Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0826 CC ADJ ITEM 09E DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGF. 5 2. Public Testimony -During the course of the public 3. hearing, the Board shall receive testimony concerning the Planning Commission's tentative point rating of the projects in relationship to the evaluation system contained in Section 9. Any applicant may request the Board, at said public hearing, to re-evaluate the point assignment made on any or all of the criterion. The primary criteria for the Board to alter its point assignment on a particular development is demonstration by the application that there exists pertinent information or project redesign which the Board was not aware of at the time of the original evaluation. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the Board's reevaluation may submit written notification of such dissent, which will be furnished to the City Council prior to the awarding of Development Allotments. Recommended Point Rating and Ranking -After closing the public testimony portion of the hearing, the Board shall consider the Planning Commission's tentative point rating, the public testimony and the evaluation system contained in Section 9 to establish the recommended point rating and ranking by subsection of Section 9 for each application. (i) The Board shall establish the Recommended Point Rating by totaling the points that each application has been awarded. (ii) The Board shall rank in order these applications by dividing the Recommended Point Rating by the total available points as indicated in the evaluation system to produce a percentage score. The highest percentage scoring application shall be ranked first with subsequent decreasing percentage applications ranked in descending order. scoring In the case of tie percentage scores, the project with the most absolute points shall have priority ranking. If the ranking is still tied, the Board shall re-examine the tied projects and recommend one above the other. C. 4. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 6 Board Recommendation to the City Council -The Board shall forward its recommended point rating and the ranking of each application to the City Council not later than September 31st. The Board will not cause any application to be forwarded to the City Council which does not receive at least forty-nine percent (49%) 0f the available absolute points in Section 9. A. (Availability of Public Facilities and Services) and at least seventy percent of the available absolute points in Section 9.B.(Quality of Design and Contribution of Public Welfare and Amenity), except by written request from the applicant within three (3) days from the Board's decision. City Council Permit Allotment 1. Public Hearing -The City Council shall hold a public hearing upon receipt of the recommendation of the Board. The hearing shall be held not later than the month of 2. October for applications filed in June. Notice of the hearing shall be given in the same manner as provided in Section 7(b) (1). Public Testimony During the course of the public hearing the Council shall receive public testimony and shall consider the recommended point rating and ranking of each application forwarded from the Board and may re-evaluate any application for reassignment of point ratings and ranking. 3. Allotment Awards -The Council shall establish a single point rating and ranking of all applications. The City Council shall eliminate from consideration any development which has not been assigned a minimum of forty-nine percentage ( 49%) points under Section 9. A. herein, or a minimum of seventy percentage ( 70%) points under Section 9.B. The Council shall then award the Development Allotment from the list. SECTION 8. 4. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 7 ( i) The award of a Development Allotment for a project shall be recorded by the applicant prior to the issuance of a residential building permit. Development Allotments shall not be transferred to another project or property or be used in conjunction with any Major Modification of the project. (ii) If a project does not receive a Development Allotment the applicant may re-apply during the next available filing period. Allotments application If in a given year the highest ranking does not at least meet both ot' the minimum point requirements of Section 7(C)(3), the City Council shall make no permit allotment for that year. The number of units will then be added to the next annual allocation,, as the only allowed exception to the ten percent (10%) rule of Section 12. LIFE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ALLOTMENT Should a developer fail to commence actual construction by placement of an approved foundation within twenty-four (24) months after award of the Residential Building Permit Allotment, the City Council, after a public hearing notice pursuant to Government Code 65090, may by majority vote rescind all or part of the Permit Allotment and may re-assign the permit allotment to another project that received an allocation in the same period. SECTION 9. EVALUATION SYSTEM URAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGF. 8 The following point evaluation system shall be used to evalmite all applications for a development allotment. The rating of a p_s_oject proposal within an~proved Planned Community Zone shall include an evaluation of both the overall approved Planned Community and the Planned Development projech A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services Sixty-seven total points are awardable, plus ten points or more under (a. 7), if applicable. l. Water Service Efficiency and Impact Points shall be awarded in accordance with Part (i) below. Points shall also be awarded in accordance with Part (ii) below. No application shall score more than a combined total of ten (10) points. (i) Water Supply Impact Points Standard 10 The entire project can meet domestic and fire flows without further transmission pipeline, pumping station, or storage tank improvements which involve capital contributions by the water purveyer. 8 The project consists of less than twenty (20) dwelling units in an existing pressure zone that has insufficient storage available, but has sufficient fire and day-to-day operating storage. 6 The project consists of less than one hundred ( 100) but at least twenty (20) dwelling units in an existing pressure zone that has insufficient storage available, but has sufficient fire and day-to-day operating storage. 4 2 DRAFf NO. ,_. August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGF. 9 The project consists of one hundred ( 100) dwelling units or more in an existing pressure zone that has insufficient storage but provides addi U onal storage or pumping facilities which will not capital contributions by the water purveyor. involve The entire project cannot be served hydraulically by an existing pressure zone system. 0 All other projects. (ii) Community Improvements Points Standard 5 The project will provide needed system improvements, as determined by the City, beyond those needed to satisfy the domestic and fire flow requirements of the project. To qualify, the improvements must be judged by the water purveyor as being of substantial benefit outside project boundaries and must not require direct financial participation by the water purveyor. 2. Wastewater Service Impact Points shall be awarded in Accordance with part (i) below. Points shall also be awarded in accordance with part (ii) below. No application shall score more than a combined total of ten (10) points. ( i) DRAFT NO. 4 __August .11. 1987 Wastewater Capacity llll()ac~ c:=-:--lQ_= s6 = o 1 --~j) nlllr"1u-(- Points Standard -~ 10 Wastewater service can be provided to the project without plant or existing system improvements which involve capital contributions by the waterworks 8 6 4 2 0 purveyg_i;:_'.._ Treatment plant capacity exists but the project requires on-site sewer line improvements. Treatment plant capacity exists but the project requires off-site sewer line improvements. Treatment plant capacity does not exist, or project proposes to use wastewater lift station units, or project req11i.res existing trunkline improvements. Any combination of two or more of the impacts identified in the 4 point criteria above. All other projects. (ii) Community Improvements Points 5 Standard The project will provide needed system improvements, as determined by the City, beyond those needed to satisfy the domestic requirements of the project. To qualify, the improvements must be judged by the wastewater purveyor as being of substantial benefit outside project boundaries and must not require direct financial participation by the wastewater purveyor. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 11 3. Storm Water Drainage Facilities No application shall score more than a combined total of ten (10) points. Points Standard 10 7 Storm water can be handled without further sub-surface storm drain improvements outside project boundaries and does not result in increased peak runoff in a 10 year frequency storm outside project boundaries Storm water can be handled without further subsurface storm drain improvements outside project boundaries. 3 Storm water can be handled, but will require off-site subsurface storm drain improvements. 0 All other projects. 4. Fire Protection DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 12 Points shall be awarded in accordance with Part (i) below. Points shall also be deducted from the Part (i) score in accordance with Part ( ii) below. No application shall score more than a combined total of ten (10) points. (i) Fire Protection Points Standard 10 Project provides a new fire station or provides major equipment or major equipment housing at no financial participation by the Fire District. 10 Fifty percent (50%) or more of proposed dwelling units are within one (1) mile driving distance of an existing or contractually committed fire station. 7 Fifty percent (50%) or more of proposed dwelling units are within two (2) miles driving distance of an existing or contractually committed fire station. 3 Fifty percent (50%) or more of proposed dwelling units are within three (3) miles driving distance of an existing or contractually committed fire station. 0 All other projects. 5. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGF. 13 ( ii) Fire Station and Equipment Adequa_c_y Two (2) points shall be deducted from the project's Part ( i) score if the Fire District has determined that the project will require the construction of a new fire station, or the addition of major equipment housing facilities to an existing fire station which causes financial participation by the Fire District. School Impact Points shall be awarded in accordance with Part (i) below. Points shall also be awarded in accordance with Part (ii) below. No application shall score more than a combined total of ten (10) points. School impact shall be measured from operating under construction, State funded or closed existing facilities for purposes of determining scoring. (i) Availability of School Capacity Points Standard 10 The project consists of one hundred ( 100%) senior citizen housing as defined in Civil Code Section 51. 3. 8 The appropriate school has the capacity to absorb the children expected to inhabit the project without necessitating or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding at the elementary, intermediate and high school, as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 14 6 The appropriate school has the capacity to absorb the children expected to inhabit the project without necessitating or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding at any two of the three levels, as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District. 4 The appropriate school has the capacity to absorb the children expected to inhabit the project without necessitating or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding at any one level, as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District. 1 The estimated school impact of the project can be accommodated only if mitigation measures are required and provided at one or more levels, as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District. Requires no financial participation by the School District. 0 All other projects. (ii) Community Improvements Points 5 Standard The proiect will provide needed school district improvements I as determined by the Moorpark Unified School District beyond those needed to satisfy the City and State requirements for the project. To qualify, the improvements must be judged by the School District as being of substantial benefit beyond those provided through required fees and must not require Direct financial participation by the School District. 6. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 15 8ne---fi ➔---point---for---eaeh---ie~ei---fetementary---and intermediate-on±y ➔-for-whieh-at-½ea~t-fifty-pereent-t58~➔ of-the-pttpH~-Mtimated-to-inhabit-in-the-projeet-wott±d not--reqttire--btt~ing--to--the--~ehooi--of--attendanee,--a~ determined--by--the--appiieabie--poiiey--of--the--Hoorpark Bnified-Sehooi-Bi~triet. Street Traffic Impact The maximum number of points awardable in Part (i) shall be eight (8), Part (ii) maximum shall be four (4), and Part (iii) maximum shall be five (5). No application shall be awarded more than a combined total of ten (10) points. (i) Major Street Intersection Impact Point 8 7 5 3 0 Points shall be based on projected peak-hour level of service at the two major street intersections closest to the boundaries of the project. The Department of Pub 1 ic Works shall select the two intersections. The lowest level of service of the two intersections for a.m. or p.m. peak-hour cumulative traffic volumes determine the number of points awarded. Level of Service A B C D E or F shall be used to DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGF. 16 ( ii) fre~_!v_/:!.Y Interchange Impact Points Points shall be based on projected peak-hour levels of service at the ramp intersections of State Route 118 or 23 freeways on the most probable route of travel between the project and the freeways, as determined by the Department of Public Works. The ramp intersection shall be selected by the Departm~nt of Public Works. Projected cumulative traffic volumes and levels of service shall be used. The lowest level of service for a.m. or p.m. peak-hour cumulative traffic volumes of the ramp intersections of the selected freeway shall be used to determine the number of points awarded. Level of Service --·--- 4 A or B 2 C 1 D 0 E or F (iii) Comll!_gnity_Improvement Points 5 2 Standard ------ Project provides for the construction of a connection street link in the system of streets listed in the Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element. Project provides for the construction of a portion of the length of a connecting link; or the project provides the widening of an off-site, existing street listed in the Moorpark General Plan Circulation Element. 0 All other projects. B. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 17 7. Tentative Tract Map Points Standard 10 points per yr. Tentative tract map for the project was approved by the City prior to November 4, 1986 but after 1984. Quality of Design and Contribution of Public Welfare and Amenity One hundred and fifteen (115) total points are awardable. 1. !)esi_gn Quality -Buildings No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. The exterior appearance of the project should relate with the existing character or theme of the area, enhance the surrounding vicinity, be compatible with all adjacent land USPS, and maintain a high quality and standard of development. to be considered are as follows: Standards Exterior materials -The building materials of a project are durable, have low maintenance, are the same or higher than the quality of surrounding developments, and do not adversely impact adjacent land uses. Relief -To avoid monotonous elevations, architectural relief is used in the design to provide interest and variety. Details that create shade and cast shadows are used to provide visual relief to the building. Detailing -Detailing is used as a method of illustrating the theme or character of a building and to add interest to the project. Height -The scale of the project does not overwhelm any adjacent buildings. Through changing the roof line and varying the height, the perceived height of a project is reduced. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 18 Mechanical equipment screening -All equipment is screened from view with material of the same architectural design as the project. The screening method does not have a tacked on appearance and is an integral part of the elevations. Window and door placement -Visibility into adjacent areas is minimized by the window and door locations. The patterns created by the window and door placement help add variety and interest to the design. Compatibility -The project is designed to enhance, harmonize, and be appropriate with the adjacent land uses. Points Standard 6-10 The project architecture represents ex~ellent design in terms of all the above standards 1-5 The project meets a majority of the above standards. 0 All other projects. 2. Open Space and Landscaping No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. The project should incorporate plant materials that absorb sound, act as a filter to the air, curtail erosion, provide shade, and maintain privacy. follows: Standards to be considered are as Landscape buffer -Landscaped areas are provided to minimize the impacts of the project and maintain a gradual transition internally between uses and externally with the adjacent land uses and secur~ a compatible relationship among the uses. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 19 Amount of landscaping. -The quantity, size and type of plant materials corresponds with the land uses proposed, taking into account the intensity of adjacent land uses. Foundation planting -Where building foundations are visible from the public street or from adjacent uses, foundation landscaping is used. This landscaping compliments the building elevations, connects the building to the site, and increases privacy. Drainage -Storm water retention areas do not detract from the quality of the landscape design. Within retention areas, the plant material is compatible with the use. Large areas for retention are designed to eliminate small unusable areas. Maintenance The landscape design facilitates continuous maintenance, and low maintenance plants are used. Shade -Considering the City's arid, sunny environment, the landscape design provides shade for structures, outside recreational areas, and parking areas. Low water usage -Low water usage is achieved by the use of plant materials that do not have a high water usage. Drought resistant shrubs and trees are the predominant accent plants used in the landscape design. Points Standard 6-10 The project provides excellent landscaping in terms of all the above standards. 1-5 The project meets a majority of the above standards. 0 All other projects. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AK PAGE 20 No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteriA below. The site layout is very important in creating the character of a project. The physical, social, and psychological needs of the users of the project should be considered within the design. The impacts of the proposed design on the adjacent land uses should also be a major priority. follows: Site Setbacks Standards in site design to be considered are as The buildings are setback from the street and l'ldj acent property far enough to enhance the appearance of the project and to protect the users of the project. Signage -The placement and design of the signage is compatible with the project and with adjacent land uses. Security The project creates a secure physical and psychological environment both for the site and its occupants. Buildings are designed to allow surveillance of parking areas to detect opportunities criminal action. Walls -Physical separation is used to minimize the impact of unattractive, noisy areas of the project and to act as a buffer between the project and adjacent land uses. Trash and refuse collection areas -Areas which generate noise or odors are located where they will not disturb adjacent land uses or the occupants of the project and are not the visual focal point of a driveway or parking area. Outside storage -All outside storage areas are screened from public view and from adjacent land uses. DRAIT NO. '• August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 21 Open space Open space is used to reduce the perceived crowdedness, density, and tightness of the project and as a buffer to and from adjacent land uses. Noise impact -Noise emitted from the project will not interfere with any adjacent land uses. The occupants of the project are protected from noise outside and within the site, through screening, setbacks, and building materials. Pedestrian circulation A network of convenient and safe pedestrian paths is provided to connect areas within the project and the project with adjacent land uses. Compatibility with adjacent uses -The project is designed so tls to minimize negative impacts on surrounding uses. A gradual transition between the project and adjacent land USP,S is achieved through setbacks, building height, walls, landscaping, and window and door placement. Topography -The natural features of the land, such as hillsides, viewsheds and other features are utilized in the design of the site to enhance the project and can avoid problems associated with floodplains, steep slopes, drainageways and other natural features. Project entry -The entrance to the project is easily identified by walls, planters or signage made of materials compatible with the project. Building entry -Entrances are easily identifiable and act as a transition between the outside and inside areas. Building entries are also provided with adequate security, but the lighting does not impact adjacent land uses. Utility locations -Utilities will be installed underground. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 22 Privacy -Site design and floor plan layout is organized to provide privacy for the occupants of the project and the adjacent land uses. Fire access -The project meets on-site fire hydra.nt and on-site emergency access standards regulated by the fire department. Building separation -The height of the buildings dictates the distance between the buildings to insure privacy and perceived openness for the occupants of the project and the adjacent land uses. Lighting -Lighting is located to provide security and visual interest, but the lighting does not impact adjacent land uses. Parking The major concern when designing a parking lot is not limited to fitting all the required parking on-site, but also includes providing ample stall and· aisle widths, having a useful pedestrian circulation radius, having an system, efficient providing adequate traffic movement turning pattern, maintaining a pleasant appearance, designing convenient parking locations, and integrating the parking with the character of the development. Standards in parking area design to be considered are as follows: Maneuvering areas All maneuvering requirements can be accomplished entirely on-site. The maneuvering area design is not complex, and is easy to identify and navigate. Driveway locations -Driveways provide a circulation pattern which is convenient and safe. Pedestrian traffic is incorporated into the project design. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 23 Screening walls along right-of-way All parking areas are screened from public view with a wall, berm, or a combination of the two. Proximity to structures The parking area is conveniently located to provide ease of access to all users. Amount/number of spaces -The project has a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate all of its needs. Covered spaces -Covered parking is compatible with the overall character of the project. Parking lot lighting Lighting will provide adequate illumination to provide a secure environment but it will not emit light beyond the project. Auto headlight intrusion -The parking area is designed so that illumination from auto headlights will not disturb or disrupt the occupants of the project or adjacent land uses. Points 6-10 1-5 Standard The project's site plan represents excellent design in terms of all the above site and parking standards. Project standards. meets a majority of the above 0 All other projects. 4. 5. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13. 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 24 Provision of Useable Open Space No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Points Standard 6-10 The project provides usable public or private open space, within or as contributions to areas outside of the project, substantially in excess of adopted 1-5 0 standards, policies, and regulations. Substantially is defined for purposes of this section as twenty five percent (25%) or greater. The project provides usable public and private open space in compliance with all adopted standards, regulations, and policies. All other projects. Deleterious Impact of Trees No more than five (5) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. The removal of dead or diseased trees or trees determined not appropriate for retention, as verified by the City, shall not be counted among the impacted trees. Points Standard 5 Grading or trenching, as shown on the approved grading plan, will impact five percent (5%) or fewer of the on-site and off-site trees having a diameter of four inches (4") or more. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 19R7 10:56:01 AM PAGE 25 3 Grading or trenching, as shown on the approved grading plan, impacts more than five percent (5%) but less that twenty five percent (25%) of the on-site and off-site trees with a diameter of four inches (4") or greater. 0 All other projects. 6. Provision of Water Conservation Features Points may be accrued by meeting any of the standards listed below to a maximum of ten (10) points. Points 5 Standard Automatic sprinkler controls equipped with automatic rain shut off control are used throughout the irrigation system. 5 Drought resistant, low water use plant materials are used extensively in the landscaping. 5 Other significant water conservation features, as recognized by the Board or the City Council, are incorporated into the project. 7. Provision of Energy Conservation Features Points may be accrued by meeting any of the standards listed below to a maximum of ten (10) points. Points 3 Standard DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 26 Energy calculations and energy budgets for dwelling units meet the minimum energy requirements for each dwelling unit rather than an overall average as permitted by Section 2-5351(e) Title 24, Part 2 of California Administrative Code. 2 Dwelling units are sited to maximize effectiveness of passive solar features considering sun angles, wind direction, natural ventilation, and shading devices and a solar access plan has been prepared. 2 A solar water heating system, that is capable of conserving fifty percent (50%) or more of the unassisted expected Annual Water Heating Energy, is installed for every dwelling unit. 2 A effective solar space heating system that is capable of conserving forty percent 40% or more of unassisted expected Annual Space Heating Energy is installed for every dwelling unit. 2 Heat pumps are installed in all dwelling units. 2 Every dwelling unit is pre-plumed for solar water heating system. 2 Southern orientation windows in every dwelling unit are shaded with heavy projections, louvers, shutters, trellis, or similar shading devices in a manner that maximizes winter heating and summer shading. 8. DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 27 2 Exterior lights will utilize high intensity, low voltage discharge lamps. 2 Exterior lighting fixtures will be activated by either automatic photoelectric cell or automatic clocks. 1 Other recognized significant energy conserving features, as approved by the Board or the City Council, are incorporated into the project. Bicycle and Foot Paths, Equestrian Trails, Facilities and Greenbelt No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Points 6-10 Standard The project provides all on-site and off-site bicycle and foot paths, equestrian trails and facilities· and greenbelts required by the General Plan and/or any applicable Specific Plan or Planned Community Plan and provides critical linkages for such bicycle, foot paths and equestrian trails and greenbelts. 1-5 The project provides all on-site and off-site bicycle and foot paths, equestrian trails and facilities and greenbelts required by the General Plan and/or any applicable Specific Plan or Planned Community Plan. 0 All other projects. 9. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 28 Site and Architectural Design Quality -Topographic Consideration No more than five (5) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Points 5 3 0 Standard Project design has kept grading to an absolute minimum in order to maintajn the natural character of the hillsides and to complement the natural land forms. Project has retained all significant natural landmarks and other natural outstanding features on the. site. The project has utilized varying setbacks and heights for buildings, varying building techniques and unique building forms, materials and colors but which ensure the compatibility of buildings with the surrounding terrain. The street and circulation design respects the natural contours of the land, minimizes grading and minimizes the percentage of land devoted to streets. The project remains entirely below any ridgeline visible from off-site of the project site. Project design has kept grading to a minimum but involves cut and fill slopes which will modify to a minor degree the existing terrain. The project will not impact significant natural landmarks and other natural features on the site. All other projects. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 29 (b.) 10. Deleterious Impact on Archaeological Sites No more than five Points 5 3 0 (5) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Standard The project will have no impact from grading, trenching, or construction upon any known archeological resources. The project will have an impact from grading, trenching or construction on archaeological resources, but substantial protection or salvage measures have been provided by the Environmental Impact Report or Archaeological Report. All other projects. 11. *Affordable Housing No more than ten (10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the matrix below: Percentage of Density increased requested by income group. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Income Group Moderate 1 Median 1 Lower 6 Very Low 8 1 2 7 9 1 3 8 10 2 4 9 10 3 5 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 *AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 20, 1987 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 30 Mttlti-Family-Re~idential---Allotment-Point~ ---------Jneome-Srottp ---------Moderate---------i-----i-----i-----i-----i-----8-----8-----8-----8----8 ---------Median-----------i-----i-----i-----2-----3-----e-----8-----8-----8----8 ---------now--------------6-----1-----8-----9-----i8----i8----i8----i8----i8---i8 ---------Very-no~---------8-----9-----i8----i8----i8----i8----i8----i8----i8---i8 --------------------------s-----1e----1s----2e----2s----3e----3s----4e----4s---se --------------------------------Pereentage-of-Ben~ity-inerea~e-reqtte~ted~ Point~-are---allotted-only-to-tho~e-projeet~-where-affordable hott~ing-i~-pro'1ided-0'1er-and-abo'1e-tho~e-dwelling-ttnH~-for wnieh-a -den~ ity-bo:n.-11~ -ha:, -been -ghre-ttnder-So"ernmene-El ode Seetion--65915-et~-~eq~ Point~------Standard ----------------------18--------At-lea~t-twenty-fhre-pereent-E25'JO-of-the-dwelling ttnit~-within-the-projeet-are-~et-a~ide-for-per~on~ and-hott~ehold~-ha'1ing-an-annttal-gro~~-ineome-of-not more-than-fifty-pereent-E581 ➔-of-the-median-ineome for-Ventttra-Sottnty-a~-annttally-e~timated-by-the Hnited--State~--Bepartment--of--Hott~ing--and--Hrban Be'1elopment-pttr~ttant-to-Seetion-8-of-the-Hnited State~-Hott~ing-Aet-of-1931~-- DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 31 5--------At---lea~t---twenty-fi~e---f25l1---pereent---of---the dwelling-ttnie~-within-the-projeet-are-~et-a~ide-for per~on~-and-hott~ehold~-ha~ing-an-annttal-gro~~-ineome of-not-more-than-eighty-pereent-f88l1-of-the-Hedian ineome-for-\/entttra-Sottnty-a~-annttally-e~timated-by the-Bnited-State-Bepartment-of-Hott~ing-and-Brban Be~elopment-pttr~ttant-to-Seetion-8-of-the-Bnited State~-Hott~ing-Aet-of-i93t~ 3--------At-lea~t-twenty-£i~e-E25%1-pereent-0£-the -----------------dwelling-ttnit~-within-the-projeet-~et-a~ide-for per~on~-and-hott~ehold~-ha~ing-an-annttal-gro~~-ineome of-not-more-than-one-httndred-pereent-Ei88l1-0£-the Median--ineome--£or--Ventttra--Sottnty--a~--annttally e~timated-by-the-Bnited-S~a~e-Bepartment-of-Ho~~ing and-Brban-Be~elopment-pttr~ttant-to-Seetion-8-of-the Bnited-State~-Hott~ing-Aet-of-i93t~ i---------At---lea~t---twenty-£i~e---E25%1---pereent---0£---the dwelling-ttnit~-within-the-projeet-~et-a~ide-for per~on~-and-hott~ehold~-ha~ing-an~annnal-gro~~-ineome of-not-more-than-one-httndred-twenty-pereent-028%1 of-the-Median-ineome-for-Ventnra-Sottnty-a~-annttally e~timated-by-the-Bnited-State-Bepartment-of-Hott~ing and-Brban-Be~elopment-pttr~ttant-to-Seetion-8-of-the Bnited-State~-Hott~ing-Aet-of-i93t~ b. 12. Absence of DRAIT NO. t., August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 32 Aesthetical Environment No more than ten ( 10) points shall be awarded pursuant to this criteria below. Points 10 7 3 0 Standard The project will not create any significant impacts on air, water, flooding, plants, animals and noise, takes advantage of natural features in its layout and unit design, is compatible with adjacent land uses, has design features which add to the quality of the area and does not block any scenic views. The project does not take any land out of productive agricultural use. The project creates minimal environmental impacts which are mitigated at no expense to any public agency and is compatible with the adjacent land uses but does-not incorporate any exterior quality design enhancements beyond those required. The project in1fohre!'I-taking-ottt-of-prodtteti1fe-tt!'le-agriett½tttra½ ½and--whieh--doe!'l--not--ha1fe--a--direet--e££eet--ttpon adjaeent-agriett½tttra½-paree½!'I~ The project creates significant environmental impacts which are mitigated by significant cash contributions or major improvements. The project involves taking agricultural land out of production which may have an effect upon adjacent agricultural parcels. All other projects. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 33 b. 13. Needed Public Facilities No more than ten (10) points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Points 6-10 1-5 0 Standard The project provides needed on-site public facilities required and provides a share of off-site facilities required by adopted standards, and policies and regulations, plus the project provides on-site or off-site critical linkage in the major street system, improved functional park land, school rooms, or other vital public facilities benefiting more than just the project itself, consistent with adopted plans of the public agency that would administer the particular facility. The project facilities to provides serve needed on-site public the project, plus a proportionate share of off-site facilities, as required by adopted standards, policies or regulations. All other projects. C. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 34 Incentives Contributing to the Public Welfare Seventy seven (77) total points are awardable. 1 . Infill Development No more than five (5) bonus points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Bonus Points 5 Standard The project completes a neighborhood, planned development or tract within a planned development by infilling. 0 All other projects. 2. Density Reduction No more than forty (40) bonus points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below Bonus Points 2 to 40 0 Standard The project consists of the construction of fewer dwelling units than could have been allowed by the requirements of existing zoning, any applicable Specific Plan and the General Plan. Two bonus points shall be given for each two and one half percent (2-1/2%) of reduction below the maximum allowed density. All other projects. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 35 3. Project Seniority No more that thirty (30) bonus points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Bonus Points 5 to 30 0 Standard The project received a residential building permit allocation in a previous allocation period and is submitting for additional permits to complete the project. Five (5) bonus points shall be given for each allocation period that a permit allocation was received. All other projects. 4. Small Projects No more than five (5) bonus points shall be awarded pursuant to the criteria below. Bonus Points 5 0 Standard The project consists entirely of one planned development permit of 30 dwelling units or less. All other projects. DRAIT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AH PAGE 36 SECTION 10. CONDITION ON DEVELOPMENT PERMITS All entitlements for residential development subject to Development Permits and City during the term of that permit approval is this resolution, including, but not limited to Planned Major Modifications to Permits, which are approved by the this Resolution shall be subject to a condition providing complete but no right .to development will occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the project unless and until a Development Allotment is first awarded. In the case of an approved Planned Community Zone a grading permit may be issued outside of the Development Allotment entitlement area if it is required to extend streets, utilities or other infrastructure improvements so long as additional residential building pads are not created. SECTION 11. CONDITION ON SUBDIVISION MAPS All tentative maps for subdivisions of five or more residential dwelling units which are governed by the Residential Development Management System and are approved by the City during the term of this Ordinance shall be subject to a condition providing that the final map may be approved and recorded prior to awarding of a Development Allotment but no right to develop shall occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the subdivision unless and until a Development Allotment is first awarded to the project. Where a tentative tract map on a subdivision of five or more units was approved prior to the effective date of Measure F, the final map may be approved and recorded prior to the awarding of a Development Allotment for land within the subdivision, provided that no right to develop shall occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement shall be issued for the land within the subdivision unless and until a Permit Allotment is first awarded. In the case of an approved Planned Community Zone a grading permit may be issued outside of the Development Allotment entitlement area if it is required to extend streets, utilities or other infrastructure improvements so long as additional residential building pads are not created. SECTION 12. ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT DRAFT NO. 4 August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 37 The annual allocation of Development Allotments may be modified during the month of October by the City Council to an amount not greater than ten percent (10%) more or less for any given year, provided that the annual allocation for the next succeeding year shall be set higher or lower as the case may be, in order to redress any excess or deficiency. No Development Allocation shall be awarded for the calendar year 1986, nor shall any future annual allocations drawn upon the Allotments for the year 1986 by virtue of issuance of 2354 residential building permits such action meets the purpose and intent of Measure F for the year 1986. SECTION 13. 1987 FILING AND PROCESSING SCHEDULE All applications for the Development Allotment for the calendar year 1987 shall be filed thirty (30) days after the adoption of this resolution. Within sixty (60) days from the end of the filing period, the Board shall hold a public hearing and shall make it's final recommendations to the City Council in accordance with Section 7. Within sixty (60) days from the final Board recommendation to the City Council, the City Council shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the criteria of Section 7. year 1987 allotment may be awarded during the year 1988 if needed. The calendar SECTION 14. AMENDMENTS TO PROJECTS AFTER ALLOTMENTS GRANTED A project may, in conjunction with a Major Modification request, be amended upon submittal of an additional Development Allotment application made in the same manner as the original application. In addition, the application for an Allotment amendment shall be processed concurrently with the Major Modification and shall: 1) set forth the specific reasons for requesting the amendment; and 2) state specifically how the amendment/major modification meets the purpose and intent of Measure F 1986 and the City's General Plan, Goals and Policies. The City Council shall review such an amendment application in the same manner as he original Allotment application and may grant the amendment as requested, modify the amendment, or deny the amendment. DRAFT NO. '• August 13, 1987 10:56:01 AM PAGE 38 An Allotment amendment and major modification shall be granted only if the City Council, after reviewing the proposed modified project in relation to the criteria set forth in Section 9.A. and 9.B., shall find that the major modification has earned as many or more evaluation points than the original project for which the Allotment was issued. No approvals for either an amendment or major modification shall be made to a project receiving less points that the original application I. CITY OF MOORPARK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 799 MOORPARK AVENUE MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA 93021 _X_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1. Entitlement: Adoption of A Resolution City of Moorpark 2. Applicant: 3. Proposal: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 4. Location & Parcel Number(s): Citywide 5. Responsible Agencies: II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: An initial study was conducted by the Community Development Department to evaluate the potential effects of this project upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained in the attached initial study it has been determined that this project (could not), have a significant effect upon the environment. II. PUBLIC REVIEW: 1. Legal Notice Method: Local publication. within 300 feet. 2. Document Posting Period: August 3, 1987 -August 19, 1987 Prepared & Approved by: Development I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Applicant CITY OF MOORPARK INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM City of Moorpark 2. Project Description Residential Development Management System 3. Date of Checklist submittal 4. Project Location Citywide II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in situation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d. Is there a potential for cumulative adverse impacts on air quality in the project area? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in. any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved ox-ygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Degradation of ground water quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ') YES MAYBE NO V V V V 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Restrict the range of or otherwise affect any rare or endangered animal species? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource? YES MAYBE NO V V V v 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular· movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental servies in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Other governmental services? 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YES MAYBE NO V v V ✓ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? g. Street lighting annexation and/or improvements? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL. Will the proposal: a. Affect possible unknown archaeological or historic- al sites? b. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site within the vicinity of the project? c. Result in destruction or alteration of a known archaeological or historical site near the vicinity of the project? YES MAYBE NO V v V ~ v v 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal connnunity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where impact on ea,h resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. III. RECOMMENDATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: YES MAYBE In conformance ~li.th Section 15060 of the State EIR Guidelines, I find with certainity that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the environment. I find the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to class I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.