents the maximum fee that could be imposed by the City for an individual recreation program. The City may recover between 0% and 100% of the cost of service. Cost recovery targets may vary by individual program, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director as determined during the seasonal development of the City's program offerings. The City may also set differential fee for resident and non-resident participants as long as neither fee exceeds the cost of service. Any person with a home San Carlos mailing address is considered a resident. A San Carlos PO Box or business address will not be taken as proof of residency. A non-resident is someone who lives in another City. Non-resident fees will be charged at 20% of the class fee up to a $20 maximum per class. [Notes]
[1] In addition to Parks and Recreation staff time, time is spent by other City departments. Breakdown of other departments time and hourly rate information involved in approving special event permits is as follows:
20 minutes of Public Works staff time at $191 per hour; 20 minutes of Police staff time at $101 per hour;
10 minutes of Planning staff time at $300 per hour, and; 10 minutes of Building staff time at $206 per hour.
[2] Includes facility staff. Additional charge for janitorial services and insurance as needed. [3] Facility rental available for Youth related events only [4] Additional Charge for Insurance as Needed
For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the established hourly rates for this department/division. Additionally, the City will pass-through to the applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use of external service providers if required to process the specific application.
Primary Rate Service
Notes Unit
3 of 3
10.c.7
Packet Pg. 1063
Attachment: Exhibit F to Resoultion - MFS Parks and Recreation (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Fire Department Fees
Fees are subject to change based on Redwood City Fee Schedule updates The prices listed are for reference only
Staff Time Consultation [1]
Fire Chief Per Hour $ 276
Deputy Fire Chief Per Hour $ 251 Fire Marshal Per Hour $ 221
Battalion Chief Per Hour $ 231
Fire Prevention Officer Per Hour $ 140 Administrative Staff Per Hour $ 110 Inspection Fees
State of California Mandated Annual Fire Inspection Cycle Group E, Public and Private Schools, K-12th Grade (exempt from fees by state law) Annual
Group I, In-Patient Medical Care (appropriate hourly rate when requested by State Licensing). Annual
Group R-2, Hotel, Motel, Condo/Town-Home Apartment Buildings (defined as Multi-Family Dwelling Units accommodating three or more units) Annual 10 or fewer units $ 195
11 to 25 units $ 324
26 or greater $ 389
International Fire Code Related Inspections by occupancy classification and frequency. (These inspections are conducted by the fire companies and fire inspector of the San Carlos Fire Department)
Group A, Assembly related occupancy for 50 or more persons $ 180 Group B, Office complex and assembly occupancy with 49 or less occupants $ 180 Group F, Moderate hazard, Industrial and Factory Occupancy $ 120 Group H, High Hazard, Industrial/Chemical, Factory Occupancy $ 197 Group M, Mercantile/Sale of Merchandise Occupancy $ 58 Group S, Light hazard and Storage occupancy $ 120 Service Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
10.c.8
Packet Pg. 1064
Attachment: MFS Fire (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Fire Department Fees
Fees are subject to change based on Redwood City Fee Schedule updates The prices listed are for reference only
Service Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Construction Inspection Plan Check and Fees
Development Service Plan Check
Building or Planning Plan Check $ 327 Specialized Permits and Specific Cost Recovery Fee (Includes inspections and False Alarm Fee)
Fire Alarm Systems
Plan Check $ 737
Permit for monitoring systems $ 227 Permit for manual systems $ 227
Permit for automatic systems $ 335 Permit for combination systems $ 449 False Alarm Fee:
1. More than two reported ringing alarms at a building site which requires a response assignment in a 90-day cycle, in which the system was activated maliciously. Person or persons responsible for the malicious activation will be billed.2. Reported alarm activation(s) in which the system has continually malfunctioned, or is in disrepair, and a response assignment was dispatched.
This fee is only required, when the third and any such there after alarm response for malfunctioning alarm has been reported in a 90-day cycle.
Property owner shall receive the bill for: $ 718 Sprinkler Systems & Special Systems
One or Two Family Dwelling Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) Plan Check $ 737
Permit $ 227
Fire Protection Underground PRIVATE (NFPA 24)
Plan Check $ 718
Permit without a Fire Pump $ 227 Permit with a Fire Pump $ 342
Residential or Commercial Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or 13R) Plan Check $ 737
Permit – Single Story (includes T.I.) $ 342 Permit – Multi-Story $ 449
Fixed Extinguishing Systems
Plan Check $ 342
Permit $ 227
Standpipe Systems
Plan Check $ 342
Permit $ 227
2 of 3
10.c.8
Packet Pg. 1065
Attachment: MFS Fire (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 Proposed
Schedule of Fire Department Fees
Fees are subject to change based on Redwood City Fee Schedule updates The prices listed are for reference only
Service Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each
Transaction Actual Cost
Other
The city staff has the authority to charge actual cost incurred including time, material, and overhead if a fee does not approximate actual cost incurred.
PENALTY FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENTS
Delinquent more than 30 days Doubling of
Original Fee
(Per Fire Code Section 105.1.2)
[Notes]
[1] Per section 5: Penalties of the City of San Carlos Fire Code, the City shall be permitted to impose a cost recovery fee based on actual hours and hourly rates (as noted above) for work required by Fire personnel to gain compliance of violation of the Fire Code.
3 of 3
10.c.8
Packet Pg. 1066
Attachment: MFS Fire (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule
Appeal, Planning Commission Per Appeal 1,808$ 2,000$ 33% 2,000$ 33% 2,000$ 33% Appeal, City Council Per Appeal 1,608$ 2,000$ 33% 2,000$ 33% 2,000$ 33% Attorney's Fees
Support to Planning projects that require Deposit Per Project N/A Actual Cost / +
$2,500 Minimum
Deposit
Actual Cost / +
$2,500 Minimum
Deposit
Actual Cost / +
$2,500 Minimum
Deposit
Support to Projects on a "Fixed"/"Flat" Fee Basis Per Project N/A Actual Cost - 2 Hours Minimum
Actual Cost - 2
Hours Minimum
Actual Cost - 2
Hours Minimum
Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Plan Per Project 1,475$ 2,097$ 100% 2,097$ 100% 2,097$ 100% Below Market Rate (BMR), Builder Alternative Per Project $500 Initial Deposit 2,097$ 100% 2,097 $ 100% 2,097 $ 100% Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Agreement Per Project $500 Initial Deposit 2,696$ 100% 2,696 $ 100% 2,696 $ 100% CEQA
Document Filing Per Project 210$ 300$ 100% 300$ 100% 300$ 100% Categorical Exemption
City Processing Fee Per Project 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Department of Fish and Game / County Recording Fees Per ProjectActual Cost of DFG / County Fees
Actual Cost of
DFG / County
Fees
Actual Cost of DFG
/ County Fees
Actual Cost of DFG /
County Fees
Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative/EIR City Processing Fee Per Project Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit
Mitigation Monitoring Per Project Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Cell Tower Application [3]
6409 Application Each N/A 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Other Applications Each N/A Actual Cost / T&M
Creek Exception
City Processing Fee Per Project 2,529$ 4,493$ 100% 4,493$ 100% 4,493$ 100% Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
Design Review - Single Family
Single Family, New Home (RDRC) Per Project 6,320$ 10,485$ 100% 8,216$ 78% 10,485$ 100% Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC) Per Project 4,214$ 7,489$ 100% 5,689$ 76% 7,489$ 100% Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC) Per Project 6,320$ 10,485$ 100% 8,216$ 78% 10,485$ 100% Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff) Per Project 1,264$ 2,996$ 100% 1,959$ 65% 2,996$ 100% Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff) Per Project 2,107$ 4,493$ 100% 3,161$ 70% 4,493$ 100% FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Service Fee Unit / Type
Notes
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY22-23
Initial
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
10.c.9
Packet Pg. 1067
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Service Fee Unit / Type
Notes
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY22-23
Initial
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, IND) - Staff Review /
Approval
New Building Per Project 8,427$ 17,974$ 100% 12,641$ 70% 17,974$ 100% Major Alteration Per Project 5,056$ 12,582$ 100% 7,837$ 62% 12,582$ 100% Minor Alteration Per Project 3,371$ 9,586$ 100% 5,731$ 60% 9,586$ 100% Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, IND) - Planning Commission Review / Approval
New Building (Planning Commission) Per Project 8,427$ 21,269$ 100% 13,483$ 63% 21,269$ 100% Major Alteration (Planning Commission) Per Project 5,056$ 15,877$ 100% 9,101$ 57% 15,877$ 100% Minor Alteration (Planning Commission) Per Project 3,371$ 12,881$ 100% 6,573$ 51% 12,881$ 100% Design Review (Other)
A - Frames Per Project 105$ 150$ 100% 150$ 100% 150$ 100% Accessory Structures (Includes large decks) Per Project 1,264$ 1,797$ 100% 1,797$ 100% 1,797$ 100% Architectural Peer Review Per Project $3,000 Initial
Deposit
$3,000 Initial
Deposit
$3,000 Initial
Deposit
$3,000 Initial
Deposit
Mills Acts Designated Projects
City Processing Fee Per Project 603$ 1,797$ 100% 1,797$ 100% 1,797$ 100% Historic Consultant Review Per Project [4] $5,000 Initial Deposit$5,000 Initial Deposit
Miscellaneous (awnings, trash, replacement materials, site plan review, landscape) Per Project 422$ 599$ 100% 599 $ 100% 599 $ 100% Outdoor Uses Dining & Retail Sales Per Project 948$ 1,797$ 100% 1,327$ 74% 1,797$ 100% Sign Program Per Project 2,107$ 5,991$ 100% 3,371$ 56% 5,991$ 100% Signs - (Planning Commission) Per Project 2,107$ 4,493$ 100% 3,055$ 68% 4,493$ 100% Signs (Staff) Per Project 422$ 1,198$ 100% 717$ 60% 1,198$ 100% Temporary Banner Per Project 210$ 300$ 100% 300$ 100% 300$ 100% Minor Alterations Per Project N/A 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Document Imaging
Per 1/2 Hour -
1/2 Hour
Minimum
105$ 150$ 100% 150 $ 100% 150 $ 100% Domestic Fowl and Non-Household Pets Per Project 301$ 1,797$ 100% 900$ 50% 1,797$ 100% Excessive Noise Compliance Permit Per Project N/A 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Final Inspection, Single-Family Per Project 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Final Inspection, Other Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% General Plan Amendment Per Project 8,427$ 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate Per Project 2,107$ 2,996$ 100% 2,996$ 100% 2,996$ 100% Historic Preservation
City Processing Fee Per Project 210$ 599$ 100% 400$ 67% 599$ 100% Historic Assessment - Consultant Review Per Project Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$2,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$2,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$2,000 deposit
Mills Act Contract Per Project 1,005$ 4,493$ 100% 2,000$ 45% 4,493$ 100% 2 of 5
10.c.9
Packet Pg. 1068
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Service Fee Unit / Type
Notes
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY22-23
Initial
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
Interdepartmental Plan Review
Building Per Project
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
Engineering Per Project
See Engineering Fee
Schedule and / or
Hourly Rates Apply
See Engineering
Fee Schedule and
/ or Hourly Rates
See Engineering
Fee Schedule and /
or Hourly Rates
See Engineering Fee
Schedule and / or
Hourly Rates Apply
Fire Per Project See Fire Fee
Schedule
See Fire Fee
Schedule
See Fire Fee
Schedule
See Fire Fee
Schedule
Police Per Project
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates Apply
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates
Apply
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates Apply
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates Apply
Economic Development - Housing Per Project Planning Hourly Rate Applies
Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
Other City Commission Review Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Plan Check for Building Permits
Major (New Multi-Family, Mixed-Use, Commercial,
Industrial) Per Project 2,529$ 3,595$ 100% 3,035 $ 84% 3,595 $ 100% Moderate (New Single-Family, Commercial
additions/alterations) Per Project 1,054$ 1,498$ 100% 1,265 $ 84% 1,498 $ 100% Minor (Single-Family Additions, Accessory Dwelling Units) Per Project 210$ 899$ 100% 399 $ 44% 899 $ 100% Accessory Dwelling Units (Not a Part of The Previous
Approval) Per Project N/A 899$ 100% 399 $ 44% 899 $ 100% Pre-Application Development Review
General/Initial Questions Per Project N/A No Charge No Charge No Charge Major Per Project [2] 4,741$ 8,987$ 100% 6,500$ 72% 8,987$ 100% Minor Per Project [1] 2,107$ 5,991$ 100% 3,500$ 58% 5,991$ 100% Protected Tree Removal Permit / Pruning Permit
City Processing Fee Per Project 210$ 300$ 50% 300$ 50% 300$ 50% Arborist Per Project $250 Initial Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
Investigative Report Each $500 Initial Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
Illegal Tree Removal (additional arborist report fees apply) Penalty Double the
Application Fee, plus
assessed penalties
per Muni Code
Double the
Application Fee,
plus assessed
penalties per
Muni Code
Double the
Application Fee,
plus assessed
penalties per Muni
Code
Double the
Application Fee,
plus assessed
penalties per Muni
Code
Protected Tree Notice Each N/A 150$ 50% 150$ 50% 150$ 50% Tree Replanting Fee Per Tree N/A See Public Works
Fee Schedule
See Public Works
Fee Schedule
See Public Works
Fee Schedule
Public Notice Fee
City Processing Fee Per Hearing 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Restrictive Covenants Each 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 3 of 5
10.c.9
Packet Pg. 1069
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Service Fee Unit / Type
Notes
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY22-23
Initial
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
San Mateo County Recording Fees
City Processing Fee Each 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% County Fee Each Per County fee
schedule
Per County fee
schedule
Subdivisions
Subdivision, Major (5 or more lots) Per Project 16,854$ 23,965$ 100% 23,965$ 100% 23,965$ 100% Subdivision, Minor (up to 4 lots) or for Condominium Maps Per Project 2,529$ 3,595$ 100% 3,595 $ 100% 3,595 $ 100% Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel Mergers Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Conditional Exceptions Per Project 4,214$ 5,991$ 100% 5,991$ 100% 5,991$ 100% Lot Verification Per Project [5] 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Map Extension Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
City Staff Review Per Project 2,949$ 4,194$ 100% 4,194$ 100% 4,194$ 100% Consultant Review Per Project $700 Initial Deposit$700 Initial Deposit $700 Initial Deposit $700 Initial Deposit
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Review
Annual Each $500 Initial Deposit $500 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
5-Year Each $500 Initial Deposit $500 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit $500 Initial Deposit
Consultant Review Deposit / Actual
Cost $700 Initial Deposit$700 Initial
Deposit $700 Initial Deposit $700 Initial Deposit
Use Permits
Conditional Use Permit- Planning Commission Per Project 5,268$ 8,987$ 100% 8,987$ 100% 8,987$ 100% Minor Use Permit - Zoning Administrator Per Project 2,529$ 4,493$ 100% 4,493$ 100% 4,493$ 100% Use Permits (Development Standards) Per Project 2,529$ 3,595$ 100% 3,595$ 100% 3,595$ 100% Temporary Per Project 842$ 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% Amendment Per Project 2,107$ 3,595$ 100% 3,595$ 100% 3,595$ 100% Variance Per Project 8,427$ 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% Waivers Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 50% 1,198$ 50% 1,198$ 50% Zoning Administrator Determination Per Project 1,685$ 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Major Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 16,854$ 23,965$ 100% 23,965$ 100% 23,965$ 100% Moderate Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 8,427$ 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% 11,983$ 100% Minor Rezone/PD/Map and Text Per Project 4,214$ 5,991$ 100% 5,991$ 100% 5,991$ 100% Minor staff review
ABC/DMV Zoning Affidavit Review Per Project 210$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Business Registration Per Project 101$ 101$ 34% 101$ 34% 101$ 34% Home Occupations Per Project 101$ 101$ 34% 101$ 34% 101$ 34% Home Occupation Revocation Hearing Per Project 1,685$ 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% 2,397$ 100% Massage Per Project 632$ 899$ 100% 899$ 100% 899$ 100% Other Zoning Affidavit Review Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% Parking Calculation Per Project 632$ 899$ 100% 899$ 100% 899$ 100% Search and Determination Per Project [6] 422$ 599$ 100% 599$ 100% 599$ 100% Code Compliance Per Project 842$ 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 1,198$ 100% 4 of 5
10.c.9
Packet Pg. 1070
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY 2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Planning Division Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Service Fee Unit / Type
Notes
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY22-23
Initial
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
Technology Fee Per Permit
1.8% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Staff SupportPer Project
0.3% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
1% of Building
Project
Valuation for all
New
Commercial
and Additions;
Fee is Applied
on Building
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Contract ServicesPer Project
0.11% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
0.15% of
Building Project
Valuation for all
New
Commercial
and Additions;
Fee is Applied
on Building
0.15% of
Building Project
Valuation for all
New Commercial
and Additions;
Fee is Applied on
Building Permit
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each
Transaction Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost SB-9 Application
No Lot Split Each N/A 10,485$ 100% 10,485$ 100% 10,485$ 1048500% Lot Split Each N/A 10,485$ 100% 10,485$ 100% 10,485$ 1048500% For services requested of City Staff for which no fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate
fee/deposit based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service.
