HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2015 0304 CCSA REG ITEM 09B ITEM 9.B.
CITY OF MOORPARK,CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of .3-N-a0/S
ACTION:Aim Leta
de.. 'i /5 jetaaaa �
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL y: Lo z ecn,
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community Development Director
DATE: February 10, 2015 (CC Meeting of 3/4/2015)
SUBJECT: Consider Scheduling a Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution
Updating Land Use Development Processing Fees and Deposits,
Film/Photography Permit Processing Fees and Deposits, Open
House Directional Sign Permit Fees, Abandoned Shopping Cart
Prevention Plan Review Fees, Business Registration Permit Fees,
and Special Business Permit Review Fees and Deposits, and
Rescinding Resolution Nos. 96-1214, 2006-2503, 2006-2510, 2007-
2597, 2008-2733, 2008-2777, 2009-2790, 2012-3139, and 2013-3154
and Finding This Action Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act
BACKGROUND
Policy 5.7 of the City Council Policies Resolution No. 2015-3353 requires an annual
review of all City fee resolutions to determine if an adjustment of any fee is appropriate
in conjunction with the preparation of the next fiscal year budget. Resolution No. 2012-
3139, adopted on November 7, 2012, set the current fees and deposits used for most of
the permit applications processed by the Community Development Department.
However, eight other resolutions adopted over the last 19 years include fees and/or
deposits for various Community Development Department permits. The attached draft
resolution updates all nine fee and deposit resolutions currently administered by the
Community Development Department and consolidates these fees and deposits into
one schedule. Staff is requesting the City Council to schedule a public hearing for the
April 1, 2015 City Council meeting for consideration of this resolution. The fee schedule
has been reviewed and found acceptable by the Finance Director.
As a separate agenda item, consideration of scheduling a public hearing for April 1,
2015 on proposed staff billing rates is also requested. Those billing rates would be
used for charging staff time against the deposits contained in this draft resolution. It has
24
Honorable City Council
March 4, 2015
Page 2
been separated from the Community Development fee/deposit schedule to allow for its
use where staff time is charged by other departments.
DISCUSSION
The following resolutions, proposed to be rescinded in the attached draft resolution,
reflect current adopted fees for processing of permits by the Community Development
Department:
• Resolution No. 96-1214: Film/Photography Permit Review Fees and Deposits
• Resolution No. 2006-2503: Rental Authorization Permit
• Resolution No. 2006-2510: Encroachment Permit and Sign Storage Fees for
Real Estate Open House Signs
• Resolution No. 2007-2597: Rental Authorization Permit Re-Inspection
• Resolution No. 2008-2733: Abandoned Shopping Cart Prevention Plan Annual
Review Fees
• Resolution No. 2008-2777: Special Business Permit Fees
• Resolution No. 2009-2790: Special Business Permit Fees for Massage
Establishments and Massage Therapists
• Resolution No. 2012-3139: Real Time Billing Rates and Fees and Deposits for
Land Use Development Processing
• Resolution No. 2013-3154: Business Registration Fees
Staff is also proposing the consolidation of these fee resolutions into a single
fee/deposit schedule for ease of use. A review of the fees and deposits indicates that
most fees and deposits are still appropriate for covering the costs associated with
permit processing, with the following notable exceptions:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) Pre-Screening Applications — The deposit for
reviewing and processing these applications is proposed to be increased from
$5,800.00 to $7,600.00 to account for increased noticing and public participation
required by changes in GPA Pre-Screening application processing procedures
as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2013-3242.
• Commercial Planned Development Permits — The special reduced deposit for
conversion of residences to retail or office uses in the Downtown Specific Plan
area is eliminated, since these conversions would require an Administrative
Permit, not a Commercial Planned Development Permit.
• Conditional Use Permits — Deposits for Conditional Use Permits for relocating
businesses are proposed to be raised from $3,000 to $3,500 to account for
noticing costs. This is still a lower deposit from that for new Conditional Use
Permits, where the deposit would remain at $5,000. Staff is proposing applying
this $3,500 reduced deposit also to new restaurants with or without beer and
5:\Community Development\ADMIN\Fees\Entitlement Deposits\Agenda Reports\cc 20150304 Amended.docx
25
Honorable City Council
March 4, 2015
Page 3
wine when a Conditional Use Permit is required, as this has historically been
sufficient to cover processing costs.
