HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORTS 1992 0422 CC SPC ITEM 04AITEM- • � MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 DOR'AW, CALIFORNIA City Cou II Meefing Of 2 %_ 1992-- MEMORANDUM 34 0 W.=74r uy TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community Development 71 DATE: April 16, 1992 (CC Meeting of 4-22-92) SUBJECT: WORK TASKS, UNRESOLVED ISSUES, AND WORK PROGRAM REGARDING GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE EXPANSION STUDY, AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BACKGROUND This staff report contains a list of work tasks (including implementation measures from the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements and mitigation measures from the Draft EIR), issues, and a draft meeting schedule/work program. As discussed at the April 8, 1992, meeting, there are a number of issues which must be resolved as well as work tasks which will need to be completed prior to completing an update to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. Also identified in this report are work tasks which will need to be completed: 1) prior to adoption of any ordinance which will formally approve revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Map, 2) prior to approval of any new specific plan, and 3) within one to two years after General Plan Update approval. Priorities will need to be established for these follow-up work tasks. The Council will also need to make a determination whether the identified work tasks should be completed by staff or by a private consultant. Also included in this staff report are a list of issues which were developed based upon Council discussion and staff review of public testimony at various meetings and public hearings since the initiation of the General Plan Update. Some issues will require additional research by staff if directed to do so by the Council. 1 PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ ROY E. TALLEY JR. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember Printarl nn Recvrlerl P»ner I DISCUSSION WORK TASKS Require Immediate Council Direction: 1. Review Chamber of Commerce Economic Development and Employment goals and policies and identify which, if any, should be incorporated into Land Use Element. May require 8-10± hours of Community Development Department staff time to rewrite and incorporate into Draft Land Use Element. Please note that a number of goals and policies recommended by the Chamber are not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the Land Use Element. 2. Review EIR mitigation measures and add applicable mitigation measures to Land Use and Circulation Element implementation programs. (The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines state that "...mitigation measures must be reflected in the general plan's implementation program...) May require 12-20+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. 3. Mitigation Monitoring Program - The OPR General Plan Guidelines clarify that when a general plan is enacted based upon an EIR, the City Council must also adopt a reporting or monitoring program for ensuring compliance with adopted mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring program must enable compliance with mitigation measures to be tracked. Such programs can be incorporated into the yearly "state of the plan" report prepared for the City Council pursuant to State law. Staff will need to rewrite mitigation measures to be more specific and must list which person, City department or agency is responsible for implementation and long term monitoring. (PBR is not required by the contract to do this work.) May require 40± hours of Community Development Department staff time. 4. Prior to certification of the Final EIR, a clarification memorandum should be prepared and attached to the Final EIR which explains changes which have occurred to the Draft Land Use and Circulation Element since preparation of the Response to Comments Section. This clarification is needed since some of the responses to comments currently refer to specific policy language in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements that no longer exists or has been modified. May require 16- 40+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. 2 W 5. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations - CEQA Findings are required for each significant effect identified in the EIR, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required where significant effects are not at least substantially mitigated. (PBR is not required by the contract to do this work.) May require 40+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. City Attorney review time would also be required. 6. Existing Land Use Inventory on page 3 of the Draft Land Use element should be updated. (To revise, staff would need to review PBR's existing land use map to determine what properties have developed since 1989 or were categorized incorrectly. Staff would then need to recalculate gross acres for each land use category.) May require 12+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. 7. General Plan/Zoning Compatibility Matrix in Draft Land Use Element is not accurate and should be corrected. May require 4+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. 8. Should a glossary and definition section be included in Land Use Element? (Depending upon the extent of such a section, the definition of certain terms may generate substantial additional discussion. For example, net versus gross density, affordable housing, rural arterial, rural -suburban, etc.) May require 24-40± hours of Community Development Department staff time. 9. Should staff amend Section 5.0 of the Draft Land Use Element to include language pertaining to clustering similar to that contained in Resolution 86-318 (Attachment 1)? If the answer is yes, should clustering continue to be restricted to rural residential designations only, and should staff revise the language as it pertains to "substantial recreation facility or agricultural use" to eliminate the ambiguity? 10. Confirmation is needed from the Council that the following list represents the Council's desired revisions or actions pertaining to Figure 2, Highway Network, of the Circulation Element based on discussion at the March 11 and April 8 meetings. a. Make the following street name changes: Rename as High Street - Los Angeles Avenue from Spring Road to Princeton Avenue and all of Princeton Avenue Change New Los Angeles Avenue to Los Angeles Avenue 3 r • PPOH buTadS jo gsaM guauibas eqq buTpnTOUT 'PPOH TTTH uoEaa JO aapuTEulaa aqg aO; III SSETD pup Napa TTTH uOEad og ppOH ppECaH EaaaTy MOa; II sSETD sE MOgS •q *Nand aqg og ppoa S9900E 9q4 buOTE Napa AgTunurmOD EgsTn OAOaaV Og PPOH EPE19H EaaaTJ uloaj III SSPTD p MOgS •E :buTgaaul TT uoaPK aqg gE UOTssnoSTP uo pospq guaulaTH UOTgPTnoaTD aqg 10 'NaOMgaN APMONTS aanbTa og SUOTsTnaa paaTSap s,TTounoD aqg sguasaadaa gsTT buTMOTTOJ Oqq gvgq TTOunOD aqq MOal Papaau sT UoTqu=TJU0* 0 • TT •Z aanbTa uO SaogoaTTOo TEooT sE saATaQ ggaaapg uETgSTaTAD pup uoapaH ppV •}[ •abUPgDaaguT aangnJ 8TT--dS/dEMPpoag 944 114TM UOTgDUn[UOo UT uOAuEZ) SOUIPTV og aouaaaJaa agpUTMTTH • C • Z aanbTa uioaj ppoH uoKupo SOMTaD pup 8TT-HS Mau uaaMgaq uoTgoauuoo ppoH gaaggEE) E og aouaaaJaa TTE a-.EuTUITTS 'T •aogoaTTOo TEooT p sE 8TT-'dS Mau Og tjgaou gaaagS ubTH uloal ppoH buTadS abuptlo • q *PPOH EpplaH EaaaTy og ggnos PPOH TTTH uoEad Wag pup anuanv SaTabUV SOq Og tlgaou abpTaq aqg UIOaJ TETaagaE auET-anoj E sp ppoH buTadS Motfs • TMTS Odoaag aqg aano abpTaq atlg og ggaou ppoH TTTH uopad MOaJ aogoaTTOo TEooT E sp ppoH buTadS MogS • b •SUOTgTPuoo oTjjpag uo paspq Aapssooau pauTUlaagaP IT sgo9load TETOaauIU OD Og SaotIEagua aOCEUI gE UOTgPZTTEubTS buTaTnbaa AoTTod E PPV 'Z aanbTa Wag PPOH TTaS AgaagTZ agpuTlUTTH '3 •anuanV saTabuV SO'I g4TM suOTgoasaaguT PPOH TTaS AgaagTZ pup aupq Napa ggoq gE TpubTs E Mous og anuTguoD • anuang SaTabUV so'I jo ugnos saogoOTTOO TPOOT PaETTTX PUP 'ganoo oTgsaCEys 'aupZ Napa 'TTaS dgaagTZ 'anuanV UPuIPTOf) : Z aanbTa uioaj agpuTUJTTa OsTV -Z aanbTa uO anuanV SOPTun Og aouaaaJaa TTE agpuTUITTH •a •TETaagau auET-anOJ E sE anTaQ SMOPEays UTEgunOK pup PPOH Epp CaH EaaaTy uaaMgaq gaaagS TTEas uTEgunOK Moi;S • p •(sauET oMg '•a•T) aogoaTTOo TEooT E sE (gaaagS ubTH '•a•T) uogaouTaa JO gsaM anTa(j Napa sndulEZ) MotgS •o ( • aangnj atgg uT SOUPT anol aOJ uoTgdo aqg MOTTE og SEM guagul ) • aogoaTTOo TEana E Og aogoaTToo TEooT E UIOag uogaouTad pup ppoH buTadS/gaaagS ubTH uaaMgaq anuanV saTabUV soZ abuE110 • q C. Show High Street and Spring Road as Class III. d. Staff has also been directed to revise Figure 3 to show Class III connections to schools and parks as appropriate. 12. Staff is awaiting direction from the Council Bikeway/ Equestrian Trail Ad Hoc Committee pertaining to the need to revise the Circulation Element text and/or exhibits to identify that bicycle use on equestrian trails is permitted. If combined use is to be permitted, some type of cautionary note would need to be added on the equestrian trails exhibit to warn that not all trails may be appropriate for bicycle use due to sandy soils or steep terrain. (Some additional revisions to the Circulation Element pertaining to equestrian trails may also be appropriate, refer to Circulation Element Issue 14 in this report.) 13. Staff is recommending that the Council look at each proposed Specific Plan individually, and discuss issues pertaining to that plan area to determine whether the specific plan descriptions or Appendix A in the Draft Land Use Element need to be modified to include additional requirements. At your April 8 meeting, the Council deferred decisions on whether any circulation system revisions were required for Specific Plan 1 (High Street), Specific Plan 2 (SR-23), and Specific Plan 8 (Broadway). Please refer also to staff recommendations in staff report for April 8 meeting pertaining to specific plan requirements. Work Tasks Recommended Prior to Completion: Staff is not recommending that an ordinance or ordinances amending the zoning for properties involved in the General Plan Update be approved at the same time as a resolution amending the General Plan. Prior to any zoning ordinance amendments, at least three work tasks will need to be completed: 1. Analyze, identify, and implement required Zoning Code and Zoning Map changes necessary for consistency with revised Land Use Element. When a general plan amendment makes the zoning inconsistent, the zoning must be changed to reestablish consistency "within a reasonable time" (Government Code Section 65860[c]). The OPR General Plan Guidelines provide the following recommendations regarding zoning consistency: State law does not prescribe what constitutes 'a reasonable time' for reconciling the zoning ordinance with the general plan. OPR recommends that when possible, general plan 5 amendments and necessary related zone changes be heard concurrently (Government Code Section 65862). When concurrent hearings are not feasible, OPR recommends the following maximum time periods. For minor general plan amendments, those involving a relatively small area, six months should provide ample time for processing the necessary environmental analysis and rezoning. For extensive amendments to the general plan, such as a revision which results in the inconsistency of large areas, rezoning will probably be more complex and may require more time. In such cases, two years is a reasonable limit, as this is the maximum period for which interim zoning can be imposed under Government Code Section 65858. Where the general plan has been revised substantially, the entire zoning scheme should be reviewed for consistency and amended as necessary. (Page 213) May require 120± hours of Community Development Department staff time. City Attorney review time may also be required. 