Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Department proposes modest fee increases, commission continues review
Summary
The San Francisco Planning Department presented two fee ordinances proposing a CPI adjustment plus a modest additional 2.04% increase to help retain code enforcement and historic preservation services; the Planning Commission continued consideration to June 24 to allow more review time.
The San Francisco Planning Department on June 17 told the Planning Commission it needs modest fee increases to cover an abrupt general‑fund shortfall and to retain core programs such as code enforcement and historic preservation. Elaine Forbes, departmental staff, told commissioners the combined automatic CPI adjustment (2.61%) and a supplemental 2.04% increase would raise about $574,000 in revenue and help preserve services trimmed in the budget process.
Forbes said the proposal includes a range of substantive changes: a new CEQA monitoring fee (listed at $11.30), a categorical exemption review fee for external agencies, a construction‑based fee for complex Class 32 categorical exemptions (proposed range $10,375–$22,145 for large projects), an increase to EIR/negative declaration addendum fees, a new wireless communications conditional‑use fee ($4,500), higher discretionary review fees and a new preliminary project assessment fee (~$4,427) that would be credited to the first project application.
Public commenters objected to some increases, particularly the discretionary review fee (raised to $500), calling it potentially prohibitive for community groups. Department staff noted hardship waivers and an exemption for neighborhood organizations with 24 months’ existence and said the $500 figure aligns with existing CEQA appeal and conditional use appeal fees.
Commission discussion focused on the volume of material, jurisdictional comparisons and implementation details. Commissioners requested data comparing San Francisco’s fees with neighboring jurisdictions and time to study the detailed packet. Commissioner Olague moved and the commission voted to continue items 10 and 11 (the two fee ordinances) one week to June 24 so members and the public could digest the materials. The motion carried 5–1 with Commissioner Seguin opposed.
The department said the proposed fee revenues are included in the FY2010–11 budget assumptions and that staff will return with requested comparisons and any technical refinements.
