HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1986 0915 CC REG ITEM 10FITEM 10-F- THOMAS C. FERGUSON Mayor J DANNY A. WOOLARD Mayor Pro Tern JAMES A. HARTLEY Council member ALBERT PRIETO Councilmember LETA YANCY-SUTTON Councilmember THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TC>: FR.OM:: MOORPARK M:EM:C>R..ANDUM: The Honorable•city Council Michael A. Rubin, Senior Planne/~ STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J. KANE City Attorney RICHARD MORTON Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police D.ATE: September 10, 1986 (City Council Meeting of 9/15/86) SUBJECT: MEASURED GROWTH PLAN: CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATING Background The next phase of the proposed measured growth plan is to develop "criteria for allocating'' the amount of dwelling units to be permitted in each subsequent year. Staff has researched four other cities that have the equivalent of a measured growth plan and have adopted criteria. The cities listed are Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, San Juan Capistrano, and Petaluma (Sonoma County). (The proposed Measure "F" criteria appears to be identical to the Thousand Oaks criteria) Please see attachments. Generally, all four cities have a scoring system in which points are accumulated for providing various amenities, features, all all fulfilling community needs. Recommended Action Direct staff to develop criteria based on the attached samples (or as modified by the Council). 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 :.. . ) ) C. Allocation Program ( 1) The annual allocation shall be awarded prior to the commencement of each program year for the succeeding program year. ( 2) Within 120 days of the effective date of this ordinance, the City Council shall implement, by resolution, a program by which the annual allocation shall be awarded. CfJe resolution shall define a date for the commencement of the program year. The allocation program will include criteria for evaluation of proposed residential developments including but not limited to, current and future capacity of streets, sewer, water, drainage, schools, fire and police protection and parks and consistency with the General Plan, including without limitation the goals of the Housing Element, and development standards.l Should the city fail to implement the allocation program within the aforemerttioned 120 days, no residential building permit shall be issued after the commencement of the 1987 program year until the program is implemented. The city reserves the right to adopt an emergency moratorium to carry out this subsection. (3) Any residential development that is subject to a development agreement adopted by the City Council prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be exempt from the allocation program. Each year of the term of the development agreement an award shall be deemed automatically made from the annual allocation for the maximum number of dwelling units for which building permits may be obtained pursuant to the development agreement during the program year. ( 4) The annual allocation may be_ increased by the City Council in an amount not to exceed ten percent ( 10%), provided that the annual allocation for the next succeeding program year shall be reduced by an equal amount. Any annual allocation that is awarded but for which a residential building permit has not been issued within twenty-one ( 21) months after the award or for which a residential building permit lapses without being renewed by the City shall be deemed to have expired. Any portion of the annual allocation that is not awarded or that has expired may be carried over to the subsequent year and the annual allocation shall be adjusted accordingly. D. Annual Infrastructure Report ( l) Each year, the City Council shall determine whether any portion of the annual allocation shall not be available for award. Prior to making the determination, the City Council shall receive and review an annual report including, but not limited to, sewer and water capacity, schools, police and fire services, streets and consistency with the City's General Plan and the Countywide Planning Proffl'am projections. ( 2) The City Council shall review the report in January prior to awarding the annual allocation for the succeeding program year. I0.04 after ril 8, :m. shell ding ings, ingle :. or lonal !nlor lppll- 1ril 8, ly to Resl- ·d) ls f the y the d the aff of JTil 8, lent 'car In .e pro- }. 1900 ) § 9-10.04 THOUSAND OAKS MUNICIPAL CODE Calendar year J 980: a maximum of J ,2S0 units; Calendar year 198 I: a maximum of7S0 units; and Calendar year 1982 and all years thereafter, thr gh Decem- a maximum of 500 dwelling units. The annu lotment may be modified by the Cou ii to an amount not greater than t ( I 0%) percent more or less for y given year, pro• vided that the annu llotment for the next su ceding year shall be set higher or lowc'r, as the se ·may be, in orde o redress any execs~ or deficiency. The annual allotm t shall be co lnuou1ly applicable to the _ • City's jurisdictional boundaries shall ot be inodlflcd by reason of annexation of additional territory. ((nitlative Ord. No. 749-NS, adopt 1980,eff.May J5, 1980) Sec. 9-10.05. Develop ent aUotment app • No building pormi of nonoxernpted projocts ·development allotm t for such project has been gr ed. At any time prior to obtain! a building per111it, the developer of pr osed projects not excmpte rorn