HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 03/25/2002March 25, 2002
~p,LU~
a ^ ~ City ®f Petaluyna, Calif®rnia
City Council IVieeting
Ig5$
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 25, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
Special Meeting
Vol. 37, Page 309
Petaluma Community Center
320 North McDowell Boulevard
Petaluma, CA 94954
PRESENT: Cader-Thompson, Vice Mayor Healy, Maguire, Moynihan, Torliatt
ABSENT: O'Brien, Mayor Thompson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At the request of Vice Mayor Healy, Jim Carr, Parks and Recreation Director, led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Terrence Garvey, Petaluma, spoke regarding the importance of land use planning in
making possible an economical light-rail/bus system in Petaluma.
Diane Reilly-Torres, Petaluma, Speeding is the number one cause of collisions in
Petaluma.
Stan Gold, Petaluma, need to make information regarding agenda items available to
the public. He referred specifically to an item on the March 26, 2002 Planning
Commission agenda concerning the Petaluma Villages Factory Outlet Mall.
COUNCIL COMMENT
Councilmember Torliatt:
~:• Received several a-mails about the noticing issue, .particularly regarding
Factory Outlet EIR. Residents within 500 feet of the property were mailed
notices of the meeting. It is important that all members of the community
who would potentially be affected by the project be adequately noticed.
Vol. 37, Page 310 March 25, 2002
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Councilmember Cader-Thompson:
• Attended a League of California Cities North. Bay Executive meeting and
discussed Assembly Bill 680, the VLF discussion. The League would like
to bring those discussions back to all the City Councils so that cities can
work more closely together to lobby Sacramento on this and other
matters.
• Would like Council to participate in Legislative Action Days in Sacramento,
May 15-16.
• Referred to Senator Tom Torlakson's SB 1.243, which would direct MTC and
ABAG to study the feasibility of merging the two regional agencies and to
report back to the Legislature by January 1, 2004. She did not think such a
merger would be good for cities.
• Announced that the League of California Cities would not be placing a
measure on the November 2002 ballot regarding guarantee of local revenues.
Vice Mayor Healy:
• Attended Joe Nation's Sidewalk Hours on Friday and got clarification from
him regarding enabling legislation for apportioning sales tax. The measure
was not introduced by the deadline in this session. It will not be possible for
Petaluma to place a sales tax measure on the November 2002 ballot.
COST OF SERVICES STUDY
BUDGET WORKSHOP
Councilmember Moynihan:
• Council should ask themselves the following three questions when going
through. this study.
• Can we reduce or eliminate this public service?
• Can we reduce the cost of the service?
• Can we increase the fee to recover the cost of the service?
Councilmember Maguire:
• Explained what he would be looking for in the report:
• Is the service needed?
• What is driving the service? Legislation., health and safety needs,
demand by the public?
• Those services with significant subsidies by the general taxpayer, and
what recommendations staff has for improving the situation.
March 25, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 311
1 Community Development Department
2
3 Community Development Director Mike Moore -most of the application procedures
4 that are in place require subsidy. Application fees that the public is paying need to
5 increase in all categories. State law or local ordinance requires most all of these
6 fees.
7
8 VM Healy asked about Building Plan Check and Building Inspection, the Profit
9 (Subsidy) figures for both, and the recommendation for 100% cost recovery for
10 both.
11
12 Mr. Moore -the Building Plan Check fee is determined Uniform Building Code
13 (UBC). The City fee, known as the Building Incremental Fee, has been in place
14 since the 1980's, and is not based on the cost of the service. Because of this, the
15 City has collected a lot more than the actual cost of the service. Prop 4 allows cities
16 two years after collection of "excess revenue" to address the discrepancy. Staff is
17 continuing to work on the matter.
18
19 In order to get 100% cost recovery, the Building Plan Check and .Inspection
20 Services need to be looked at together to address why the Plan Check under and
21 Inspection is over. Staff will come back with specific information.
22
23 Councilmember Moynihan thought that the City should balance the Building
24 Incremental fee with charges in other areas to effectively charge for the total cost of
25 services provided.