·, should be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached NO sheet could be applied to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SHOULD BE PREPARED. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM to an existing certified Environmental Impact Report is required. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and this effect is adequately addressed in a certified Environmental Impact Report, and thus SUBSEQUENT USE of the existing EIR is required. 7 August 7, 1987 Page 1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HANAGEMF.NT ALLOCATION SYSTEM ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY 11. This project is a limitation on the number of residential dwelling units which may be constructed within a specific time period (250 dwelling units per year). Therefore, the rate of growth of the population will be limited to the maximum number of dwelling units allowed. 21. c. Although the limitation is upon the number of residential dwelling units, such a limit also has affects upon traffic, noise, air pollution etc. The proposal has a positive cumulative affect. General Comments The proposed project is consistent with all of the elements of the City's General Plan and consistent with all the environmental goals and policies of the General Plan. No potential for a significAnt impact on air quality has been identified. No potential for a significant impact on water quality has been identified. No potential for significant geological impacts have been identified. No potential for significant traffic impacts have been identified in that the project is regulatory by nature. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 1 The regular scheduled meeting of the Moorpark Planning Commission held July 20, 1987, in the City of Moorpark Council Chambers located at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:16 p.m., Chairman Holland presiding. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Holland. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chairman Douglas Holland, Commissioners Scott Montgomery, William Butcher, John Wozniak, and Paul Lawrson; OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Patrick J. Richards, Di rector of Community Development; Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planner; Celia LaFleur, Administrative Secretary. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. a. A special presentation by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Item 4.a. to be rescheduled. b. Connie Larwson, 4291 Ambermeadow Street, Moorpark, CA. Requested that the Commission consider alternate/emergency evacuation routes during their review of the General Plan Update. c. William E. Mason, 437 Shasta Avenue, Moorpark, CA. Concerned \11th the occupancy rate for industrial and commercial development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 1, 1987 Minutes of June 15, 1987 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Holland to approve the minutes of June 1 and 15, 1987 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Planned Development Permit No. 1062 -Embassy Group, Inc. b. C. A proposed 31,560 sq.ft. commercial center on the northwest corner of Moorpark Road and Tierra Rejada Road. A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF PD-1062 NO. PC-87-144. Motion: A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PD-1062 ON THE APPLICATION OF EMBASSY PLAZA NO. 16, LTD., ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 500-39-35. Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve Resolution No. 144 as amended. Motion passed unanimously. Planned Development Permit No. 1063 -National Convenience Stores, Inc. A proposed 3,090 sq. ft. convenience store located on the northwest corner of Moorpark Road and Tierr Rejada Road. A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF PD-1063 NO. PC-87-145. Motion: A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PD-1063 ON THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 500-39-85. Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve Resolution No. 145 with modifications as submitted by Chairman Holland. Motion passed unanimously. Land Division Moorpa~k No. 11 -Embassy Group~ Inc. Proposal to subdivide a 4.47 acre site into 2 lots, located on the northwest corner of Moorpark Road and Tierra Rejada Road. A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL OF LDM-11 NO. PC-87-146. FINAL ACTION UNLESS APPEALED. Motion: A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPLICATION OF EMBASSY PLAZA NO. 16, LTD., FOR A PARCEL MAP (LDM-11). ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 500-39-35,-85. Moved by Vice Chairman Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Holland to approve Resolution No. 146 as amended. Motion passed unanimously. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 3 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS a. Planned Development Permit No. 1061 -Raymond Caren b. Commercial Planned Development Permit for building previously an industrial building Located at 111-165 Poindexter Avenue. an existing now zoned 11,760 square for commercial foot use. Recommended to continued to August 3, 1987 as requested by the applicant. By general consensus of the Commission this item to be continued to the date as requested by the applicant. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Consideration of rev1s1ng the Sign Ordinance regarding Real Subdivisional Directional (off-site) Signs. Estate Testimony received by the following: 1. 2. Paul Tryon, representing the BIA, 751 Daily Ori ve, Camaril 1 o, CA. support of the BIA draft ordinance. In Tom Zanic, representing Urban West Communities, 520 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA. Requesting that the Commission consider that the subdivision directional sign and base be located not less than 300 feet from an existing or previously approved subdivision directional sign site. Motion: Moved by Chairman Holland, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery that staff's Exhibit "A" of the amendment to the Sign Ordinance with modification to read as follows: ADD TO: SECTION 9.50.060 -PERMITS (a) "Subdivision Directional Signs b. Subdivision directional sign and base shall only be located at major intersections as determined buy the Director of Community Development without limitation as to the number of corners on which such directional signs would be located .. Further, each sign may contain only the name of the subdivision and a directional arrow {maximum of five (5)}. Motion: Motion: Motion: MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 4 c. The placement of each subdivision directional sign and base shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of sign permit. Moved by Commissioner Lawrson, seconded by Commissioner Holland to modify Section 9.50.060 -Permits (a) Subdivision Directional Signs as follows: g. All nonconforming subdivision directional signs associated with the subdivision in question shall be removed within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this ordinance or expiration of the sign permit, whichever event occurs first, prior to the installation of the subdivisional sign. Moved by Commissioner Butcher, second by Commissioner Holland to modify Section 9.50.060 -Permits(a) Subdivision Directional Signs as follows: j. No more than five (5) subdivision directional signs shall be placed on subdivision directional sign base. Moved by Chairman Holland, seconded by Commissioner Butcher to include under Section 9.50.060 Permits(a) Subdivision Directional Signs as follows: 3. Agreements Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the City from entering into an agreement with an organization repre~enting the building industry in order to ensure compliance with this section. The Director of Community Development may, at his discretion, implement rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this section. Motions passed on a 5-0 vote. By general consensus of the Commission staff was directed to have the City Attorney review the amendments, modifications and additions to the Off-Site Subdivision Directional Signs prior to the public hearing before the City Council. MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 5 c. General Plan Update -City of Moorpark -SCHEDULING The Planning Commission will conduct a public meeting for the purpose of soliciting citizen comments regarding the proposed update to the Land Use and Circulation (traffic) Elements of the City's General Plan. Presented by the Director; reference: Staff Report dated June 30, 1987. Testimony received by the following: 1. Glen Schmidt, 4287 Telcolote Court, Moorpark, CA. Mr. Schmidt state his concerns with time frame/scheduling and initiating involvement. Suggested a citizens committee. During the Commission's discussion and their commitment for community involvement it was the general consensus of the Commissi-on to hold a special meeting on August 22, 1987 at 9:00 a.m. (Saturday) in the Council Chambers. The Commission also requested staff to publish a public hearing notice. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Butcher, seconded by Commissioner Lawrson to recommend to the City Counci 1 to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to expedite the General Plan update process and scheduling. The Chair then called for a roll call vote: Commissioner Butcher: Yes Chairman Holland: No Commissioner Montgomery No Commissioner Wozniak No Commissioner Lawrson Yes Recess 8:55 p.m. Reconvene 9:10 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS a. Draft Residential Building Permit Allocation System Consideration of a draft staff proposed Residential Development Management System so as to implement Measure F (a ballot measure limiting the number of residential dwelling units to be constructed within a calendar year. Commissioner Butcher excused from the dais due to a conflict of interest. Presented by the Director; reference: Staff Report dated July 1, 1987. Public hearing was opened and testimony received by the following: 1. Tom Zanic, representing Urban west Communities, 520 Broadway, Santa Monica, CA. Requested that the Draft Residential Building Permit Allocation (Draft No. 2) be modified in the following areas: (see MEASURE F IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS dated July 6, 1987) Motion: b. Section 6(a) MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 7 "After approval of an entitlement for a residential project under Article 19 of this Chapter or after approval of a PC under Article 13 of this Chapter and with a project proposal, an applicant may file for Permit Allocation. 11 Motion passed on a 3:1 vote, Commissioner Wozniak NO. Commissioner Butcher absent. Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Holland that the following be re-written and returned to the Commission for their review. 2. Grading for Planned Communities Efficient and balanced grading of large scale projects should be permitted in the case of an approved PC. Such grading is not prohibited under Measure F. a. Section 5 "No residential building permit or associated grading permit for non-exempted projects may be issued unless a residential building permit allocation for such projects as been granted. A grading permit may be issued within an approved PC outside of the residential building permit allocation entitlement area if it is required for balanced grading." b. Section 10 "All entitlements for residential development subject to this Chapter, including but not limited to Planned Development Permits, and Modifications to Permits, which are approved by the City during the term of this Chapter shall be subject to a condition providing that permit approval is complete but no further rights for development will occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the project unless and until a Residential Building Permit Allocation is first awarded. In the case of an approved PC, the condition shall allow the issuance of a grading permit outside of the residential building permit allocation entitlement area if it is required for balanced grading". Motion: Motion: c. Section 11 MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 8 "All tentative maps for subdivision of five or more residential dwelling units which are governed by the Residential Development Management System and are approved by the City during the term of this Ordinance shall be subject to a condition providing that the final map may be approved and the final map may be recorded prior to awarding of a Residential Building Permit Allocation, provided that no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the land within the subdivision unless and until a Permit Allocation is first awarded. In the case of an approved PC, the condition shall allow the issuance of a grading permit outside of the Residential Building Permit allocation entitlement area if it is required for balanced grading." Motion passed on a 4:0 vote, Commissioner Butcher absent. Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Holland that the following amendment be added. 3. Definition of Project The term "project", for the purpose of assigning point ratings to an approved PC with a project proposal, should mean both the overa 11 PC and the present proposal in order to adequately evaluate such an application. a. Sect i or. 9. "The following point evaluation system shall be used for all evaluations of the Residential Building Permit System. The rating of a project proposal within an approved PC shall include an evaluation of both the overall PC and the project proposal. 11 -~-- Motion passed on a 4:0 vote, Commissioner Butcher absent. Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Holland that the following amendment be added: 4. Encourage Infrastructure Improvements At No Local Cost Any project which provides infrastructure as mitigation without cost to the respective agency should not be penalized in the point rating. a. Section 9.A.l. -Water Service Motion: MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 9 "Domestic and fire flows can transmission pipeline, pumping improvements involving capital purveyor. be met without further station, or storage tank contribution by the water "The project consists of one hundred (100) dwelling units or more in an existing pressure zone that has insufficient storage and provides additional storage or pumping facilities involving capital contributions by the water purveyor." b. Section 9~A.2. -Wastewater Service "When a project is required to connect to the wastewater system, wastewater service can be provided without plant or existing system improvements involving capital contributions by the wastewater agency." C. Section 9.A.3. -Storm Water Drainage "Storm water can be handled without storm drain improvements outside involving capital contributions by further subsurface project boundaries the storm water drainage agency". Motion passed unanimously on a 4:0 vote. Butcher absent. Commissioner Moved by Commissioner Holland, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to amend the following: 5. Encourage Community Infrastructure Improvements a. Section 9.A.2 add: "Community Improvements" item for up to five possible points. b. Section 9.A.3 add: "Community Improvements" possible points. c. Section 9.A.3. item for up to five Motion passed on a 4:0 vote. Commissioner Butcher absent. Motion: --- Motion: Motion: MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 10 Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak to recommend flexibility to the Point Rating System by the following: a. Section 9.8 1,2,3,4,8,12 and 13 add ranges: Existing 10 7 0 Recommended 6-10 1-5 0 Motion passed on a 4:0 vote. Commissioner Butcher absent. Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak the amend the language in Section 9.C 2: 2. Density Reduction Standard The project consists of the construction of fewer dwelling units than could have been allowed by the requirements of existing zoning, any applicable Specific Pl an and the General Pl an. Two bonus points shall be given for each full two amd one half percent (2-1/2%) of reduction below the maximum a 11 owed density. Motion passed or. a 3:1 vote, Holland voting NO, Commissioner Butcher absent. Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Holland to delete from Section 9.A. 5.(ii) the following: 10. Busing delete: Add one (1) point for each level (elementary and intermediate only) for which at least fifty percent (50%) of the pupils estimated to reside in the project would not require busing to the school of attendance as determined by the applicable policy of the Moorpark Unified School District. Motion passed on a 3:1 vote, Commissioner Wozniak voting NO, Commissioner Butcher absent. Motion: MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOORPARK MINUTES OF JULY 20, 1987 Page 11 Moved by Commissioner Montgomery, seconded by Commissioner Wozniak that Section 12. Annual Residential Development Allotment be amended to include the following: "By virtue of issuance of 2354 Residential Building Permits such act i onmeets purpose and intent of Measure F for the year 1986." Motion passed on a 4:0 vote, Commissioner Butcher absent. By general consensus of the Commission staff was directed to implement the amendment, modification, and additions and return for review at the Planning Commission meeting of August 3, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a. DP-302 Jerry Gershenberg Clarification of intent regarding building color/material of ravels. 10. INFORMATION ITEMS a. TR-4174 Minor Modification -Villa Campensina b. Quarterly Status Report -Residential, Commercial, & Industrial c. DP-358, 361, 362 and 389 -Minor Modification -Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Regarding water availability letter. d. DP-304 Minor Modification -Wasserman Regarding change in office square footage. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. STAFF COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT By general consensus of the Commission the balance, Items 9 -10.d. of the agenda to be heard August 3, 1987. The Planning Commission's meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. CHAIRMAN PRESIDING: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: Celia LaFleur, Secretary MOORPARK • CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police JOHN PATRICK LANE Council member MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M The Planning Commission Patrick J. Richards, Director July 28, 1987 of Community Development#- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission last reviewed this matter at their regular meeting of July 20, 1987. At that time, staff reviewed Draft No. 2 with the Commission and explained the basic process of the draft system. Also, the Commission received testimony regarding the proposed draft. Of note was the thirteen (13) point letter and comments made by Mr. Tom Zanic, representing Urban West Communities. The Commission reviewed Mr. Zanic 1 s comments in some detail and recommended to refer a majority of the proposed changes made by Urban West Communities to staff for inclusion into the next draft. At the July 20th meeting staff identified that Draft No. 2 was undergoing further changes by the City Attorney and department staff. 8. REVISED DRAFTS Attached to this memorandum are Drafts 3A and 38 noted in the upper right hand corner. Draft 3A includes all recent changes made by the City Attorney and staff. Draft 3B is Draft 3A with those changes requested by Urban West Communities which were considered or modified by the Planning Commission. Overstrike areas have been provided to show previous text of Draft 3A. C. COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES BY URBAN WEST COMMUNITIE~ 1. ~_Q_~roved Planned Comm~ni1l~(PC'U The Planned Community (PC) Zones purpose is to benefit the public by large scale planned communities. The first steps in the creation of a PC zone is to approve the Master Plan, Specific Plan, Development Plan and other maps and reports. The review of tract maps and planned development applications generally occurs some time after the approval of a PC. If a PC 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 2. 3. 4. & 5. The Planning Commission July 29, 1987 Page 2 is allowed to qualify for allotments they may be able to manage a numerical corner on the allotment process. Also, if an allotment life is only two years a PC would need to move quickly to begin the process so as not to have expired allotments. Grading for Planned Community's If PC I s have this advantage there is no reason why "l esser11 projects should be denied the same opportunity. Is balanced grading the only way to construct residential projects? There is no reason projects can not generally follow the natural topography of a site. It is staff's opinion that should a roadway or utilities need to be extended, grading could be allowed to accomplish such but not to the extent that massive grading would be visible to the community. The creation of pads may preclude future decisions. The Urban West Communities project is currently the only PC within the city. If the direction of the city is to encourage further use of PC's the allowance of large scale grading at the fringe areas of the city may occur with years passing before infilling occurs. Definition of Project The planned development must follow the PC text; if not consistent, it's a mute issue. Encourage Infrastructure Improvements at No Local Cost Raises the question of equity. 6. 1986 Allocation Measure F stands for moderate consistent development from year to year. To allow 400 allotments over and above the 2354 issued in the year 1986 does not adhere to that basic concept. 7. Point Rating Ran_g_g_ The intent of staff was to create a system that was less subjective than the original Measure F. The use of "range" once again creates more subjectiveness to the process. 8. Density Reduction The findings of Measure F support the concept of giving an advantage to projects which reduce density. The Planning Commission July 29, 1987 Page 3 9. Planned School Facilities 10. 11. 12. 13. The Commission clarified this matter at their last meeting by requiring the term 11 funded 11 • Busing The need for busing only in part relates to school district policy. It is more a relationship on how far schools are apart and how far children are expected to walk. School Impact The implementation of Measure F is not preempted by any state legislation/ School -Community Improvements No comments. Prior Map Points This is a provision of Section 10.O6C of Measure F. By adding additional points to the actual number divided by the available number should raise the percentage score by giving points to those projects approved prior to 1986. D. POINTS SUMMARY Within Draft 3A the points are summarized as follows: Part 9.A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Part 1. 2. 3. Points 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9.B. Points 10 10 10 Subject Water Sewer Storm Water Fire School Traffic per year for tentative tracts approved after the year 1984. Subject Design Useable Open Space Site & Parking 4. 10 5. 5 6. 10 7. 10 8. 10 9. 5 10. 5 11. 10 12. 10 13. 10 Part 9.C. 1. 2 2. Up to 40 3. Up to 30 4. 5 Open Space Trees The Planning Commission July 29, 1987 Page 4 Water Conservation Er.ergy Conservation Trails Topography Archaeological Affordable Housing Environmental Public Facilities Subject Infill Development Density Reduction Project Seniority Small Projects In order to illustrate the point system process, staff has taken a previously approved project and given it staff's evaluation (see attachment "A"). There are lines drawn thru areas that are not applicable; they are not included in the final point listing. The summary of points is shown in each of the three parts (A, B, & C) with a grand total. The total points given the project is then divided against the total available points to render a percent score. SUMMARY Per the Commissions direction of July 20, 1987, staff has revised the draft Residential Development Management System (Draft No. 2). Staff has provided two Draft Nos. 3; A and B. Draft 3.A includes recommendations provided by the City Attorney and Draft 3.B indicates staff, City Attorney and Planning Commission recommendations. Staff has illustrated the point system and provided a sample point ranking of a previously approved project. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Review Draft Nos. 3.A & 3.B. and advise staff of needed changes. 2. Review resolution and recommend that either Draft 3.A. or 3.B or a modification of either be sent to the City Council for review and adoption. Exhibits: Attachment "A" Resolution No. PC-87-__ ATTACHMENT "A" Using Draft 3.A Project No.: XYZ Planned Development -Approved 2/87 Tract Map -Approved 3/87 Part A Points --------- 1 10 2 8 3 7 ' 4 8 5 8 2 6 7 2 7 10 62 Part B Points 1 10 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 5 6 10 7 10 8 9 3 10 5 11 12 10 13 7 81 Twenty five (25) Units Single Family detached Available Points (10) ( 10) ( 10) (10) ( 8) ( 2) ( 8) ( 4) 62 Possible 62/62 = 100% Available Points (10) ( 10) (10) ( 10) ( 5) ( 10) (10) - ( 5) ( 5) (10) ( 10) 105 105 Possible 81/105 = 77% Part C Points Available Points 1 2 ( 2) 2 0 3 0 4 5 ( 5) 7 7 7 Possible Points 717 = 100% TOTAL 150 174 174 Possible Points 150/174 = 86.2% RESOLUTION NO. PC-87- A RESOLUTION OF THE MOORPARK PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moorpark has directed staff to prepare an implementation resolution with regard to the Residential Development Management System adopted by the citizens of Moorpark by passage of Measure Fon the November 4, 1986 Municipal Election; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the draft Residential 0Pvelopment Management System; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 1987 and August 3, 1987 this Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the draft allotment system; and SECTION 1. . The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the draft allotment system report dated August 3rd; or as amended orally at the Planning Commission's meeting of August 3, 1987. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day August 1987 CHAIRMAN PRESIDING: ATTEST: Celia LaFleur, Secretary MOORPARK ITEM 8£L • CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Council member PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community July 1, 1987 (PC meeting of 7/6/87) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BACKGROUND Deve 1 opment ~ Since at least 1984, the City has discussed the pros and cons of a growth management system and the various issues associated with its future population. As a result of these discussions and by past initiative action, the community's voters passed a ballot measure (Measure F) on November 4, 1986. Measure F established a Residential Development Management System and became effective at the time the vote was certified. The City Council reviewed a report by staff on January of 1987 to determine whether the initiative ordinance should be implemented as it was presently written or should a separate document be prepared to assist or further clarify the initiative ordinance. It was decided by Council that a separate process be drafted meeting all the intentions of Measure F but reducing some of it's subjectivity. On March 20, 1987 staff returned with a rough draft of an allocaiton system which the Council then forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. On June 15, 1987 staff forwarded to the Commission a revised rough draft for review prior to the July 6th meeting. Since that time staff has met again with the City attorney and made further changes to the first draft. Staff has included this revised draft (see Exhibit "1" Draft No. 2) attached to this memorandum SCHEDULING The City Council at their June 24, 1987 meeting determined that the adoption of the Residential Development Management System has a higher priority than 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 the update to the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Also, it is the Council's intent to issue allotments in the year 1987. It is recommended that the first matter to discuss regarding the allocation system be the adoption of specific time table for review. The attached schedule (see Exhibit "2" Time Table Schedule) shows an anticipated allotment date on December 16, 1987. This assumed only two meetings before the Commission and Council. A 1 so, it was built upon the need to p 1 ace the Residential Development Management System into the Zoning Code. This would have required the action to be accomplished by ordinance rater than resolution. In an effort to expedite the time, staff has now proposed that the system be adopted by resolution. Although, when the Zoning Code is rewritten (needed soon) this provision will be made a part thereof. SYSTEM The Residential Development Management System has been created for the purposed of implementing Measure F (an initiative ordinance establishing a residential development management system of the City of Moorpark). As per Measure F the draft resolution has provided for exceptions to the process. These exceptions include the following: a. Projects of four (4) units or less; b. Fourplexes on a single lot; c. Single family dwellings on a single lot; d. Rehab or remodeling of a dwelling or conversion of apartment to condomi n i urns; e. Low income or senior dwelling units subsidized by the State or Federal goverment; f. Projects having dwelling units on five (5) plus acre lots. The Planning Commission will become the residential development evaluation board (Board) and will be making recommendations to the Council. The evaluation process is divided into three parts (A, B & C). First is the availability of the public services and facilities section which evaluates how a project either meets or exceeds its public service requirements. Part A covers the following: Water service efficiency