2. A transportation improvement fee program shall be developed and adopted to enable circulation improvements to be funded by new development. A phasing/improvement plan shall be included that identifies project specific improvement responsibilities and requires fair share funding for cumulative circulation improvements (Circulation Element Implementation Measure No. 8 and Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measure). If a transportation improvement fee program is not in effect prior to revising. the zoning for properties involved in the General Plan Update, applications for subdivision maps could be filed which would then not be subject to any new fees imposed after the application is filed. Once the program is developed, the City will require participation as a condition of development. For the last several years, the City has been requiring applicants for entitlements to sign a covenant agreeing to participate in a City-wide transportation improvement program when adopted. This program would need to be developed by either City Engineer's Office or another qualified consultant. r 3. Prepare Hillside Development Ordinance. (EIR Aesthetics Mitigation Measure requires that City shall employ a mechanism such as a hillside development ordinance or viewshed preservation criteria in order to protect visually prominent horizon lines and other scenic viewsheds in the community within one year of adopting the updated Land Use Element. However, if a hillside ordinance is not in effect prior to revising the zoning for properties involved in the General Plan Update, applications for subdivision maps could be filed which would then not be subject to a hillside ordinance.) May require 200± hours of Community Development Department staff time. Consultant assistance may be needed if the ordinance includes grading standards. City Attorney and City Engineer review time would also be required. Work Tasks Following Adoption of General Plan Amendment: Following adoption of a General Plan amendment resolution but prior to approval of any new specific plans, the following work tasks must be completed: 1. Update Housing Element (to address revised land use designations, density restrictions, policies, etc). May require 160± hours of Community Development Department staff time. City Attorney review would also be required. 2. Update Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (to address new land use plan and policies as they pertain to open space areas and parks). May require 160± hours of Community Development Department staff time. City Attorney review would also be required. 3. Update Noise Element (to revise noise contours and identify future areas of noise sensitivity based on updated circulation plan). A qualified consultant would need to collect base data and create CNEL maps based on approved land uses, and either Community Development Department staff or a consultant would need to revise the Noise Element text. City Attorney review time would also be required. 4. Update Safety Element (to address revised land use plan and potential hazard areas). A qualified consultant would need to collect base data and accomplish required mapping, and either Community Development Department staff or a consultant would need to revise the Safety Element text. City Attorney review time would also be required. 7 5. Adopt a standard list of conditions to ensure that all mitigation measures which are supposed to be imposed on development projects are, in fact, included. May require 80± hours of Community Development Department staff time. The first draft of standard conditions for entitlement permits has been completed and is currently under review. Following adoption of a resolution amending the General Plan and approval of any ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance, the following work tasks should be completed within a "reasonable time" (these work tasks are required by the EIR mitigation measures and Land Use and Circulation Elements implementation programs). 1. Review, update and expand the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to project annual expenditures for acquisition, construction rehabilitation, and replacement of public buildings and facilities. Would need to be implemented by City Administrative and Public Works Departments' staff. 2. As directed by the City Council, an application shall be submitted to the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to amend the City's sphere of influence boundary, consistent with the approved Land Use Plan. May require 120± hours of Community Development Department staff time (assuming that General Plan Update EIR can be utilized). 3. Prepare a specific plan for the downtown study area. May require 300-500± hours of Community Development Department staff time with certain components completed by a qualified consultant. City Attorney and City Engineer review time will also be required. Less Community Development Department staff time will be required if entire specific plan is prepared by a consultant. 4. Work with other public agencies to update master plans for sewer, water, utility, flood control, and solid waste services. Exact staff involvement unknown. 5. Aid Ventura County Water District No. 1 in implementing its master plan within the City. Exact staff involvement unknown. 6. Prepare a master community design plan for the City which includes a design concept plan for special treatment areas within the community and identifies overall community concepts for landscape architecture, architecture, signage, street- scapes, identifiable entryways, and community gateway areas. (Land Use Element Implementation Measure 27) Would need to be completed by a qualified consultant with review by Community Development Department staff. Costs would be expected to be substantial because of the broad scope of the plan. Staff recommends revising Draft Land Use Element Implementation Measure 27, because it exceeds the City's needs and will be costly to implement. 7. Prepare an art in public places ordinance which requires works of art or artistic elements to be included as a part of commercial and industrial development projects, and includes an in -lieu fee consideration. May require 100± hours of Community Development Department staff time. City Attorney review time would also be required. 8. Conduct a study of the feasibility of adopting either an inclusionary zoning ordinance which would require that a percentage of new, private residential development be affordable to low- and moderate -income households, and/or a housing trust fund ordinance which would require developers of non-residential projects to provide housing or contribute an in -lieu fee that goes into an affordable housing trust fund. May require 80+ hours of Community Development Department staff time. (Preparing an ordinance would involve additional staff time, including City Attorney review time.) 9. Adopt policies and mechanisms to monitor growth in order to ensure consistency with the County updated population forecasts for the designated growth and nongrowth areas of Moorpark. (Land Use Mitigation Measure) Staff involvement could vary depending upon whether a new ordinance and new residential development management system guidelines need to be developed. 10. Participate in the County's update of the growth and nongrowth area boundaries and population forecasts. (Land Use Mitigation Measure) Exact staff involvement unknown. It could be expected that staff would spend a considerable amount of time at the County Government Center attending meetings at least once a month plus preparation, research, and follow-up actions related to this involvement. 11. Implement a waste reduction program to achieve a 25 percent diversion of solid waste to landfills consistent with AB 939. This program shall consist of drop-off, source or co -mingled recycling programs, composting programs, and cardboard recycling for industrial and commercial uses or any other waste diversion program consistent with the County's adopted guidelines. (Solid Waste Management Mitigation) Program has already been developed - City Source Reduction and Recycling Element. 4 12. Develop program to ensure that green wastes from public parks and open space areas shall be composted and materials shall be reused. (Solid Waste Management Mitigation) Need for program has already been identified and is being developed in conjunction with implementation of the City Source Reduction and Recycling Element. 13. Implement the policies established in the Noise Element of the General Plan within one year of adopting the updated Land Use and Circulation Elements to ensure the continued compatibility between Moorpark's noise -sensitive land uses and noise levels in the City. The Noise Element policies involve provisions for appropriate site planning, design, and City review of proposed projects, and the adoption and enforcement of a Community Noise Ordinance. (Noise Mitigation Measure) ( Important to note that existing Noise Element Policy 3 states that noise barriers should be constructed along the Southern Pacific Rail Line corridor where residences exist adjacent to the main tracks. Other existing Noise Element policies are not considered to be a problem to implement.) Exact staff involvement unknown. 14. Implement the recommendations of the March 1987 Master Drainage Study. (Hydrology Mitigation Measure) City Public Works Department responsibility. 15. A grading ordinance shall include the following provisions: City shall require the incorporation of adequate erosion control measures into development projects that may otherwise impact water resources adversely. Such measures shall include sandbagging of newly graded slopes, prompt planting of disturbed areas, phasing of grading and construction activities to minimize exposed areas susceptible to erosion, and the routing of runoff flows through desilting basins prior to discharge into any watercourse. (Hydrology Mitigation Measure) Appears to require preparation of a City grading ordinance. Exact staff time required unknown. May need to be completed by the City Engineer's Office or another consultant. 16. City Engineer's office shall prepare and maintain a circulation facility design manual containing roadway standards which specify right-of-way, number of lanes, typical cross -sections and parking restrictions according to designated arterial classifications. Included will be design guidelines for driveway placement, intersection site distance, stop sign installation, medians, landscaping, bike lanes, bike paths, sidewalks, and equestrian trails. Rural and hillside road standards for road widths, grading, pathways, pedestrian areas, walks, landscaping, street name signs, and utilities shall also be included. (Circulation Element Implementation 10 Measure 4 and Transportation/Circulation Mitigation Measure). Staff time required unknown. Would need to be completed by the City Engineer's Office or another consultant. The amount of time and costs related to this matter are expected to be significant. This implementation measure appears to exceed the needs of the City and should be rewritten. 17. The City Engineer's Office and Public Works Department shall implement a program of traffic signal interconnection and computerization (Circulation Element Implementation Measure 7). Exact staff time required unknown. 18. The Community Development Department shall develop a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Implementation Measure 11). May require 160+ hours of staff time. City Attorney review time may also be required. 19. Develop a program to monitor traffic volumes and levels of service on Moorpark roadways to facilitate the maintenance of the minimum level of service "C" as a system performance standard for traffic volumes on the roadway system. Staff time required unknown. Would need to be implemented by the City Public Works Department. ISSUES Land Use Element Issues: 1. Draft Land Use Plan includes a revision to the planned land uses for the Unocal property located east of Moorpark College and north of Highway 118. Since Unocal has not participated in the costs for completing the General Plan Update, should they be required to process a separate General Plan amendment to obtain a change in land use? Discussion: A memo was provided to the Council dated January 28, 1992, which discussed the status of the current General Plan land use designation and the zoning for the Unocal property. The City has no evidence that the General Plan land use designation for the Unocal property (currently OS-2) was ever amended to be consistent with the zoning for that property (currently RA, RE-1 Acre, RPD-5 Units/Acre and RPD 15 Units/Acre). PBR was, therefore, directed by the Council to develop a specific plan proposal for the Unocal property (Specific Plan 3) and to analyze the impacts of that plan in the General Plan Update EIR. 11 2. After making a decision on a preferred land use plan, the Council will need to determine whether substantive changes to the draft Land Use Element (text and land use plan) have been made. An example might be the latest proposed revision to allowed residential densities. Discussion: In regard to adopting or amending a general plan, the Government Code requires that any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings shall first be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. The Planning Commission has 45 days to return their comments and recommendations. 