Director reports: proposed permit-fee updates and Accela portal upgrade; housing element revision requested by state

Planning and Building Department staff at the Aug. 28 San Mateo County Planning Commission meeting described a proposed update to planning permit fees and an upgrade to the Accela online permitting portal intended to make planning permit applications and fee calculations available and more automated.

The director said permit fees have not been updated since 2004 and the proposed changes are intended to recover the current cost of service and to support an Accela upgrade. ‘‘The fee update is important to the department not only to recover the cost of doing business, but ensuring effective implementation of our online permitting system,’’ the director said. Staff said some fees will rise, others will be reduced or eliminated after a detailed internal review.

When asked who participated in calculating the proposed fees, the director said an internal team led the effort: the administrative services manager (budget/finance), senior planners familiar with permit processing, the Accela upgrade project manager and a county attorney office representative to ensure legal compliance with fee-setting rules; the director said outside members of the development community were not part of the internal calculation team but will be stakeholders in the public review process.

The director also updated commissioners on a few other items: the Bagerman appeal (a dispute over use of an easement and a retaining wall in the Palomar Park area) will go to the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 10; the department plans to bring a final update to tree regulations for a hearing in early September; and the county’s second housing element submittal was not accepted by the state, which requested additional analysis and revisions. Staff said they are coordinating with the state Department of Housing and Community Development to respond and plan a third submittal.

A commissioner asked how the county would engage with a National Park Service management plan for a GGNRA property referenced in the record; the director said federal projects are generally exempt from local approvals but the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires federal consistency review with the California Coastal Commission, and the county will participate as a stakeholder and provide comments to protect county interests, including recreational uses and sensitive habitat.

The director closed the report and the commission adjourned the meeting.