Planning Division Staff Per Hour 210$ 300$ 100% 300$ 100% 300$ 100% [Notes]
[7] Per the City's Tree Ordinance, the arborist may request a fee in lieu of tree replanting if there is no possibility to plant on site [6] Not charged for public records requests
[1} Includes up to 2, 1-hour meetings with multiple departments [2] Other City department fees/deposits may apply
[3] Governed by FCC, section 6409
[4] Fees for historical consultants apply
[5] Public Works fees apply
5 of 5
10.c.9
Packet Pg. 1071
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Planning (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
Less Than $5,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under $5,000 134$ 309$ 100% 200 $ 65% 309 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee under $5,000 102$ 258$ 100% 175 $ 68% 258 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $5,000 266$ 309$ 100% 309$ 100% 309$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 7.81$ 26.78$ N/A 15.00 $ 56% 26.78 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $5,000 200$ 258$ 100% 258$ 100% 258$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.85$ 18.54$ N/A 15.00 $ 81% 18.54 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $25,000 857$ 927$ 100% 927$ 100% 927$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 34.32$ 28.84$ N/A 28.84 $ 100% 28.84 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $25,000 644$ 695$ 100% 695$ 100% 695$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 25.69$ 22.66$ N/A 22.66 $ 100% 22.66 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,715$ 1,648$ 100% 1,648$ 100% 1,648$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 17.14$ 28.84$ N/A 28.84 $ 100% 28.84 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,286$ 1,236$ 100% 1,236$ 100% 1,236$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 12.88$ 22.66$ N/A 22.66 $ 100% 22.66 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $100,000 2,572$ 3,090$ 100% 3,090$ 100% 3,090$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.44$ 8.24$ N/A 8.24 $ 100% 8.24 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $100,000 1,930$ 2,318$ 100% 2,318$ 100% 2,318$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 4.83$ 6.18$ N/A 6.18 $ 100% 6.18 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $500,000 5,144$ 6,592$ 100% 6,592$ 100% 6,592$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 3.44$ 6.18$ N/A 6.18 $ 100% 6.18 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $500,000 3,858$ 4,944$ 100% 4,944 $ 100% 4,944 $ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 2.58$ 4.12$ N/A 4.12 $ 100% 4.12 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 6,859$ 9,888$ 100% 9,888$ 100% 9,888$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.86$ 7.42$ N/A 7.42 $ 100% 7.42 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 5,144$ 7,416$ 100% 7,416$ 100% 7,416$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.15$ 5.56$ N/A 5.56 $ 100% 5.56 $ 100% FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Building Permits (single Family Residential)
$5,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1,000,000 and Up
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1072
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Less Than $10,000
Building Permit Fee base fee under
$10,000 134$ 515$ 100% 250 $ 49% 515 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee under
$10,000 102$ 824$ 100% 300 $ 36% 824 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $10,000 266$ 515$ 100% 400$ 78% 515$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 7.81$ 45.32$ N/A 20 $ 44% 45 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $10,000 200$ 824$ 100% 450$ 55% 824$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.85$ 18.54$ N/A 10 $ 54% 19 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $25,000 857$ 1,545$ 100% 1,545$ 100% 1,545$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 34.32$ 37.08$ N/A 37.08 $ 100% 37.08 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $25,000 644$ 1,236$ 100% 1,236$ 100% 1,236$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 25.69$ 32.96$ N/A 32.96 $ 100% 32.96 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,715$ 2,472$ 100% 2,472$ 100% 2,472$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 17.14$ 41.20$ N/A 41.20 $ 100% 41.20 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000 1,286$ 2,060$ 100% 2,060$ 100% 2,060$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 12.88$ 32.96$ N/A 32.96 $ 100% 32.96 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $100,000 2,572$ 4,532$ 100% 4,532$ 100% 4,532$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.44$ 14.42$ N/A 14.42 $ 100% 14.42 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $100,000 1,930$ 3,708$ 100% 3,708$ 100% 3,708$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 4.83$ 10.30$ N/A 10.30 $ 100% 10.30 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $500,000 5,144$ 9,888$ 100% 9,888$ 100% 9,888$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 3.44$ 16.48$ N/A 16.48 $ 100% 16.48 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $500,000 3,858$ 7,416$ 100% 7,416$ 100% 7,416$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 2.58$ 14.42$ N/A 14.42 $ 100% 14.42 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 6,859$ 17,716$ 100% 17,716$ 100% 17,716$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.86$ 8.24$ N/A 8.24 $ 100% 8.24 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $1,000,000 5,144$ 14,832$ 100% 14,832$ 100% 14,832$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.15$ 53.56$ N/A 53.56 $ 100% 53.56 $ 100% Building Permits (Multi-Family Residential / Commercial / Industrial) $1,000,000 - $9,999,999
$10,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
2 of 6
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1073
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Building Permit Fee base fee @ $10,000,000 68,599$ 88,580$ 100% 88,580$ 100% 88,580$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.86$ 8.86$ N/A 8.86 $ 100% 8.86 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $10,000,000 51,494$ 41,200$ 100% 41,200$ 100% 41,200$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.15$ 7.42$ N/A 7.42 $ 100% 7.42 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $20,000,000 137,199$ 177,160$ 100% 177,160$ 100% 177,160$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.86$ 3.54$ N/A 3.54 $ 100% 3.54 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $20,000,000 102,994$ 115,360$ 100% 115,360$ 100% 115,360$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.15$ 3.44$ N/A 3.44 $ 100% 3.44 $ 100% Building Permit Fee base fee @ $50,000,000 342,999$ 283,456$ 100% 283,456$ 100% 283,456$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 6.86$ 4.25$ N/A 4.25 $ 100% 4.25 $ 100% Plan Check Fee base fee @ $50,000,000 257,494$ 218,360$ 100% 218,360$ 100% 218,360$ 100% each add'l $1,000 or
fraction thereof 5.15$ 4.37$ N/A 4.37 $ 100% 4.37 $ 100% Permitted Values for Construction:
per sq. ft. 232$ 232$ 232$ 232$ Interior Remodels per sq. ft. 117$ 117$ 117$ 117$ per sq. ft. 48$ 48$ 48$ 48$ Decks per sq. ft. 39$ 39$ 39$ 39$ Commercial Shell per sq. ft. 57$ 57$ 57$ 57$ Tenant Improvements per sq. ft. 57$ 57$ 57$ 57$ Electrical Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Residential: Addition & Remodel
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Residential: New Multiple Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206 $ 100% 206 $ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206 $ 100% 206 $ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% New Residential and Additions
Garages and Accessory Structures
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
$10,000,000 - $19,999,999
$20,000,000 - $49,999,999
$50,000,000 and Up
3 of 6
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1074
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Permit 3,000 sq. ft. min. 357$ 2,060$ 100% 2,060$ 100% 2,060$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ 0.46$ 57% 0.46$ 57% 0.46$ 57% Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 178$ 247$ 60% 247$ 60% 247$ 60% Temporary Power Pole Per Permit 178$ 247$ 60% 247$ 60% 247$ 60% Main Electrical Service Per Permit 178$ 247$ 60% 247$ 60% 247$ 60% Per Permit 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% New or Replacement Sub-Panel Per Permit 178$ 247$ 60% 247$ 60% 247$ 60% Miscellaneous Electrical Permit Per Permit 116$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Residential PV Solar Fee Per Permit 227$ 309 $ 50% 309 $ 50% Commercial PV Solar Fee Per Permit 329$ 309 $ 50% 309 $ 50% Plumbing Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Residential: Addition & Remodel
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Residential: New Multiple Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Permit 3,000 Sq. Ft. Minimum 357$ 2,060$ 100% 2,060 $ 100% 2,060 $ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ 0.46$ N/A 0.46$ 100% 0.46$ 100% Miscellaneous Plumbing Permit Per Permit 116$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Water Heater Replacement Per Permit 104$ 104$ 50% 104$ 50% 104$ 50% Gas Piping Extension for New FAU or HVAC Per Permit 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% Mechanical Permit
Residential: New Single Family
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Residential: Kitchen & Bath Remodel Per Permit 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% Commercial: New Shell Building
Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% Permit 1,700 sq. ft. min. 171$ 206$ 100% 206 $ 100% 206 $ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.07$ 0.08$ N/A 0.08$ 100% 0.08$ 100% 309$ 50%
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes,
Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes,
Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
New or Replacement Circuit for HVAC or Other
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant Improvement
4 of 6
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1075
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Permit 3000 sq. ft. min. 357$ 618$ 100% 618$ 100% 618$ 100% Each additional sq. ft.per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ 0.14$ N/A 0.14$ N/A 0.14$ N/A New FAU or HVAC Installations Per Permit 267$ 330$ 80% 330$ 80% 330$ 80% Replacement FAU or HVAC Per Permit 178$ 206$ 50% 206$ 50% 206$ 50% Miscellaneous Mechanical Per Permit 116$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Miscellaneous Building Fees
Grading Permit Fee for Swimming Pools Per Permit 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% Grading Permit Fee for Other than Swimming PoolsPer Permit 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% Accessibility Plan Check of Building Permit 1 hour min. 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional houreach add'l hr. 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Imaging Fees per page (standard size) Per Page 1.00$ 2.06$ 100% 2.06$ 100% 2.06$ 100% Imaging Fees per page (oversize) Per Page 2.00$ 4.12$ 100% 4.12$ 100% 4.12$ 100% Planning Application Review Per Permit N/A 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% During Normal Business Hours 1 hour min. 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Each additional houreach add'l hr. 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Outside Business Hours 2 hour min. 486$ 444$ 100% 444$ 100% 444$ 100% Each additional houreach add'l hr. 243$ 222$ 100% 222$ 100% 222$ 100% Code Enforcement-City Attorney-General Litigation/Special Projects1 hour min. [1] 286$ 295$ 100% 295$ 100% 295$ 100% Each additional houreach add'l hr. [1] 286$ 295$ 100% 295 $ 100% 295 $ 100% Dirt Haul Permit n/a reference PW fee
schedule
reference PW fee
schedule
Municipal Code Violation Fees
First Violation Per Violation 100$ 100$ 100$ 100$ Per Violation 200$ 200$ 200$ 200$ Per Violation 500$ 500$ 500$ 500$ GEO Plan Review / Soils Report Review n/a Actual Cost per Geologist
Actual Cost per
Geologist
Per Instance 77$ 103$ 100% 103 $ 100% 103 $ 100% Additional Plan Check Fee Per Hour 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Re-Inspection Fee Per Hour N/A 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Demolition Per Instance 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Address Change Per Instance 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Green Building Review Per Review 171$ 206$ 100% 206$ 100% 206$ 100% Energy Calculation Review Fee Per Review 85$ 103$ 100% 103$ 100% 103$ 100% Apartment Inspection Annual Fee
Per Residential Building Per Year 257$ 257$ 42% 257$ 42% 257$ 42% Per Dwelling Unit within each Building Per Year 13$ 13$ 6% 13$ 6% 13$ 6% GIS Mapping: New Construction, Addition, Alteration
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements (Car Washes,
Dry Cleaners, Laundries, Labs, R&D, Biotech, Restaurants, Spray Booths, Hazardous Areas)
Fees for Second and Each Additional Re-inspection:
Second Violation of the Same Ordinance within 36-mths
Add'l Violation of the same ordinance within 36-mths
5 of 6
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1076
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
COST OF SERVICES (USER FEES) FY 2022-23 & FY2023-24 Proposed Schedule of Community Development Department, Building Department Fees (Effective on August 29th, 2022)
from NBS Schedule 2%
FY21-22
Current Fee /
Deposit
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY23-24
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
before CPI
FY22-23
Initial Proposed
Cost Recovery
FY22-23
New Proposed
Fee / Deposit
FY22-23
Proposed Cost
Recovery %
FY23-24
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
before CPI
Fee Unit / Type
NotesService
Per Permit
1.8% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
0.4% of Total
Permit Fee
Amount
Per Project
0.3% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
1% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
Per Project
0.11% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
0.15% of Building
Project Valuation
for all New
Commercial and
Additions; Fee is
Applied on
Building Permit
Construction Time Limits Extension Fee
Fees for Additional Extensions
1st 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 0.5% of Total
Value of Project
0.5% of Total
Value of Project
0.5% of Total
Value of Project
0.5% of Total
Value of Project
2nd 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 1.0% of Total
Value of Project
1.0% of Total
Value of Project
1.0% of Total
Value of Project
1.0% of Total
Value of Project
3rd 60 Day Extension Per Project [2] 1.5% of Total
Value of Project
1.5% of Total
Value of Project
1.5% of Total
Value of Project
1.5% of Total
Value of Project
Construction Time Limits Completion Penalties
Period of Time That Projects Remain Incomplete Beyond Applicable Time Limits 30 Day Grace Period Per Project $0 $0 $0 $0
31st Day Through 60th Day Per Project
0.01% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.01% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.01% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.01% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
61st Day Through 120th Day Per Project
0.015% Per Day
of Total Value of
Project
0.015% Per Day
of Total Value of
Project
0.015% Per Day
of Total Value of
Project
0.015% Per Day
of Total Value of
Project
121st Day & Every Day Thereafter Per Project
0.02% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.02% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.02% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
0.02% Per Day of
Total Value of
Project
Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each Transaction Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Building Division Staff Per Hour 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 206$ Each Additional Hour Each add'l hr. 243$ 206$ 100% 206$ 206$ [Notes]
[2] The Building Official may waive an extension fee in the event he/she finds the complexity or size of the project requires a greater time than allotted or the reason for the extension request may be considered beyond the owner's control
For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service:
[1] Subject to change per City Attorney contract
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Staff Support
General Plan Maintenance and Update - Contract Services Technology Fee
6 of 6
10.c.10
Packet Pg. 1077
Attachment: MFS FY22-23 & FY23-24 Comparison - Building (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction on Updates to the User Fee Schedule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction on proposed amendments to the Cost of Services Schedule (User Fees) for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The recommended Master Fee Schedule (Attachment 3), if adopted, would result in a net increase to the General Fund of approximately $2.6 million based on current activity levels.
Department/Division
Estimated
Annual
Current Fee
Revenue
Estimated
Total Cost of
Providing
Services
Current
Cost
Recovery
%
Estimated
Annual
Revenue
Recommended
Fees
Recommended
Cost Recovery
%
Administrative Fees $ 325 $ 497 65% $ 325 65% Planning 695,121 1,479,859 47% 1,369,429 93%
Public Works/Engineering 817,352 863,928 95% 806,678 93% Building 5,344,680 6,899,937 77% 6,764,819 98%
Police 127,545 365,273 35% 127,545 35%
Parks and Recreation * 108,604 161,481 67% 117,892 73%
General Plan Surcharge 86,760 1,317,813 7% 658,906 50%
Technology Surcharge 121,870 35,855 340% 35,855 100%
TOTAL $7,302,257 $11,124,643 66% $9,881,449 89%
*Recreation outcomes reflect permitted activities and processing fees only . Programs and facility rentals are excluded from this table.
The City is currently recovering approximately 66% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. At the recommended level, the City will recover approximately 89% of t he costs. For those fees that are not set at 100% cost recovery, the General Fund subsidizes the costs. The additional revenue collected through the increase in cost recovery will help offset some of the subsidy from the General Fund.
Once adopted, a min imum 60 -day notice is required for implementation of the new fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 66017.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1078
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 2 BACKGROUND:
On October 13, 2021, an agreement was executed with NBS to provide an overhead cost allocation review and comprehensive fee and rate study (‘Fee Study”). The purpose of the study is to ensure that the City is utilizing comprehensive overhead rates and accurately accounting for the true cost of providing various programs and services within City operations. It is the City’s goal to have a well -documented and defensible cost allocation plan that will incorporate general and administrative cost allocations into the budget, identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for grants, fe es, federal reimbursements, and other billings, and develop charges for user fees that comply with Proposition 218.
Conducting a comprehensive user fee study is not an annual requirement and only becomes valuable during significant shifts in the organizat ion, local practices, legislative values , or when there are changes in legal requirements. The last time a full fee study was completed for the City was in May 2017. Given the significant program enhancements and staffing changes in the Fiscal Year 2022 -23 Budget, staff felt that this would be a good time to incorporate th ese changes into a comprehensive fee study.
The Fee Study was used to provide staff with a baseline for recommended revisions and changes to the current fee schedule. In addition, a comp arison of the City’s fees to other agencies was also conducted to gauge the market consistency of the City’s service charges.
ANALYSIS:
There are a number of exceptions to the Fee Schedule that do not lend themselves to strict analysis of cost recovery. These exceptions are fees that are limited or set by statue, fines , and penalties. An example of a fee with a legal limit is the service charge for checks returned for non-sufficient funds. A summary description of each department’s recommended user fees are noted below and in more detail in Appendix A in Attachment 2. A comparison of current fees, recommended fees, and other agencies can be found in Attachment 1.
Recommendations by department follow:
Administrative Fees . Administrative fees include processing fees such as returned checks, copy charges, document certification, and research requests. As technology has evolved, many of the items for which the City previously charged fees are now available for free via the City’s website.
Recommendations include the following:
• No change to returned check fees, which are regulated • Continue to waive fees for document certification
Community Development - Planning Fees. Planning Division services are provided to the general public through administration and update of plans and codes, service at the counter and on the phone , and through the general dissemination of information. The Planning Division is responsible for three key functions: advance planning, current planning, and land use regulations.
The Planning Division currently charges for application processing and entitlement review services via a mixture of “flat” fees and “deposit based” fees. Flat fees charge one finite amount per project. Deposit based fees require an initial deposit of funds to beg in processing an
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1079
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 3 application. T ime is then tracked and billed to the project by City staff against the deposit amount, and additional funds are either requested from the applicant as needed, or refunds are provided to the applicant upon completion of the project.
The City reviewed each fee item on the Planning Division’s current list of fees to determine whether it should be charged as a flat fee or a deposit based fee. The City also updated naming conventions and reordered a few fees for better display of information, and/or to reflect changes in processes. Fee items removed include the separate design review fee for accessory dwelling units. New fee items added include:
• Cell tower application
• SB-9 application review
• Design review for minor alterations
• Excessive noise compliance permit
• Plan check for building permits pertaining to accessory dwelling units that are not part of a previous Planning approval
• Pre-application development review for general/initial questions • Protected tree notice
• Tree replanting fee for the City’s time and expense to plant a tree on behalf of a development when there is no possibility to plant on site given the project particulars.
Though the City’s arborist is responsible for administering the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance, the costs of tree acquisition and planting are evaluated in the Public Works section of the Fee Study.
Staff generally recommends that most fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services, which is consistent with prior fee studies performed b y the City and policies set by the City Council. Recommendations for less than full cost recovery fee amounts include the following fee items:
• Appeals to the Planning Commission or the City Council • Protected tree removal permit/pruning permit
• Protected tree notice
• Waivers
• Business registration and home occupation permits
• Minor staff review fees for business registration and home occupations
Recommended fee amounts recover approximately 93% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Public Works/Engineering Fees: Public Works services include activities primarily related to the operation, maintenance, and protection of the City’s infrastructure when impacted by individual uses, such as private development. The Engineering Division charges fees f or services such as review of final maps, encroachment permits, civil plan review, and review and implementation of fees for service activities in the City’s Planning Division.
The Engineering Division made few changes to their existing fee schedule with respect to the number of fee names and categories. Two fees were added to its fee schedule:
• Parklet Program fees for permitting, monitoring, and cleaning
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1080
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 4 • Tree In -Lieu fee for the City’s time and expense to plant a tree on behalf of a development when ther e is no possibility to plant on site given the project particulars.
Though the City’s arborist is responsible for administering the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance, the costs of tree acquisition and planting are evaluated in the Public Works section of the Fee Study
Recommendations for less than a full cost recovery fee include the following fee items:
• Debris box and storage container permits for durations of up to two weeks • Wide-load processing fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State an d currently set at the maximum allowable fee amount
• Semi-annual permit parking in City lots for residents and businesses within the East San Carlos Parking Permit Program
Fees at the recommended amounts would recover approximately 93% of the total costs o f providing fee related services.
Community Development - Building Fees: The Building Division promotes and ensures all new development in San Carlos is constructed in accordance with the highest standards of safety, and all existing structures are maintained in a safe manner. The Building Division is also responsible for education, citywide code enforcement, floodplain management, and the Apartment Inspection Program . Building Division services are provided to the general public through permits, plan revi ew, and inspections. All work that requires a building permit, plan review, or inspection is covered under the California Building Code (“CBC”).