• Permit Modifications — The current deposit is 80% of the original permit deposit.
For Planned Development Permits, this would be $20,800 for larger projects. A
lower deposit of $10,000 (not to exceed 80% of the original permit deposit) is
recommended for modifications where no substantial changes are proposed to
the site plan or architectural design. This would cover the review, notification,
and public hearing costs for items such as changes to conditions of approval.
• Time Extensions — Deposits are proposed to be lowered for time extension
requests and would be based on the decision-making authority. Time extension
requests that would be considered by City Council or the Planning Commission
would be lowered from the current maximum of $2,600 to $2,000 and time
extension requests to be determined by staff would be lowered to a $600
deposit. These lower fees are sufficient to cover the cost of review and
processing such a request.
• Lot Line Adjustments and Reversion to Acreage — Currently a $1,950 deposit is
charged for a lot line adjustment or a reversion to acreage. Staff is
recommending that this be a $2,500 plus $100 per lot flat fee. The lot line
adjustment or reversion to acreage is typically a completely separate action and
process from other development review applications. The $2,500 plus $100 per
lot fee is sufficient to cover City and contract staff time in reviewing and
processing these applications, since it is not a deposit.
• Film Permits — Fees for film permits have been updated from the current
complex formula of fees and deposits to be flat fees reflective of actual costs
associated with film permit application review and inspections. Deposits for
additional staffing would be determined at the time of application review only for
more complex productions where additional staffing is necessary to ensure the
production does not adversely impact the community, and to provide for on-site
monitoring if determined necessary.
• Condition Compliance Inspection Fee —This fee has been eliminated, as it is not
used under the current permit processing structure. Projects that require
entitlement deposits already include additional deposits for condition compliance
inspections. Projects that only require a flat fee have time for an inspection built
in to the cost of the fee.
• Street Vendor Permits — The current fee is $65 for an applicant, with $40 per
additional permittee. The costs associated with conducting background checks
and preparing photo identification cards warrant an increase to $100 per street
vendor permit, with the same fee applying to each additional permittee.
• Massage Establishment and Massage Therapist Permit Fees — These fees are
no longer collected with 2011 amendments to Chapters 5.48 and 17.20 of the
Moorpark Municipal Code that require State licensing for massage therapists,
thereby eliminating special local massage permits. Staff will evaluate if any
S:\Community Development\ADMIN\Foes\Entitlement Deposi.Ls\Agenda Reports\cc 20150304 Amended.docx
26
Honorable City Council
March 4, 2015
Page 4
changes to permitting requirements are advisable based on recent revisions to
State law. Until then, no fee is needed.
• Rental Authorization Permit and Re-Inspection Fees — These fees are being
eliminated as the ordinance establishing the rental housing inspection program
had been rescinded.
California Government Code Section 66014 provides for cities to charge fees that do
not exceed the costs associated with processing land development zoning and use
permit applications. Sections 66016, 66018, and 6062a set forth the notification and
hearing process required prior to levying new fees or service charges, or prior to
increasing an existing fee or service charge. Section 66017 provides that certain fees
shall take effect no sooner than 60 days from the date of adoption. Notices will be
provided in accordance with those requirements, and, if adopted, updated fees would
take effect on July 1, 2015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Schedule Public Hearing for Consideration of Permit Application Review and
Processing Fee and Deposit Updates for the regular April 1, 2015 City Council meeting.
Attachment: Draft Fee and Deposit Resolution
S:\Community Development\ADMIN\Fees\Entitlement Deposits\Agenda Reports\cc 20150304 Amended.docx
27
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, UPDATING LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEES AND DEPOSITS,
FILM/PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT PROCESSING FEES AND
DEPOSITS, OPEN HOUSE DIRECTIONAL SIGN PERMIT FEES,
ABANDONED SHOPPING CART PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW
FEES, BUSINESS REGISTRATION PERMIT FEES. AND
SPECIAL BUSINESS PERMIT REVIEW FE fa AND DEPOSITS,
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 96-1006-2503, 2006-
p��
2510, 2007-2597, 2008-2733, 2008-27774:9-2790, 2012-3139,
AND 2013-3154, AND FINDING THI ,a. e EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT:. MALI T
WHEREAS, the City of Moorp- rM .rovides permit a -tion review and
processing services for land use develo,.-nt pe*j=: s, film/ °' .rah permits,
P P Y
. . iw.
abandoned shopping cart preve , on plans, b.• - - �: .istration pe _� ., and special
business permits; and i % /
WHEREAS, the City Counci s ."l..m ined th- ,:a cost of these services shall
be fully offset by fees w; h accomp ' er��-P'k ests;
� ,.
