Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development And Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed updates to building and planning fees; staff seeks public hearing April 15
Summary
Town staff presented a study session April 1 proposing updated building and planning fees, including standardized minor‑permit fees, higher hourly billing rates for planning reviews, and targeted fee discounts to encourage electrification, accessibility improvements and additional affordable housing.
The Corte Madera Town Council received a study session April 1 on proposed updates to building and planning fee schedules, with staff recommending closer alignment between fees and the town’s cost of providing review and inspection services.
Community Development Director Amy Lyle introduced the proposal and Chief Building Official Bernie Sapay and consultant Terry Madsen of ClearSource Financial described a fee study that evaluated the town’s permit review, inspection and planning entitlement services. The consultant said the study’s starting point was California legal standards that fees must reasonably approximate the cost of the service provided and should not exceed that cost. The study updated labor‑based hourly rates, proposed standardized fixed fees for common minor permits, and recalibrated initial deposits for time‑and‑materials planning reviews.
Staff recommended targeting near‑full cost recovery for most building permit fees (an estimated incremental revenue impact of roughly $660,000), while proposing targeted, less‑than‑full cost recovery (discounts) to incentivize residential electrification projects, accessibility improvements for older or disabled residents and veterans, and additional affordable units beyond the town’s inclusionary baseline. The report also proposed two new fees: a long‑range planning fee to help offset periodic costs such as general‑plan updates, and a development‑technology fee to fund online permitting and land‑management systems.
Council members asked detailed questions about appeal fees and subsidy levels. The Planning Commission had recommended reducing an initially proposed $1,000 appeal fee to $500; staff noted the council may adopt a higher fee than noticed at the public hearing but recommended returning a final fee schedule for adoption at a public hearing on April 15 with an anticipated effective date of July 1, 2025 if adopted. Several councilmembers urged stronger cost recovery for appeals and discussed refund mechanisms if an appeal is successful. Staff said the proposed resolution would include an annual inflation adjustment tied to regional CPI (capped at 5%) and that staff recommends routine review every three to five years.
No adoption vote occurred; the council received the study session and provided preliminary direction. Staff said they will hold a public hearing on April 15 to consider formal adoption of the fee schedule.