Most of San Carlos’ fees for building plan review and inspection services are based on what is known in the i ndustry as a “valuation -based” fee setting approach. For all new construction, tenant improvements, additions, and remodel projects, a project valuation multiplier establishes a construction value estimate for a given building project. The established cons truction value is assessed a fee amount based on a sliding scale fee table, first established by the Uniform Building Code almost 100 years ago. Mechanical, plumbing and electrical permits are assessed a fee amount based on a given project’s square footage , and/or an itemized list of permits required, such as for a water heater, gas line, or electrical service upgrade.
The Building Division’s fees are charged as one -time flat fee amounts on a per project basis.
The annual cost recovery amount eligible for recovery from fees for service is approximately $4.9 million. However, for large scale development projects, the construction timeline for the project and regulatory effort required of City staff typically spans multiple years. This means that, for large projects, fee revenue collected in one year will typically not be “expended” within a one year timeframe from when the fee is collected. To account for this, the cost of service analysis compares the approximate actual fee revenue collected in one year, to the cost of service required to regulate and approve those projects, estimated to span between one and five years, depending on the size of the project.
Staff generally recommends that most fees recover 100% of the costs of providing services.
Recommendations for less than full cost recovery fee amounts include the following fee items:
• Single trade electrical permits for swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, temporary power poles, electrical main services, and installing or replacing sub -panels and PV solar systems.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1081
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 5 • Single trade plumbing permits for water heater replacements • Single trade mechanical permits for new or replacement FAU or HVAC installations • Annual residential apartment inspections
Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 98% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Police Fees: The majority of services provided by the Sheriff’s Office are not recoverable in user/regulatory fees.
The recommended police fees do not include many significant changes, deletions, or additions from the City’s existing fee schedule. Fees suggested for elimination include Processing First Chance (Starvista) and Good Conduct Letter as we have not been processing invoices for these services.
Fees would continue to recover approximately 35% of th e total costs of providing fee related services.
Parks and Recreation Fees : The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation facilities are primarily funded by resources from the General Fund.
However, fees collect ed from various Recreation programs, including classes, contracts, and specific uses of public spaces, can represent a significant source of funding to help cover costs and sustain – if not improve – the level of service provided by the City.
Per Article XIIIC, Section 1 of the California Constitution, recreation fees typically fall under one of the two exceptions:
1. Exception No. 2: Section 1 (e)(2) exception for fees for services and products provided.
This category includes fees imposed for a service, l ike lessons, transportation, child care, etc. The fee for services exception requires that such fees be limited to “the estimated costs to the local government of providing the service.”
2. Exception No. 4: Section 1 (e)(4) exception for fees for use of government property. This category includes fees imposed for services such as admission to parks, rental of government property (recreational equipment) , and for rental/use of fields and meeting rooms.
Unlike other areas of the Fee Study, this Department’s cost of service analysis and cost recovery evaluation for most classes, programs, and recreational services is conducted at the program level (as opposed to the individual fee level) and includes an annual estimated cost recovery evaluation of each recreat ional program area managed by the Department. This level of analysis assists the City in understanding cost recovery performance and with developing a cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at the individual fee level. This is appropriate given the requirements of Article XIIIC as pertains to recreation fees and facility rentals, as well as for the seasonal nature of many of the program offerings which change on a regular basis.
Due to the unique nature of this Department’s services, the study performed by NBS segregated fees into three main categories: recreation classes and programs, facility rentals, and miscellaneous service fees.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1082
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 6 For recreation classes, a provision in the City’s Master Fee Schedule continues to allow the Department to set fees for seasonal programs based on the cost of the individual program, never to exceed the full cost of the program. Recreation fees are typically displayed in a seasonal brochure or catalog of classes and programs. In most municipalities, those fees are not contained in a master fee schedule; however, adopting language referencing them – such as the text proposed here – provides a measure of Council oversight and grants specific authority to the Department to manage the fees for these programs based on changin g conditions (e.g., costs, demand, etc.).
For facility rentals and miscellaneous fees, the Fee Study includes a basic survey of comparable jurisdictions for facility rentals and permitting services (Appendix B. 6), which may assist in establishing proof of meaningful public market options and pricing for similar services.
A new fee being proposed is a seasonal and one -time snack shack permit fee for vendors to provide and sell snacks and beverages during youth sports seasons and tournaments.
For sports field use fees, NBS assisted the City with a peer review of updated cost of service calculations. The per player field use fee was established in 2010 when the synthetic field project was approved for Highlands Park. The fee was proposed to recover the cost o f the synthetic turf replacement approximately 8 to 10 years following installation. The annual fee was determined by the estimated cost of replacement and annual field maintenance of all City fields, spanning 8 years . The annual estimated cost was divided by the estimated annual number of organized play participants. The Fee Study estimates 6,000 organized play participants for FY 2022-23 from youth sports leagues, adult sport teams, contract classes, sports camps, and private field rentals
For FY 2022-23, staff estimated the total replacement and maintenance cost for all City fields is $3,885,178. Broken down annually, this cost is $515,394. As a result, the total per player field use fee is $86. This is an increase of $34 per player for soccer and an inc rease of $48 per player for baseball and softball from the current fiscal year fee. Therefore, staff recommends tiering the increase over the span of two years and charging one amount for all field users. As such, the per player field use fee would be $66 for FY 2022-23 and $86 for FY 2023-24.
Other recommendations include small increases for most fees, a decrease for the refund processing fee, and continued waiver of fees for block party permits.
Fees would adjust to recover approximately 73% of the tot al costs of providing fee related services
Fire Department Fees: Fire prevention fees are separate from the Fee Study’s scope of review, since these services are contracted from the City of Redwood City. As done in prior years, staff recommends adopting the user fees based on the Redwood City User Fee Schedule.
General Plan Surcharge . Included in the proposed fee schedule is the continuation of the General Plan surcharge fee. As part of the Fee Study, the assumption and fee structure related to the General Plan surcharge were reviewed. The review shows that the surcharge should be applied to new construction and additions to existing square footage , because these projects have the largest relative impact on the maintenance, update, and use of the City’s General Plan.
The City had some implementation issues with this fee over the past several years , and as a result, collected approximately 7% of the annual costs for providing services. Upon reviewing this information and options for revising the surcharge, C ity staff recommends a 50% annual cost recovery target for the City Council’s consideration, which is consistent with direction from
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1083
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 7 prior fee studies. The surcharge amount that corresponds to a 50% cost recovery target is a total surcharge of 1.15% applic able to new construction and addition -related building permit projects. 1.0% of the fee is allocated for staff support and 0.15% of the fee is allocated for contract services support.
Technology Surcharge: This fee is intended to recover the costs of impl ementation and future upgrades of the City’s permitting and cashiering software applications. Routine maintenance and investment in the City’s permitting software and systems are critical for efficient development approval and processing services. The prim ary users of the permitting system include the Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department , and the Public Works Department. Since technology has advanced, the replacement costs have decreased. Therefore, even though staff recommends 100% cost recovery , the total recovery costs have decreased and the fee has decreased. It is recommended that the fee be reduced from 1.8% to 0.4% which will be applied to each planning, building, and engineering fee.
Future Fee Increases : As done in prior years, staff recommends that the Council adopt guidelines to adjust most fees annually based on the San Francisco -Oakland-San Jose (Bay Area) Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Consumer Price Index (CPI -W). As noted previously, conducting a c omprehensive user fee study is not an annual requirement and only becomes valuable over time , following significant shifts in the organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements. Even if the City chooses to adjust fees automatically on an annual basis, certain fees can still be adjusted above or below the average rate at the City’s discretion. The full cost of service increased by CPI would be the City’s only limit in setting its fees.
Impact Fees: Development impact fees such as park facility development fee, sewer capacity charge, and traffic impact fee were not included in this study . Such adjustments and/or increases are governed by the Municipal Code and will be brought forward separately.
Next Steps
If the Council’s comments and feedback are minor, this item will return to the Council on June 27, 2022 for adoption , with an effective date of August 2 9, 2022 (60 day notice required). If there are substantial changes, or additional research and time are needed, the proposed fee schedule will return to the City Council for adoption in August, with an effective date in October.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1. Provide feedback on the proposed Cost of Services Schedule (User Fees); or
2. Provide staff with alternative direction.
Respectfully submitted by:
Rebecca Mendenhall,
Administrative Services Director
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1084
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) 8 Approved for submission by:
_________________________
Jeff Maltbie, City Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. SC Fee Comparison - Prepared by NBS
2. NBS Citywide User Fee Study Report
3. Proposed Master Fee Schedule FY2023
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1085
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) City of San Carlos
Finance Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2022‐2023
1 Returned Check [1]
First Item per first check Fees set by
statute 25$ 25$ %2 7 $ 30$ 25$ Each Additional Item
per
subsequent
check
Fees set by
statute 35$ 35$ %3 1 $ 35$ 25$ 2 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the Department
Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on
the following hourly rates for staff time:
Finance Division Staff (Per Hour) Per Hour 193$ 186$ 193$ 100% 205 $ 205$ 205$ [Notes]
[1]
Fee set by California Civil Code Ch. 522 Section 1719. Additional charges may apply if not paid within 30 days of receipt of written demand for payment letter
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
High Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Finance COS, Page 1 of 1
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1086
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
City Clerk ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
1 Copy Charges:
Fees set by
statute / Actual
Cost
$0.10/page $.10/page %0 . 1 8 $ 0.30$ 0.10$ 2 Copy Charges ‐ CD
Fees set by
statute / Actual
Cost
$0.50/CD $0.50/CD % N/A N/A N/A
3 Copies of City Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, CAFR, Municipal Code Book, Standard Bid Specifications, Standard Detail, Work Program
n/a Free/website,
or Copy Charge
Free/website,
or Copy Charge
Free/website,
or Copy Charge % N/A N/A N/A
4 Document Certification base fee 10$ Fee Waived Fee Waived %1 2 $ 17$ 2$ 5 Agenda or Minutes Subscription n/a ‐$ Free/website, or Copy Charge
Free/website,
or Copy Charge %6 9 $ 142$ 6$ 6 Research per hour 193$ 186$ 193$ 100% 98 $ 98$ 98$ 7 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time:
City Clerk Department Staff (Per Hour) per hour 193$ 186$ 193$ 100% 205 $ 205$ 205$ Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Clerk COS, Page 1 of 1
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1087
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 1 Appeal, Planning Commission
a Fee Each 5,991$ $1,808 2,000$ 33% 663 $ 3,151$ 110$ 2 Appeal, City Council
a Fee Each 5,991$ $1,608 2,000$ 33% 680 $ 1,069$ 500$ 3 Attorney's Fees
Support to Planning projects that require
Deposit Actual Cost $412/hr
Actual cost / +
$2,500 minimum
deposit.
N/A N/A N/A
Support to projects on a "fixed"/"flat" fee basis Actual Cost $286/hr Actual Cost ‐ 2 Hr.
Minimum N/A N/A N/A
4 Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Plan Each 2,097$ $1,475 2,097$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 5B e l o w Market Rate (BMR), Builder Alternative Each 2,097$ $500 Initial Deposit 2,097$ 100% N/A N/A N/A
6B e l o w Market Rate (BMR), Housing Agreement Each 2,696$ $500 Initial Deposit 2,696$ 100% N/A N/A N/A
7C E Q A
a Document Filing
Fee Each 300$ $210 300$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Categorical Exemption
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 1 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1088
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
City Processing Fee Each 599$ $422 599$ 100% 311 $ 500$ 134$ Department of Fish and Game / County
Recording Fees
Deposit /
Actual Cost ‐$
Actual Cost of
DFG / County
Fees
Actual Cost of DFG
/ County Fees % N/A N/A N/A
c Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative/EIR
City Processing Fee Deposit /
Actual Cost ‐$ Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit % N/A N/A N/A
Consultant Review Deposit ‐$ Actual Cost with $5,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit % 7,721 $ 16,916$ 5,000$
d Mitigation Monitoring Deposit /
Actual Cost ‐$ Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit % 515 $ 515$ 515$
new Cell Tower Application [3]
6409 Application Each 1,198$ new 1,198 $ 100% N/A N/A N/A Other Applications Actual Actual Cost /
T&M Actual Cost / T&M
8 Creek Exception
City Processing Fee Each 4,493$ $2,529 4,493$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review Actual
Actual Cost of
Consultant
Study
Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
9D e s i g n Review ‐ Single Family
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 2 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1089
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
a Single Family, New Home (RDRC)
Fee Each 10,485$ $6,320 10,485$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC)
Fee Each 7,489$ $4,214 7,489$ 100% N/A N/A N/A c Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC)
Fee Each 10,485$ $6,320 10,485$ 100% N/A N/A N/A d Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff)
Fee Each 2,996$ $1,264 2,996$ 100% N/A N/A N/A e Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff)
Fee Each 4,493$ $2,107 4,493$ 100% N/A N/A N/A
10.1 Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, ND) ‐ Staff
Review/Approval
a New Building
Fee Each 17,974$ $8,427 17,974$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Major Alteration
Fee Each 12,582$ $5,056 12,582$ 100% N/A N/A N/A c Minor Alteration
Fee Each 9,586$ $3,371 9,586$ 100% N/A N/A N/A
10.2 Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, ND) ‐ Planning
Commission Review/Approval
a New Building (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 21,269$ $8,427 21,269$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Major Alteration (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 15,877$ $5,056 15,877$ 100% N/A N/A N/A c Minor Alteration (Planning Commission)
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 3 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1090
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
Fee Each 12,881$ $3,371 12,881$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 11 Design Review (Other)
a A ‐ Frames
Fee Each 150$ $105 150$ 100% 1,064 $ 1,127$ 1,000$ b Accessory Structures (Includes large decks)
Fee Each 1,797$ $1,264 1,797$ 100% 1,064 $ 1,127$ 1,000$ c Architectural Peer Review
Fee Deposit /
Actual Cost ‐$ $3,000 Initial
Deposit
$3,000 Initial
Deposit % N/A N/A N/A
d Mills Acts Designated Projects
City Processing Fee Each 1,797$ $603 1,797$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Historic Consultant Review Deposit /
Actual Cost
[4] $5,000 Initial
Deposit
$5,000 Initial
Deposit
e Miscellaneous (awnings, trash, replacement
materials, site plan review, landscape, facade)
Fee Each 599$ $422 599$ 100% 1,050 $ 1,797$ 302$ f Outdoor Uses Dining & Retail Sales
Fee Each 1,797$ $948 1,797$ 100% N/A N/A N/A g Sign Program
Fee Each 5,991$ $2,107 5,991$ 100% 771 $ 2,039$ 40$ h Signs ‐ (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 4,493$ $2,107 4,493$ 100% 848 $ 1,500$ 40$ NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 4 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1091
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
i Signs (Staff)
Fee Each 1,198$ $422 1,198$ 100% 538 $ 1,546$ 40$ j Temporary Banner
Fee Each 300$ $210 300$ 100% 46 $ 46$ 46$ new Minor Alterations
Fee Each 1,198$ new 1,198 $ 100% N/A N/A N/A 12 Document Imaging
Per 1/2
Hour ‐ 1/2
Hour
Minimum
150$ $105 150$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 13 Domestic Fowl and Non‐Household Pets
a Fee Each 1,797$ $301 1,797$ 100% 206 $ 206$ 206$ new Excessive Noise Compliance Permit 599$ new 599 $ 100% N/A N/A N/A 15 Final Inspection, Single‐Family
a Fee Each 599$ $422 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 16 Final Inspection, Other
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 17 General Plan Amendment
Fee Each 11,983$ $8,427 11,983$ 100% 10,067$ 15,501$ 1,515$ NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 5 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1092
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
18 Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate
Fee Each 2,996$ $2,107 2,996$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 19 Historic Preservation
a City Processing Fee Each 599$ $210 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Historic Assessment ‐ Consultant Review Actual Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$2,000 deposit N/A N/A N/A
c Mills Act Contract
Fee Each 4,493$ $1,005 4,493$ 100% 628 $ 628$ 628$ 20 Interdepartmental Plan Review
a Building
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
N/A N/A N/A
b Engineering
See Engineering
Fee Schedule
and / or Hourly
Rates Apply
See Engineering
Fee Schedule and /
or Hourly Rates
Apply
N/A N/A N/A
c Fire See Fire Fee
Schedule
See Fire Fee
Schedule N/A N/A N/A
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 6 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1093
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
d Police
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates
Apply
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates Apply
N/A N/A N/A
e Economic Development ‐ Housing Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
Planning Hourly
Rate Applies N/A N/A N/A
21 Other City Commission Review
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 22 Plan Check for Building Permits
a Major (New Multi‐Family, Mixed‐Use,
Commercial, Industrial) Each 3,595$ $2,529 3,595$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Moderate (New Single‐Family, Commercial
additions/alterations) Each 1,498$ $1,054 1,498$ 100% N/A N/A N/A c Minor (Single‐Family Additions, Accessory
Dwelling Units) Each 899$ $210 899$ 100% N/A N/A N/A new Accessory Dwelling Units (not a part of the
previous approval) 899$ new 899 $ 100% N/A N/A N/A 23 Pre‐Application Development Review
new General/Initial Questions Per Project 599$ new No Charge % a Major Per Project [2] 8,987$ $4,741 8,987$ 100% b Minor Per Project [1] 5,991$ $2,107 5,991$ 100% 24 Protected Tree Removal Permit/Pruning Permit
a City Processing Fee
400$ 25,000$ 5,039$
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 7 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1094
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
Fee Each 599$ $210 300$ 50% 94 $ 107$ 81$ b Arborist
Fee Actual ‐$ $250 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit % 270 $ 270$ 270$
c Investigative Report
Fee Each ‐$ $500 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit % N/A N/A N/A
d Illegal Tree Removal (additional arborist report
fees apply)
Civil Penalty Penalty
Double the
Application Fee,
plus assessed
penalties per
Muni Code
Double the
Application Fee,
plus assessed
penalties per Muni
Code
1,282$ 1,282$ 1,282$
new Protected Tree Notice
Fee Each 300$ new 150 $ 50% 181 $ 317$ 107$ new Tree Replanting Fee per tree new See Public Works fee schedule 337$ 337$ 337$
25 Public Notice Fee
City Processing Fee Per Hearing 599$ $422 599$ 100% 398 $ 479$ 317$ 26 Restrictive Covenants
Fee Each 599$ $422 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 27 San Mateo County Recording Fees
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 8 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1095
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
City Processing Fee Each 599$ $422 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A County Fee Each Per County fee
schedule
Per County fee
schedule N/A N/A N/A
28 Subdivisions
a Subdivision, Major (5 or more lots)
Fee Each 23,965$ $16,854 23,965$ 100% 6,606 $ 15,250$ 743$ b Subdivision, Minor (up to 4 lots) or for
Condominium Maps
Fee Each 3,595$ $2,529 3,595$ 100% 7,524 $ 15,250$ 743$ c Lot Line Adjustment, Parcel Mergers
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% 2,707 $ 6,000$ 743$ d Conditional Exceptions
Fee Each 5,991$ $4,214 5,991$ 100% N/A N/A N/A e Lot Verification
Fee Each [5] 599$ $422 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A f Map Extension
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% 743 $ 743$ 743$ 29 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Plan
a City Staff Review Each 4,194$ $2,949 4,194$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Consultant Review Actual $700 Initial
Deposit
$700 Initial
Deposit N/A N/A N/A
30 Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Review
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 9 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1096
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
a Annual Each 1,498$ $500 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit % N/A N/A N/A
b 5‐Year Each 2,996$ $500 Initial
Deposit
$500 Initial
Deposit % N/A N/A N/A
c Consultant Review Actual $700 Initial
Deposit
$700 Initial
Deposit N/A N/A N/A
31 Use Permits
a Conditional Use Permit‐ Planning Commission
Fee Each 8,987$ $5,268 8,987$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Minor Use Permit ‐ Zoning Administrator
Fee Each 4,493$ $2,529 4,493$ 100% 6,000 $ 6,000$ 6,000$ c Use Permits (Development Standards)
Fee Each 3,595$ $2,529 3,595$ 100% 7,500 $ 7,500$ 7,500$ d Temporary
Fee Each 2,397$ $842 2,397$ 100% 821 $ 1,492$ 150$ e Amendment
Fee Each 3,595$ $2,107 3,595$ 100% 4,943 $ 10,000$ 3,000$ 32 Variance
Fee Each 11,983$ $8,427 11,983$ 100% 2,795 $ 3,386$ 2,000$ 33 Waivers
Fee Each 2,397$ $842 1,198$ 50% N/A N/A N/A 34 Zoning Administrator Determination
Fee Each 2,397$ $1,685 2,397$ 100% N/A N/A N/A NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 10 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1097
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
35 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
a Major Rezone/PD/Map and Text
Fee Each 23,965$ $16,854 23,965$ 100% 10,394$ 15,501$ 5,000$ b Moderate Rezone/PD/Map and Text
Fee Each 11,983$ $8,427 11,983$ 100% 10,394$ 15,501$ 5,000$ c Minor Rezone/PD/Map and Text
Fee Each 5,991$ $4,214 5,991$ 100% 10,394$ 15,501$ 5,000$ 36 Minor staff review
a ABC/DMV Zoning Affidavit Review
Fee Each 599$ $210 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Business Registration
Fee Each 300$ $101 101$ 34% N/A N/A N/A c Home Occupations
Fee Each 300$ $101 101$ 34% 93 $ 93$ 93$ d Home Occupation Revocation Hearing
Fee Each 2,397$ $1,685 2,397$ 100% 93 $ 93$ 93$ e Massage
Fee Each 899$ $632 899$ 100% 467 $ 631$ 88$ f Other Zoning Affidavit Review
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% N/A N/A N/A g Parking Calculation
Fee Each 899$ $632 899$ 100% N/A N/A N/A h Search and Determination
Fee Each [6] 599$ $422 599$ 100% N/A N/A N/A i Code Compliance
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 11 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1098
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Planning Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Average
Fee Each 1,198$ $842 1,198$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 37 Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each
Transaction Actual Cost N/A N/A N/A
new SB‐9 Application
No Lot Split 10,485$ new 10,485$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Lot Split 10,485$ new 10,485$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 39 For services requested of City Staff for which no
fee/deposit is listed in this Master Fee Schedule,
the Department Director shall determine the
appropriate fee/deposit based on the following
hourly rates for staff time involved in the
service.