and impact; Wastewater service impact; Storm water drainage facilities; School impact; Street traffic impact. Part B considers the design of a project and becomes the most subjective part of the analysis. Part B covers the following: Design quality -buildings; Passive open space and landscaping; Design quality -site and parking Provision of useable open space; Deleterious impact on trees; Provision of water conservation; Provision of energy conservation; Bicycle and foot paths, equestrian trails, facilities and greenbe 1 ts; Topographic consideration; Deleterious impact on archaeological sites; Affordable housing; Absence of deleterious impact on the physical and aesthetical environment; Needed public facilities; Part C considers the possible need to grant points based upon the contributions to public welfare. Part C covers the following: Infill development; Density reduction; Project seniority; Small projects. POINT RANKING The proposed Residential Development Management System is established on a point ranking basis. Projects will be evaluated on those aspects noted above and given points based upon how they meet or exceed a specific criteria. The point ranking begins during staff's review of a proposed project. At that time staff will give a recommended point rating to the Planning Commission at the time of review of the entitlement request. As part of the Commission's final determination to approve a project they will assign a "tentative" point total to a project. FILING PERIOD This proposed system grants allocations only once a year. In order for a project to be considered for an allocaiton the entitlement must have been granted prior to the close of the filing date. Proposed is a filing "window" during the month of June ( June 1 through June 30). There must be at least six months of time reviewing on the entitlement approval otherwise the entitlement would lapse prior to an award of an allocation. From June 1 to August or September the City staff wi 11 review the fi 1 ed requests, create a report and schedule the matters to be heard by the Residential Development Evaluation Board (the Planning Commission). The Board will hold it's meeting in either August or September to consider the points assigned each project during the entitlement review. In considering a 11 the filed projects the Board is free to amend the point numbers as it deems appropriate. The Board must render its recommendation to the City Council no later than September 31st. The City Council will then hold its public hearing on the recommended point rating given by the Board no later than the month of October. The council will then create the final point ranking; after which it shall award residential building permit allocations. LIFE OF AN ALLOCATION Allocations must be used for actual construction within twenty-four (24) months from award. They may not be transferred from one party to another or from one project to another. If an allocation is unused the Council may (after public hearing) recind all or part or re-assign the allocation to another project. 1987 FILING/PROCESSING SCHEDULE This draft proposes that a separate process be established to process requests for an allocation in the year 1987. For thirty days, after the adoption by resolution, there is a filing "window" for all projects who have received an entitlement. Within sixty days from the close of the filing period, the Board shall hold a public hearing and establish a recommended point ranking for each project filed. Within sixty days from the Boards recommendation the Council will hold a public hearing to assign the final point ranking and award allocations. This proposed draft system makes no provision for any 1986 allocations inasmuch as more than 2350 residential building permits were granted by the City in the year 1986. To award an additional 400 would not appear inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Measure F. RECOMMENDATION 1. Consider setting a special meeting date(s) to expedite the review of this matter. 2. Direct staff on needed modifications as deemed appropriate by the Commission. Exhibit 1. Draft No. 2 -Residential Development Management System Allocation 2. Schedule re anticipated allotment dates. MOORPARK --·=-========================================== CLINT HARPER. PhD. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tern STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember BERNARDO PEREZ Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: H E M O R A H O U H A. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer Steven Kueny, City Manager ~- Patrick '-l. Richards, Director of Community Development \ '-lune 4, 1987 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Pursuant to your request of May 28, 1987 the following is an anticipated schedule regarding the consideration of a Residential Development M~nagement System developed by staff. ,June 15, 1987 ,Ju1y 6, 1987 August 3, 1987 August 19, 1987 September 2, 1987 September 16, 1987 October 17, 1987 October 19, 1987 through November 17, 1987 November 18. 1987 through December 2, 1987 December 7, 1987 Transmittal of draft docu@ent to Planning Commission. No public hear-ir.g. Receive document only. Pub1ic hearing by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission adopts re~olution transmitting recommendation to the City Council. Public hearing by the City Council with final actions being taken. Introduction of Ordinan~e for first re~ding. Second reading of Ordinance. Effective date of Ordinance. Filing period (30 days) for a 1987 allocation. ')taff review. Consideration by the Residential Development Evaluation Board to assign recommended point rating and ranking at public hearing. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 December 16, 1987 Public hearing by the City Council to establish the final point rating and granting of al locaiton. The above dates are predicated upon meeting time lines stated without slippage. Should the Planning Commission or City Council need more than two public hearings no allocations would occur during the year 1987. cc: The Honorable City Counci1 Planning Commission Cheryl Kane, City Attorney R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Bud Florine, Building & Safety . Urban West Communities fl, n '. ~ r1 nr-1\t A-'>. , :_, .J. v, ( / ) Suite Sa rt ta lv1or1 ica, Caiifor11 id 9040 l \ ( 213) 3 94--3 -:; 7) July 14, 19&7 Doug Holland, Chairman Planning Commission City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Measure F Implementation System -Draft 112 - July 20 Hearing Dear Doug: We have reviewed the revised Draft Residential Building Permit Allocation System (marked Draft /12) and continue to have many concerns with its workability and its relationship to the language and goals of Measure F. Attached are recommendations for changes keyed to the new Draft 112 which we believe are not inconsistent with Measure F and should make the draft system more workable. Please note that these recommendations on Draft 112 super cede our comments on previous drafts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom Zanic Enclosure TZ:mgb cc: Planning Commissioners -w/encls. -R£C£1VEO - JUL 1 4 ~7 C\TY Of MODRPARK .Urban San.ta West Communities Mor1ica, Cal ifor11ia 5 20 Broadway, 90401, (213) Suite 100 394-3379 July 6, 19&7 MEASURE F IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS (Based on the Staff Draft 112 Residential Building Permit Allocation System) 1. Approved PC's An approved PC should be eligible to receive an allocation. Nothing in Measure F prohibits an approved PC from filing for an allocation. a. On Page 3, Sec. 7 .a., change as follows: "As part of the entitlement approval or Upon the request of an applicant \vith an approved PCas specified by Article 13 and a projecq?r<'>posal Whith shall consist of a site plan a:nd elevations, the Planning Commission shall assign a tentative point rating based on the evaluation system contained in Section & as part of the entitlement approval. The Community Development Depart- ment will coordinate review by other agencies." b. On Page 3, Sec. 6.a., change as follows: "After approval of an entitlement for a residential project under Article 19 of this Chapter or after approval 0£ a PC under Article 13 of this Chapter a:nd with a project proposal, an appli- cant may file for Permit Allocation." 2. Grading_for PC's Efficient and balanced grading of large scale projects should be permitted in the case of an approved PC. Such grading is not prohibited_ under Measure F. a. On Page 2, Sec. 5, change as follows: "No residential building permit or associated grading permit for non-exempted projects may be issued unless a residential building permit allocation for such project as been granted. A grading permit may be issued within an approved PC outside of the residential building permit allocation entitlement area if it is required for balanced grading~" -2- b. on Page 31, Sec. 10, change as follows: "All entitlements for residential development subject to this Chapter, including but not limited to Planned Development Permits, and Modifications to Permits, which are approved by the City during the term of this Chapter shall be subject to a condition providing that permit approval is complete but no further rights for development will occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the project unless and until a Residential Building Permit Allocation is first awarded. In the case of an approved PC, the condition shall allow the issuance of a grading permit outside of the residential building permit-allocation entitlement area if it is required for balanced grading". c. On Page 32, Sec. 11, change as follows: "All tentative maps for subdivision of five or more residential dwelling units which are governed by the Residential Develop- ment Management System and are approved by the City during the term of this Ordinance shall be subject to a condition providing that the final map may be approved and the final map may be recorded prior to awarding of a Residential Building Permit Allocation, provided that no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the land within the subdivision unless and until a Permit Allocation is first awarded. In the case of an approved PC, the condition shall allov/ the issuance of a grading permit outside of the Residential Building Permit allocation entitlement area: if it is required for balanced grading." 3. Definition of Project The term "project", for the purposes of assigning point ratings to an approved PC with a project proposal, should mean both the overall P~ and the present proposal in order to adequately evaluate such an application. a. On Page 7, Sec. 9 introduction, changes as follows: "The following point evaluation system shall be used for all evaluations of the Residential Building Permit System. The rating-of a project proposal within an approved PC shall include an evaluation of both the overall PC and the project proposal." 4. -3- Encourage Infrastructure Improvements At No Local Cost Any project which provides infrastructure as mitigation.without cost to the respec- tive agency should not be penalized in the point rating. a. On Page 7, Sec. 9.A.l., change the Water Service section as follows: "Domestic and fire-flows can be met without further transmission pipeline, pumping station, or storage tank improvements which will invotve·capital contributions by the water purveyor." "The project consists of one hundred (100) dwelling units or more in an existing pressure zone that has insufficient storage and provides additional storage or pumping facilities which will involve capital contributions bv the water purveyor." b. On Page 8, Sec. 9.A. 2. change the Wastewater Service section as follows: "When a project is required to connect to the wastewater system, wastewater service can be provided without plant or existing system improvements which will involve capital contributions by the wastewater agency." c. On Page 9, Sec. 9.A. 3. change the Storm Water Drainage section as follows: "Storm water can be handled without further subsurface storm drain improvements outside project boundaries which will involve capital contributions by the storm water drainage agency." 5. Encourage Commtmity Infrastructure Improvements The "community improvements" point item in the Water Service section does meet the intent of Measure F by encouraging infrastructure improvements outside the project boundaries. This item should also be included in the Wastewater and Storm Water sections and more points should be possible. a. On Page 9, Sec. 9.A. 2. add "Community Improvements" item for five possible points, similar to the item on Page 5. b. On Page 9, Sec. 9.A. 3. add back in the "Community Improve- ments" item for five possible points. c. On Page 8, Sec. 9.A. l. change the possible points in part (i0 to five points. -4- 6. 1986 Allocation The draft system specifies that the 400 allocations for year 1986 not be issued. This is contrary to Measure F. Those allocations cannot be dropped from the allocation system. 7. a. On Page 32, Sec. 12, delete the last sentence as follows: "The annual allotment may be modified by the City Council to an amount not greater than ten (10} percent more or less for any given year, provided that the annual allotment for the next succeeding year shall be set higher or lower as the case may be , in order to redress any excess or deficiency. TRefe SRa-1-l-ee Ra eevelafHAeRt a-l-l-a€atieRs -issHee faF tRe €aleReaF yeaF l ~&,T R8f sRa-1-l-aRy fHtHFe eevela~meRt a-l-l-a€atieRs eFaw H~aR tRase aR-ti€+- ~atee deve-1:a~meRt a-l-l-a€atieRs feF the yea~ l~&, ... Point Rating Range The point structure for most items under Quality of Design a:nd Contribution of Public Welfare a:nd Amenity does not allow for much decision maker flexibility or the most accurate point ratings for different projects. A wider range of points would be more workable. a. In Section 9.B. 1,2,3,4,8, 12 and 13 add ranges to the possible points: EXISTING 10 7 0 RECOMMENDED 6-10 1-5 0 8. Density Reduction Density reduction, which can receive up to 40 points (the most of any category in the system} is more appropriately addressed as part of the General Plan update and should be deleted from the system. Density reduction is also not a part of Measure F. a. Delete Sec. 9.C. 2. on Page 30 regarding "Density Reduction". -5- 9. Planned School Facilities School facilities which are "planned" should be included in the analysis of school impact. a. On Page 11 Sec. 9.-A. 5., change as follows: "Points for degree of impact on elementary, intermediate or high schools may be awarded to a project as the amount of points scored in Part (i) (maximum of 8 points), plus, if any, in Part (ii) (maximum of 2 points). Projects which provide 100% Senior Citizen Housing per Civil Code 51.3 of the Government Code shall receive 10 points. School impact shall be measured from existing, operating schools or from dosed existirig facilities or from planned schools for purposes of determining scoring." 