26
27 Mr. Moore -individual permits are costed out according to what they actually cost.
28 Because of legal requirements of setting these fees -they have to be based on
29 actual cost of service -cannot take the overage in one and.. apply it to the subsidy in
30 another area. You have to deal with each one in its own context.
31
32 Councilmember Moynihan -need to look at ways to reduce costs of the services.
33 Could the services be pared down, man-hours reduced?
34
35 Mr. Moore -this was looked at. -recommendations in the report are staff's best
36 estimate of actual cost of providing the services.
37
38 Councilmember Moynihan -look at reducing the number of inspections for each
39 application.
40
41 Mr. Moore - if an inspection isn't necessary once isn't done. State law and local
42 ordinance dictate the level of service in many cases. Council to discuss where
43 there might be some changes in policy where the City might be able to forego that
44 service altogether.
45
46 Vice Mayor Healy -What is difference between Major and Minor Use Permit?
Vol. 37, Page 312 March 25, 2002
1
2 Mr. Moore -Determined by zoning ordinance. Minor use permit does not require a
3 hearing before the Planning Commission.
4
5 Councilmember Moynihan - if we had better defined permitted principal uses, could we
6 eliminate the need for a conditional use permit?
7
8 Mr. Moore - It is an option to consider -there are certain types of applications that
9 Council may decide we don't need to do anymore.
10
11 Councilmember Torliatt - Is there a mechanism in place to track how much time is
12 spent on an application? Some cost more than others.
13
14 Councilmember Maguire -Could we bill at an hourly rate for everything?
15
16 Mr. Moore -Development Appeal (A-72) example. To recover 100% of cost, fee would
17 have to be $3,615. This would discourage many people from appealing. Tracking is not
18 done as thoroughly as it would have to be if we were trying to recover 100% of costs.
19 This study calls for a change in the way we track staff's time and account for it, so that
20 people are actually being charged for the cost of what we're doing. This study provides
21 the framework and methodology for establishing a fee structure that does get us 100%
22 recovery on a lot of these applications. It also raises policy questions for the council
23 regarding the kinds of applications that you want to charge for -and some you might
24 just want to get rid of - or a. policy question from a standpoint of we're willing to
25 subsidize this because it's important - an appeal fee, for example. You may still want to
26 charge $160 or $170 -but it's far lower than what it actually costs to process an appeal.
27 Councilmember Torliatt -would like to see staff to look into implementing a tracking
28 system for actual time spent on an application.
29
30 Mr. Moore -Staff would like to move in that direction -very beneficial in terms of being
31 able to maintain staffing levels and provide appropriate response to application.
32
33 Councilmember Cader-Thompson - An Appeal from a citizen should be looked at
34 differently from a developer. In some instances the developer should pay a higher price.
35
36 Councilmember Moynihan -Would like to eliminate some of the Use Permits and make
37 clearer definitions within our existing zoning as to what's permitted as principal uses.
38 Charging higher fees could stop a lot of projects, and drive businesses out of town.
39
40 Mr. Moore -Council could redefine the difference between a major and a minor use
41 permit, make everything a minor use permit in the sense that there's no hearing
42
March 25, 2002 Vol. 37, Page 313
1 before the Planning Commission. Staff could come back to Council with a list of where
2 those changes might occur.
3
4 Councilmember Torliatt -Council could reduce the fee for an Appeal. She would
5 like to have feedback from developers and the general public on Conditional Use
6 Permits.
7
8 Councilmember Maguire - (Pg. A-24) Final Parcel Map - $1,480 is low considering
9 the number of potential ordinances and conditions.
10
11 Moore -The final map is the actual document that gets signed and recorded and
12 subdivides the property. The parcel map applies to projects of four lots or less; final
13 subdivision map is five or more lots. Much of the work is done through the tentative
14 map process. Staff is familiar with the conditions because they've been through
15 whatever approval process is necessary and this is really a re-check before
16 anything is finalized.
17
18 Councilmember Torliatt -Would like to see cost recovery enforcement of conditions
19 of approval.