Planning Division Staff Per Hour 300$ $210 300$ 100% $243 $298 $156 [Notes]
[1]
[2] Other City department fees/deposits may apply.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Not charged for public records requests.
Per the City's Tree Ordinance, the arborist may request a fee in lieu of tree planting if there is no possibility to plant on site
Fees for historical consultants apply.
Public Works fees apply.
Includes up to 2, 1‐
hour meetings with multiple departments.
Governed by FCC, section 6409.
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Planning COS, Page 12 of 12
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1099
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
1F i n a l Map Review
(Includes up to 3 Reviews)
a. Parcel (4 lots or less)
City Processing Fee per project 2,387$ 2,411$ 2,387$ 100% 3,947 $ 9,425$ 800$ Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
b. Subdivision (5 or more lots)
City Processing Fee per project 2,769$ 2,797$ 2,769$ 100% 6,265 $ 14,726$ 800$ Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
c 4th and Subsequent Review
City Processing Fee per submittal 286$ 289$ 286$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
2 Civil Plan Check [1]
(Includes up to 3 Reviews)
a. Minor Projects
City Processing Fee per project 1,910$ 1,929$ 1,910$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
b. Moderate Projects
City Processing Fee per project 3,724$ 3,761$ 3,724$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
c. Major Projects
City Processing Fee per project 5,443$ 5,497$ 5,443$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
d. 4th and Subsequent Review
City Processing Fee per submittal 477$ 482$ 477$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 1 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1100
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
3 Utility Companies Plan Check: [2]
a. Minor each 191$ 193$ 191$ 100% 545 $ 800$ 165$ b. Moderate each 382$ 386$ 382$ 100% 482 $ 800$ 165$ c. Major deposit 668$ 675$ 668$ 100% 592 $ 810$ 165$ 4 Construction Inspection (Including Utilities) [3]
a. Minor Projects (1‐3 inspections) per project 430$ 434$ 430$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b. Moderate Projects (4‐5 inspections) per project 716$ 723$ 716$ 100% N/A N/A N/A c. Major Projects (6‐10 inspections) Deposit /
Actual Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
d. Additional Inspection Each 143$ 145$ 143$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 5P o s t Construction Stormwater Device Monitoring per device, every 5 years 382$ 386$ 382$ 100% 395 $ 395$ 395$ 6 Dirt Hauling [4]
a. per CY per CY 2.35$ 2.10$
7 Planning & Building Dept. Plan Check:
a. Planning Referral each
City Processing Fee per project 955$ 964$ 955$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Consultant Review per project Deposit / Actual
Cost
Deposit / Actual
Cost
b. Building Referral, Review of On‐site Civil each 382$ 386$ 382$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 8 Debris Box/Storage Container Permit per permit
a. Duration up to two weeks 286$ 96$ 96$ 34% 171 $ 500$ 55$ b. Monthly 286$ 289$ 286$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 9 Encroachment Permit Administrative Fee per permit 95$ 96$ 95$ 100% 474 $ 714$ 165$ 10 Outside Sewer Agreement Fee deposit Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 2 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1101
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
11 Community Banner (Hang & Remove):
for‐profit organization Each 191$ 193$ 191$ 100% 496 $ 913$ 163$ non‐profit organization Each 191$ No Charge No Charge % 496 $ 913$ 163$ 12 Wide Load Processing Each [6] 95$ 18$ 16$ 17% 16 $ 16$ 16$ 13 Sidewalk Dining or Outdoor Display Approval
Initial Each Initial
Review 286$ 289$ 286$ 100% 385 $ 385$ 385$ Annual Each Annual
Review 286$ 289$ 286$ 100% 385 $ 385$ 385$ 14 Temporary NO PARKING Signs per sign 1$ 1$ 2$ 3$ 1$ 15 six month 95$ 96$ 95$ 100% N/A N/A N/A each 31$ No Charge No Charge % N/A N/A N/A six month
permit 143$ 35$ 35$ 24% N/A N/A N/A 16 Exception to the Winter Moratorium on Grading per week long request 95$ 96$ 95$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 17 "Street Cut" fee per Ordinance Section 12.08.310.C.2 per opening [4] 671$ 600$ 18 Video Review of Existing Sewer Lateral each 143$ 145$ 143$ 100% 896 $ 896$ 896$ 19 Starting Work Without a Permit per permit [4] Actual Cost Actual Cost 20 Grading Bond Policy (per 12.08.100)
<1,000 CY per city policy per city policy per city policy >1,000 CY per city policy per city policy per city policy 21 C.4 Inspection
per hour ‐
minimum 1.5
hours
191$ 221$ 191$ 100% N/A N/A N/A Semi‐Annual Permit Parking in City Lots
East San Carlos Parking Permit Program‐Residential
Part of the Program
East San Carlos Parking Permit Program‐Business part
of the Program
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 3 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1102
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
22 Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each
Transaction Actual Cost Actual Cost
new Parklet Program
a. Encroachment Permit Administrative Fee per permit see above see above b. Encroachment Permit ‐ Downtown Area Per Permit/Per
6 mo.
PW Admin/Eng Staff 430$
Building Staff 206$
Planning Staff 300$
Subtotal 935$ New 935 $ 100% 933 $ 1,500$ 750$ c. Encroachment Permit ‐ Other Areas (industrial arts, etc) Per Permit/Per 6 mo.
PW Admin/Eng Staff 430$
Building Staff 206$
Planning Staff 300$
Subtotal 935$ New 935 $ 100% 933 $ 1,500$ 750$ d. Cleaning Fee per l.f./per 6
mo
PW Maintenance Staff 1.32$
Contracted Cleaning Cost 11.50$
Subtotal 12.82$ New 12.82 $ 100% N/A N/A N/A new Tree Replanting Fee
PW Maintenance Staff 985.60$
24" Box Tree [5] 500.00$
Subtotal 1,485.60$ New 1,486 $ 100% 337 $ 337$ 337$ 25 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the Department
Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on
the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service.
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 4 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1103
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Maintenance Staff per hr 246$ 184$ 246$ 100% 295 $ 295$ 295$ Engineering Staff per hr 191$ 193$ 191$ 100% N/A N/A N/A NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 5 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1104
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Public Works Department ‐ User Fee Study Fiscal 2023
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Comparison to Other Agencies
High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
[Notes]
[1] Minor
∙ One (1) single family residence
o < 1000 CY of grading
o >= 1000 CY of grading
Moderate
∙ Abandonment of R/W or Easement
∙ Two or more (2+) single family residences (<1 acre) o C.3 Regulated
o Not C.3 Regulated
∙ multi‐family/mixed‐use/commercial/industrial (< 1 acres) o C.3 regulated
o Not C.3 regulated
Major
∙ Two or more (2+) single family residences (>= 1 acre) ∙ multi‐family/mixed‐use/commercial/industrial (>= 1 acres) [2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Amount of fee for the 24" box tree is subject to change based on actual vendor cost Set by Title 21 of California Code of Regulations Section 1411.3.
Minor project ‐ point repair or maintenance,
service line repair or replacement, replacement of
overhead utilities, traffic control only,
Moderate project ‐ installation of overhead utilities, installation of equipment at a specific location (not linear),
Major project ‐ installation or replacement of underground utilities, Minor project ‐ sewer lateral repair or installation (outisde of roadway), sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, traffic control (only), minor utility point repair, installation or maintenance (above ground), discharge, minor roadway improvement,
Moderate project ‐ sewer lateral repair or installation (within roadway), soil boring, moderate utility point repair, installation or maintenance (underground), Major project ‐ new main line installation or replacement including sewer, storm, water, gas, and electric, major point repair, major development projects including offsite improvements.
Impact fee; not evaluated by NBS Fee Study
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Public Works COS, Page 6 of 6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1105
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 1 aV a l u a t i o n Based Fees ‐ Building Permit (Single Family Residential) less than $5,000 base fee under
$5,000 309$ 134$ 309$ 100% 407 $ 602$ 145$ base fee @ $5,000 309$ $ 266 309$ 100% 620 $ 894$ 316$ each add'l $1000 26.78$ 7.81$ $ 26.78 N/A base fee @
$25,000 927$ $ 857 927$ 100% 1,343 $ 1,989$ 785$ each add'l $1000 28.84$ $ 34.32 $ 28.84 N/A base fee @
$50,000 1,648$ $ 1,715 1,648$ 100% 2,215 $ 3,174$ 1,309$ each add'l $1000 28.84$ $ 17.14 $ 28.84 N/A base fee @
$100,000 3,090$ $ 2,572 3,090$ 100% 6,077 $ 8,702$ 3,465$ each add'l $1000 8.24$ $ 6.44 $ 8.24 N/A base fee @
$500,000 6,592$ $ 5,144 6,592$ 100% 10,432$ 14,471$ 7,488$ each add'l $1000 6.18$ $ 3.44 $ 6.18 N/A base fee @
$1,000,000 9,888$ $ 6,859 9,888$ 100% 12,142$ 15,346$ 9,630$ each add'l $1000 7.42$ $ 6.86 $ 7.42 N/A bV a l u a t i o n Based Fees ‐ Building Permit (Multi‐Family Residential / Commercial / Industrial) less than $10,000 base fee under
$10,000 515$ 134$ 515$ 100% 545 $ 1,053$ 145$ base fee @
$10,000 515$ $ 266 515$ 100% 840 $ 1,458$ 316$ each add'l $1000 45.32$ 7.81$ $ 45.32 N/A base fee @
$25,000 1,545$ $ 857 1,545$ 100% 1,667 $ 2,950$ 785$ each add'l $1000 37.08$ $ 34.32 $ 37.08 N/A Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low
Building Permits
5,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
25,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
50,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
100,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
500,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
1,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
10,000$
25,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
Comparison to Other Agencies
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 1 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1106
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
base fee @
$50,000 2,472$ $ 1,715 2,472$ 100% 2,882 $ 5,183$ 1,309$ each add'l $1000 41.20$ $ 17.14 $ 41.20 N/A base fee @
$100,000 4,532$ $ 2,572 4,532$ 100% 6,193 $ 9,394$ 3,465$ each add'l $1000 14.42$ $ 6.44 $ 14.42 N/A base fee @
$500,000 9,888$ $ 5,144 9,888$ 100% 10,368$ 13,350$ 7,488$ each add'l $1000 16.48$ $ 3.44 $ 16.48 N/A base fee @
$1,000,000 17,716$ $ 6,859 17,716$ 100% 34,667$ 47,894$ 20,686$ each add'l $1000 8.24$ $ 6.86 $ 8.24 N/A base fee @
$10,000,000 88,580$ 68,599$ 88,580$ 100% 101,770$ 174,104$ 52,319$ each add'l $1000 8.86$ $ 6.86 $ 8.86 N/A base fee @
$20,000,000 177,160$ 137,199$ 177,160$ 100% 182,921$ 261,126$ 88,275$ each add'l $1000 3.54$ $ 6.86 $ 3.54 N/A base fee @
$50,000,000 283,456$ 342,999$ 283,456$ 100% 237,362$ 306,815$ 106,475$ each add'l $1000 4.25$ $ 6.86 $ 4.25 N/A cV a l u a t i o n Based Fees ‐ Plan Check (Single Family Residential) less than $5,000 base fee under
$5,000 258$ 102$ 258$ 100% 248 $ 378$ 94$ base fee @ $5,000 258$ $ 200 258$ 100% 378 $ 487$ 205$ each add'l $1000 18.54$ $ 5.85 $ 18.54 N/A base fee @
$25,000 695$ $ 644 695$ 100% 815 $ 994$ 510$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 22.66$ $ 25.69 $ 22.66 N/A base fee @
$50,000 1,236$ $ 1,286 1,236$ 100% 1,349 $ 1,605$ 851$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
50,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
100,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
500,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
1,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
10,000,000$
20,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
50,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
5,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
25,000$
50,000$
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 2 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1107
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 22.66$ $ 12.88 $ 22.66 N/A base fee @
$100,000 2,318$ $ 1,930 2,318$ 100% 3,687 $ 4,351$ 2,252$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 6.18$ $ 4.83 $ 6.18 N/A base fee @
$500,000 4,944$ $ 3,858 4,944$ 100% 6,353 $ 7,235$ 4,867$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 4.12$ $ 2.58 $ 4.12 N/A base fee @
$500,000 7,416$ $ 5,144 7,416$ 100% 7,472 $ 8,270$ 6,260$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 5.56$ $ 5.15 $ 5.56 N/A dV a l u a t i o n Based Fees ‐ Plan Check (Multi‐Family Residential / Commercial / Industrial) less than $10,000 base fee under
$10,000 824$ 102$ 824$ 100% 327 $ 526$ 94$ base fee @
$10,000 824$ $ 200 824$ 100% 512 $ 729$ 205$ each add'l $1000 18.54$ $ 5.85 $ 18.54 N/A base fee @
$25,000 1,236$ $ 644 1,236$ 100% 1,008 $ 1,475$ 510$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 32.96$ $ 25.69 $ 32.96 N/A base fee @
$50,000 2,060$ $ 1,286 2,060$ 100% 1,738 $ 2,592$ 851$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 32.96$ $ 12.88 $ 32.96 N/A base fee @
$100,000 3,708$ $ 1,930 3,708$ 100% 3,803 $ 4,697$ 2,252$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 10.30$ $ 4.83 $ 10.30 N/A base fee @
$500,000 7,416$ $ 3,858 7,416$ 100% 6,511 $ 7,303$ 4,867$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 14.42$ $ 2.58 $ 14.42 N/A base fee @
$500,000 14,832$ $ 5,144 14,832$ 100% 21,346$ 26,855$ 15,514$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1000 53.56$ $ 5.15 $ 53.56 N/A 10,000$
100,000$
500,000$
1,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
25,000$
50,000$
100,000$
500,000$
1,000,000$
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 3 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1108
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
base fee @
$1,000,000 41,200$ 51,494$ 41,200$ 100% 60,858$ 87,052$ 39,239$ each add'l $1000 7.42$ $ 5.15 $ 7.42 N/A base fee @
$20,000,000 115,360$ 102,994$ 115,360$ 100% 111,747$ 148,690$ 66,206$ each add'l $1000 3.44$ $ 5.15 $ 3.44 N/A base fee @
$50,000,000 218,360$ 257,494$ 218,360$ 100% 146,475$ 214,770$ 79,856$ each add'l $1000 4.37$ $ 5.15 $ 4.37 N/A 2 Permitted Values for Construction:
per sq. ft. $ 232.00 177$ 200$ 165$ Interior Remodels per sq. ft. $ 117.00 122$ 150$ 108$ per sq. ft. $ 48.00 77$ 90$ 50$ Decks per sq. ft. $ 39.00 15$ 15$ 15$ Commercial Shell per sq. ft. $ 57.00 N/A N/A N/A Tenant Improvements per sq. ft. $ 57.00 N/A N/A N/A 3 Electrical Permit
a Residential: New Single Family 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 211 $ 273$ 66$ each additional sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.15$ 0.12$ b Residential: Addition & Remodel 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 211 $ 273$ 66$ each additional sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.15$ 0.12$ c Residential: New Multiple Family 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 211 $ 273$ 66$ each additional sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.15$ 0.12$ d Commercial: New Shell Building 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 851 $ 1,175$ 204$ each additional sq. ft. per sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.15$ 0.12$ e 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 851 $ 1,175$ 204$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.15$ 0.12$ f 3,000 sq. ft. min. 2,060$ $ 312 2,060$ 100% 580 $ 690$ 360$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.81$ $ 0.07 $ 0.46 N/A 0.19 $ 0.23$ 0.12$ each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
10,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
20,000,000$
each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof
50,000,000$
New Residential and Additions
Garages and Accessory Structures
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant
Improvement
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements
(Labs and R&D)
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 4 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1109
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
g Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 412$ $ 178 247$ 60% 254 $ 436$ 55$ h Temporary Power Pole Per Permit 412$ $ 178 247$ 60% 197 $ 356$ 55$ i Main Electrical Service Per Permit 412$ $ 178 247$ 60% 252 $ 376$ 108$ j Per Permit 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% 95 $ 150$ 40$ k New or Replacement Sub‐Panel Per Permit 412$ $ 178 247$ 60% 116 $ 157$ 27$ l Miscellaneous Electrical Permit Per Permit 206$ $ 116 206$ 100% N/A N/A N/A m PV Solar Fee Per Permit 618$ $ 227 309$ 50% N/A N/A N/A 4 Plumbing Permit
a Residential: New Single Family 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 198 $ 273$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.14$ 0.14$ b Residential: Addition & Remodel 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 198 $ 273$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.14$ 0.14$ c Residential: New Multiple Family 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.14$ 0.14$ d Commercial: New Shell Building 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ e 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ f 3,000 Sq. Ft.