WHEREAS! -.e fe�//-'= e revie % ,- V dic.` -o , etermine if any adjustments
are necessaryto r-' actual '7cessin );4,#/ , and e
W the ': m ,. >, ssing . .lications have increased since these
fees w�;=%,:..:-���Y.;�.; an. // g
te„
�,� REAS, the ly bi ;,/rates for staff time for processing applications have
been est ,i ed by sepa z47,
-�City Pbticil resolution; and
WHER` on Marc" 2015, the City Council scheduled a public hearing for
'V-.'der April 1, 2015, to u. -s to permit application review and processing fees and
deposits; and / •
/
WHEREAS, notic.- of the April 1, 2015 public hearing has been provided as
required by Sections 6062a, 66016, and 66018 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, information on the costs required to provide the permit application
review and processing services was made available to the public as required by Section
66016 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing as required
by Sections 66016 and 66018 of the Government Code to consider updates to permit
28
Resolution No. 2015-
Page 2
application review and processing fees and deposits, took and considered oral and
written presentations both for and against the proposed fees and deposits, and reached
a decision on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the fees and deposits included in this resolution do not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as
required by Section 66014 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that the
update to deposits and fees for permit processing is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the action of the City Council does
not involve the consideration of the approval of a project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City Council concurs
with the Community Development Directors determination that the update to deposits
and fees for development processing is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that the action of the City Council does not
involve the consideration of the approval of a project.
SECTION 2. COST RECOVERY: City of Moorpark staff shall bill actual time
spent on land use applications and other items eligible for cost recovery where a
deposit is required at a real time cost accounting rate as established by City Council
resolution.
SECTION 3. COSTS FOR CONTRACT SERVICES: Contract services shall be
billed at cost, plus fifteen percent (15%), including, but not limited to, City Attorney;
geotechnical/geological services, traffic engineer services, landscape architect review
and inspection services; lighting engineer review and inspection services and planning
consultant services.
SECTION 4. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE: The Schedule of Permit
Processing Deposits and Fees is adopted as shown in Exhibit A of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. REDUCTION OF DEPOSITS FOR PROJECTS WITH MULTIPLE
PERMITS: The Community Development Director has the authority to reduce deposit
amounts up to fifty percent (50%) per entitlement application, where the project
involves multiple applications for the same project on the same property, to be
processed concurrently. The applicant retains the responsibility to pay for all costs
associated with the processing of the applications at the adopted billing rates.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shall become effective on
July 1, 2015, implementing those changes to the fees described herein immediately
29
Resolution No. 2015-
Page 3
upon the effective date set forth herein. This date is at least sixty (60) days after
adoption of this resolution as required by Section 66017 of the Government Code.
SECTION 6. Resolution Nos. 96-1214, 2006-2503, 2006-2510, 2007-2597,
2008-2733, 2008-2777, 2009-2790, 2012-3139, and 2013-3154 are hereby rescinded
upon the effective date of this Resolution.
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of April, 2015.
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Maureen Benson, City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Schedule of Development Processing Deposits and Fees
30
T -iII--I o m � x p u, 171 m 5 rri A v < =• c c) c) x X 0 0 C) 0 -+ < -I -I p N.1 NJ1 0 01 m troy 37
3 3 < o C. m do 0 t. - . - o' 0. 0 cto > c 0. y. * 3 3 3 0 c 0 o c m aro o co m D CD
m T-2 ^ 2 0 CJI cn Z m = ° a) m o o- c c o m a) 3 <' 'a <" <" v O s mI 0 °' n O
O o -- o. Nco 0C R. a) cot 19. = co. 0s. -0m of O = > 50' a c
V+
a" 3 7 CD ' , z CD N d w 5 a CO C y -0 -a j S 8 8 = = m = = n 3 - .v
ill
itiliHRw
W`� c0D co > >o ro m� > > c o 3 `� � Lufl 0.w _ o p y w 0 a =
0 0 ? V.