3. What mineral resource areas need to be designated on the General Plan map to be in compliance with State law? Discussion: PBR researched this issue in conjunction with preparation of the EIR (refer to page 83 of the Draft EIR). Mineral lands which are classified as 11MRZ-2 indicate that "significant mineral deposits are present or a high likelihood for their presence exists", and these areas would need to be designated on the General Plan map. Based upon PBR's research, there are no MRZ-2 zones within the planning area (City incorporated area and sphere of influence expansion study area). 4. Should rail corridor zoning be considered? Discussion: Staff recommends that the Zoning Compatibility Matrix in the Draft Land Use Element be amended to include a railroad corridor zone designation and that in conjunction with zoning consistency amendments, the Zoning Map be amended to show the railroad area south of the tracks and the track area as a Railroad Corridor Zone. Please also note that the City Attorney has recommended eliminating the Commercial - Industrial Mix land use designation (for the area south of High Street and north of the tracks) , designating this area as all commercial on the land use plan, and then amending the zoning map to show as a CPD Zone. Since the Commercial - Industrial land use designation prohibited expansion of existing industrial uses, showing the area south of High Street as commercial would accomplish the same goal. In other words, existing industrial uses would then become legal non- conforming and no expansion would be permitted. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Commercial -Industrial Mix land use designation be deleted. 12 5. Have we received the information from the School District on their master plan? Discussion: A Draft Facility Master Plan dated September 1990 was reviewed in conjunction with preparation of the Draft EIR. Staff contacted the School District on April 14, 1992, and was informed that the Final Facility Master Plan would be available in approximately two weeks. 6. Do we need definitions of density so there is never an argument as to whether its on a gross or a net acre basis? Discussion: Section 5.0 of he Land Use Element should be revised to include a clarification that density shall be required to be calculated based upon the "net area." This clarification is needed to provide justification for the net area requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance. Currently Section 8205-8 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance defines net area as follows: "Net area" means total land area exclusive of areas within any existing or proposed public or private street, road, or easement for ingress or egress and exclusive of the area within any existing or proposed easement wherein the owner of the lot or parcel is prohibited from using the surface of the ground. Included in the "net area" is the area lying within public utility easements, except as otherwise provided in Section 8241, sanitary sewer easements, landscaping easements, public service and tree maintenance easements. Section 8241 of the Subdivision Ordinance provides that in determining the permissible minimum lot area of lots less than ten thousand square feet in size, all public utility transmission line easements (33 kilovolts or more) shall be excluded even though such easements are included in the lot design. 7. Does the Council want staff to address any issues related to the testimony given on March 18, 1992, or any of the written documents transmitted from the City Clerk to the Council in packages dated March 13, 1992, March 18, 1992, and March 19, 1992? 13 Discussion: One of the primary issues staff noted was the concern related to the need for buffer areas between existing and proposed new development. Staff has already suggested that the Council may want to consider adding language under the Specific Plan requirements relating to the need for buffer separations between urban and non -urban areas, existing development and new development, etc. 8. If the Council is interested in doing so, does the General Plan have language to allow a charge to be imposed on commercial builders to help pay for low income housing? Discussion: Policy 3.3 states that "Where feasible the City shall use inclusionary zoning to require that a percentage of new -private residential development be affordable to low -and moderate -income households." The Council may want to amend that policy or add a new policy which, if feasible, would allow the City to establish a housing trust fund ordinance which would require developers of non-residential projects to provide housing or contribute an in -lieu fee that goes into an affordable housing trust fund. The implementation program would then need to reflect the requirement for staff to study the feasibility of adopting a housing trust fund ordinance (refer to Work Task 31 in this report). Attached is a Housing Trust Fund Project report (Attachment 2 ) which provides a good summary of the mechanism for creating local housing trust funds (i.e., linkage programs), the impact of linkage fees on non-residential development, etc. 9. Should we consider one land use such as institutional for all public and quasi -public uses and then having various zoning options to recognize current and/or potential uses? Discussion: Prior to circulation of the Land Use Element, the Quasi -Public land use designation was eliminated. There is currently a Public Institutional designation and a Utilities designation. There is an error on the land use map in the October 1991 Draft Land Use Element. The fire station in the Mountain Meadows area is still shown as Quasi -Public; it should be shown as Public Institutional. The City currently has no public or institutional zone designation. Creating a Public or Institutional zone designation and rezoning properties which currently have public or institutional existing land use may not always be appropriate. For example, if an institutional use is currently located on industrial zoned property, and the City then rezones that property to institutional, the property owner might consider the City's action to be a "taking." In 14 most cases a Public Institutional land use designation would not require rezoning, since land uses such as government buildings, fire stations, and schools are allowed in most zones. 10. Relative to the residential density discussion at the Council's April 8 meeting, should a minimum ( floor) density be included? Should any of the maximum densities or density limits be revised? Discussion: The Council did not reach resolution of this issue at your April 8 meeting. Staff recommends deferring discussion of this issue until April 29, or a subsequent meeting, when the City Attorney is available to discuss. 11. Should the Land Use Element address the use of tertiary treated water? Discussion: A policy could be added to require, where feasible, infrastructure improvements in conjunction with new development to allow use of tertiary treated water. Circulation Element Issues: 12. What is the feasibility of six travel lanes for Los Angeles Avenue west of Gabbert Road? Discussion: Refer to attached memorandum from Assistant City Engineer (Attachment 3). In summary, while physically possible, six lanes are probably not feasible due to the required covering of the storm channel; relocation of existing power lines, fencing, and the existing Edison building; grading, and loss of approximately 50 mature trees. 13. Depending upon the land uses approved for Specific Plan 2 (JBR site) and the Circulation Element linkages approved, do we need to specifically look how the 23-118 connection project will impact the ability to use a road through JBR as the main access to the Happy Camp Regional Park and as the new State Route 23 connecting to Broadway? If approved, will all of the truck traffic and park traffic have to get off the freeway onto City streets to continue south, north or east? Discussion: Staffs main concern is to keep regional park and quarry traffic off of City streets. Currently the circulation plan does not take into consideration how vehicles will get off of a SR-23 bypass to get to Happy Camp Park or Broadway Road (i.e., no planned interchanges). Some decisions regarding the circulation for this area should be made now, rather than deferred to the time of Specific Plan preparation, since construction of a SR-23/SR-118 interchange may not be economically feasible for the next 20+ years. 15 14. The following issues need to be resolved regarding equestrian trails: Should the expressed concern of putting equestrian trails adjacent to agricultural uses be addressed in the Circulation Element? Do we need to address fencing for equestrian trails as well as motorcycle barriers? Have we addressed a program for ownership and maintenance of the equestrian trails? How should the Circulation Element address allowing bicycle use on equestrian trails? Are specific trail standards required? Discussion: Staff recommends that the Bikeways/Equestrian Trail Ad Hoc Committee provide a recommendation on these issues and that these issues be addressed in the Circulation Element. 15. What is the status of a railroad grade separation? Discussion: The Draft Circulation Element shows a grade separated railroad crossing west of Gabbert Road for the SR- 118 bypass route. Should the bypass road connection with Los Angeles Avenue be extended further west, a railroad grade crossing will probably need to be under, rather than over, the tracks. 16. Is the Circulation Element consistent with the Congestion Management Plan (CM)) requirements? Discussion: Staff has not yet had the opportunity to fully research this issue. 17. Policy 1.7 includes the term "rural appearance", which is not de f ined . Discussion: Policy 1.7 is vague and will be difficult to implement. Staff recommends that this policy be rewritten. 18. Should specific definitions be included for level of service and intersection capacity utilization? Discussion: Staff recommends that these terms be defined in the Circulation Element. 19. The City Engineer has recommended that Policy 3.4 be revised to delete the requirement for graded shoulders in hillside areas. Discussion: One alternative is to use rolled curbs without sidewalks, which would be less of a maintenance problem. 16 20. Policy 3.6 is ambiguous. What is meant by "...preserve the rural/open space image"? Discussion: It may be appropriate to revise Policy 3.6 to identify that landscaped medians on arterial streets shall be encouraged for safety and aesthetic reasons. 21. Should Policy 5.1 be revised to address new development and redevelopment? Discussion: Staff recommends revising Policy 5.1 to also address redevelopment. 22. Policy 5.4 addresses an Area of Benefit for bicycle path construction. The implementation of this policy is unclear. Discussion: Policy 5.4 should be rewritten to clarify the intent. Development projects should be required to participate in the funding of bikeways which would allow employees and City residents to utilize bicycles as an alternative to automobiles. 23. Policy 5.7 should be revised in regard to use of sidewalks in hillside areas. Discussion: Policy 5.7 should be rewritten to clarify that in hillside areas special consideration should be given to either eliminating the need for sidewalks or requiring along one side of the street where significant grading impacts would result or where there is a safety concern. 