Minimum 2,060$ $ 357 2,060$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.81$ $ 0.08 $ 0.46 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ g Miscellaneous Plumbing Permit Per Permit 206$ $ 116 206$ 100% 50 $ 86$ 23$ h Swimming Pool, Spa, or Hot Tub Per Permit 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 147 $ 246$ 38$ i Water Heater Replacement Per Permit 206$ $ 104 104$ 50% 243 $ 479$ 38$ j Gas Piping Extension for New FAU or HVAC Per Permit 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 5 Mechanical Permit
a Residential: New Single Family 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 198 $ 273$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.14 $ 0.14$ 0.14$ b Residential: Kitchen & Bath Remodel Per Permit 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% 198 $ 273$ 47$ New or Replacement Circuit for HVAC or
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant
Improvement
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements
(Labs and R&D)
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 5 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1110
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
c Commercial: New Shell Building 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ d 1,700 sq. ft. min. 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.08$ $ 0.07 $ 0.08 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ e 3000 sq. ft. min. 618$ $ 357 618$ 100% 621 $ 908$ 47$ each additional sq. ft. per add'l sq. ft. 0.24$ $ 0.08 $ 0.14 N/A 0.20 $ 0.23$ 0.14$ f New FAU or HVAC Installations Per Permit 412$ $ 267 330$ 80% 132 $ 160$ 104$ g Replacement FAU or HVAC Per Permit 412$ $ 178 206$ 50% 132 $ 160$ 104$ h Miscellaneous Mechanical Per Permit 206$ $ 116 206$ 100% 29 $ 31$ 27$ 6 Miscellaneous Building Fees
a Grading Permit Fee for Swimming Pools
Permit Per Permit 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% N/A N/A N/A b Grading Permit Fee for Other than Swimming Pools
Permit Per Permit 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% 1,492 $ 3,973$ 86$ c Accessibility Plan Check of Building Permit 1 hour min. 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% N/A N/A N/A each additional hour each add'l hr 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% N/A N/A N/A d Imaging Fees per page (standard size) Per Page 2.06$ $ 1.00 2.06$ 100% N/A N/A N/A e Imaging Fees per page (oversize) Per Page 4.12$ $ 2.00 4.12$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 7 Planning Application Review Hourly 206$ $ 190 206$ 100% 1,218 $ 1,218$ 1,218$ 8 During Normal Business Hours 1 hour min. 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% 225 $ 298$ 132$ each additional hour each add'l hr 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% 214 $ 298$ 82$ Outside Business Hours 2 hour min. 444$ $ 486 444$ 100% 242 $ 298$ 156$ each additional hour each add'l hr 222$ $ 243 222$ 100% 242 $ 298$ 156$ Code Enforcement ‐ City Attorney 1 hour min. 286$ $ 286 286$ 100% 120 $ 120$ 120$ each additional hour each add'l hr 286$ $ 286 286$ 100% 120 $ 120$ 120$ 9D i r t Haul Permit n/a reference PW
fee schedule 295$ 295$ 295$ 10 Municipal Code Violation Fees
First Violation Per Violation n/a $ 100 $ 100 N/A N/A N/A Fees for Second and Each Additional
Commercial: Addition, Remodel, Tenant
Improvement
Commercial: Complex Tenant Improvements
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 6 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1111
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department ‐ Building Division ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023 Fee
No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
Comparison to Other Agencies
Per Violation n/a $ 200 $ 200 N/A N/A N/A Per Violation n/a $ 500 $ 500 N/A N/A N/A 11 GEO Plan Review / Soils Report Review n/a Actual Cost per Geologist N/A N/A N/A
12 Per Instance 103$ $ 77 103$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 13 Additional Plan Check Fee Hourly 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 266 $ 333$ 155$ 14 Re ‐Inspection Fee Hourly 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 225 $ 298$ 156$ 15 Demolition Per Instance 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 231 $ 341$ 149$ 16 Address Change Per Instance 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% 449 $ 905$ 129$ 17 Green Building Review Per Review 206$ $ 171 206$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 18 Energy Calculation Review Fee Per Review 103$ $ 85 103$ 100% N/A N/A N/A 19 Apartment Inspection Annual Fee
Per Residential Building Per Year 618$ $ 257 257$ 42% 286 $ 298$ 274$ Per Dwelling Unit within each Building Per Year 206$ $ 13 13$ 6% N/A N/A N/A 20 Building Division Staff Per Hour 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% 233 $ 298$ 200$ each additional hour each add'l hr 206$ $ 243 206$ 100% 233 $ 298$ 200$ Second Violation of the Same Ordinance
Each Additional Violation of the same
GIS Mapping: New Construction, Addition,
For services requested of City Staff for which
no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Bldg COS, Page 7 of 7
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1112
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Police Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities 1 Accident Report [1]
a property damage only
Sworn per report ‐$
Non‐sworn per report 20$
Subtotal 20$ 2.00$ 2$ 10% 8$ 23$ 0.15$ b property damage with injuries
Sworn per report ‐$
Non‐sworn per report 20$
Subtotal 20$ 2.00$ 2$ 10% 8$ 23$ 0.15$ c fatality
Sworn per report ‐$
Non‐sworn per report 20$
Subtotal 20$ 2.00$ 2$ 10% 8$ 23$ 0.15$ 2 County Jail Booking Fee County fee County fee
3C r i m e Report
Sworn per report ‐$
Non‐sworn per report 30$
Subtotal 30$ 2.00$ 2$ 7% 8$ 23$ 0.15$ 4F a l s e Alarm Response
a First Response
Sworn first call 209$
Non‐sworn first call 4$
Subtotal 213$ ‐$ ‐ $ 0% ‐$ ‐ $ ‐ $ b Subsequent Calls
Sworn per call 209$
Non‐sworn per call 4$
Subtotal 213$ 205.00$ 205$ 96% 159$ 325$ 50$ Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Police COS, Page 1 of 3
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1113
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Police Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
5 Impounded Vehicle [2]
a towed for criminal offenses
Sworn per instance ‐$
Non‐sworn per instance 121$
Subtotal 121$ 101.00$ 101$ 83% 101$ 160$ 65$ b towed for all other offenses (abandoned,
blocking driveways, etc.)
Sworn per instance ‐$
Non‐sworn per instance 121$
Subtotal 121$ 101.00$ 101$ 83% 101$ 160$ 65$ 6 Unruly Gatherings
a First Call
Sworn per hour 317$
Non‐sworn per hour ‐$
Subtotal 317$ ‐$ ‐ $ 0% 90$ 90$ 90$ b Subsequent Calls
Sworn per hour 317$
Non‐sworn per hour ‐$
Subtotal 317$ 306.00$ 306$ 96% 90$ 90$ 90$ 7A l a r m Permit
a new
Sworn initial fee ‐$
Non‐sworn initial fee 10$
Subtotal 10$ ‐$ ‐ $ 0% 31$ 50$ 18$ 8 Processing Permit for Excessive Cats & Dogs
Sworn per instance ‐$
Non‐sworn per instance 121$
Subtotal 121$ 101.00$ 101$ 83% N/A N/A N/A NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Police COS, Page 2 of 3
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1114
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Police Department ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity High Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Current Fee /
Deposit
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average
9 Processing Police Officer Subpoena per hour [3] ‐$ $275/day deposit per GC
$275/day
deposit per GC % 275$ 275$ 275$ 10 Tape of Radio/Video Transmission, Digital or
Hard‐copy Photographs Per Request 20$ actual cost of materials
actual cost of
materials % N/A N/A N/A
11 Credit Card and eCheck Charges Each
Transaction Actual Cost Actual Cost
12 For services requested of City staff which have no
fee listed in this fee schedule, the City Manager
or the City Manager's designee shall determine
the appropriate fee based on the established
hourly rates for this department/division.
Additionally, the City will pass‐through to the
applicant any discrete costs incurred from the use
of external service providers if required to
process the specific application.
Non‐Sworn Staff Members of the Police Departm per hour 121$ 101.00$ 101$ 83% Sworn Staff Members of the Police Department:
per hour 317$ 306.00$ 306$ 96% TOTAL 956 1,372 673 [Notes]
[1] CA VC 20012 allows for recovery of the actual cost of providing accident report copies
[2] Towing charges are separate
[3] As set by GC 68096
75$ 130$ 20$ NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Police COS, Page 3 of 3
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1115
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Parks and Recreation ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
A. Parks, Facility, Room, and Amenity Rentals [2]
1. Adult Community Center Room Rentals
2. Youth Center Facility Rentals
3. San Carlos Library Community Room Rental
4. Picnic Sites Rentals (March ‐ October)
5. Bocce Ball
6. Rental Application Fee 30$ 25$ 30$ 100% N/A N/A N/A
7. Special Event Permit:
New Request
PW Maintenance Staff 493$
Full‐Time 532$
Part‐Time ‐$
Public Works 63$
Police 40$
Planning 50$
Building 34$
Subtotal: 1,212$ 386$ 400$ 33% 411$ 806$ 16$ Repeat Request
PW Maintenance Staff 493$
Full‐Time 443$
Part‐Time ‐$
Public Works 63$
Police 40$
Planning 50$
Building 34$
Subtotal: 1,123$ 274$ 375$ 33% 411$ 806$ 16$ City Staff On‐Site Time During Event See Hourly Rates See Hourly Rates Fee
No. Fee Name
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average High
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Recreation COS, Page 1 of 4
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1116
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Parks and Recreation ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Fee
No. Fee Name
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average High
B. Athletics ("Per Season/Per Quarter")
1. Light Use (Fields). Per hour [3] 36$ 31$ 32$
2. Sports League Field Use Fee (per player) [3]
San Carlos Youth Softball (Girls) 86$ 38$ 66$ Youth Baseball 86$ 38$ 66$ Soccer 86$ 52$ 66$
3. Baseball / Soccer Sports Tournament:
New Request Permit Fee
PW Maintenance Staff 493$
Full‐Time 532$
Part‐Time ‐$
Subtotal: 1,025$ 280$ 350$ 34% N/A N/A N/A Repeat Request Permit Fee
PW Maintenance Staff 493$
Full‐Time 443$
Part‐Time ‐$
Subtotal: 936$ 168$ 300$ 32% N/A N/A N/A Field Use Fee (per hour) [2]
4. Tennis:
Tennis Club Permitted Use (per hour, per court) [2]
Non‐Resident Tennis Club (per hour, per court) [2]
5. Snack Shack Use
Fall Season (August 15 ‐ November 30) [2]
Spring Season (March 1 ‐ May 31) [2]
6. Snack Shack Use (Outside of Primary Youth Sports Seasons) Weekly Rental Fee (Mon ‐ Sun) [2]
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Recreation COS, Page 2 of 4
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1117
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Parks and Recreation ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Fee
No. Fee Name
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average High
C. Miscellaneous
1. Park Fitness Group Rental [2]
2. Administrative fees (apply to class registration only) Registration
PW Maintenance Staff ‐$
Full‐Time 14$
Part‐Time ‐$
Subtotal: 14$ 10$ 10$ 71% 21$ 30$ 12$ Refund
PW Maintenance Staff ‐$
Full‐Time 14$
Part‐Time ‐$
Subtotal: 14$ 16$ 10$ 71% 17$ 25$ 8$
3. Neighborhood Block Party Permit
PW Maintenance Staff 246$
Full‐Time 177$
Part‐Time ‐$
Subtotal: 424$ Fee Waived Fee Waived % N/A N/A N/A
4. Technology Fee [1]
5. Hourly Rates
PW Maintenance Staff 246$ 184.00$ 246$ 100% 30 $ 41$ 18$ Full‐Time Recreation Staff 177$ 162.00$ 177$ 100% 30 $ 41$ 18$ Part‐Time Recreation Staff 30$ 52.00$ 30$ 100% 30 $ 41$ 18$ D. Community Events [2]
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Recreation COS, Page 3 of 4
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1118
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Parks and Recreation ‐ User Fee Study FY 2023
Fee
No. Fee Name
Notes
Cost of Service
Per Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit Low
Comparison to Other Agencies
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery % Average High
[Notes]
[1] NBS did not evaluate. Fee is $2 per registration
[2] NBS did not evaluate on an individual fee level basis ‐ see City staff report and master fee schedule for rates
[3] Cost of service per activity as provided by City
Recreational Programs
Fees imposed for recreational programs offered by the City shall be set at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director, not to exceed the cost of the individual programs. The City's full cost of implementing an individual program may be calculated as follows: Program Cost of Service = [ (A x B) + C + D + E + F + G ] A = Estimated time for City staff to implement the individual program B = Applicable hourly rates for the staff functions involved in the implementation of the individual program (below).
C = Actual cost incurred by the City for any outside service provider involved in the individual program.
D = Actual cost incurred by the City for any specific materials acquired for use during the individual program.
E = Prevailing facility rental and/or field use fees imposed by the City and reflected in its Master Fee Schedule.
F = Prevailing department / City administrative fee
G = Actual costs incurred by the City to rent and/or use facilities/fields from other entities The calculated cost of service above represents the maximum fee that could be imposed by the City for an individual recreation program. The City may recover between 0% and 100% of the cost of service. Cost recovery targets may vary by individual recreation program, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Director as determined during the seasonal development of the City's program offerings. The City may also set differential fee for resident and non‐resident participants as lmg as neither fee exceeds the cost of service. Any person with a home San Carlos mailing address is considered a resident. A San Carlos PO Box or business address will not be taken as proof of residency. A non‐resident is someone who lives in another City. Non‐resident fees will be charged at 20% of the class fee up to a $20 maximum per class.
NBS ‐ Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll‐Free:800.676.7516 5/16/2022 Recreation COS, Page 4 of 4
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1119
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 951.296.1998
City of San Carlos
Citywide User Fee Study
Final Report
May 12, 2022
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1120
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) User Fees Study – City of San Carlos
Prepared by NBS
TOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Report Format ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals ................................ ................................ .......... 3 Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Methods of Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 3 Cost of Service Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................. 5 Cost Recovery Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 6 Comparative Fee Survey ........................................................................................................................... 7 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Section 2 – Administrative Fees ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 Cost of Service Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9 Fee Establishment ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Cost Recovery Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 9 Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees ................................ .........11 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 11 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 12 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 13 Section 4 – Public Works Fees................................ ................................ ............................... 14 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 14 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 14 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 14 Section 5 – Community Development – Building Division Fees ................................ ..........16 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 16 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 17 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 17 Section 6 – Police Fees ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........19 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 19 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 19 Section 7 – Parks and Recreation Department ................................ ................................ .....21 Special Considerations Regarding Recreation Fees ................................................................................ 21
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1121
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule) User Fees Study – City of San Carlos
Prepared by NBS
TOC
Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 22 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 22 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 23 Section 8 – General Plan Surcharge ................................ ................................ ......................24 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 24 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 24 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 25 Section 9 – Technology Surcharge ................................ ................................ ........................26 Cost of Service Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 26 Fee Establishment ................................................................................................................................... 26 Cost Recovery Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 27 Section 10 – Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .........28
Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Administrative Departments Fees Appendix A.1
Planning Division Fees Appendix A.2
Public Works (Engineering) Fees Appendix A.3
Building Division Fees Appendix A.4 Police Department Fees Appendix A.5
Parks and Recreation Fees Appendix A.6
Fee Comparison
Administrative Departments Fees Appendix B.1
Planning Division Fees Appendix B.2
Public Works (Engineering) Fees Appendix B.3
Building Division Fees Appendix B.4
Police Department Fees Appendix B.5
Parks and Recreation Fees Appendix B.6
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1122
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 1
Prepared by NBS
Executive Summary
NBS performed a User Fees and Charges Study (Study) for the City of San Carlos (City). The purpose of this report is to describe the Study’s findings and recommendations, which intend to defensibly update and establish user and regulatory fees for service for the City of San Carlos, California.
California’s local governments charge fees for services they provide through provisions of the State Constitution.
Per the framework defined in Article XIIIC, Section 1, a fee may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the regulatory activity. The fees considered in this Study fall outside requirements for imposition of taxes, special taxes, or fees imposed as incidences of property ownership.
The primary purposes for cond ucting this Study are to ensure that fees do not exceed the costs of service , and to provide an opportunity for the City Council to re-align fee amounts with local cost recovery policies.
Outcomes
This Study examined user and regulatory fees managed by the following City departments and programs:
Administrative Services , City Clerk , Planning, Public Works, Building, Police, and Parks and Recreation . Fire Prevention fees are separate from this Study’s scope of review, as these services are contracted to the City of Redwood City. The Study identified approximately $7.3 million currently collected per year from fees for service, versus $11.1 million in costs of providing services . The following table provides a summary of results for each City service area studied:
1. Recreation outcomes reflect permitted activities and processing fees only; programs and facility rentals are excluded from this table As shown, the City is recovering approximately 66% of costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee related services. Should the Council elect to adopt fee levels at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this Study, an additional $3.8 million in costs could be recovered.
