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