20
21 Councilmember Maguire - Is that listed as a specific service on page 40?
22
23 Mr. Moore -It's not directly related to an application. It is a service that we can
24 provide. This is an issue where this study becomes valuable because it lays the
25 groundwork for recovering costs in other areas, not necessarily associated with
26 processing applications. For example, if we were going to have a true code
27 enforcement effort, which we don't have now, we should be able to set up a
28 structure that does the same kinds of calculations that you see on other things that
29 are related to actual time spent and other departments that may be involved, and
30 then the ability to charge those costs back. We are able to do that in some.
31 instances where there's a nuisance abatement procedure and the City Council finds
32 that a particular use is a nuisance and then you can collect costs associated with
33 that.
34
35 Councilmember Torliatt -Are we receiving money back from a developer where we
36 have approved these conditions and a staff person is spending time to make sure
37 everything is processed properly?
38
39 Mr. Moore - A lot of those costs are recovered through various procedures, for
40 example, public improvement plan check. That's where we check and make sure
41 that the storm drain lines are in the right. place, the sewer and water line
42 connections are designed properly, etc. The actual inspection services -building
43 inspection -public works inspection. That part of cost recovery is covered in this
44 document, in various places. The code enforcement part is not covered in this
45 document.
46
Vol. 37, Page 314 March 25, 2002
1 George White -part of cost is spread through the permitting process, building permits,
2 public improvements, etc. Some of that is lost and not recovered. Some of it is
3 recovered through the permitting process itself. There is a lack of funds available for
4 monitoring programs at staff level
5
6 VM Healy -would like to see a fixed flat fee for applicants or neighbors who are
7 appealing. Set the fee low enough not to drive people away. "Council Discretion" would
8 mean we'd spend half our time arguing about what the appeal fee should be.
9
10 Councilmember Cader-Thompson -Disagrees. Developers not accepting the conditions
11 that the Planning Commission or SPARC have put on a project. $3600 would deter
12 somebody from not going through one more Planning hearing or one more SPARC
13 appeal. Council could have the discretion when it comes to an individual appeal.
14
15 Mr. Moore -Come back to Council for discussion on General Plan Maintenance.
16 Charge a fee to accumulate revenue for the purpose of revising the General Plan in the
1 7 future.
18
19 Councilmember Maguire -does not want to charge $2,900 fora Heritage Tree
20 Designation. The smaller the fee the better - to preserve and protect as many trees in
21 the community as we can.
22
23 VM Healy -staff and Tree Advisory Committee to weigh in on what's a simplified way of
24 doing this?
25
26 Councilmember Moynihan - Is there an easier way to process a Lot Line Adjustment? -
27 Why does it cost $1,700 to process?
28
29 Mr. Moore -This type of application is required by state law - or at least the .purpose of
30 it is established by state law. Administrative procedure -It's the time it takes and cost
31 associated with processing.
32
33 VM Healy -Site Plan & Architectural Review -Minor/Major -this is the process that the
34 two historic districts are subject to.
35
36 Mr. Moore -Distinction the same as use permit -minor is administrative review, Major
37 requires a hearing before SPARC.
38
39 Page 80 -Public Improvement P.C. & Insp. Clarify the footnote better.
40
41 Page A-92 -Tree Removal -Streamline process
42
43 Brian Heim spoke .regarding the proposed fees. Streamline Ordinances. Opposed to
44 increase in Appeal fee.
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
March 25, 2002
POLICE
Vol. 37, Page 315
Booking Fee part of the core process. It is uncertain whether the State will continue to
subsidize the cost in Booking Fees.
Special Event - Major Proposal to bill for the review of the permit. If there are police
services involved or public facilities, there should be a mechanism to recover those
costs.
Councilmember Torliatt - special services should come out of TOT fund and
reimburse those city services that are used.
Alarm Monitoring - Penalize repeat offenders. Consider alarm response to Schools.
Change 100% recovery to 9.88%. Consider charging on 3~d alarm response instead
of 4tn
Crossing Guard Service - One school district involved. Subsidized at $25,000 per
year.
Accident Reports -Collect from insurance companies -Omit the service. Bring back
more information.
ADJOURN
Meeting Adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
E. Clark Thompson, Mayor
ATTEST:
~~~~~ ~
Paulette Lyon, Interim City lerk
******