However, as discussed in Section 1 of this report, there may be valid reasons for adopting a fee at less than the calculated full cost recovery amount. As such, City staff provided initial recommended fee amounts for consideration. If Council elects to adopt fee levels at staff’s initial recommendations, an additional $2.6 million costs could be recovered, yielding an 89% total cost recovery outcome for services provided.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Administrative Fees $ 325 $ 497 $ (172) 65% $ 325 65% Planning $ 695,121 $ 1,479,859 $ (784,738) 47% $ 1,369,429 93% Public Works Engineering $ 817,352 $ 863,928 $ (46,576) 95% $ 806,678 93% Building $ 5,344,680 $ 6,899,937 $ (1,555,257) 77% $ 6,764,819 98% Police $ 127,545 $ 365,273 $ (237,728) 35% $ 127,545 35% Recreation (permits/processing) $ 108,604 $ 161,481 $ (52,877) 67% $ 117,892 73% GP Maintenance Surcharge $ 86,760 $ 1,317,813 $ (1,231,053) 7% $ 658,906 50% Technology Surcharge $ 121,870 $ 35,855 $ 86,015 340% $ 35,855 100% Total $ 7,302,257 $ 11,124,643 $ (3,822,386) 66% $ 9,881,449 89%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1123
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 2
Prepared by NBS
Report Format
This report documents analytical methods and data sources used throughout the Study, presents findings regarding current levels of cost recovery ac hieved from user and regulatory fees, discusses recommended fee amounts, and provides a comparative survey of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.
• Section 1 of the report outlines the foundation of the Study and general approach.
• Sections 2 through 9 discuss the results of the cost of service analysis performed, segmented by category of fee and/or department.
• Section 10 provides the grand scope conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.
• Appendices to this report include additional analytical details for each department or division studied, and a comparison of fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1124
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 3
Prepared by NBS
Section 1 – Introduction and Fundamentals
Scope of Study
The following is a summarized list of fees for each City department or program studied:
• Administrative fees, including:
o Returned check processing fees
o Copy charges, document certification, and research requests • Community Development Department fees, including:
o Planning Division services for zoning, permitted uses, and other processing requests o Building Division services for plan check and permitting of construction • Public Works engineering related fees, including:
o Final map review and approval
o Civil plan check and inspection for improvements within the right-of-way o Encroachment permits
o Parking permits
o Planning application and building plan submittal review • Police Department fees for processing of records requests, vehicle impounds, etc. • Fire Prevention fees were excluded from this Study. Services are contracted through the City of Redwood City.
• Parks and Recreation fees limited to rental application fees , special event permit applications, class registrations and refunds, field use fees, and sports tournament permits.
The fees examined in this Study specifically excluded utility rates, development impact fees, and special assessments, all of which fall under distinct analytic al and procedural requirements different from the body of user/regulatory fees analyzed in this effort. Additionally, this Study and the resultant master fee schedule excluded facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most of the fines and penalties that may be imposed by the City for violations to its requirements or code.
Methods of Analysis
There are three phases of analysis completed for each City department or program studied:
1) Cost of service analysis
2) Fee establishment
3) Cost recovery evaluation
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1125
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 4
Prepared by NBS
Cost of Service Analysis
The cost of service analysis establishes the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that specifically relate to the activity in question, including the real -time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those that support provision of services in general but cannot be directly assigned to the fee for service in question.
Cost components applicable to establishing the full cost of any service include direct labor costs, indirect labor costs, specific direct non -labor costs where applicable, allocated non -labor costs, and allocated City-wide overhead.
Definitions of these cost components are as follows:
• Labor costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for City personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public.
• Indirect labor costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical activities related to the direct services provided to the public.
• Specific direct non -labor costs – Discrete expenses incurred by the City due to a spec ific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third -party charges, and very specific materials used in the service or activity. (In most fee types, this component is not used, as it is very difficult to directly assign most non -labor costs at the activity level.)
• Allocated indirect non-labor costs – Expenses other than labor for the departments involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to fee categories.
• Allocated indirect organization -wide ov erhead – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such as City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Human Resources, Administrative Services, Building Maintenance, etc . An agency’s support services departments assist the direct providers of public service . The amount of costs attributable to each department or program included in this Study were sourced from a separate Cost Allocation Plan, prepared by NBS for the City’s Administrative Services Department.
All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by the City in the provision of all services and activities agency -wide.
Nearly all of the fees under review in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide a service or conduct an activity. Because labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor hour. A composite, fully burdened, hourly rate is calculated for each department, division, program, or activity, as appli cable to the specific organization and needs of each area studied. The rate serves as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities.
Deriving the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and various functional divisions within a department, requires two figures: the full costs of service and the number of hours available to perform those services. The full costs of service are quantified as described above. Hours available is derived from a complete listing of all personnel employed by the City.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1126
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 5
Prepared by NBS
A full-time employee equates to 2,080 hours per year of regular time. Using this as an initial benchmark of labor time, the Study removes the average employee’s eligible annual leave from the total number of regular paid hours to generate the total number of available labor hours for each City department or program . These available hours represent the amount of time available for providing both fee -recoverable and non -fee recoverable services and activities. The available labor hours divided into the annual full costs of fee-recoverable services equals the composite fully burdened labor rate. Some agencies also use the resulting rates for other purposes than setting fees, such as when the need arises to calculate the full cost of general services or structure a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.
Fully burdened labor rates applied at the individual fee level estimate the average full cost of providing each service or activity. This step require s development of staff time estimates for the service s and activities listed in the City’s fee schedule. In some fee programs, time tracking records were useful in identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g. plan review, inspection, public assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track activity service time for all departments or all fee services provided . Consequently, interviews and questionnaires were used to develop the necessary data sets describing estimated labor time. In most cases , City staff estimated the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it would take to complete a typical occurrence of each service or activity considered. Every attempt was made to ensure that each department having a direct role in the provision of each service or activity provided a time estimate.
It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one -step process: estimates rec eived were carefully reviewed by both consultant and departmental management to assess the reasonableness of such estimates. Based on this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until both parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by the City. Then, staff’s time estimates were applied to the appropriate fully burdened labor rate to yield an average full cost of the service or activity.
The average full cost of service is just that: an a verage cost at the individual fee level. The City does not currently have the systems in place to impose fees for every service or activity based on the actual amount of time it takes to serve each individual. Moreover, such an approach is almost univers ally infeasible without significant – if not unreasonable – investments in costly technology. Much of the City’s fee schedule is composed of flat fees, which by definition, are linked to an average cost of service; thus, use of this average cost method is the predominant approach in proceeding toward a schedule of revised fees. Flat fee structures based on average costs of service are widely applied among other California municipalities, and it is a generally accepted approach. (Refer to the subsection below regarding “Fee Establishment” for further discussion.)
Subsequent chapters and the appendices of this report discuss the completed cost of service analysis developed for each department or division.
Fee Establishment
Because most of the City’s fees are flat fees, they correspond directly to the average full cost of service result. For the few activities where estimating an average was impossible – due to the highly variable nature of the service – use of fully burdened hourly rates coupled with time tracking is the preferred fee structure. (In other words, the City would impose a fee per hour of staff time, requiring some degree of time estimation or outright time -tracking at the case level.)
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1127
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 6
Prepared by NBS
Establishing fees also includes a range of considerations, as described below:
• Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study’s process provided each department the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their fee schedules, as well as rename, reorganize, and clarify fees imposed. Many such revisions better conform fees to current practices, as well as improve the calculation of fees owed by an individual, the application of fees, and the collection of revenues. In other words, as staff is more knowledgeable and comfortable working with the fee schedule, the accuracy achieved in both imposing fees on users and collecting revenues for the City is greater. Beyond this, some additions to the fee schedule were simply identification of existing services or activities performed by City staff f or which no fee is currently charged.
• Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the current structure of fees did not change; the focus is to recalibrate the fee amount to match the costs of service. In several cases, however, fee categories a nd fee names were simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery, or to enhance the fairness of how the fee applies to various types of fee payers.
• Documentation of tools to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates, so fee payers of any uniquely determined fee can reference the amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not contemplated by the adopted master fee schedule. These rare instances use the published rates to estimate a flat fee, or bill on an hourly basis, at the discretion of the director of each department.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average full cost of service quantified through this analysis. A cost recovery rate of 0% identifies no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation). A rate of 100% means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service. A rate between 0% and 100% indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees. A rate greater than 100% means that the fee exceeded the full cost of service.
User fees and regulatory fees examined in this Study should not exceed the full cost of service. In other words, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, continuing to charge a fee above this threshold would not require with Article XIIC, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which stipulates that a fee may not exceed the cost of providing the service.
The fee model also considers initially “recommended” or “targeted” level s of cost recovery for each fee, always established at 100%, or less, than the calculated full cost of service. Targets and recommendations always reflect agency-specific judgments linked to a variety of factors, such as existing City policies, agency -wide or departmental revenue objectives, economic goals, community values, market conditions, level of demand, and others.
A general means of selecting an appropriate cost recovery target is to consider the public and private benefits of the service or activity in question.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1128
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 7
Prepared by NBS
• To what degree does the public at large benefit from the service?
• To what degree does the individual or entity requesting, requiring, or causing the service benefit?
When a service or activity completely benefits the public at large, there is generally little to no recommended fee amount (i.e., 0% cost recovery), reflecting that a truly public-benefit service is best funded by the general resources of the City, such as General Fund revenues (e.g., taxes). Conversely, when a service or activity completely benefits an individual or entity, there is generally closer to o r equal to 100% of cost recovery from fees, collected from the individual or entity. An example of a completely private benefit service may be a request for exemption from a City regulation or process.
In some cases, a strict public-versus-private benefit judgment may not be sufficient to finalize a cost recovery target.
Any of the following other factors and considerations may influence or supplement the public/private benefit perception of a service or activity:
• If optimizing revenue potential is an overriding goal, is it feasible to recover the full cost of service?
• Will increasing fees result in non-compliance or public safety problems?
• Are there desired behaviors or modifications to behaviors of the service population helped or hindered through the degree of pricing for the activities?
• Does current demand for services support a fee increase without adverse impact to the citizenry served or current revenue levels? (In other words, would fee increases have the unintended consequence of driving away the population served?)
• Is there a good policy basis for differentiating between type of users (e.g., residents and non -residents, residential and commercial, non-profit entities and business entities)?
• Are there broader City objectives that inform a less than full cost recovery target from fees, such as economic development goals and local social values?
Because this element of the Study is subjective, NBS provides the full cost of service calculation information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee -paying population – the City departments and programs – have considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost for the Council’s review.
Comparative Fee Survey
Often policy makers request a comparison of their jurisdiction’s fees to surrounding or similar communities. The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.
Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City of San Carlos. NBS worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies: Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, and San Mateo.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1129
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 8
Prepared by NBS
NBS notes the following about the approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:
• Comparative surveys do not provide information about the cost recovery policies or procedures inherent in each comparison agency.
• A “market base d” decision to price services above or below the full cost of service calculation , is the same as making a decision to over-charge, and/or subsidize that service.
• Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis provided for this Study on the comparative agencies’ fees.
• Comparative fee survey efforts are often non-conclusive for many fee categories. Comparison agencies typically use varied terminology for provision of similar services.
In general, the comparison attempts to source each agency’s fee schedule from the Internet, and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that match the client’s existing fee structure.
Data Sources
The following City-published data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this Study:
• The City of San Carlos’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
• A complete listing of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts – provided by the Finance Division.
• Various correspondences with the City staff supporting the adopted budgets and current fees, including budget notes and expenditure detail not shown in the published document.
• Prevailing fee schedules provided by each involved department.
• Annual workload data from the prior fiscal year provided by each involved department.
The City’s adopted budget is the most significant source of information affecting cost of service results . NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial management and budget practices, nor was cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This Study has accepted the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending.
Original data sets also support the work of this Study: primarily, estimated staff time at various levels of detail. To develop these data sets, consultants prepared questionnaires and conducted interviews with individual departments. In the fee establishment phase of the analysis, departmental staff provided estimates of average time spent providing a service or activity corresponding with an existing or new fee. Consultants and departmental management reviewed and questioned responses to ensure the best possible set of estimates.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1130
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 9
Prepared by NBS
Section 2 – Administrative Fees
The City’s Administrative Services and City Clerk departments provide a few fee-related services included in the Fee Study. The scope review focused solely on various administrative processing fees such as returned checks, c opy charges, document certification, and research requests.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following is the fully-burdened hourly rate calculated for the Administrative Services Division:
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of the rate . All subsequent cost of service calculations for each administrative fee will assume an hourly rate of $193.
Fee Establishment
The list of fees shown as Appendix A.1 to this report includes various administrative fees ch arged by the Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department, and the City Clerk Department. In general, this St udy recommended removal of fees for copies of documents that are available free on the City’s website, or for services no longer provided by these City departments. The City’s Administrative Services Director also requested removal of fees pertaining to th e City’s business licen se program, including fees for copies of active business license registrations, and reprinting of business registration certificate s and applications. The reason for removal of the business license program fees is due to the function being outsourced.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s administrative fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list. The table on the following page provides a summary of these results:
Cost Element Direct Services
and Activities
Labor 774,093$
Recurring Non-Labor 36,487
Citywide Overhead 300,246
Division Administration 297,056
Department Total 1,407,881$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 193
7,282 Reference: Direct Hours Only
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1131
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 10
Prepared by NBS
The City’s administrative fees currently recover approximately 65% of the cost of providing services. The City collects approximately $325 per year in revenues at current fee amounts, and incurs a slightly higher amount of costs when providing these services for which fees are charged.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost.
The “Recommended Fee Level / Deposit” column in Appendix A.1 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. Recommendations include:
• Make no change to returned check fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State. Existing fees are already at the State’s maximum allowed amount.
• Continue to waive fees for document certification services.
These initial recommendations would continue to recover approximately 65% of the total costs of providing services.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Administrative Fees $ 325 $ 497 $ (172) 65% $ 325 65%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1132
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 11
Prepared by NBS
Section 3 – Community Development – Planning Division Fees
The Planning Division of the Community Development Department is responsible for three key functions: Advance Planning, Current Planning, and Land Use Regulation.
The Current Planning Division provides a comprehensive planning review and evaluation of all current development projects in accordance with State Planning Law, California Environmental Quality Act, the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use standards.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following categorizes the Current Planning Division’s costs across both fee related and non-fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $300, with a maximum annual cost recovery amount of approximately $1.5 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff interviews.
To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
• Public Counter / General Information Services – City staff respond to phone calls, walk -in customers, and informational requests that support both active permits and the overall development review process in general.
Some portion of costs for provision of general public information and assistance reasonably apply toward recovery from fees. Planning staff estimated that approximately 60% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining 40% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
• Long Range Planning – Current Planning staff are tasked with completing updates to ordinances, standards, policies, procedures that reflect changes in local and state-level policies and laws that change over time. These services provided by Current Planning support d ecision making regarding land use entitlements and development approvals. These costs are not directly recovered through individual planning and zoning review Cost Element
Public Counter /
General
Information
Services
Long Range
Planning
Key
Development
Project Support
Development
and Permitting
Services -
Planning
Total
Labor 174,906$ 121,808$ 38,410$ 369,977$ 705,100$ Recurring Non-Labor 115,046 5,394 32,296 216,686 369,422 Citywide Overhead 147,647 102,824 32,424 312,317 595,212 Division Administration 146,198 76,849 34,455 300,340 557,842 Department Total 583,797$ 306,876$ 137,584$ 1,199,320$ 2,227,577$ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 60% 0% 0% 100% 70%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 350,278$ -$ -$ 1,199,320$ 1,549,598$ Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 233,519 306,876 137,584 - 677,979 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 68 $ - $ - $ 232 300$ 5,173 Reference: Direct Hours Only
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1133
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 12
Prepared by NBS
fees and are considered within the context of the General Plan Maintenance Surcharge, discussed in Section 8, Surcharges.
• Key Development Project Support – The goal of the Key Development Project program is to ensure that large and influential development projects are high quality, appropriate, feasible and of fiscal and economic benefit for the community. Costs associated with Planning staff’s efforts on these projects are recovered on an hourly and/or actual cost basis.
• Development and Permitting Services – Planning – Development review and approval comprises the majority of this Division’s work efforts. 100% of these costs are recoverable from the Division’s routine types of fees for service.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California State Constitution and Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied, or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Fee Establishment
San Carlos’ Planning Division currently charges for application processing and entitlement review services via a mixture of “flat” fees and “deposit based” fees. Flat fees charge one finite amount per project. Deposit based fees require an initial deposit of funds to begin processing of an application, time is tracked and billed to the project by City staff against the deposit amount, and additional funds are either requested from the applicant as needed, or refunds are provided to the applicant upon completion of the project.
The City reviewed each fee item on the Planning Division’s current list of fees as to whether it should be charged as a flat fee or a deposit based fee. The City also updated naming convention s and ordering of a few fees for better display of i nformation, and/or to reflect changes in processes . Fee items removed include the separate Design Review fee for Accessory Dwelling Units. New fee items added include:
• Cell Tower Application
• SB-9 Application review
• Design Review for Minor Alterations
• Excessive Noise Compliance Permit
• Plan Check for Building Permits pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units that are not part of a previous Planning approval
• Pre-Application Development Review for General/Initial Questions • Protected Tree Notice
• Tree Replanting fee for the City’s time and expense to plant a tree on behalf of a development when there is no possibility to plant on site given the project particulars . Though the City’s arborist is responsible for administering the requirements of the City’ s Tree Ordinance, the costs of tree acquisition and planting are evaluated in the Public Works section of the Fee Study.
While this section of the User Fee Study Report focuses on the Planning Division’s costs and fees, the Public Works Department and Building Division also participate in the review of Planning’s applications. As such, the Engineering
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1134
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 13
Prepared by NBS
and Building fee analyses establish additional fees for these reviews, as required. Please consult Section 4 and Section 5 for more information.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Planning fees. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.
The City’s Planning fees currently recover approximately 47% of the Planning Division’s cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $695,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts.
At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $1.5 million.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost.
The “Recommended Fee / Deposit Level” column in Appendix A.2 displays the City staff’s initially recommended flat fee or deposit amounts. Staff generally recommends most fees to recover 100% of the costs of providing services , which is consistent with prior fee studies performed by the City . Recommendations for less than full cost recovery fee amounts include the following fee items:
• Appeals to the Planning Commission or City Council
• Protected Tree Removal Permit/Pruning Permit
• Protected Tree Notice
• Waivers
• Business Registration and Home Occupation permits
• Minor Staff Review fees for Business Registration and Home Occupations
These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would increase the Planning Division’s costs recovered by approximately $674,000. Recommended fee amounts recover approximately 93% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Planning $ 695,121 $ 1,479,859 $ (784,738) 47% $ 1,369,429 93%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1135
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 14
Prepared by NBS
Section 4 – Public Works Fees
The Public Works Department is comprised of Engineering and Maintenance Divisions, and is responsible for the design, construction, contract administration, permitting and overall maintenance and operatio n of the City's infrastructures.
