HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 AB 266 REPORT 04-04-05
A G END A REPORT
Agenda Item 5
Reviewed: ~
City Manager
Finance Director ~
MEETING DATE:
APRIL 4, 2005
TO:
FROM:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
LEGISLATIVE REPORT - AB 266
SUMMARY
Formalize the City Council's opposition to Assembly Bill 266, which would limit
application fees for large family day care homes and require local governments to grant
or deny a large family day care permit within four (4) weeks of receiving the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council take a position opposing Assembly Bill 266 (DeVore).
FISCAL IMPACT:
If Assembly Bill 266 passes, there would be no fiscal impact to the City of Tustin
because the City currently waives conditional use permit fees for large family day care
homes.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In part, Assembly Bill 266 would amend the State Health and Safety Code in the
following ways:
. It would prohibit application fees for large family day care homes from exceeding
the costs of the review and permit process or $100, whichever is less; and,
. It would require local governments to grant or deny a permit within four (4) weeks
of receiving the application.
Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 90-35, Tustin day nurseries and nursery
schools are exempted from conditional use permit fees. As noted in the staff report for
Resolution No. 90-35, there are no fees associated with the processing of applications
for large family day care homes in Tustin. Copies of the resolution and staff report are
attached for reference.
City Council Report
AB 266 Opposition
April 4, 2005
Page 2
After an application is deemed complete, the processing of a large family day care
home application takes approximately 30 days. No hearing is required and the
application can be approved administratively within the timeframe of four (4) weeks
identified in AB 266. However, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9223(a)(6)(e), and
State Law, a hearing is required if requested by the applicant, an owner within 100 feet
of the proposed day care home, or other affected person. If a hearing date must be set
and related noticing provided, the processing time generally extends to about 50 days to
provide the legal notices.
Staff has identified the following concern regarding AB 266:
. The requirement that an application be granted or denied within four weeks of
receiving the application is unreasonable if the application is deemed incomplete
or if a hearing is requested. A minimum of four weeks is needed from the date
the application is deemed complete, and a minimum of seven weeks is needed if
a hearing is requested because of the additional time needed to provide the
legally required notice for the hearing.
Staff has drafted the attached letter should the Council wish to transmit a letter of
opposition to Assembly Member Chuck DeVore. Also attached for reference is a letter
from the California League of Cities to Assembly Member DeVore.
~
~cott Reekstin
/) Senior Planner
Attachments: A.
B.
C.
D.
f!¿hIuL ~
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Resolution 90-35
Staff Report for Resolution 90-35
Draft Letter to Assembly Member Chuck DeVore
League of California Cities Letter
S:\Cdd\LegislatIAB 266 Oppos~ion.doc
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION 90-35
. .
1
2
3
4
5
RESOLUTION NO. 90-35
6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA MODIFYING THE CITY'S PLANNING FEES TO EXEMPT
DAY NURSERIES/NURSERY SCHOOLS FROM PAYMENT OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FEES
7 The city Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
8 section 1. Resolution No. 87-27 establishing Planning Related Fees
9 and Service Charges attached as Exhibit A is modified to exempt Day
Nurseries/Nursery Schools from Conditional Use Permit fees.
10 .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council
11 on the 20th day of February, 1990.
12
13
14
15
16
:: ~.~n[' .lJÓ~
city Clerk
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
- 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,'"
1
2
RESOLUTION NO. 87-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN; CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING PLANNING
RELATED FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES
3
4
5
6
The City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as
follows:
7
Sect'ion 1. Planning Fees and Service Charges' are hereby established as
shown in Exhibit A and supersede any existing fee and shall be applied
uniformly except,where, in the discretion of the City Manager, reduced fees
are justified by special circumstances.
8
9
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, held on the 2nd day of March, 1987.
C.
'I '
,
l.
I .
( ./,:
, .
RICHARD B. EDGAR
Mayor
Attest:
~~ e.owr-
MARY E. Wið'
City Cler
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT B
STAFF REPORT FOR RESOLUTION 90-35
NEW BUSINESS NO.2
2-20-90
¡,J
Inter - Com
TO:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
'ADOPTED RESOLUTION 4
9{)- 35'
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WAIVER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FEES FOR NURSERIES OR
NURSERY SCHOOL (CHILD CARE CENTERS)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 90-
35 exempting Day Nurseries or Nursery Schools from a Conditional
Use Permit Fee.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of February 5, 1990 Councilman Prescott requested
that staff investigate the feasibility of waiving conditional use
permit fees associated with child care centers. Mayor Edgar also
directed staff to investigate ways for the City to be aggressive
in attracting child care operators to the City.
ANALYSIS
The Municipal Code addresses three types of Child Care centers:
day care homes for children, large family day care homes and day
nurseries or nursery schools.
Day care homes for children (Family Day Care) are regulated by the
state which allow the use of a single family residence as a small
family day care home. A small family day care home allöws six or
fewer children. Due to state law and Municipal Code provisions
the City cannot and does not regulate these uses. There is no
permit fee or business license fee associated with these uses.
This use is allowed in the R-1 Single Family District.
LarGe Family Care Homes address the caring for seven to twelve
children. Both State law and the Municipal Code outline parameters
for large family day èare facilities. The Municipal Code allows
for Large Family Day Care homes in the R-l Single Family District
subject to a set of minimum regulations authorized by State law.