3 o 2:17j (--h- cos
0 3 m i< me 17 `-� N `7 CD 0 CD 3a O
` K D Q C O CD 3 n N 6) at ,. 4 to W 0 D W .'a
m m n �) cp. CD �' m vo 'CI m o M 0 o g 3 -L m -I CJt
co 7) a
%
a 0.
m a7 m c„ c cp 0. 0- "' 0 = g CA' p p a c-
Z
O 5. :a 55 co c�� Q 4. m_ c -1 r- c4 cce c�C al
p CCD Z -
co 5. (n 0 CD 0 cD 0 7 _,- .• (7) 0 o :..f. i Al =4
v,. n m 3 'w' C7c Jr 3 3 0 cn m
3 =
3 y n c> =
ac"
� a
CD
n � g .
A
d co ^ ? o_
' KaCD 2 0e :
S co
o HU $ * z
> m ) O
o
C. =
O CD n 50 m. ow 5 t� o
u c " a Gi7. .5 m =m . 1 caco '0c7 n
n m as m y 5, O 'TJ
o co c m o
o S cn
1 = • -v
r
n
0
m —1
130
cn 0 40 4A 414 40 40 SM Z
m 44 �
CD 40 CD 40 40
IN) N Cr, � C7) GS CT C) COCD CD CO D7 CD CO -. S.71 Jt CO
R. ro _ �88 5558888 g § § § § § § os § g § 8888 Eg <
--.‘ rn
o a
=• a o �° y
CD - 0 o m Z
yco" v
. 6- � co
a 0 c' o Z7 73
E c O
7 00 b
o 0. CT co ..... c-3
t.al = o
8 co
g3 3 -i -
n y ? 5 ' Z
Vi ^'0. +�
cog
j co ro rn
f=cn
N co co .V N
= o ch cn
CD0CD o s 0
-4
M
n co m 'o
CO CD o• . CD CD 0 cn
0 aa) a3 o -i
_^ co m CA
o
05 or
7� 1
- co co v O n D oan3aaob m 7 Co $ S
,b -b. -471. m o < Co c0 o co $ ac 0 3 o . e 3 " CD
SI 3 > > 3 � m �
Q - . . N ` occa Cn
Fir vo 5 . Q ` O
CD O CD m - H co cn � N-. �. .w. Q r (7 , CD c O CO p 's m C
O o a` ni C> a; m (5 3 g ps n n D to E, a - Q fl, y m a� x CD ca co 0. o v - C7 'CQ 0
ococco cBm m - - c<3 A c c fl4!' 3
? 7CDDo mm mxF'D> > a� 02
3 m y, 3 c U n o = 0 a`
g g g a c0 HLfHHhti
o .0O OWCrnTJnx) otD pc oc m j[o mCoir O O _ A2C CD Q. co � 3 c g 7:1 v
Zit = CO
* G I O St N O_ N Al O m
<, n
Q l7 cAa 5:1 ad Ncna' c g < * a Z1
CD cu 5: CD c -p e N n CO m <
cJ CO ca �' `D 3� a N CCD
CD CD = P O' Sl__..) 1 O CD „CO N (D
CD C7 CD CNA t p„ 0 o o o � 0 0.1
n.CD v. 3 o O d S N Q CD 0
0 0. socoCA � 0_ E CD _
0' 2 ' <-g CD
y oCD a> S co m0 -- CD aa. vC0�,
O 0
n m �S 0 0 0.CD w O fD C9
Z 5. cg o o m 3 Ri °—' n c
O O D (D d C/? g CD- 0. N
y C m
2 0 m c - w m o 0 n
cn c
o
CD 0, co '_ C.
8 _ N
Q' amm
-01
y O co
O * Ca• yyff y y
cp
't $'{'� p„ C — 8 CD CD CD W 44
EA fA {A tIV GO GO o (A 49 44 44 44 44 S. Wg� 44 44 49 49 b9 H cD -O c co CD CO CD
g"� `� oo og �"c� oc"5 � ZS `c oo(34 � �' 51CI � 8 W m�m 2
W
{� �� 0 0
03 g C
0 0 � c- � � gS3` o
0
a a cD '-1 °� o m o
000
S JO
C rn 74 R CD
N N 8 8
8 o � � T �.
so cn
05.