24. The implementation section should include requirements for the development of standards concerning pavement and base thickness, dedicated intersection turn lanes, and the use of medians for safety and aesthetic reasons. Discussion: Staff recommends that Implementation Measure 4 be revised to identify that standards shall be developed as discussed above. 25. Should there be a reference that 6-lane and 4-lane arterials typically have a raised median? Discussion: This is reflected in Figure 1 of the Draft Circulation Element, but should also be identified under the Section 5.0 Roadway Facility Designations discussion. 17 26. For level of service descriptions on ADT Capacities Table and Table 1, should we reference that the information should be based upon the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report, so there is never a dispute or requirement to update our plan if the numbers change? Discussion: Staff recommends adding a footnote as discussed above. MEETING SCHEDULE/WORK PROGRAM Following is an estimated meeting schedule/work program for General Plan Update completion. Staff considers this a very preliminary estimate, since whatever action the Council takes on the work tasks and issues outlined in this staff report could result in significant revisions to both the meeting schedule and work program. The following schedule is based on meetings every two weeks. Depending upon the staff work requested, it is difficult for staff to research and complete staff reports for weekly meetings. April 22, 1992 - Review and provide specific recommendations to staff on remaining work tasks and issues. April 29, 1992 - Continue discussion of work tasks and issues. Staff provides additional analysis to answer Council's questions regarding unresolved issues and identifies when assigned work tasks can be completed by. Council makes a decision relative to whether revisions are required to specific plan requirements (individual specific plan requirements and/or Appendix A of Land Use Element). May 13, 1992 - Council reviews work tasks completed by staff. The Council begins to provide staff with specific recommendations relative to preferred land uses. Council determines whether additional traffic model analysis is needed for any land use plan alternative. May 27, 1992 - Council reviews work tasks completed by staff and continues to discuss recommendations for a preferred land use plan. Council makes final recommendations regarding any necessary Draft Land Use and Circulation Element text amendments including implementation programs. June 10, 1992 - Council reviews work tasks completed by staff. Any requested traffic model analysis is provided to the Council relative to various land use plan alternatives under consideration*. The Council makes a decision relative to a preferred land use plan, and determines whether the proposed Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements need to be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. June 24, 1992 - City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if required) and makes a determination regarding certification of the Final EIR. If no referral to Planning Commission was made, the Council adopts resolutions approving a General Plan Amendment which revises the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements. * (Assumes consultant can complete traffic model analysis by this date.) RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide staff direction on work tasks as requested. 2. Direct staff to complete identified work tasks to maintain the proposed meeting schedule. 3. Review issues in staff report and provide direction to staff regarding necessary text changes or any additional work tasks to allow resolution of issues. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 86-318 2. Housing Trust Fund Report 3. Memorandum from Assistant City Engineer dated 4-15-92 19 ATTACHMENT 1 4 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 318 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK AVENUE, AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP AND THE TEXT OF THE LAND -USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN VARIOUS PARTICULARS, BY ADOPTING GPA-86-1. WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on April 23, 1986, the Moorpark Planning Commission adopted its Resolutions No. PC-86-94 and PC-86-96, recommending to the City Council of the City of Moorpark that staff findings be adopted, and that the City Council adopt General Plan Amend- ment No. GPA-86-1, Amending the Land Use Map and the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows: Component No. 1 That the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to add the words "Requires approval of a Specific Plan" to the Land Use Designation on that property bounded on the east by the 23 Freeway, on the south by Tierra Rejada Road, on the west by Moorpark Road, and on the north by the Arroyo Simi and New Los Angeles Avenue ( generally known as Carlsberg Development Company property)". Component No. 2 That the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended in various particulars to make C. more explicit that the maximum density authorized by the General Plan is not an automatic right; to authorize "density averaging" in the "Rural Zones", subject to certain conditions; and to include certain zoning districts, including, but not limited to, "Commercial Office" and "Highway Commercial"; and WHEREAS, public notice having been given in time, form and manner as required by law, the City Council of the City of Moorpark has held a public hearing, has received testimony regarding said project, has duly considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, and has reached its decision; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful review and consideration, has determined that the proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, and has approved the Negative Declaration as having been completed in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines issued thereunder; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the findings contained in the staff reports dated April 23, 1986, are hereby adopted, and said reports are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby approves Component No. 1 of the General Plan Amendment No. GPA-86-1, and does hereby amend the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows: -1- COMPONENT NO. 1: 1 That the words "This area requires approval of a Specific Plan" be added to the Land Use Designation on that property bounded on the east by the 23 Freeway, on the south by Tierra Rejada Road, on the west by Moorpark road, and on the north by the Arroyo Simi and New Los Angeles Avenue ( generally known as Carlsberg Development Company property) . SECTION 2. That the City Couincil hereby approves Component No. 2 of the General Plan Amendment No. GPA-86-1, and does hereby amend the text of the Land Use element of the General Plan as follows: COMPONENT NO. 2: A. That Section C-1, Residential, of the text of" the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to read as follows: 1. RESIDENTIAL Development Pattern Residential land uses are intended to develop primarily in areas surrounding . the downtown core, and should contain a variety of housing types and densities, as well as the necessary ancillary facilities to meet the needs of the residential population (i.e. schools and parks) . Clustering may be approved in the Rural _ designations when it can be shown that the common area is designed to protect an environmentally sensitive habitat, create a substantial recreation facility or agricultural use, or other such use; however, in the Rural Low, the minimum lot size is one acre, and in Rural High the minimum lot size is one-half acre. Housing mixes are encouraged in order to provide a variety of living accommodations for persons of all Socio-economic levels, and may include some multiple dwelling units, such as townhouses or condo - minimums. Cluster development is consistent with the intent of the residential areas, and will promote land conservation as well as visual relief, through the use of internal open -space, from traditional single family subdivisions. Density Table 2 shows the maximum allowable density for each of the residential designations. Densities shown are based on gross acreage. Portions of a project may exceed the maximum as long as the overall average does not exceed the maximum. An exception is the downtown area, where the maximum is 20 units per acre. In no case shall the density exceed 20 units per net acre, except in the downtown area where the 20 units per gross acre prevails. Achieving the maximum density is dependent upon the terrain, the amount of easements . that are unbuildable, and the plan for development. For purpose of this section, the downtown area is defined as the area bounded on the east by Moorpark Road, on the south by Los Angeles Avenue, on the west by Moorpark Avenue, and on the north by the north side of Everett Street (extended) . In determining net acreage, the following areas are subtracted from the gross acreage: -2- r ) a. Dedications for streets. b. Dedications for parks or schools for which the developer receives a credit or offset from a required park or school improvement fee or is in some way compensated for such park or school site. c. One-half of the area in public service or utility easements (areas which are' unbuildable' for units but may be used for parking, recreation activities or open space) . TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Residential Designation Maximum Allowable Density* RL Rural Low 1 DU/5-AC RH Rural High 1 DU/AC L Low Density 1.6 DU/AC ML Medium Low Density 2.6 DU/AC M Medium Density 4.0 DU/AC H' High Density 7.0 DU/AC VH Very High Density *15.0 DU/ AC * May be increased to 20.0 DU/AC in the downtown area. B . That the Residential Land Use Designations as shown on Table 8 of Section C-8 of the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended to read as follows: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Residential Maximum Densit RL Rural Low 1 DU/5-AC RH Rural High 1 DU/AC L Low Density 1.6 DU/AC ML Medium Low Density 2.6 DU/AC M Medium Density 4.0 DU/AC H High Density 7.0 DU/AC VH Very High *15.0 DU/AC * May be increased to 20.0 DU/AC in the downtown area. C . That Table 9 - Zoning Compatibility Matrix, under Section C of the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan be modified and amended as follows: 1. Delete "Ventura County Ordinance Code". 2. In the "Zone Districts" under "Commercial", add the following: "CO" (Commerical Office); "CH" ( Commercial Highway) . -3- 1 SECTION 3. That the City Clerk is instructed to transmit to the planning agency of the County of Ventura a copy of the amendments to the Moorpark Land Use Element, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360. SECTION 4. That this resolution shall take effect immediately. SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution. ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED this-(, day of 1986. Mayor of the City of o park, California. -4- It t STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ) SS. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Eva Marie Crooks , Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 86-319 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of June 1986, and that the same was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Woolard, Prieto, Ferguson and Mayor Weak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Yahcy-Sutton WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this a day of 1986. Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 CURRENT TOPICS from THE HOUSING TRUST FUND PROJECT ... A Special Project of the Center for Community Change LINKAGE PROGRAMS: March 1991 EMPLOYMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING I. What are Linkage Programs Linkage programs are the most popular mechanism for creat- ing local housing trust funds. They are a current evolution of an historical debate about what the relationship between jobs and housing really should be. They arouse considerable inter- est because while they can produce a significant amount of revenue, they also generate virulent controversy pitting devel- opers who don't want to be held responsible for meeting the housing needs of a community against those that see a need Inside ... I. What are Linkage Programs... page 1. II. Finding the Fee: what is the Nexus Study... page 2. III. The Impact of Linkage Fees on Non-residential Development ... page 3. IV. Opposition to Linkage Programs ... page 5. Steps to Safeguard a Linkage Program ... page 6. V. What Have Linkage Programs Accomplished... page 7. CHART: Summary Requirements of Linkage Programs ... page 8. References ... page 16. for connecting the growth in jobs to the need for additional housing. There are at least thirteen linkage programs operating through- out the country in tandem with housing trust funds that sup- port the construction and preservation of low income housing. The rationale behind linkage programs is that office and com- mercial developments, along with other non-residential devel- opment, represent new jobs which, in turn, increase the de- mand for housing. Thus, as with a number of impacts on services and facilities within a city, developers are asked to help mitigate that impact. Similar requirements exist in many cities to support transit improvements, the arts, day care, job training, and open space. An Overview of Linkage Requirements Linkage is the term coined for local zoning regulations that re- quire developers of office and commercial space, or other non- residential development, to provide housing or contribute a fee in -lieu that goes into a housing trust fund as a condition that must be met or agreed to before construction can begin. Typically, developers are given the option of building the housing required, contributing to the financing of another pro- ject (usually undertaken by a nonprofit development corpora- tion), or making a payment into the housing trust fund. The requirement is determined by a formula which calculates the amount of the required contribution based on the size of the non-residential development. The formula identifies a specific dollar obligation per square RECOE111EU t�; ) "..rN , i foot of proposed office, commercial or other non- residential space. The requirement must be satisfied by a certain deadline. For instance, if the contribution option is chosen, usually a portion of this amount is due on issu- ance of the building permit and the remainder due in one or more installments beginning with issuance of the certif- icate of occupancy. The construction option requires calculating the number of units that can be constructed at a cost equivalent to the required contribution. In other instances, the formula re- sults in identifying a specific number of units that must be provided. Generally, the developer has no alternative but to meet the linkage requirement if he or she wants to develop in the city or area where the requirement applies. Often the re- quirement is triggered when a re -zoning or other zoning variances are sought. Alternatively, a linkage program can apply only when the developer decides to take advan- tage of a density bonus which is offered in exchange for meeting the requirement. H. Finding the Fee: the Nexus Study The linkage requirement is generally based on the relationship between the growth in non-residential development and the need for housing. There is not yet a standard formula that has been widely accepted for quantifying this relationship. The various studies prepared in anticipation of establishing a linkage program have focused on any one or several different aspects of this relationship, including: • the housing need based on the additional development that is likely to take place. • the impact on the housing supply of each type of devel- opment that is allowed within the jurisdiction. • the impact of additional development on the municipal services costs that they are likely to generate. • the impact of the requirement on the development fea- sibility of various projects. Nexus Studies Several cities have conducted formal studies --known as nexus studies --that document the need for housing, the anticipated growth in non-residential development, the resultant increase in jobs, and the impact of additional jobs on housing in the Leighton Park (Tent City) -- from Building Bridges of Opportunity --Linkage: Affordable Homes and Jobs, Boston Redevelopment Authority, Winter 1988. area. These studies project the number of households that will be created in the area as a result of the increase in jobs and translate this into a dollar amount or a number of units re- quired for each additional square foot of non-residential space. The contribution required per square foot of development is generally up -dated annually based on a pre -determined stan- dard, such as the Consumers Price Index. The nexus study demonstrates the relationship between non- residential growth and housing demand by quantifying the im- pact that increased employment has on the need for affordable housing. The result is a fee per square foot of non-residential development that is required if the needed housing were to be built. Most nexus studies address only the housing needs of low and moderate income households, assuming that the mar- ket will generally accommodate other housing needs. While the nexus study produces a justifiable fee, based on the evidence compiled, that fee is rarely the one finally adopted in the linkage ordinance. Such justifiable fees have been slashed as much as 83% to reach the adopted fee. For four jurisdic- tions where figures are available (Boston, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco), the adopted fee averaged 37% of the justifiable fee. Developers create such a ruckus when linkage programs are 2 proposed and generally have so much influence in local poli- tics, that the justifiable fee is amended to something palatable and winnable bearing little relationship to the actual impact the increased employment has on the need to create affordable housing. Thus, the ordinance requires a fee that is insufficient to produce the housing needed. III. The Impact of Linkage Fees on Non-residential Development No single question is asked more often than what impact have linkage fees had on the non-residential development in cities where these programs are underway. One the earliest attempts to get at the impact of linkage fees on development was a study by Dennis Keating. [Linking Downtown Development to Broader Community Goals: An Analysis of Linkage Policy in Three Cities, APA Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 133-141.] He concludes, from his survey of developers in Boston, San Francisco, and Santa Monica whose projects were approved subject to linkage exactions, that "downtown development linkage exactions apparently did not deter office development and were not as critical as other fac- tors in developers' location decisions." Instead, the market for development, the business climate, and state and local taxes all outrank regulatory policies in importance. And while no studies have appeared documenting the impact of linkage fees on development trends, Keating found that the trend in office growth in San Francisco prior to linkage was maintained for five years after the program was initiated until a tight limit on growth in the city was introduced. One way to get at the impact of linkage fees is to estimate the proportion of total development costs such linkage fees as- sume. There is a rather remarkable similarity among the link- age programs now underway when compared in this way. How San Francisco did a Nexus Study San Francisco's Office/Affordable Housing Production Program's fee is based on a study conducted in 1984, "Eco- nomic Basis for an Office -Housing Production Program," by Recht Hausrath & Associates. In this study, the fol- lowing method was used to quantify the relationship between employment growth and housing: Step 1: The estimated net addition of office space was calculated to equal 1 million gross sq.ft. in the C-3 Dis- trict from 1981 to 2000. Step 2: The net addition of office employment was calculated as 268 gross sq.ft. per C-3 District office em- ployee. Step 3: The net increase in office workers residing in San Francisco was calculated at 31% of all additional of- fice workers. Step 4: The additional households with office workers was determined to be 45% of the additional office workers residing in San Francisco, the remaining 55% were assumed an increase in labor force participation. Step 5: The additional housing needed to accommodate these additional households was stratified by various household income categories. Step 6: The extent to which subsidies would be required to produce housing that is affordable to these house- holds was identified. The result was: the cost of supplying affordable housing in San Francisco to accommodate the additional house- holds is $9.5-10.5 million (1984 dollars) for the addition of 1 million sq.ft. of office space in the C-3 District from 1981 to 2000. This amount translates into $9.47-10.47 per sq.ft. of additional office space in the C-3 District. 3 How San Diego did a Nexus Study The San Diego, California, Housing Trust Fund linkage fee is based on a nexus study, "San Diego Housing Trust Fund Feasibility Study," prepared by David Paul Rosen & Associates in 1989. The following method, conducted by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. was used to quantify the linkage between various types of development and lower income housing needs. Step 1: Total new employees at various building types was estimated. Step 2: The proportion of employees living in San Diego was factored out. This number was calculated as 68% of all employees. Step 3: The increase in labor force participation was adjusted by eliminating new employees who were previ- ously living in San Diego but not working. Labor force participation was adjusted by 5%. hold. Step 4: The number of households represented by these workers was calculated as 1.28 employees per house - Step 5: These new households were divided into occupational groupings approximating the building types. Step 6: The occupational groupings were translated into an income distribution to identify the number of em- ployees who earn qualifying incomes for low and very low income households. Step 7: The proportion of all lower income households in each household size was calculated to match income definitions established by HUD. Step 8: For each occupational group a probability factor was calculated for each of HUD's income and house- hold size levels. This was performed for each occupational category and multiplied by the number of households. Step 9: Households that have multiple earners were eliminated. A factor of 75% for very low and 65% for low income households represents single wage eamer households. Step 10: An affordability gap analysis established the cost of developing a new rental housing unit for a four person household, what such a household could afford to pay, and the resultant subsidy required. Step 11: The number of households in each income category is multiplied by the cost of delivering housing to them at an affordable level. The result was: the justified nexus fee for lower income households associated with office building construction was $22.07; research & development $15.15; manufacturing $9.73; warehousing $2.65; retail $27.59; and hotel $11.24. �-r. � � �� .��1 ��. �- r_ a. :: :: ;• :: ;; try ;>. :V:t" :: .. 