Cost of Service Analysis
The Engineering Division charges fees for services such as review of final maps, encroachment permits, civil plan review, and review and implementation of fee for service activities in the City’s Planning Division. The Maintenance Division provides support to a select few of the Engineering Division’s and Recreation Department’s fees . The following table shows calculation of the fully burdened hourly rate for each division.
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of these rates. All subsequent fee calculations will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rate s $191 for Engineering services, and $246 for Maintenance services.
Fee Establishment
The Engineering Division made few changes to their existing fee schedule in terms of the number of fee names and categories. Two fees were added to their fee schedule:
• Parklet Program fees for permitting, monitoring, and cleaning • Tree In-Lieu fee for the City’s time and expense to plant a tree on behalf of a development when there is no possibility to plant on site given the project particulars. Though the City’s arborist is responsible for administering the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance, the costs of tree acq uisition and planting are evaluated in the Public Works section of the Fee Study.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.3 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the City’s Public Works fees. The “Total Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.
Cost Element Engineering Maintenance
Labor 644,040$ 908,620$
Recurring Non-Labor 68,217 91,861 Citywide Overhead 325,620 912,284 Division Administration 8,814 450,297 Department Total 1,046,692$ 2,363,063$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 191 $ 246 5,481 9,590 Reference: Direct Hours Only
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1136
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 15
Prepared by NBS
The City’s Public Works fees currently recover approximately 95% of the Department’s cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $817,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts.
At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $864,000.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost.
The “Recommended Fee / Deposit Level” column in Appendix A.3 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. Staff recommends most fees to recover 100% of the costs of providing services. Recommendations for less than full cost recovery fee amounts include the following fee items:
• Debris Box and Storage Container Permits for durations of up to two weeks • Wide-load Processing fees, which are regulated (capped) by the State and currently set at the maximum allowable fee amount
• Semi-Annual Permit Parking in City Lots for residents and businesses within the East San Carlos Parki ng Permit Program
These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts would decrease cost recovery for this Department by approximately $11,000 annually. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 9 3% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Public Works Engineering $ 817,352 $ 863,928 $ (46,576) 95% $ 806,678 93%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1137
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 16
Prepared by NBS
Section 5 – Community Development – Building Division Fees
The Building Division promotes and ensures all new development in San Carlos be constructed in accordance with the highest standards of safety, and all existing structures maintained in a safe manner. The Building Division is also responsible for education , citywide code enforcement, floodplain management, and the Apartment Inspection Program.
Cost of Service Analysis
The following table categorizes the Building Division’s costs across both fee related and non -fee related services, as well as the resulting fully-burdened hourly rate applicable toward establishing the full cost of providing fee related services.
All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level would assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $206, and an annual cost recovery amount of approximately $4.9 million in costs from fees for service.
The cost category columns shown in the table above were adapted and summarized from Division staff interviews.
To assist the reader in understanding the underlying costs an d assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, the following provides summary descriptions of each cost category:
• Public Counter / General Information Services - City staff respond to phone calls, walk-in customers, and informational requests that support both active permits and the overall development review process in general. Some portion of costs for provision of general public information and assistance reasonably apply toward recovery from fees. Building staff estimated that approximately 95% of these costs support approval of plans and permits, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services. The remaining 5% of the costs of providing public information services requires funding from sources other than fees.
• Development and Permitting Services – Work activities associated with an active building permit application. 100% of these costs are recoverable in Building user and regulatory fees for service.
• Code Enforcement – Work activities in response to a complaint received by the Building Division related to violation of a prior condition of approval, City Ordinance or State law. Includes complaint investigation, follow up, and any associated abatement or enforcement actions. These costs are not recoverable in routine Cost Element
Public Counter /
General
Information
Services
Development and
Permitting
Services
Code
Enforcement Total
Labor 132,000$ 1,209,329$ 11,816$ 1,353,145$ Recurring Non-Labor 4,351 2,039,866 209,590 2,253,806 Citywide Overhead 111,635 1,022,749 9,993 1,144,376 Division Administration 37,581 344,302 3,364 385,247 Department Total 285,567$ 4,616,245$ 234,762$ 5,136,574$ Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 95% 100% 0% 95%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees 271,289$ 4,616,245$ -$ 4,887,534$ Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 14,278 - 234,762 249,040 Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 11 $ 195 $ - $ 206 Reference: Direct Hours Only 23,726
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1138
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 17
Prepared by NBS
plan check and permitting fees for service. The remaining costs identified require an alternate funding source such as the collection of fine and penalty revenue.
Significant analytical and policy decisions revolve around inclusion of categorized activity costs in the fully burdened hourly rate. The decision of whether to apply or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters offered by the California S tate Constitution and Statutes, which requires that any new fee levied or existing fee increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied.
Fee Establishment
Most of San Carlos’ fees for building plan review and inspection services are based on what is known in the industry as a “valuation-based” fee setting approach . For all new construction, tenant improvement, addition, and remodel projects, a project valuation mul tiplier establishes a construction value estimate for a given building project. The established construction value is assessed a fee amount based on a sliding scale fee table, first established by the Uniform Building Code almost 100 years ago. Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical permits are assessed a fee amount based on a given project’s square footage, and/or an itemized list of permits required, such as for a water heater, gas line, or electrical service upgrade.
It should be noted that NB S did not evaluate the basis for establishing “project value” for any given project. This information is maintained and facilitated by the City. This cost of service analysis focuses on calibrating the fee table to reflect the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services as relates to the level of effort required for various “tiers” of project value sizes. The sliding scale fee table generally charges a higher fee for higher construction values, which reflects that project s with higher construction v alue are more complex and require higher degrees of regulatory efforts by City staff.
The primary focus of the Building Division’s analysis was to ensure calibration of fee amounts to appropriate cost recovery levels, as discussed in the Cost Recovery Evaluation section, below. Over the past several years, and for the next several years going into the future, the City is experiencing large scale developments. The City’s current fee table’s highest tier for any construction permit is $1 million, with a fee per $1,000 in construction valuation above $1 million. NBS recommended that the City modify its fee tables to segregate basic single -family residential construction permits from multi -family and non -residential construction permits , as these projects require a different type of regulatory effort. Additionally, NBS recommended the fee table for multi-family and non-residential construction permits add tiers for large scale developments, up to and beyond $50 million in construction valuation.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The Building Division’s fees are charged as one-time flat fee amounts on a per project basis. As described in the Cost of Service Analysis section above, the annual cost recovery amount eligible for recovery from fees for service is approximately $4.9 million. However, for large scale development projects, the construction timeline for the project and regulatory effort required of City staff typically spans multiple years. This means that , for large projects, fee revenue collected in one year will typically not be “expended” within a one year timeframe from when the fee is collected. To account for this, the cost of service analysis compares the approximate actual fee revenue collected in one year, to the cost of service requ ired to regulate and approve those projects, estimated to span between one and five years, depending on the size of the project.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1139
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 18
Prepared by NBS
As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $5.3 million in annual revenues at current fe e amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would require approximately $6.9 million to recover costs of providing services over a time of up to five years, depending on the size of the project. On average, the City’s Building fees currently recover approximately 77% of the cost of providing services.
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appro priate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost.
The “Recommended Fee / Deposit Level” column in Appendix A.4 displays the City staff’s initially recommended flat fee or deposit amounts. Staff generally recommends most fees to recover 100% of the c osts of providing services.
Recommendations for less than full cost recovery fee amounts include the following fee items:
• Single trade electrical permits for swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, temporary power poles, electrical main services, and installing or replacing of sub-panels and PV solar systems. • Single trade plumbing permits for water heater replacements • Single trade mechanical permits for new or replacement FAU or HVAC install • Annual residential apartment inspections
These initial recommendations for fee amounts would increase c ost recovery for the Building Division by approximately $1.4 million. Fees at recommended amounts would recover approximately 9 8% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Building $ 5,344,680 $ 6,899,937 $ (1,555,257) 77% $ 6,764,819 98%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1140
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 19
Prepared by NBS
Section 6 – Police Fees
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office provides all-inclusive enforcement services under contract for the City of San Carlos. The scope of this user and regulatory fee analysis for Police focused solely on fees for various administr ative records and processing requests provided by this Department.
Cost of Service Analysis
The majority of services provided by the Police Department are not recoverable in user/regulatory fees for service.
To support the unique operational aspects of public safety, the NBS fee model derived fully burdened labor rates for sworn and non-sworn personnel.
Section 1, Cost of Service Analysis, of this report describes the types of expenditures and allocated costs considered in the development of these rates . All subsequent fee calculations for the Police Department will incorporate the fully burdened hourly rates of $317, and $121, respectively.
Fee Establishment
The list of fees shown in Appendix A. 5 to this report did not incur many significant changes, deletions, or additions from the City’s existing fee schedule. Fees suggested for elimination include Processing First Chance (Starvista) and Good Conduct Letter.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.5 presents the results of the cost recovery analysis for the City’s Police Department. The “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list. Police Department fees currently recover approximately 35% of the cost of providing services. As shown in the following table, the City collects approximately $128,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts.
At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $ 365,000.
Cost Element Sworn Services Non-Sworn
Services
Labor / Non-Labor 6,168,280 783,287
Citywide Overhead 686,047 87,210
Department Administration 3,977,656 505,641
Department Total 10,831,983$ 1,376,138$
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 317 $ 121 34,137 11,362 Reference: Direct Hours Only Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Police $ 127,545 $ 365,273 $ (237,728) 35% $ 127,545 35%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1141
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 20
Prepared by NBS
NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the City departments, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below that full cost.
The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A.5 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts, which include no changes from existing fee levels. Fees would continue to recover approximately 35% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1142
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 21
Prepared by NBS
Section 7 – Parks and Recreation Department
The Parks and Recreation Department provides leadership and administrative support for delivery of recreational experiences, including:
• Athletics – The goal of Athletics is to offer athletic facilities and sports programs for City residents that foster sportsmanship, and encourage and promote health and wellness.
• Adult Services – The goal of Adult Services is to provide City residents aged 50 and older a variety of programs and activities that promote health and wellness, social interaction and foster a sense of belonging.
• Youth Development - The goal of the Youth Development program is to provide a variety of activities and events that offer City youth ages 10 to 17 opportunities for social and leadership skill development within a safe and inclusive environment.
• Personal and Family Development - The goal of the Personal and Family Development is to provide a variety of programs and activities for City residents that offer a positive recreational and social experience. • Facility Rentals : Department staff facilitate reservation and rental of various City -owned recreation facilities and amenities such as the Adult Community Center, Youth Center , Library Community Room, Picnic Sites, Bocce Ball Courts, Sports Fields (and lights), Tennis Courts, etc. • Special Community Events - The goal of the Special Community Events program is to provide special events for residents and visitors that reflect the community’s unique character, encourage community -wide involvement, and support local businesses.
The expenses of administering, operating, and maintaining the City’s parks and recreation facilities are primarily funded by resources from the General Fund. However, fees collected from various Recreation programs, including classes, contracts, and specific uses of public spaces can represent a significant source of funding to help cover costs and sustain – if not improve – the level of service provided by the City.
Special Considerations Regarding Recreation Fees
Per Article XIIIC, Section 1, of the California Constitution, recreation fees typically fall under one of these two exceptions the definition of “tax”:
Exception No. 2: Section 1 (e)(2) Exception for Fees for Services and Products Provided – this category includes fees imposed for a service, like lessons, transportation, child care, etc. The fee for services exception requires that such fees be limited to “the estimated costs to the local government of providing the service.” Exception No. 4: Section 1 (e)(4) exception for fees for use of government property – this category includes fees imposed for services such as admission to parks, rental of government property (recreational equipmen t) and for rental/use of fields and meeting rooms. The language of this exception does not include the “reasonable costs” limitation. However, a general law city is subject to the constraint on the amount of a fee charged under either category imposed by Government Code section 50402.
Unlike other areas of the Study, this Department’s cost of service analysis and cost recovery evaluation for most classes, programs, and recreational services is conducted at the program level (as opposed to the individual fe e level) and includes an annual estimated cost recovery evaluation of each recreational program area managed by
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1143
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 22
Prepared by NBS
the Department. This level of analysis assists the City in understanding cost recovery performance and in a developing cost recovery policy, rather than an analysis at the individual fee level. This is appropriate given the requirements of Article XIIIC as pertains to recreation fees and facility rentals, as w ell as for the seasonal nature of many of the program offerings which change on a regular basis.
Cost of Service Analysis
While the general goal of the Study was to provide program level analysis of total estimated costs and revenues for each major Parks and Recreation program, individual fee amounts are also calculated for various types of permitting and processing requests, such as, special even t permits, sports tournament s, class registration and cancellation fees.
The calculated fully burdened hourly rate for this Department is $86 per hour, or $177 per hour for full-time staff, and $30 for part-time staff. All subsequent individual fee calculations will incorporate the hourly rates as shown.
Fee Establishment
Due to the unique nature of this Department’s services, the study performed by NBS segregated fees into three main categories: Recreation Classes and Programs, Facility Rentals, and Miscellaneous Service Fees.
For Recreation Classes, a provision in the City’s Master Fee Sch edule continues to allow the Department to set fees for seasonal programs based on the cost of the individual program, never to exceed the full cost of the program. Please refer to the recommended Master Fee Schedule document for the proposed language.
Recreation fees are typically displayed in a seasonal brochure or catalog of classes and programs. In most municipalities, those fees are not contained in a master fee schedule; however, adopting language referencing them – such as the text proposed here – provides a measure of Council oversight and grants specific authority to the Department to manage the fees for these programs based on changing conditions (e.g., costs, demand, etc.).
For Facility Rentals and Miscellaneous Fees, t his Study includes a basic survey of comparable jurisdictions for facility rentals and permitting services (Appendix B.5 ), which may assist the agency in establishing proof of meaningful public market options and pricing for similar services . We also recommend that the City continue to document the private or public -private facility rental and recreational programming options available to consumers.
For Sports Field Use fees, NBS a ssisted the City wit h a peer review of updated cost of service calculations. The City’s staff report can be referenced for a full expl anation of outcomes and recommended fee amounts for consideration.
Cost Element Full-Time Part-Time TOTAL
Labor $ 1,560,900 $ 431,500 $ 1,992,400 Recurring Non-Labor 36,978 10,222 47,200 Citywide Overhead 1,495,946 413,544 1,909,490 Department Total 3,093,824$ 855,266$ 3,949,090$ Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 177 30$ 86$ 17,456 28,628 46,084 Reference: Direct Hours Only
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1144
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 23
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The table shown below indicates that at current fee levels, Recreation classes, programs, and facility rentals do not recover their total Citywide costs of providing services. This is a typical outcome of most Rec reation cost of services studies and is useful information in establishing future class and program fees for the Department.
The total estimated cost of the Parks and Recreation Department is approximately $ 6 million per year. Section 1, Methods of Analy sis, provides further definition and discussion of each cost component shown above. The Department recovers approximately 27% of the costs of providing services, on average. Due to the unique nature of Recreation services, the Study performed by NBS provides an annual cost and revenue analysis at the program level. This provides City staff and City Council with current cost recovery data and allows the City to establish and/or update their cost recovery policy for recreation programs, and generate revised fee amounts.
Appendix A. 6 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis for the Department’s permitting and processing requests. The “Cost of Service per Act ivity Column” establishes the maximum at which a fee could be charged for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Name” list.
As shown, the City collects approximately $ 109,000 per year in revenues at current fee amounts. At full cost recovery, the same demand for these services would generate approximately $ 162,000. The “Recommended Fee” column in Appendix A. 6 displays the City staff’s initially recommended fee amounts. Recommendations include small increases for most fees, a decrease for the refund processing fee, and continued waiver of fees for Block Party Permits.
These initial recommendations for adjusted fee amounts increase cost recovery for these services by approximately $9,000 annually. Fees would adjust to recover approximately 73% of the total costs of providing fee related services.
Cost Element Athletics Adult Services Youth
Development
Personal and
Family
Development
Facility Rentals
(ACC, Youth,
Picnic, Tennis,
Park Fitness,
etc.)
Special
Community
Events
Total
Labor 206,759$ 622,344$ 380,257$ 220,051$ 106,869$ 456,120$ 1,992,400$ Recurring Non-Labor 305,000 259,600 187,500 455,800 - 507,000 1,714,900 Citywide Overhead 234,093 515,760 416,518 325,223 350,395 417,897 2,259,885 Department Total 745,852$ 1,397,704$ 984,275$ 1,001,074$ 457,264$ 1,381,017$ 5,967,185$ Revenue FY 18-19 419,886$ 248,086$ 239,001$ 629,198$ 24,620$ 23,952$ 1,584,743$ Program Cost Recovery % 56% 18% 24% 63% 5% 2% 27%
Cost Allocation to Each Function / Activity
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Recreation (permits/processing) $ 108,604 $ 161,481 $ (52,877) 67% $ 117,892 73%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1145
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 24
Prepared by NBS
Section 8 – General Plan Surcharge
The City of San Carlos updates its General Plan on a routine basis , and staff in the Advance and Current Planning Divisions facilitate the necessary changes to policies and local ordinances stemming from the General Plan’s guidance. The General Plan helps to guide the growth of the community in a consistent manner. Government Code 66014 (b) allows local agencies to, “…include the costs reaso nably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations”.
This section of the Government Code supports inclusion of general plan update and implemen tation costs in fees for service.
Cost of Service Analysis
As shown in the table below, the City would need to collect approximately $1.3 million per year in costs for the purpose of updating and implementing the General Plan.
This is based on the City’s estimate of $1.8 million in contract costs required to update the General Plan and the average annual staff support costs for implementation.
Fee Establishment
The City currently collects a General Plan Surcharge equal to 0.1 4% of a project’s construction value. 0.3% of the fee is allocated for staff support and 0.11% of the fee is allocated for contract services support. This Surcharge applies only to projects i ncluding new construction and additions to existing square footage . Revenue from the contract services support portion of the fee is allocated to a separate account and tracked for application of funds toward projects that update the General Plan on a periodic basis.
When considering revisions to the surcharge amount for recovery of General Plan costs, the Department and Council should agree upon a desired cost recovery target for this program, to be captured on top of Building permit fees as a percentage of project valuation. The following table s provide options for surcharge amounts based on varied cost recovery targets. The table on the left considers the staff support component of the surcharge, and the table on the right considers the contract services component of the surcharge.