application for a development allotm t pursuant to the pro slons of Section 9-10.02 shall apply for a develop ent allot- ment a et forth herein. (Ini • tive Ord. No. -749-NS, adopted at a General Election held A 0 eff. Ma Sec. 9-10.06. Development allocation evaluation. The Board &hull consider amiually all applications properly sub~ mil led and shall make recommendations to the Council bused on the criteria sot forth below: A. Availability of public Ji1ci/it/es and services. The Board sh nll examine each application for !ts relation to, or Impact upon; local publh; facilities and services, and sha)l rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten ( I 0) poln ts (1.ero indicating "vory poor", ten ( l 0) Indicating "excellent") on oach of the following attribute~: 1. The capacity of the water system to provide for the • needs of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. 2. The capacity of the sanitary sewer~ to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. 3. The c11pacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally Installed by the developer. --Roprlnt No. 29 • Auguat 29, 1 BOO ... • i § 9-10.c.6 THOUSAND OAKS MUNICIPAL CODE § 9-10.0S 4. The ability of the County Fire DcpMtment to provide fire protection according to the established response stendards of the City without the necessity o_f establishing a new station or requiring additions of major equipment or housing facilities to an existing station. 5. The capacity of the appropriate school to absorb the children expected to Inhabit a proposed development without necessltat- • ing or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding. • 6. The capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system, and the avail- ability of other public facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, etc.) to meet the additional demands for vital public services without extensions of services beyond thosc_provided by the developer. 7. The capadty of Highway 101 within the City limits to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering the freeway level of service. • • 8. Developments which have received tentative tract map an>roval from the City prior to the effective date of thb rcs.ldentlal development control system shall receive for each calendar year after 1980, an.additional ten (10) points. B; Quality of design and contribution of public wclf are and amenity. The Board shall examine each nppllcatlon which has not been withdrawn by the applicant for failure to meet criteria A, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero fo ten ( I 0) points (zero indicating "very poor", ten (10) indicating "excellent") on _each of the following attributes: 1. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of 5ize, height, color, and location _with existing neighboring development. 2. The amount and character of open-space and slope landscaping. 3. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efficiency of clrculotlon, on and off-site traffic safety, privacy, etc. • 4. The provision ~f public and/or private u,oblo open space. 5 .• foot or bicycle 6. Contributions to and extensions of existing systems of paths, equestrian trails and fadlltles, and/or greenbelts. The provision of needed public facilities, such as critlco.1 link2ges in the major street ~ystem, school rooms, functional parks, or other vital public facilities. Reprint No. 20 • AuQuat 20_. 1000 I ! ' '. '' '. ' ' • § 9-10.06 THOUSAND OAKS MUNICIPAL CODE § 9-10.06 7. Sito and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of modification of tho topography, including quantity of grading, extent of natural slopes cut and/or filled, and impact on ridgellne. 8. Impact on oak trees and archeological sltos. 9. The provision of significant water conservation features. I 0. The provision of energy generation and conservation features, such as additional insulation, house siloing and design, solar techniques, and other Innovative techniques. C. After _ having studied eac_h application tn accordance with parts A and B, In regard to each of these criteria or so many of them as may be applicable, and having as.signed evaluation points on a scale of zero to ten ( 1 0) In accordance with their finding, tho Board shall prepare two lists, one documenting points awardod from part A and the other from part B, arranging the dovelopments in each list in order from that receiving the greatest total number of evaluation points to that receiving the lowest number. D. Having evah,iated each devolopmont In accordanco with the foregoing criteria tho Board shall publish in appropriate. ways the rating given to e~ch development on each of thoso criteria. The Board. shall then schedule a public hearing to be held within fifteen (15) days of the classi- fication of any point assignments made by the Board. 