112 San Francisco In San Francisco, estimates are that the linkage fee increased office development costs by less than 3% or an average of $3- 5 per sq.ft. [Laurie Share and Susan Diamond, San Francis- co's Office -Housing Production Program," Land Use Law, October 1983, pp. 4-10.1 Sacramento Sacramento studied the likely impact of the fee on develop- ment costs and rent levels. [Evaluation of Proposed Housing Trust Fund Fee Impact on Development Costs and Rent Levels, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., January 27, 1989.] The study looked at the total fee schedule as ap- plied to construction and the proportion of to- tal development costs these fees assumed for two types of develop- ment: offices and ware- house development. The study found that the linkage fee itself repre- sented from 0.5-0.8% of total development costs for office developments and would raise rents -- from Building Bridges of Op slightly under one cent Affordable Homes and Jobs, Bo per sq.ft. per month if Authority, Winter 1988. costs were passed on to tenants. For warehouse development, the link- age fee represented from 1.2-1.4% of total development costs and would raise rents 4/10ths of a cent per month. Boston 1987.] They conclude that "a linkage fee of between $1 and $3 per square foot of development could be charged without adversely affecting the feasibility of new development." Their test of various mechanisms for generating revenue was applied to illustrative development cost and financial proformas for se- lected development scenarios. Focusing only on low rise of- fice development, they conclude that a $1 per sq.ft. linkage fee requires an adjustment of over 1% in development costs. The Cambridge study also concluded that there is a broad vari- ation in the ability of office projects to support linkage exac- tions based on project size and competitive position. portunity--Linkage: ston Redevelopment In Boston, the housing linkage payments have typically ranged from .9-1.9% of the total development cost estimates. [Jane Sehukoske, Housing Linkage: Regulating Development Im- pact on Housing Costs," (forthcoming) 76 Iowa Law Review, March 1991.] Cambridge Cambridge looked at the impact of linkage fees before adopt- ing their ordinance. [Cambridge Affordable Housing Legisla- tive and Regulatory Capital Formation Mechanisms and Tech- nical Addenda, Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc., May and June Casa Esperanza Los Angeles Los Angeles, California in its draft Affordable Housing Linkage Imple- mentation Plan and Pro- gram (February 22, 1991) applied an eco- nomic feasibility adjust- ment to the total nexus cost to reduce the fee to a level that would not cause an economic bur- den to commercial de- velopment equal to ap- proximately 2-2.5% of total development cost. The fee was further ad- justed to account for dif- ferent development cli- mates throughout the vast city. IV. Opposition to Linkage Programs Opposition to linkage programs comes primarily from the de- velopment community. Here are common arguments posed in public and some responses: > Challenge: Linkage fees require developers to as- sume a disproportionate responsibility for meeting housing needs in the city. Response: Virtually every linkage program has identi- fied through background study a justifiable fee to impose on office development showing a clear relationship between the increase in development and demand for housing. These justi- fiable fees are consistently reduced as a final linkage fee is adopted. Linkage programs in no way require developers to 5 assume all or even most of the responsibility for meeting the housing needs that exist in the community. > Challenge: Additions to office and commercial space do not create office employment any more than cribs make babies. [Claude Green, The Economics of Requiring Of- fice -Space Development to Contribute to the Production and/ or Rehabiliation of Housing, Downtown Linkages, edited by Douglas Porter (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1985), p. 36.] Response: While there is a clear relationship between Steps to Safeguard a Linkage Program • Complete an analysis or study that documents the linkage formula; • Prepare and adopt a formal ordinance that delineates all requirements of the program; • Include in the ordinance a purpose clause that ties the regulation to the advance of a legitimate governmental goal, e.g., the ordinance is designed to mitigate the impacts of commercial development on the cost and supply of housing; • Earmark the funds by establishing a special fund for the fees and specify that the money will only be used for the purposes set forth in the ordinance; and .• Include provisions that ensure the ordinance is applied fairly, including: exemptions for certain vulnerable properties, periodic review of the assumptions used in the formula to reflect econo- mic changes, continued affordability requirements for units targetted to low income households; and restrictions as to where the units must be provided. [From: A Guide to Developing a Housing Trust Fund, by Mary E. Brooks. These guidelines were developed for the report by Edith Netter of Edith Netter & Associates in Boston, MA.J office and commercial development, or even other non- residential development, and employment growth, the rel tionship is more than one of mere accommodation. The a gument that office developments do not create need is of i more merit than the claim that subdivisions do not create t need for parks. The impact of development is such that res dential development follows and as housing markets tighte the impact on the housing needs of lower income house- holds is evident indeed. > Challenge: Housing problems should be ad- dressed regionally or federally and their funds are essential. Response: Nothing about a linkage program refutes what is blatantly obvious: housing needs in most cities are so extreme that all resources, including state and federal, must be committed to meet even a portion of the need that exists. Because others have a re- sponsibility to respond to such needs, does not ex- cuse any one partner from participating. > Challenge: Whatever revenues are gen- erated from linkage programs will be insufficient to address the housing needs that exist. Response: This is undoubtedly true, but no one expects linkage programs to meet all of the housing needs that exist within a community. Linkage programs are but one way to help address these needs that continue to escalate beyond our ability to find the resources to respond adequately. If we do not use every available resource, there is little chance of having an impact on the severe housing problems now facing this country. > Challenge: Linkage fees are either not authorized by statute or by home rule and/or they are unconstitutional implying that the regulation is either a taking and/or violated due process and equal protection. Response: There is considerable interest in the legal challenges that have surrounded linkage programs and there are a number of excellent arti- cles reviewing these issues. Boston, Sacramento and several jurisdictions in New Jersey have faced such challenges. Suffice it to say that to date, link- age programs have been validated in the courts. Any city considering adoption of a linkage pro- gram must seek local counsel to determine the spe- cific regulatory limitations and options that exist. > Challenge: Linkage fees will impose such a burden on development that projects will be - col. el! h, 2 come infeasible, developers will decide to locate elsewhere, or costs will be passed on imposing hardships for tenants and consumers alike. Response: There is no evidence to date that these claims have come to fruition where link- age programs are in operation. The section con- tained in this report on the "Impact of Linkage Pro- grams" provides considerable evidence regarding the actual impact of these programs on develop- ment costs and trends. V. What Have Linkage Programs Accomplished Waterford Place --from Building Bridges of Opportunity —Linkage: Affordable Homes and Jobs, Boston Redevelopment Authority, Winter 1988. Nearly $110 million has been committed to linkage programs and more than 5,600 units of housing have been provided to lower income households as a result of these programs operat- ing in thirteen cities throughout the country. In addition, linkage programs have contributed to the creation of construction jobs (2,700 in Boston) as well as economic ac- tivities for architects, lawyers, engineers, supply and service contractors and local unions. [Lawrence A. Dwyer, Linkage: Making the neighborhood a factor, Boston Business Journal, January 7, 1991, p. 9.] Linkage programs, as is true for housing trust funds in general, leverage significant amounts of additional funds to support low income housing projects, sometimes as much as ten dol- lars from private and public sources for every one linkage dol- lar. Because, in part, linkage programs grew out of neighborhoods responding to the pressure of continued growth, they have sup- ported many projects sponsored by nonprofit neighborhood development corporations. Not only do some linkage pro- grams allow the developer to work directly with such projects to meet their linkage obligation, but others have given priority to low income housing projects sponsored by nonprofit devel- opment corporations when funds become available. "We are in the business of promoting and supporting private industry. But it's in no one's best interest to promote growth at the expense of working families thorughout the city. We strongly believe that continued balance between the downtown and neigh- borhood interests is achievable, and that reasonable dialogue and decision -making remain our best bet to sustaining a successful Boston." -- Lawrence Dwyer Boston Neighborhood Housing Trust Boston Business Journal V7191 7 Summary Requirements of Linkage Programs City Applicability Berkeley Uses: New construction, change California of use, or re -use of vacant build - Housing Impact Fees rags. Boston Massachusetts Development Impact Projects Ordinance Cambridge Massachusetts Incentive Zoning Contributions Non-residential uses with gross floor area over 7,500 sq.ft in C-2 zone. Options: May create units on- or off -site or pay fee in -lieu or a com- bination. Uses: New construction, rehabili- tated, or expanded. Office, retail, service, institution, education, hotel/motel develop- ment with gross floor area in ex- cess of 100,000 sq.ft. Options: May provide housing, contribute funds to approved pro- ject, or pay fee into Neighborhood Housing Trust. Uses: New construction. All projects over 30,000 sq.ft. that receive designated special permits which authorize an increase in density or intensity, proposed for selected Overlay Districts, and all PUD projects. Fee Option Construction Option Fee: For new construction, a fee as follows per sq.ft.: Office = $7.50 Retail = $5.00 For intensification of use, the same fee per: Office = every 36 net additional employees Retail = every 30 net additional employees. Payment: Must be paid in no more than 3 equal installments. The first payment must be made prior to re- ceipt of building permit; second prior to receipt of occupancy permit, and third prior to the first anniversary of the occupancy permit. Review: May be amended from time to time to reflect current social and economic data used in the calcula- tions and must be reviewed and up- dated every 3 years. Fee: $6.00 per sq.ft. of gross floor area over 100,000 sq.ft. paid out over 7 years for Development Impact Pro- jects downtown. Outside downtown area, payment over 12 years. $5.00 goes for housing; $1.00 goes toward job training. $6.00 per sq.ft. is equal to a net present value of $3.83 for 7 years or $2.58 for 12 years. Payment: 7 year payment to be in equal installments first due upon is- suance of the building permit; 12 year payment first due two years af- ter building permit issuance or upon issuance of certificate of occupancy. Review: The fee is to be recalculated every 3 years considering economic and housing trends. Fee: $2.00 per sq.ft. of gross floor area over 30,000 sq.ft. authorized by the special permit. Payment: Due before issuance of first occupancy permit. Review: The fee is to be recalculat- Amount: For office uses, for each 10,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area, one unit of housing affordable to house- holds whose income is at or below 50% of the area median income and one unit affordable to 80% of median income. For retail uses, the same two units for each 15,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area. Amount: Create or cause to be created affordable housing at a cost at least equivalent to the amount of the housing payment exaction other- wise due. Or pay in total the dis- counted present value of the required