10. Busing The need for busing relates to school district policies and specific facility manage- ment objectives, and in some instances State or Federal laws or social issues. The need for busing has at most an indirect relationship to new development (which usually provides for new schools) and should be deleted. a. Delete Sec. 9.A. 5.(ii) on Page 12 regarding "Need for Busing". 11. School Impact Recent state legislation preempts local agencies in the area of school impact and outlines mitigation procedures which fully address CEQA requirements. Under the draft system's rating no significant project could score more than 1 point although that project may provide both the funding and land necessary for schools. The wording goes far beyond the language of Measure F .- 12. Schools -Community Improvements Contributions to needed school system improvements should be recognized in the point rating system. -6- a. On Page 12, add a new Sec. 9.A. 5. (ii) as follows: Community Improvements Points 5 13. Prior Map Points Standard The project will contribute neededschool system improvements beyond those provided through the required developer fees. Measure F says that the maximum amount of points awardable shall not include.,., those elements of the criteria found not to be applicable (Sec. 10.06. C.). The possible points for tentative tract maps approved before November 4, 1986 should not be included as part of the total points awardable when not applicable. a. On Page 14, Sec. 9.A. 7. add the following: "If a project is ·not an approved tract prior to November 4, 1986, this subsection shall not be figured into the total number of points awa:rdable." . lJrba11 vVest Communities August 3, 1987 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Doug Holland, Chairman Planning Commission 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 Re: Residential Development Management System (Draft 3.B.) Dear Doug: We have reviewed the changes in the Residential Development Management System (Draft 3.B.) based on the Commission's actions and including staff changes and have the following recommendations to make. The first group of recommendations (I) is about changes based on the Commission's July 20 actions which were either omitted or not included as discussed; the second group of recommendations (II) is about new items. Group I Recommendations A. Grading for PC's The grading permit language is Draft 3.B included by staff at the Commission's direction does not, in our opinion, accurately represent the Commission's discussion. Additionally, the language is imprac- tical since it does not consider the relationship between final street grades and utility trenches and existing grades and the amount of subsequent regrading which would be necessary. It also does not allow, within a master plan, for reasonable grading process for any site that does not balance within itself. It raises concerns about the location and disposition of export soil on site and the source of import soil. We do not understand what advantage there is in not allowing balanced grading of specific planned areas which have strict erosion control and slope planting conditions. Furthermore, the cost of grading and siope maintenance will discourage property owners from creating lots which cannot be utilized within a reasonable amount of time. The process is self limiting with the appropriate conditions. 1. Draft 3,B. On Page 2, Section 5., change as follows: "No Residential building permit or associated grading permit for non-exempted projects may be issued unless a Residential building permit allocation for such project has been grated. A grading permit may be issued within an approved Planned Community Zone outside of the residential building permit allotment entitl- ement area if it is required to extend streets, utilities or other infrastructure improvements, or to deposit export material or to obtain import material as required for balanced grading in the grading plan with strict erosion control and slope planing condi- tions as approved by the City Engineer." Mr. Doug Holland August 3, 1987 Page 2 B. 2. Draft 3.B., Page 30, Section 1 O, change as follows: "All entitlements for residential development subject to this resolution, including, but not limited to Planned Development Permits and Major Modifications to Permits, which are approved by the City during the term of this Chapter shall be subject to a condition providing that permit approval is complete but no right to development will occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the project unless and until a Residential Building Permit Allotment is first awarded. In the case of the an approved Planned Community Zone a grading permit may be issued outside of the residential building permit allotment entitlement area if it is required to extend streets, utilities or other infrastructure improvements, or to deposit export soil or to obtain import soil as required for balanced grading in the grading plan with strict erosion control and slope planting conditions as approved by the City Engineer." 3. Draft 3.B., Page 30, Section 11, change as follows: "All tentative maps for subdivision of five or more residential dwelling units which are governed by the Residential Development Management System and are approved by the City during the term of this Ordinance shall be subject to a condition providing that the final map may be approved and recorded prior to awarding of a Residential Building Permit Allotment but no right to develop shall occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement will be issued for the subdivision unless and until a Residential Building Permit Allotment is first awarded. Where a tentative tract map on a subdivision of five or more units was approved prior to the effective date of Measure F, the final map may be approved and recorded prior to the awarding of a Permit Allotment for land within the subdivision, provided that no right to develop shall occur and no grading permit, building permit, or other City entitlement shall be issued for the land with the subdivision unless and until a Permit Allotment is first awarded. In the case of an approved Planned Community Zone a grading permit may be issued outside of the residential building permit allotment entitlement area if it is required to extend streets, utilities or other infrastructure improvements, or to deposit export soil or to obtain import soil as required for balanced grading in the grading plan with strict erosion control and slope planting conditions as approved by the City Engineer .11 Encourage Infrastructure Improvements The following infrastructure improvements items were approved by &ifio_v.w.iission, but were either omitted or incorrectly worded in Mr. Doug Holland August 3, 1987 Page 3 1. Draft 3.B. on Page 7, Section 9.A.l.(i) modify the Water Service section as follows: "The entire project can meet domestic and fire flows without further transmission pipeline, pumping station, a storage tank improvements involving capital contributions by the water pur- veyor." 2. Draft 3.B., on Page l 0, top Section 9.A.3.? change the Storm Water Drainage section as follows: "Storm water can be handled without further subsurface storm drain improvements outside project boundaries involving capital contributions by the storm drainage agency." 3. Draft 3.B., Page 10, Section 9.A.3.?, add a "Community Improve- ments" item for Storm Water Drainage Facilities as follows: "(ii) Community Improvements 5 The project will provide needed system improvements, as determined by the City, beyond those needed to satisfy the requirements of the project. To Qualify, the improvements must be judged by the storm water agency as being of substan- tial benefit outside the project boundaries and must not require direct financial participation by the storm water agency .11 • Grol.J> II Recommendations C. Fire Protection New language in Draft 3.B. provides for points for provision of a new fire station, major equipment, or new housing. Since a new fire station site is a major component of new facilities, recognition should also be given for site dedication. 1. Draft 3.B., on Page 10, Section 4, first 10 point item, change as follows: "Project provides a new fire station or site or provides major equipment or new equipment housing at no financial partici- pation by the Fire District." r Mr. Doug Holland August 3, 1987 Page 4 D. E. Project Seniority The current draft provides for seniority points for projects which have received previous allocations, but does not provide for seniority points for partially completed projects which have not previously received allocations. Seniority points should be allowed for partially completed projects within an existing approved subdivision map or planned community zone. 1. Draft 3.B., on Page 29, Section 9.C.3 add as follows: "5-30 points The allocation application is within a partially completed previously approved subdivision map or Planned Comun- ity zone project. Five (5) bonus points shall be given for each year since construction commenced within the sub- division map or Planned Community Zone. Amendments to Projects After Allotment A new section in Section 3.B. provides for amendments to allotments to be processed concurrently with requests for Major Modifications. If only a Major Modification is requested, which does not potentially result in a substantial change to the point rating, it should be allowed to be filed and processed at any time. 1. Draft 3.B., Page 31, Section 14 -Clarify that the intent is to allow an application for a Major Modification, which does not request an allotment amendment and does not potentially result in a sub- stantial change to the point rating, to be filed and processed at any time. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations to your Commissioner. Sincerely, Tom Zanic TZ:mgb zc: Planning Commission Members i [tv\~~t?.e .. ~ I\ ( CITY OF MOORP~RK- ! l FULL TEXT OF MEASURE "F" Shall the li,itiatin-Ordinance entitled: "l'ROl'OSEI> INI-YES TIATIVE ORDINANCE .-\N ORl>INANCf ESTAH- LISHIN(; A RESIDENTIAL l>E\'ELOl'I\IENT. MA~- .\GEI\IENT SYSTEM OF TIIE CITY OF MOORPARK .. • i,., adopted? • NO PROPOSED INITIATIVE ORDINANCE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 SEC. 10.01 Findings: The people of the City of Moorpark hereby find and declare as follows: A. The City of Moorpark has adopted a General Plan and city ordinances relating to the regulation of residential development B. The City of Moorpark is experiencing a period of intense residential development which is adversely affecting the capacity of the streets and local freeway system to meet traffic demands, the capacity of appropriate schools to absorb children, the semi-rural character of the community, the quality of life prevalent in the City of Moorpark and its sphere of influence. and the cost to households of some utilities and municipal services. C. It is the intent of th~ People of the City of Moorpark In achieve a ste~dy, rnther than a fluctuating, overly rapid, rate of residential growth each year in order that the services provided by City, School, Park, utility and/or service agencies operating in the City can be properly and effectively staged in a manner which will not overextend existing facilities, and in order that deficient services may be brought up to required and necessary standards while minimizing, by means of long range planning, the avoidable costs of short sighted facility expansion D. It is the intent of the People of the City of Moorpark to establish control over the quality, distribution, and rate of growth of the City in order to: ·Preserve the_senii:r!!r.aJ character of the_ coll}n:iu_nity;_ • Protect the agricultural land anif o-pen space of the City; • • ·Provide asii/table living environment for all citizens of the City; • Ensure the adequacy of __f!l!J.!lt@al, school, utility, recreation and-parklacilities and servfces; "Facilitate a 6alani:e of housing types-and valiiesmlhe City that win accommodate_ the_tiousing needs_g(a~ ......lliillOl!lifJi~men_tsi_n_c;_~u_cJl~g__f<!_mJlie.sof_lol'l_an_d.~oderate inc~_e,__and_Ql~er fami~s_p_n limited and/or fixed income~ : Ensure the balancfc[ifevelopment of_ the City:_:frny_e_!)t further significant deterioration in the local air quality; _'._Ensur_e that the tra_ffiLc!~i:n.aQQ~_c!Q not exceed the capacity ofstree1s·1hat are in cha'racter with.the City's semi,rnralnature; "Ensure that the City does not grow in 2 patlern that places a severe strain on the iocai-- _Trte,y~y_ system;.:..'. i:n-surelne adecftiacy tif lire ifroiection:a·oct-·Erisure acieg_uaiewater -and sanita~wer SYSkms-:-• --· ---- E. The people of the City of Moorpark have considered the effect of this ordinance on the housing needs of the region in which it is situated and have balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. It is hereby found and determined that this ordinance will not reduce the housing opportunities of the region and this ordinance is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. It is further found and determined that, to the extent this ordinance may be determined to reduce the housing opportunities of the region, the findings contained herein as to the public health, safety and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of this ordinance, justify any such reduction in the housing opportunities of the region. F. It is the purpose of this ordinance to augmen·t the policies pf the City of Moorpark as recorded in the General Plan and City Ordinances relating to the'regulation of residential development; and G. In order to accomplish the above purposes. the city must be able to control the rate. distribution. quality and economic level of proposed development on a year-to-year basis. To this end the following Residential Development Management System for the Crty of Moorpark shall be in effect from and after its effective date until December 31, 1995. Sec. 10.02 Applicability of the Development Management System. The provisions of the Residential Development Management System shall apply from the effective date to all residential development. including mobile homes, in the City of Moorpark_ with the exception of the following A. Projects of not more than four residential dwellings, limited to on!y one such .iro1ect per developer per calendar year 3 Fourplexes or lesser numbered multiple dwellings on a single existing lot: C Single family residential units on a single existing lot: D Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing dwellmg. or conversion of apartments !Q ;Ondominiums. so long as no add1110nal d1·1ell1ng units are created: t Dwelling units of any low income or ,~nior citizen pro1ects funded or subsidized "u?uan1 to the provisions of appl1cati1e ledual. state or local laws or programs Pro1ects of residential dwellings 1·11th a minimum lot size ol five acres per dwelling. Sec. 10.03 Establishment of Residential Development Evaluation Board_ In order to admillislef the sy~tem set forth herein. and especially to make the valuations set forth in Section 10.06 below, a Residential Oevelopment Evaluation Board (here after called the Board) is hereby established. consisting of the duly appointed members of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark. The procedures and by-laws of the Board shall be developed by the Board subject to the approval of the City Council of Moorpark (hereinafter called the City Council). The Planning Department of the City of Moorpark shall serve as the staff of the Board. Sec. 10.04 Establishment of Annual Residential Development Allotments. The number of dwelling units hereinafter to be constructed each year in the City of Moorpark (except for dwelling units exem_pted in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.02. shall be as follows: . A. Calendar year 1986; a maximum of 400 units; and B. Calendar year 1987 and all years thereafter, through December 31, 1994; a maximum of 250 dwelling uo1its. The annual allotment may be modified by the City Council to an amount not greater than 10 percent more or less for any given year. provided that the annual allotment for the next succeeding year shall be set higher or lower as the case may be, in order to redress any excess or deficiency (This 10 percent rule shall apply in all instances except that expressly provided for in Section 10.07 subparagraph A.) The annual allotment shall be continuously applicable to the City's jurisdictional boundaries and shall not be modified by reason of annexation or additional territory. Sec.