Cost Total Cost
Amortization
Period (Yrs) Annual Cost
Advance Planning Staff Support 835,700$ 1 835,700$ Current Planning Staff Support 306,876 1 306,876 Housing Element Update 500,000 8 62,500
General Plan Comprehensive Update 1,300,000 10 130,000 Adjustment - Fund Balance (172,626) 10 (17,263) Total $ 2,769,950 $ 1,317,813
Staff Support Cost
Recovery Target
Annual Costs Recovered
@ Target
Surcharge Based on
Applicable Building
Project Valuation
Contract Services Cost
Recovery Target
Annual Costs Recovered
@ Target
Surcharge Based on
Applicable Building
Project Valuation
100% $ 1,142,576 2.00% 100% $ 175,237 0.31% 75% 856,932$ 1.50% 75% 131,428$ 0.23% 50% 571,288$ 1.00% 50% 87,619$ 0.15% 25% 285,644$ 0.50% 25% 43,809$ 0.08%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1146
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 25
Prepared by NBS
Each jurisdiction’s policy makers must decide to what degree new development impacts the revision and maintenance efforts to their Plan. For jurisdictions with large amounts of undeveloped land available, the impact is typically considered higher than for jurisdictions that are closer to “build -out” of available land resources. This surcharge should apply to projects with the largest relative impact on the maintenance, update, and use of the City’s General Plan, namely new construction and additi ons to existing square footage. The recent four -year average of building valuations for new construction and additions for San Carlos is $ 57.1 million.
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The City had some implementation issues with this fee over the past several years and as a result collected approximately $87,000, on average, for General Plan maintenance and update purposes. As shown, current revenues recover approximately 7% of the annual costs of providing services.
Upon reviewing this information and options for revising the surcharge , City staff recommends a 50% annual cost recovery target for City Council’s consideration , which is consistent with direction from prior fee studies. The surcharge amount that corresponds to a 50% cost recovery target is a total surcharge of 1.15% applicable to new construction and addition related building permit projects. 1.0% of the fee is allocated for staff support and 0.15% of the fee is allocated for contract services support. If adopt ed, the revised fee would generate approximately $659,000 per year. The remaining unfunded amount would be subsidized by other City revenue sources such as the general fund for the general community benefit received from the Plan, as well as for the use of the Plan by other departments such as public safety and utilities.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
GP Maintenance Surcharge $ 86,760 $ 1,317,813 $ (1,231,053) 7% $ 658,906 50%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1147
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 26
Prepared by NBS
Section 9 – Technology Surcharge
Routine maintenance and investment into the City’s permitting software and systems are key in supporting efficient development approval and processing services. The basic premise behind implementation of a Technology Surcharge is that a separate fund is created and self-sustaining in meeting the maintenance and capital replacement needs of development permitting software.
Cost of Service Analysis
As shown in the table below, the City’s cost estimate for the permitting system’s replacement is approximately $635,000 every seven years , and there is currently $384,000 available in a fund for technology replacement projects. The current average annual funding requirements for the system’s replacement is approximately $36,000 per year.
Fee Establishment
The City currently collects a Technology Surcharge equal to 1.8% of each Planning and Building division fee charged, as well as selected Public Works Department fees for improvement and grading projects . Revenue from this fee is allocated to a separate account and tracked for application of funds toward update and maintenance the City’s permitting software . The main users of the permitting system include the Planning and Building divisions of Community Development Department, and the Public Works Department. The total annual projected revenue from the City’s recommended fee a mounts for Planning, Building and Public Works totals approximately $ 8.9 million.
The following table calculates a Technology Surcharge based on the ratio of annual funding needs for the permitting system, and annual projected recommended fee revenue:
To recover 100% of the costs of replacing the City’s permitting system , a 0.4% surcharge would be added to each Planning, Public Works (Engineering), and Building fee.
Cost Total Cost
Amortization
Period (Yrs) Annual Cost
Replacement cost permit software 500,000$ 7 71,429$ Trakit One Time Upgrade 60,000 7 8,571
Cashier System 75,000 7 10,714
Subtotal 635,000 90,714
Adjustment - Fund Balance (384,014) 7 (54,859)
Total $ 250,986 $ 35,855
Cost Recovery
Target
Annual Costs
Recovered @
Target
Surcharge
Amount
100% $ 35,855 0.4%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1148
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 27
Prepared by NBS
Cost Recovery Evaluation
The City currently collects approximately $ 122,000 per year from their existing Technology Surcharge fee . At full cost recovery, the Surcharge would generate approximately $36,000.
Staff recommends charging the Technology Surcharge at 100% cost recovery, which would reduce revenue by approximately $86,000 per year. Due to decreases in expected technology costs, City staff recommends reducing this fee accordingly.
Department / Division
Estimated
Annual Current
Fee Revenue
Estimated Annual
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Revenue
Annual Cost
Recovery Surplus /
(Deficit)
Current Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Annual
Recommended
Fee Revenue
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Technology Surcharge $ 121,870 $ 35,855 $ 86,015 340% $ 35,855 100%
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1149
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
User Fee Study – City of San Carlos 28
Prepared by NBS
Section 10 – Conclusion
Based on the results of this Study, the proposed Master Fee Schedule is formatted for Council’s review and adoption in the City’s Staff Report. As discussed throughout this report, the proposed fee schedule includes fee increases intended to greatly improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as to adjust fees downward where fees charge exceed the average costs incurred.
Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect Department revenues is difficult to quantify.
For the near -term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific expe nditure plan.
Experience with these fee increases should be gained first before revenue projections are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long -term change in activity levels at the City, proposed fee amendments should – over time – enhance the City’s revenue capabilities, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at large.
The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document and be handled with care. A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and manner in which fees should be imposed by the departments. Old fee schedules should be superseded by the new master document. If the master document is found to be missing fees, those fees need eventually to be added to the master schedule and should not continue to exist outside the consolidated, master framework.
The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep pace at least with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, a Consumer Price Index adjustment could be applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive user fee Study is not an annual requirement; it becomes worthwhile only over time as significant shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements change. In NBS’ experience, a comprehensive analysis such as t his should be performed every five years. It should be noted that when an automatic adjustment is applied annually, the City is free to use its discretion in applying the adjustment; not all fees need to be adjusted, especially when there are good policy reasons for an alternate course.
The full cost of service is the City’s only limit in setting its fees.
As a final note in this Study, it is worth acknowledging the path that fees in general have taken in California. The public demands ever more precis e and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are imposed. It is inevitable in the not too distant future that user fees and regulatory fees will demand an even greater level of analysis and supportin g data to meet the public’s evolving expectations.
Technology systems will play an increased and significant role in an agency’s ability to accomplish this. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly enhance the City’s a bility to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.
Disclaimer: In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and as sumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions. While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the ex tent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1150
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee Schedule)
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Carlos
APPENDIX A.1
Cost of Service Analysis – Administrative Departments
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1151
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Finance Division - User Fee Study FY 2022-2023
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1 1 Returned Check [1]
First Item per first check Fees set by
statute 25$ % 25$ % 13 325$ 400$ 325$ Each Additional Item
per
subsequent
check
Fees set by
statute 35$ % 35$ % - -$ -$ -$ 2 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the Department
Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on
the following hourly rates for staff time:
Finance Division Staff (Per Hour) Per Hour 1.00 193$ 193$ 186$ 96% 193$ 100% - -$ -$ -$ TOTAL 325 400 325
[Notes]
[1]
Fee set by California Civil Code Ch. 522 Section 1719. Additional charges may apply if not paid within 30 days of receipt of written demand for payment letter
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee No. Fee Name
Notes
Estimated
Average
Labor Time
Per Activity
(hours)
FBHR
Cost of
Service Per
Activity
Current Fee /
Deposit
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
Fee Unit /
Type
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Finance COS, Page 1 of 2
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1152
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
City Clerk - User Fee Study FY 2023
Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.1 1 Copy Charges: n/a -$ -$ $0.10/page % $.10/page % - -$ -$ -$ 2 Copy Charges - CD n/a -$ -$ $0.50/CD % $0.50/CD % - -$ -$ -$ 3 Copies of City Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, CAFR, Municipal Code Book, Standard Bid Specifications, Standard Detail, Work Program
n/a n/a -$ -$ Free/website, or Copy Charge % Free/website, or
Copy Charge % - -$ -$ -$ 4 Document Certification base fee 0.05 193$ 10$ Fee Waived % Fee Waived % 10 -$ 97$ -$ 5 Agenda or Minutes Subscription n/a n/a -$ -$ Free/website, or Copy Charge % Free/website, or
Copy Charge % - -$ -$ -$ 6 Research per hour 1.00 193$ 193$ 186$ 96% 193$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 7 For services requested of City Staff for which no fee is listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the Department Director shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time:
City Clerk Department Staff (Per Hour) per hour 1.00 193$ 193$ 186$ 96% 193$ 100% -$ -$ -$ TOTAL - 97 - Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommended
Cost Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity (hours)
FBHR Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery
Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommended
Fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Clerk COS, Page 2 of 2
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1153
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee
Prepared by NBS for the City of San Carlos
APPENDIX A.2
Cost of Service Analysis – Community Development – Planning Division
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1154
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department - Planning Department - User Fee Study FY 2023 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2 1 Appeal, Planning Commission
a Fee Each 20.00 300$ 5,991$ $1,808 30% 2,000$ 33% 3 5,424$ 17,974$ 6,000$ 2 Appeal, City Council
a Fee Each 20.00 300$ 5,991$ $1,608 27% 2,000$ 33% 2 3,216$ 11,983$ 4,000$ 3 Attorney's Fees
Support to Planning projects that require
Deposit Actual Cost 1.00 $412/hr
Actual cost / +
$2,500 minimum
deposit.
Support to projects on a "fixed"/"flat" fee basis Actual Cost 1.00 $286/hr Actual Cost - 2 Hr.
Minimum
4 Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Plan Each 7.00 300$ 2,097$ $1,475 70% 2,097$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 5 Below Market Rate (BMR), Builder Alternative Each 7.00 300$ 2,097$ $500 Initial Deposit % 2,097$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 6 Below Market Rate (BMR), Housing Agreement Each 9.00 300$ 2,696$ $500 Initial Deposit % 2,696$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 7 CEQA
a Document Filing
Fee Each 1.00 300$ 300$ $210 70% 300$ 100% -$ -$ -$ b Categorical Exemption
City Processing Fee Each 2.00 300$ 599$ $422 70% 599$ 100% -$ -$ -$ Department of Fish and Game / County
Recording Fees
Deposit /
Actual Cost n/a n/a -$
Actual Cost of
DFG / County
Fees
% Actual Cost of DFG
/ County Fees % -$ -$ -$ c Initial Study/Negative Declaration/Mitigated
Negative/EIR
City Processing Fee Deposit /
Actual Cost n/a 300$ -$ Actual Cost with $3,000 deposit % Actual Cost with
$3,000 deposit % -$ -$ -$ Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No. Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
FBHRFee Name
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Planning COS, Page 1 of 9
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1155
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department - Planning Department - User Fee Study FY 2023 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No. Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
FBHRFee Name
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
Consultant Review Deposit n/a n/a -$ Actual Cost with $5,000 deposit % Actual Cost with
$5,000 deposit % -$ -$ -$ d Mitigation Monitoring Deposit /
Actual Cost n/a 300$ -$ Actual Cost with $1,000 deposit % Actual Cost with
$1,000 deposit % -$ -$ -$ new Cell Tower Application [3]
6409 Application Each 4.00 300$ 1,198$ new % 1,198$ 100% -$ -$ -$ Other Applications Actual Actual Cost /
T&M Actual Cost / T&M
8 Creek Exception
City Processing Fee Each 15.00 300$ 4,493$ $2,529 56% 4,493$ 100% -$ -$ -$ Consultant Review Actual
Actual Cost of
Consultant
Study
Actual Cost of
Consultant Study
9 Design Review - Single Family
a Single Family, New Home (RDRC)
Fee Each 35.00 300$ 10,485$ $6,320 60% 10,485$ 100% 16 101,120$ 167,757$ 167,757$ b Single Family, First Floor Addition (RDRC)
Fee Each 25.00 300$ 7,489$ $4,214 56% 7,489$ 100% 4 16,856$ 29,957$ 29,957$ c Single Family, Second Floor Addition (RDRC)
Fee Each 35.00 300$ 10,485$ $6,320 60% 10,485$ 100% 9 56,880$ 94,363$ 94,363$ d Single Family, First Floor Addition (Staff)
Fee Each 10.00 300$ 2,996$ $1,264 42% 2,996$ 100% 43 54,352$ 128,814$ 128,814$ e Single Family, Second Floor Addition (Staff)
Fee Each 15.00 300$ 4,493$ $2,107 47% 4,493$ 100% -$ -$ -$
10.1 Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, ND) - Staff
Review/Approval
a New Building
Fee Each 60.00 300$ 17,974$ $8,427 47% 17,974$ 100% 7 58,989$ 125,818$ 125,818$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Planning COS, Page 2 of 9
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1156
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department - Planning Department - User Fee Study FY 2023 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No. Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
FBHRFee Name
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
b Major Alteration
Fee Each 42.00 300$ 12,582$ $5,056 40% 12,582$ 100% -$ -$ -$ c Minor Alteration
Fee Each 32.00 300$ 9,586$ $3,371 35% 9,586$ 100% -$ -$ -$
10.2 Design Review (MR, M/U, Comm, ND) - Planning
Commission Review/Approval
a New Building (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 71.00 300$ 21,269$ $8,427 40% 21,269$ 100% -$ -$ -$ b Major Alteration (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 53.00 300$ 15,877$ $5,056 32% 15,877$ 100% -$ -$ -$ c Minor Alteration (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 43.00 300$ 12,881$ $3,371 26% 12,881$ 100% 2 6,742$ 25,763$ 25,763$ 11 Design Review (Other)
a A - Frames
Fee Each 0.50 300$ 150$ $105 70% 150$ 100% -$ -$ -$ b Accessory Structures (Includes large decks)
Fee Each 6.00 300$ 1,797$ $1,264 70% 1,797$ 100% -$ -$ -$ c Architectural Peer Review
Fee Deposit /
Actual Cost n/a 300$ -$ $3,000 Initial Deposit % $3,000 Initial
Deposit % -$ -$ -$
d Mills Acts Designated Projects
City Processing Fee Each 6.00 300$ 1,797$ $603 34% 1,797$ 100% 5 3,015$ 8,987$ 8,987$ Historic Consultant Review Deposit /
Actual Cost
[4] $5,000 Initial
Deposit
$5,000 Initial
Deposit
e Miscellaneous (awnings, trash, replacement
materials, site plan review, landscape, facade)
Fee Each 2.00 300$ 599$ $422 70% 599$ 100% -$ -$ -$ f Outdoor Uses Dining & Retail Sales
Fee Each 6.00 300$ 1,797$ $948 53% 1,797$ 100% 8 7,584$ 14,379$ 14,379$ g Sign Program
Fee Each 20.00 300$ 5,991$ $2,107 35% 5,991$ 100% 37 77,959$ 221,679$ 221,679$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Planning COS, Page 3 of 9
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1157
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department - Planning Department - User Fee Study FY 2023 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No. Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
FBHRFee Name
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
h Signs - (Planning Commission)
Fee Each 15.00 300$ 4,493$ $2,107 47% 4,493$ 100% 44 92,708$ 197,714$ 197,714$ i Signs (Staff)
Fee Each 4.00 300$ 1,198$ $422 35% 1,198$ 100% - -$ -$ -$ j Temporary Banner
Fee Each 1.00 300$ 300$ $210 70% 300$ 100% - -$ -$ -$ new Minor Alterations
Fee Each 4.00 300$ 1,198$ new % 1,198$ 100% 2 -$ 2,397$ 2,397$ 12 Document Imaging
Per 1/2 Hour
- 1/2 Hour
Minimum
0.50 300$ 150$ $105 70% 150$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 13 Domestic Fowl and Non-Household Pets
a Fee Each 6.00 300$ 1,797$ $301 17% 1,797$ 100% -$ -$ -$ new Excessive Noise Compliance Permit 2.00 300$ 599$ new % 599$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 15 Final Inspection, Single-Family
a Fee Each 2.00 300$ 599$ $422 70% 599$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 16 Final Inspection, Other
Fee Each 4.00 300$ 1,198$ $842 70% 1,198$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 17 General Plan Amendment
Fee Each 40.00 300$ 11,983$ $8,427 70% 11,983$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 18 Grading and Dirt Haul Certificate
Fee Each 10.00 300$ 2,996$ $2,107 70% 2,996$ 100% - -$ -$ -$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Planning COS, Page 4 of 9
10.c.11
Packet Pg. 1158
Attachment: 2022-05-23 Study Session Staff Report and Attachments (Adopt Cost of Services - User Fee City of San Carlos
Community Development Department - Planning Department - User Fee Study FY 2023 Cost of Service Estimate for Fee Related Services and Activities APPENDIX A.2 Current Fee /
Deposit
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Recommended
Fee Level /
Deposit
Recommende
d Cost
Recovery %
Estimated
Volume of
Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Fee No. Fee Unit /
Type
Notes
Estimated
Average Labor
Time Per
Activity
(hours)
FBHRFee Name
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Cost of Service
Per Activity
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Full Cost
Recovery Fee
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Recommende
d Fee
19 Historic Preservation
a City Processing Fee Each 2.00 300$ 599$ $210 35% 599$ 100% -$ -$ -$ b Historic Assessment - Consultant Review Actual n/a Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit
Actual Cost with
$2,000 deposit -$ -$ -$ c Mills Act Contract
Fee Each 15.00 300$ 4,493$ $1,005 22% 4,493$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 20 Interdepartmental Plan Review
a Building
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
See Building Fee
Schedule for Per
Review Charge
b Engineering
See Engineering
Fee Schedule
and / or Hourly
Rates Apply
See Engineering
Fee Schedule and /
or Hourly Rates
Apply
c Fire See Fire Fee
Schedule
See Fire Fee
Schedule
d Police
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates
Apply
See Police Fee
Schedule and/or
Hourly Rates
Apply
e Economic Development - Housing Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
Planning Hourly
Rate Applies
21 Other City Commission Review
Fee Each 4.00 300$ 1,198$ $842 70% 1,198$ 100% -$ -$ -$ 22 Plan Check for Building Permits
a Major (New Multi-Family, Mixed-Use,
Commercial, Industrial) Each 12.00 300$ 3,595$ $2,529 70% 3,595$ 100% -$ -$ -$ b Moderate (New Single-Family, Commercial
additions/alterations) Each 5.00 300$ 1,498$ $1,054 70% 1,498$ 100% -$ -$ -$ NBS - Local Government Solutions
Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 5/12/2022 Planning COS, Page 5 of 9