fee amount toward a housing crea- tion project. Amount: May create housing or do- nate land for such use that is of equivalent benefit. Uses of the Beneficiaries of the Housing Trust Fund Housing Trust Fund Accomplishments Eligible applicants: nonprofit developers, for- Targetting: New construction: at least 40% The program has committed some funds to profit developers (eligible for new construction affordable to households with gross incomes at on -going projects on a case by case basis. only), government entities and agencies, and or below 60% of PMSA or at least 25% afford- They expect to have another $100,000 to joint -venture developments. able to households at or below 50%. distribute by June 1991. They are develop- ing an RFP process. Eligible activities: pre -development, acquisi- tion and/or rehabilitation, and new construc- tion. Rental, limited equity cooperative housing and condominium ownership units are eligible. Funding: Assistance may be in the form of grants or loans. At least 50010 of the funds are reserved for use by nonprofits only. Eligible applicants are private, public, non- profit, and profit development entities or pri- vate indiduals. Must also meet standards. Eligible projects include owner -occupied, ren- tal, cooperative or other forms of permanent, transitional, or temporary housing. Must also meet standards. Funding: Funds may be distributed as gifts, grants or secured loans. Of the payments due over 7 years, 10% must be used in the neighborhoods impacted by the development; of those payments due over 12 years, 20010 must be reserved for use in the im- pacted neighborhoods. Eligible applicants: nonprofit or for -profit de- velopers. Eligible activities: provision of favorable fi- nancing terms or direct write -down of costs or to subsidize the purchase of sites, existing structures or affordable units within a larger development. Existing housing: the greater of. at least 40% must be affordable to households with gross in- comes at 60% or below or a percentage that is equal to actual rents charged at the time of ap- plication that are affordable to households with incomes which are 50016 of PMSA median. Affordability: Units must be affordable (30% of household's gross yearly income) and occu- pied by low income households. Continued Affordability: All projects must be affordable for the life of the property. Targetting: Low income is defined as 50% of median income for the Boston SMSA; moder- ate income is defined as 80%. No more than 30% of the annual distribution of funds can be allocated for the benefit of moder- ate/middle income residents (defined as 80- 120% of median income). Neighborhood Trust Funds can be used only to assist affordable housing units, even in mixed - income projects. Continued Affordability: Units are to remain affordable for a minimum of 15 years. Targetting: Eligible households have incomes that do not exceed 80% of the median income of the Boston SMSA. Affordability: Affordable units mean 30% of income of the renting household or whose mortgage payment does not exceed 309/c. Continued Affordability: Developers must As of January 1991: - developers of 41 major commercial pro- jects have committed to pay over $76 mil- lion in housing linkage over the next decade. - 38 affordable housing projects have re- ceived linkage contributions. - Over $28 million in linkage payments has been committed to these projects to neat eover 3,024 housing units in 38 projects. - 84% of these units are targeted for low and moderate income residents; 78% have been developed by nonprofit organizations; and 60% by minority owned concerns. - Funds have leveraged $310 million and created 2,700 construction jobs. As of February 1991: $486,131 in funds have been committed - funds have supported 16 units, 151 rooms, and 10 beds - 120 are low income and 31 are moder- City I Applicability Menlo Park California Below Market Rate Housing Program-- Commercial/Industrial Uses: New construction or con- version from exempt use to non- exempt use. Any commercial or industrial de- velopment project over 10,000 sq.ft. Fee Option Construction Option ed every 3 years based on economic and housing trends. Fee: $1.33 per sq.ft. of gross floor area for all uses in districts zoned for commercial or industrial uses except warehousing, printing and assem- bling. $0.53 per sq.ft. of gross floor area for warehousing, printing and assem- bling. NA Miami Uses: New construction. Fee: Each $6.67 contributed allows Amount: One sq.ft. residential floor Floorida or Area Residential, non-residential and an increase of one sq.ft. of non- area on -site allows an increase of one residential floor area sq.ft. non-residential floor area. Increases combination use buildings. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Palo Alto California Industrial -Commercial Mitigation Ordinance Sacramento Uses: New construction or con- version. Industrial or commercial projects with 2,500 sq.ft. or more, exclud- ing the first 20,000 sq.ft., or where 2 dus or more are removed. California Uses: New construction, additions Non-residential or interior remodeling. Development Non-residential development pro - Projects jects. Fee: $2.94 per sq.ft. equivalent to $50,000 per unit. Payment: Half must be paid within 10 days of issuance of grading or building permit; the remainder be- fore issuance of use and occupancy permit. Review: Fee is to be updated annu- ally based on changes in the Consu- mer Price Index. Fee: A fee as follows per sq.ft.: office = $.95 hotel = $.90 research & develop. = $.80 commercial = $.75 manufacturing = $.60 warehouse = $.25. Payment: To be paid prior to issu- ance of building permit. Review: The fee, along with other program areas, is to be evaluated an- nually. Amount: Construct on- or off -site approximately .0486 units for every 1,000 sq.ft. of development. Amount: Prior to issuance of a building permit, pay a fee that is at least 20% of the fee requirement and a number of units per sq.ft. as fol- lows: office = .000127 hotel = .000042 res.& develop. = .000091 commercial = .000106 manufacturing = .000042 warehouse = .000021 10 Uses of the Beneficiaries of the Housing Trust Fund Housing Trust Fund Accomplishments Finance substantial rehabilitation of deteriorat- guarantee permanent availability in units con- ate income. ed properties in a manner that preserves the af- structed. fordability of the units. Acquisition and rehabilitation of potential cooperatives through low interest blanket loans, share loans or direct cost write -down. Eligible applicants: private sector developers. Eligible activities: Funds can be used for: be- low market rate financing for home buyers; purchase of land or air rights; reduction of in- terest rates for construction loans or permanent financing; rehabilitation of uninhabitable struc- tures; on -site and off -site improvement costs; reduction of purchase price; and rent subsidies. Eligible activities: affordable housing in the downtown area. Funds must be spent within SPI-5 and SPI-7 zoning districts. Eligible activities: purchase of land or air rights; reduction of interest rates for construc- tion loans or permanent financing; payment of predevelopment and development costs; and payment of off -site costs directly relating to housing development. Industrial/commercial fees must be used for new construction. Residential fees may be used for either new or existing housing. Funding: funds may be distributed as loans or grants. Eligible projects: new construction or sub- stantial rehabilitation Targetting: Must be affordable to low and moderate income households, defined as 80% of median income and 120% of median in- come, respectively. Affordability: Rents cannot exceed 30% of household income limits. Targetting: Households with incomes of 801016 or less of the median income for the city. Targetting: Assist in the development of housing that is affordable to low, moderate and middle income persons and assist in the hous- ing needs of low and moderate income per- sons. Targetting: low and very low income with a priority to very low income They have collected $390,000 from in -lieu inclusionary fees and $100,000 from devel- oper payments. They have developed a down payment assis- tance loan program and have made one loan so far. They are considering the purchase of land or other support for a project as well. No program developed yet. Approximately $1 million collected to date. No future revenue anticipated soon. A 1987 report suggests nearly $3 million had been collected in fees at that time. City reports approximately 160 below mar- ket rate units have been provided. Inclusion- ary in -lieu fees have collected over $1 mil- lion; no current figures for developer payments. Program has not begun yet. 11 City I Applicability Fee Option Construction Option Sacramento Uses: New construction, additions County or interior remodeling. California Non -Residential Non-residential construction. Construction San Diego Uses: New construction, addi- California tions, or interior remodeling. Housing Trust Fund Non-residential construction. Ordinance San Francisco California Office Affordable Housing Production Program Uses: New construction, enlarge- ment or conversion. Office development projects with net addition of 25,000 or more gross sq.ft. Options: May provide housing, contribute funds to approved pro- ject, or pay fee into Fund. Fee: A fee as follows per sq.ft.: office = $.97 hotel = $.92 research & develop. = $.82 commercial = $.77 manufacturing = $.61 warehouse = $.26. Payment: To be paid prior to issu- ance of building permit. Review: The fees are to be revised January 1 of each year by the per- centage increase or decrease of the previous year in the Valuation Quar- terly published by Marshall and Swift for the Sacramento area. Fee: A fee as follows per sq.ft.: office = $2.00 hotel = $1.20 research & develop. = $1.50 retail = $1.20 manufacturing = $1.20 warehouse = $.50. Payment: To be paid prior to issu- ance of building permit. Fee: $6.94 per sq.ft. Payment: Must be paid before issu- ance of the first site or building per- mit: Review: To be revised effective January 1 of each year by the per- centage increase or decrease of the Building Cost Index of the Cost Indi- ces for Twenty Cities published by McGraw-Hill. 0 Amount: Land or air rights dedica- tion permitted in -lieu of fee pay- ment; fair market value to equal the fee amount required. Amount: Land or air rights dedica- tion permitted in -lieu of fee pay- ment; fair market value to equal the fee amount required. Amount: Construct, rehab vacant units, or convert non-residential to residential equal to .386 units hous- ing for every 1,000 sq.ft. or combine with partial payment of fee equal to $17,979.27 per unit. Requirements: Must begin con- struction before issuance of the first site or building permit for the com- mercial project. 62% must be afford- able to low and moderate income households. 