Cc CD O CA to k n . CD N CA
1 Coq O S N �, d N 0 CT CJ+
co .. 5. X Q N N a < n. o Q
fa Lv co ,.,. C" CD p, CO' 3'
O_ �cCD p ► coo �- C1, j tv 4)
W O� _C. 0O CD CO a) CSD Cr
`'C
Co . — n
0. — O_
N —
CA CD
CD '^ p _ CDD W
N ice
co0 0 ° O co (n d
g
0 _ 5.
o m n cin o o 5
H ,� 00 0 < < O_
c a CD m m `c
coo :7 18
' co CD 03 03,0.
03 CU 11)7 7 N Q 0. 4"
C1 n co
NCo
I Ca D .
CS
go
- 5. fl < = a w c-- c. -a--0 = — s-ni c n a O. c c u. c c c c c 3 CA
m a `�c m > > > >p >• m e < d c, n� o w d n� m n> so CD m CD O
CD d CD p ca `O m CO cD CO O c m O O Q
o m ... m = ,02 O 0 ro Gm =C CD = (n Cn Q CZ Op n c c 3 ,.n o> ¢ O
S- CD O m T 0m a 3 coC o 5' ro , m cn cn o o e s tip 0 0 a i 1 i
CD 0 I p Cl))I CD Cl) �` co * cn KO = = m m C) CII (77 0. E p - b O
ro a_ m m m m -�, v °> w to to m v, C CD m o , = a` < Z
I." rn C p m Er, j y <a C m ._ R1 m O q o �. p m > > a m a -0 < a' O
m' �t cO 3 ' I S ro `` r"' cgb
o n> co cD .. ro o m
rn U c p cn 3 = O i Yn y C ca 0 N
x w• m N p ? c)
n D =' co o N 0 n co 3 3 c* (n o 3 = 03 -o Ui
Hi !
a. 0 ? 0 'O :� �zcpp1 cD O cnCO i N "L7 `K +t
Ch `
0 .:::CL ce) d trill 5 2) a> n—> --* o. Cfl
T a CT7 _� CD CD �` o C-- CD
co 7 V 7 Ci) c O T� �7 C)
c a 0 _ o = fD Cti ? cG
ten a m 0.
Z w 0 c ca g <
co 5
s• o O O aS
N yQ
co +c O ^ N
CT
C = -CI c d
M ro
Cr* = CO C—p N m
Q [n
N CCD �� N _.
a
coN
ch
Cl) i C.41
(31 49 49
01 C)
N N 4" N 44 fA 44 � 4" 44 69 Hi fA 44 O
44 O CZ O p N N fpV pN 40 4A to 0. pC �Aaq p cA W W G a
O 8 8' S 8 8_ O N (31 C.T 8 01 t7 8 O tl O O 01 O O `r03 <C
CA CDc)7 - '0 -0 -0 CB "a m w 0) vrn 0 -g p n> v > > >
CD CD co co CD mCL
o mmmmO Sg coo
o 9gDS'I aaO - . -
N ? p p
CO CD CD aCo
D
rri a 0 m � � � y � w m �. � �
ta
= CD — . W o v SD v
ti '� �' co ^O O co –1 0 0 0
2 u,
CD b CO 0 ['7
' O. a -0 3 W
0 " 0 -* O cD croro cpp
— O CO O ` C co cD C C
O
N 2 Cp `{� d"5, cu W 03
co
�" c a a o> et) co v. CD �, a.
A c C7 0 CD 0 Cl. o �' m o> n>
' 2 o v ,` c 0. 0. 0.
co
-c)o - o CD >0. > `i cD 0. a- a
o o D co
- 3 CD C c o 0 0
co
--I co _ . row _ v m m
5 _ CA U> m
3 .< -0 O N
FIT CD (n � N n O N N N
-O '�. O ... CU
EL m _
co d -w (D O_ cJ1 4f (Ji
61
gmm c=e 8 �
n .0 o m -, 7.7t!
0 ..:-<-
....c
ycp
.a 6-,- -O c o =.
ans' yrn
V