· 10.05 Development Allotment Application. No building permit of non-exempt projects may be issued unless a development allotment for such project has been granted. At any time prior to obtaining a building permit, the developer of proposed projects not exempted fronn application for a development allotment pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.02 shall apply for a development allotment as set forth herein. The approval of all tentative subdivision maps shall be conditioned to comply with \~ provisions of this Residential .Development Management System. -Sec. -10:06 Development Allocation Evaluation. The Board shall consider annually all applications properly submitted and shall make recommendations to the City Council based on the criteria set forth below: A. Avail~bility of P11blic Facilities and Services. The Board shall examine each application for its relations to, or impact upon local public facilities and services, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating "very poor:· ten indicating "excellent") on each of the following attributes: 1. The capacity of the water system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the de- veloper. 2. The capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the de- veloper. 3. The capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. 4. The ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the City without the necessity of establis~ -~la!iQJLQ!_ requiring addition of major equipment or housing facilities to an existing station. 5. The capacity of the appropriate school to absorb the children expected to ir1habit a proposed development without necessitating or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding. 6. The capacity of major street linkage to provide for the need of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic.patterns or overloading the existing street system, and the availability of other public facilities (such as parks. playgrounds, etc.) to meet the additional demands for vital public services without extension of services beyond those provided by the developer. 7. The capacity of Highway 118 and 23 within the city limits to provide for the traffic needs generated by the proposed development without substantially altering the level of service, including Freeway access. ---- • 8. Developments which have received Tentative Tract Map approval from the City of Moorpark prior to the effective date of this Residential Development Management System shall receive for each calendar year after 1984 an additional ten points. B. Quality of Design and Contribution of Public Welfare and Amenity. The Board shall examine each application which has not been withdrawn by the applicant for failure to meet criteria A. and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating "very poor." ten indicating "excellent") on each of the following attributes: 1. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size. height, color and location with existing neighboring development. 2. The amount and character of open-space and slope landscaping. 3. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the arrange· ment of the site for efficiency of circulation. on and off site traffic safety, privacy. etc. 4. The provision of public and/or private usable open space . 5. Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of foot or bicycle paths. equestrian trials and facilities and/or greenbelts. 6. The provision of needed public facilities such as critical linkages in the major street system. school rooms. functional parks. or other vital public facilities. (Continued Next Page) ... .----____________________ _j_ _______________________ _J I 56-84 JI Ii r::Ull TEXT OF MEASURE F, Continued 7. Site and arch1lectural design quality which may be indicated by the amount and c;1aracter of modification of the topography. including quantity of grading. extent of natural slores cul and/or lilied and impact on ridgeline. 8. Absence of delelerious impact on trees and archeological sites. 9. The provision of significant water conservation features. 10. The provision of energy generation and conservation features. such as addilional insulation. house siteing and design, solar techniques ·and other innovative techniques. - 11. Absence of deleterious impact on the physical and/or aesthetic environment. 12. Design and features whi£h contribute significantly to the economic feasibility cf producing housing at the lowest possible cost given economic and environmental factors. the public health and safety. and the need to facilitate the development of housing for persons of low or moderate income. C. After having studied each application in accordance with parts A and B. in regard to each of these criteria. or so many of them as may be applicable. and having assigned evaluation points on a scale of zero to ten in accordance with their finding, the Board shall prepare two lists. one documenting points awarded from part A and the other from part B. arranging the developments in each list in order from that receiving the greatest total number of evaluation points to that receiving the lowest number. In addition to listing the number of actual points awarded in each subcategory of both parts. each part will be totaled and the total shall then be expressed as a percentage of the maximum number of points awardable. The maximum number of points awardable shal_l not include those elements of the criteriaTounHobeniit applicaoie.-_______ ·-• ----- D. Having evaluated each development in accordance with the foregoing criteria, the Board shall publish in__apjlftlftttate-ways. the rating given to each development on each of those criteria. The Board shall then schedule a public hearing to be held within 15 days of classification of any point assignments maqe by the Board. 1. Any applicant may request the Board, at said public hearing. to re-evaluate the point assignment made on any or all of the criterion. The primary criteria for the Board to alter their point assignment on a particular development is demonstration by the applicant that there exists pertinent information or a project redesign which the Board was not aware of at the time of the originai evaluation. 2. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the Board's re-evaluation may submit written notification of such dissent, which will be furnished to the City Council prior to the awarding of Development Allotments. E. Having evaluated each development and clarified all point assignments to the applicants, the Board shall present their lists of evaluations, along with the decisions reached on any appeals. to the City Council for the awarding of Development Allotments. F. The schedule for the submission and consideration of applications shall be established by the City Council. G. The criteria set forth in this section 10.06 are for the purpose of addressing the findings, intent and purpose of this ordinance as set forth in section 10.01 and are not to be construed or used for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for all economic segments of the community. Sec. 10.07 Development Allotment Awards. A. The City Council shall consider, at a public hearing, the recommendations and rankings of the proposed developments on each of the above described two lists. along with any action taken by the Board concerning appealed decisions, and shall compile one list ranking each of the propased developments. and shall award development allotments from that list. 1. Development Program Allotment. The number of dewlling units for which Development Allotments shall be issued shall not exceed the allotments established in accordance with Section 10.04 herein. 2. Allocation Limitation. No single developer shall, in any one year. be issued a development allotment for dwelling units in excess of a number to be established by resolution of the City Council. 3. Minimum Point Requirements. The City Council shall eliminate from consid- eration any development which has not been assigned a minimum of 49 percentage points under Section 10.06. subparagraph A. herein. or a minimum of 70 percentage points under Section 10.06. subparagraph B. If in a given year the highest ranking development does not at least meet both of the minimum point requirements. the City Council shall ma~e no Development Allotment for that year. The number of units will then be added. as the only allowed exception to the 10 percent rule in subsection 10.04. to the allotment for the ensuing year. B. The City Council shall make the annual Development Allotments at a time to be selected by the City Council. C. An application may be amended upon submittal of an additional application made in the same manner as the original application. In addition, the application for an amendment shall set forth the reasons for requesting the amendment. 1. The City Council shall review such an amendment application in the same manner as an original application and may grant the amendment as requested. modify the amendmenl, or deny the amendment. 2. An amendment or modification may be granted only if the City Council after reviewing the proposed development in relation to the criteria set forth in Section 10.06. subparagraphs A and B shall find that the modified development has earned as many or more evaluation poinls than the original develonment for whi~h th~ no.,olnnmon• Allmmenr was issued. -tf""Sli'1iiTiadeveloper fail to initiate construction within twenty-four months after award of the Development Allotment. the City Council. after a hearing. may. by majority vote. rescind all or part of the Development Allotment Sec. 10.08 Additional Regulations. Should the arrangement of projects as provided in Section 100 07. subparagraph A produce the situation irrwhich two i)rojects have equal evaluation po,nt scores. but only one project can be permitted within the quota. the City Council may offer those applicants a pro rata share of the number of units available within the quota. or may dispose of such nie in any other manner deemed equitable by the City Council. Sec. 10.09 Judicial Review. Any legal action to challenge any decision or denial of the Board or any other governmental body perJorming a function under this ordinance must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within thirty days immediatel',' following the action challenged. • Sec. 10.00 Modification. The City Council may, after-a public hearing, by a iour-fifths vote. change any part of this Residential Development Management System IJy ~end- ment. providing the amendment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. - . SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance. or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. the validity of the remainder of this ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Residential Development Management System shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is certified by the City Clerk. and shall go into effect immediately thereafter. * IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY MEASURE "F" The City of Moorpark does not presently limit the number of dwelling units that may be constructed on an annual basis in the City. This measure would establish a residential development management system, based upon specified findings. The system would be in effect until December 31, 1995. The system would apply to all residential development, including mobile homes. with certain exceptions. The exceptions are: One project of not more than 4 dwelling units per developer per calendar year; not more than 4 dwelling units per single existing lots; rehabilitation and remodeling of existing dwelling units; conversion of apartments to • condominiums provided no additional dwelling units are created; and publicly funded or subsidized dwelling units for low-income persons or senior citizens. Under the system. the maximum number of non-exempt dwelling units that could be constructed per calendar year in the City, including any annexed territory, is 400 in 1986 and 250 in 1987 and in each succeeding year through D.ecember 31. 1994. The city council could increase or decrease the annual development allotment by not more than 10% for . any year, with a limited exception. provided thatthe annual development allotment for the next succeeding year is adjusted to redress the excess or deficiency of the preceding year. , t, Under the system. no building permit for a non-exempt residential development would be issued unless a development allotment had been previously granted. The planning; c commission. acting as the residential development evaluation board, would annually rate i s and rank each application for a development allotment based upon certain specified : criteria. Before submitting its recommendations to the city council, the board would; I'< eonsider the proposed ratings and rankings at a public hearing.· Before awarding the development allotments for the calendar year. the city council; would consider the s, recommendation of the board at a public hearing. • ; p, , Under the system, no allotment would be made to any development that did not achieve: a certain minimum rating. If a developer failed to initiate construction within 24 months: 31 after the award of the development allotment. the city council could rescind all or part of. T( the allotment after a hearing. This measure could be amended by the city council, after a public hearing and by not less than a 415th vote. provided that the amendment is consistent with the intent of this measure A "Yes" vote on this measure shall be counted in favor of the establishment of the residential development management system. A "No" vote on this measure shall be counted against the establishment of the system. • Sec1ton 5011 ot the Cahforn1a Elections Code allows the City At1orney to prepare an impartial analysis of each C•ty measure appearing on the ballot 56-85