12 Uses of the Beneficiaries of the Housing Trust Fund . Housing Trust Fund Accomplishments Eligible projects: new construction or sub- Targetting: low and very low income with a Program has not begun yet. stantial rehabilitation. priority to very low income. Eligible activities: Funds are to be used for programs and administrative support approved in the Program Plan to meet the housing needs of very low income, low income and median income households. These programs include those providing assistance through production, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation. Funding: No less than 10% for transitional housing for households who lack permanent housing; no less than 6096' for housing to very low income households; no more than 20% for housing to low income households; and no more than 10% to assist median income first- time home buyers. Funds may be used for loans, grants, or indi- rect assistance for the production and mainte- nance of assisted units and related facilities. No more than 25% of an award can be used for supportive services. Eligible activities: Fees must be used exclu- sively for the development of housing afforda- ble to households of low or moderate income. Targetting: very low, low and median in- come households, defined as households which earn less than 80% of the area median income and that have one or more of the following characteristics: pay more than 30016 of the gross income for housing; live in overcrowded conditions; live in substandard housing; home- less; or have special housing needs. Affordability: a housing payment which al- lows a median income (San Diego SMSA) household to purchase a home; and for rents which do not exceed 30% of 50% or 80% of the area median income for very low or low in- come households, respectively. Continued Affordability: If funds are used for acquisition, construction or substantial re- habilitation of an affordable rental or coopera- tive unit, the unit must remain affordable for its remaining life; for owner units, resale re- strictions must keep the housing unit afforda- ble for the longest feasible time. Targetting: As of 1990, rental housing is tar- getted to 60% of median income; owner hous- ing to median income. Affordability: As of 1990, affordable rental housing is on average at 30% of 60% of medi- an income. For ownership housing, the pur- chase price on average must be affordable at median income." Continued Affordability: As of 1990, units must remain affordable for 50 years. Programs have not begun yet. Estimates are that $12.9 million a year will be collected. As of December 1990: • 17 office developments have been ap- proved since passage of the OAHPP in 1985. These represent 4,270,378 sq.ft. of of- fice space. • These office developments have a total housing obligation of 1.586.5 units. One of- fice development has been exempted. • A total of 260 units of low -moderate in- come housing have been assisted directly by office developers under the OAHPP ordi- nance. • A total of $2,955,350 in office develop- er contributions has been deposited in the OAHPP Citywide Affordable Housing 13 City Applicability Fee Option Construction Option -------------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Monica Uses: New construction. Fee: $2.97 per sq.ft. for first 15,000 Amount: Construct on or off -site a California sq.ft. and $6.60 per sq.ft. thereafter. number of units equal to the number Project Mitigation Office developments of more than 15,000 sq.ft. or with addition of Review: The fee is to be adjusted possible within the fee required at $30,060 per unit. Ordinance 10,000 sq.ft. for inflation by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index. Seattle Washington Downtown Housing Bonus Program Uses: New construction. Commercial development in cer- tain downtown zoning areas. Options: May earn housing bonus credits through a cash contribu- tion, actual production or direct subsidy of housing, and may pur- chase transfer development rights of low income housing. West Hollywood Uses: New construction or addi- California lion of 15,000 or more sq.ft. of Commercial gross floor area of commercial de - Development Fee velopment in selected zoning dis- tricts in the City. Alteration is considered construc- tion if the value of such alteration exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of that floor area. Fee: $13.00-20.00 per sq.ft. of bo- nused commercial space. Bonus val- ue x sq.ft. of bonus commercial = cash contribution Review: The schedule of ratios and values are to be calculated at least every 2 years. Fee: Fee is equal to $2.91 per square foot of gross floor area of a commer- cial development project. Payment: Total of all fees due at is- suance of a building permit or pay- ment of at least 25% at issuance of a building permit and the balance, plus interest on that balance, paid in three equal annual installments. Review: The fees are to be adjusted on July 1 of each year based on the Dodge Building Cost Index for the LA metropolitan area. Amount: Varies according to the type and rent or sales level of hous- ing to be produced. Uses bonus ratio to equate sq.ft. of bonus commercial to proposed housing: sq.ft. of hous- ing x bonus ratio = sq.ft. of bonus commercial. The bonus ratio varies according to the zone in which it is built, the type of housing built, and the rent subsidy that is necessary (based on the income served). Amount: One housing unit per 10,000 sq.ft. of new commercial de- velopment. Requirements: Affordable housing must be permanently restricted to af- fordable housing. The affordable housing must be a mix of units affordable to very low income households, low income households, and moderate income households. 14 Uses of the Beneficiaries of the Housing Trust Fund Housing Trust Fund Accomplishments Eligible applicants are nonprofit housing de- velopment corporations; limited partnerships with a nonprofit housing development corpora- tion as the general partner. Eligible activities: acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of rental properties or single room occupancy units; acquisition and conver- sion of non-residential property to multifamily or SRO rental units; new construction of rental units; interim loans up to 6 months for site ac- quisition or construction; and bridge loans up to 10 years to be repaid by equity contribu- tions. Up to 10010 of the funds can also be used for related predevelopment activities. Funding: Funds can be distributed as loans. The maximum loan is not to exceed $60,000 per unit. Eligible projects: may be new construction or rehabilitation of buildings, located in the DMR zone. Eligible applicants: Nonprofit developers. Eligible activities: Funds are available for pre -development, acquisition, and construction costs of low and moderate income housing. Funding: Provides grants and loans. A target subsidy of $35,000 per unit for afford- able housing construction has been established. Targetting: Low and moderate income house- holds are defined as below 120% of the LA SMSA median income. All projects must pro- vide 75% initial occupancy by low and moder- ate income households. No more than 25% of the subsidized units may be affordable to and occupied by moderate in- come households. At least 25% of all subsi- dized units are to be affordable to and occupied by low income households. Affordability: Maximum affordable rent is equal to 30% of maximum income level. Continued Affordability: The loan must be secured by a Regulatory Agreement to assure that Program funds are used to provide long- term affordable housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Targetting: Projects must serve households with incomes below 80% of the median in- come for the Seattle -Everett SMSA. 25% of the units in a rehabilitation project must serve households with incomes below 50% of the median income. Affordability: Rents must remain at or below 30% of eligible median income. Continued Affordability: Units must be com- mitted to providing housing to serve a specific income range of tenant or buyers for 20 years. Buyout options are possible after 10 years. Targetting: Households earning no more than adjusted median income in the City. Eligible projects must contain at least 20% of the unit for low income households and at least 60% must be affordable to low and moderate income households. Affordability: Affordable housing units mean multi -family units rented at prices which re- quire payment of no more than 30% of gross household income. Fund. • A total of $5,319,191 in office develop- er contributions have been made directly to sponsors of affordable housing develop- ments. As of Fiscal Year 1990: • 132 units produced using $5,007,000 • $5,395,719 in fees collected since Fis- cal Year 1988. As of August 1990: • Total units provided equals 502 units. Of these: 346 are bonus units and 156 are transfer of development rights units. • $15,421,479 has been committed as cash contributions. Support for three projects developed by the West Hollywood Housing Corporation pro- ducing 69 units serving households with in- comes below 60% of the median county in- come. 15 References 1. Rachelle Alterman, Evaluating Linkage, and Beyond: The New Method for Supply of Affordable Housing and Its Im- pacts, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, February 1989. 2. Edward Goetz, Office -Housing Linkage in San Francisco, American Planning Association Journal, Winter 1989, pp. 66- 77. 3. Edward Goetz, Of Linkage Programs: A Re- view of the Issues, Economic Development Quarterly, May 1988, pp. 182-196. 4. W. Dennis Keating, Housing/CD Linkages: A Tested Strat- egy, Journal of Housine, May/June 1986, pp. 101-103+138. 5. W. Dennis Keating, Linking Downtown Development to Broader Community Goals, American Planning Association Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 133-141. 6. Dwight Merrian, David J. Brower, and Philip D. Tegeler, eds., Inclusion= Zoning Moves Downtown, (Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 1985). 7. Douglas Porter, ed., Downtown Linkages, (Washington, D.C.: ULI--the Urban Land Institute, 1985). 8. Symposium: Downtown Office Development and Housing Linkage Fees, American Planning Association Journal, Spring 1988, pp. 197-231. Arthur C. Nelson, Introduction to the Symposium. Christine I. Andrew and Dwight H. Merriam, Defensible Linkage. Linda L. Hausrath, Economic Basis for Linking Jobs and Housing in San Francisco. Forrest E. Huffman, Jr. and Marc T. Smith, Market Effects of Office Development Linkage Fees. Martin L. Leitner and Eric J. Strauss, Elements of a Munici- pal Impact Fee Ordinance, with Commentary. 9. Jane Schukoske, Housing Linkage: Regulating Develop- ment Impact on Housing Costs, (forthcoming) 76 Iowa Law Review (March 1991). 10. Philip D. Tegeler, Developer Payments and Downtown Housing Trust Funds, Clearinghouse Review, November 1984, pp. 679-696. The Housing Trust Fund Project The Housing Trust Fund Project compiles infor- mation about the development of housing trust funds throughout the country and promotes the involvement of neighborhood organizations in the creation and implementation of these funds to ensure that funds benefit those most in need of housing. The Project has available reports on housing trust funds and issues a quarterly newsletter. Current Topics presents information on special subjects of immediate interest to those working on hous- ing trust funds. Technical assistance is available from the project on request. For more information, contact: Mary E. Brooks, Housing Trust Fund Project, 570 Shepard Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 (213-833-4249). 16 ATTACHMENT 3 MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 MEMORANDUM TO: PATRICK J. RICHARDS, DIRECTOR OF TNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: DIRK LOVETT, ASST. CITY ENGINEER DATE: APRIL 15, 1992 SUBJECT: LOS ANGELES AVE. R-O-W INVESTIGATION FROM GABBERT RD. TO THE WEST CITY LIMITS Pursuant to your request and our discussion on April 4, 1992. I am submitting a brief report as to the feasibility of six travel lanes. It was my understanding that the Council also wanted an evalua- tion as to the adequacy of 4 lanes to provide for the targeted level of service. However, per your direction, we will only evaluate the feasible location of 6 lanes at this time. The desired R-O-W for six lanes per county of Ventura County and Caltrans Standards is 1181. Proposed R-O-W in the draft circula- tion shows 1201. In neither case could a six lane R-O-W fit be- tween Gabbert and the west City limits without relocating exist- ing power lines and fencing, covering of the storm channel, relocating or removing of app. 50 mature trees, considerable grading, and relocating the existing Edison building - all along the north side of Los Angeles Ave. Tracts on the south side of Los Angeles Ave. have already widened the street. Any widening of Los Angeles Ave. will most likely have to be done on the north side. None the less the unimproved farm property on the south side at the westerly end of the City will require the relocation or removal of approx. 13 mature trees and irrigation facilities if the street is widened to 6 lanes. A lesser R-O-W of 110' (deleting the park strip on the north side) would still affect the above, with the exception of some of the Edison fencing. cc: Steve Kueny PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. BERNARDO M. PEREZ SCOTT MONTGOMERY ROY E. TALLEY JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember Councilmember