If minimum standards can be met and there is no protest after
noticing of the proposed use, the city must approve the use and has
no discretion to deny the use.
There are no fees associated with the large family care home
applications. The processing of these applications takes
approximately 30 days providing there is no protest and
City council Report
Day Care Fee Exemption
February 20, 1990
Page 2
consequently no Planning commission hearing. If a protest were
filed the processing time (including the Planning commission
hearing) would be approximately 45 days.
Dav Nurseries or Nurserv Schools are subject to a Conditional Use
Permit in any district in which they are allowed. Day Nursery
Schools are commercial in nature and are reviewed as such.
Development standards for nursery schools vary dependent upon which
zoning district they are located. All facilities must however
conform to assembly requirements 'of the Unified Building Code and
the state Department of Social Welfare.
If there are no outstanding issues associated with a nursery school
request the processing of the Conditional Use Permit would take
approximately six to eight weeks. The permit fee for a minor
Conditional Use Permit is $525 which covers the staff time
associated with processing a standard nursery school request.
Given the need for day care and nursery school facilities within
the community, the Council could exempt nursery schools from the
application fee of $525 providing an incentive for additional day
care and nursery school facilities to locate in the community.
The exemption does require amendment of the city's existing fee
schedule (an amendment is attached).
The Community' Development Department will also continue to work
with the community services Department and the Parks and Recreation
commission in investigating other availa~le incentives for
provisions of child care facilities.
-ð.v4lÅAi\ / Jdr
Susan Tebo
Senior Planner
~~$"~etH~
Director of community Development
SKT:pef
Attachments:
Resolution No. 90-35
Exhibit A
Community Development Department
./
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT LETTER TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHUCK DeVORE
April 4, 2005
Assembly Member Chuck DeVore
State Capitol, Room 4102
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT:
AB 266 - FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
Dear Assembly Member DeVore:
On behalf of the City of Tustin, I wish to express
266. This measure would limit application fees
and require local governments to grant or deny
within four (4) weeks of receiving the application,
The City of Tustin is not specifically opposed to the . In fact, in
1990, the Tustin City Council adopted a r ' n that ex day nurseries,
nursery schools, and large family day 'the payment of
conditional use permit fees, However, s a local issue,
ent that a decision on an
ks of the application, because it
appli is deemed incomplete or if a
four weeks is needed from the date the
um of seven weeks is needed if a
onal time needed to provide the legally
The City of Tustin is opposed t
application be made within fo
is an unreasonable require
hearing is req
application'
hearing
require
Aft complete, the processing of a large family day
care home roximately 30 days, No hearing is required and
the applicat ed administratively within the timeframe of four (4)
weeks identifi 6. However, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section
9223(a)(6)(e), a Law, a hearing is required if requested by the applicant,
an owner within feet of the proposed day care home, or other affected
person. If a he ring date must be set and related noticing provided, the
processing time generally extends to about 50 days to provide the legal notices,
For these reasons, we oppose AB 266 as currently written, If you have any
questions, please contact me or Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development
Director, at (714) 573-3031,
Sincerely,
Lou Bone
Mayor
cc:
Assembly Local Government Committee
O,C, Division League of California Cities
S,\CDD\scott\legisla1\AB 266 Day Care Homes Posmon Letter,.oc
bee:
William A. Huston
Lois Jeffrey
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Scott Reekstin
ATTACHMENT D
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LETTER
LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400. Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916,658,8200 Fax: 916,658,8240
www,cacities,org
March 22,2005
Assembly Member Chuck DeVore
State Capitol, Room 4102
Sacramento CA 95814
RE:
AB 266 (deVore), Family Day Care Homes
NOTICE OF LEAGUE OPPOSITION
Dear Assembly Member DeVore:
On behalf of the League of California Cities, I regret to inform you that the League must
respectfully oppose AB 266, This measure would limit the amount of fees to $100 a city or
county could charge to issue a conditional use permit (CUP) for a large family day care home.
Based upon conversations with you and your office, we understand and appreciate your concerns
about potential costs to family day care operators to secure permits from a city or county.
However, after researching the subject, we have concluded that the fees charged are not designed
to "single out" and discriminate against family day care providers. Rather, they are consistent
with the authority of local governments to charge fees for conditional use permits, and are
consistent with fees charged to other non-day care providers that apply for CUPs.
The practice of requiring an upfront deposit with the submission of an application for a CUP is
common throughout cities and counties, The applicant is then charged the hourly billing rate for
planning/permitting services and refunded the balance of the deposit after staff's time is covered.
In some instances, including those for family day care homes, a public hearing is held, and this is
factored into the amount of total fees ultimately charged. Public hearings are held generally at
the request of neighbors to a project.
For many cities, especially small cities with small planning departments, it is important to use this
"deposit-approach" in order to ensure that the city is compensated for stafftime, especially if an
applicant subsequently decides not to pursue the permit. Without this approach, the city's general
fund would be required to cover these costs,
Thus, we must oppose AB 266 and the $100 cap on the fee. This amount would not even begin to
cover the cost of permits, even in those cities that charge less than the deposit-based fee. Rather
than pursue AB 266. we would encourage you to meet with those cities in which you believe the
fees charged are excessive to explore alternative approaches,
For these reasons, the League must oppose AB 266. We are happy to meet with you to discuss
the basis of our opposition,
Sincerely,
w~~
Yvonne Hunter
Legislative Representative
Cc: Members and Consultant, Assembly Local Government Committee