1. • Any applicant may request the Board, at said public hearing, to reevaluate the point assignment made on any or all of t}:le criterion. The primary criteria for the Board to alter lu point assignment on a particular development b demonstration by the applicant that there ex1sts pertinent information or a project redesign which the Board w.u not aware of at the time of the original evaluation. • 2. Any applicant who Is dissatisfied with tho Board's re- evaluation may submit written notification of such dissent, which will be furnished to tho Council prior to tho awarding of development allot- ments. E. Having evaluated eac:h development and clarified all point assignments to the applicants, the Board shall present Its lists of evalua- tions, along with the decisions reached on any appoals, to tho Council for tho awarding of development allotmonh. F. The schedulo for the submhslon and con&lderatlon of appli- cations shall bo established by the Council. (Inltlutlve Ord. No. 749-NS, adopted at a Goneral Eloctlon hold April 8, 1980,eff. May 15, 1980) Reprint No. 29. Augu1t 29, 1980 S89A.13 RESIDENTIAL 20.01 .090 Development allocation evaluation. The board shall consider annually all applications properly submitted and shall make recommendations to the city council based on the criteria set forth below: A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. The board shall examine each application for its relaHons to or impact upon local public facilities and services, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating very poor, ten indicating excellent) on each of the following attributes: •• I. The capacity of the water system to provide for the needs of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 2. The capacity of the sanitary sewers to dispose of the wastes of the proposed development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 3. The capacity of the drainage facilities to adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed develop- ment without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer; 4. The ability of the fire department to provide fire pro- tection according to the established response standards of the city without the necessity of establishing a new station or requiring addition of major equipment or housing facilities to an existing station; 5. The capacity of the appropriate school to absorb the children expected to inhabit a proposed development without necessitating or adding to double sessions or other unusual scheduling or classroom overcrowding; 6. The capacity of major street linkage to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over- loading the existing street system, and the capacity of Highway 10 I within the city limits to provide for the needs of the proposed development without substan- tially altering the freeway level of service; 7. The availability of public facilities (such as parks, J1la-y- grounds, etc.) to meet th<:! demands for vital public 480-'.:!9 I (C~muillo 4-8S) ~J:>...l2,(LL,D c.,,tz\~~ ) ) DEVELOPMENT CONTROL services without extension of services beyond those provided by the developer; 8. Developments which have received tentative tract map approval from the city prior to the effective date of the residential development control system codified in this chapter shall receive for each calendar year after 1981 an additional ten points to a maximum of thirty points. 9. Developments which have received tentative map or other city approval of a project after the effective date of the residential development control system codified in this chapter, shall receive five points for the first year after approval, eight points for the second year after approval, and ten points for the thrid year after approval. B. Quality of Design and Contribution of Public Welfare and Amenity. The board shall examine each application which has not been withdrawn by the applicant for failure to meet subsection A, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating very poor, ten indicating excellent) on each of the following attributes: I. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height color and location with existing neighboring development; 2. The amount and character of open spaq: and slope landscaping; 3. Site and architectural cfesign quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efficiency of circulation, on and off site traffic safety, privacy, etc.; 4. The provision of public and/or private usable open space; 5. Contributions to and extensions of existing systems • of foot or bicycle paths, equestrian trails and facilities and/or greenbelts; 6. The provision of needed public facilities such as critical linkages in the major street system, school rooms, functional parks, or other vital public facilities; (Camarillo 4-85) 480-292 ) RESIDENTIAL 7. Site and architectural design quality which may be indi- cated by the a111ount and character of modification of the topography, including quantity of grading, extent of natural slopes cut and/or filled and impact on ridge- line: 8. Absence of deleterious impact on trees and archeo- logical sites: 9. The provision of significant water consc_rvation features: I 0. The provision of energy gener;ition ;ind conservation features, such as additional insulation, house siting and design. solar techniques and other innov;itivc techniques: 11. Absence of deleterious impact on the physical and/or aesthetical environ111cnt: I 2. Projects which contain a portion of low-cost housing in ;iccordancc with the criteria under subsection E of Sec- tion 20.01.050 shall be entitled to ten additional bonus points. If the project docs not include low-cost housing, this criteria slwll not be subtracted or figured into the total percentage points. C. After having studied each application in accordance with subsections A and B of this section, in regard to each of these criteria, or so many of them as may be applicable, and having assigned evaluation points on a scale of zero to ten in accordance with their finding, the board shall prepare two lists. one docu111cnting points awarded from subsection A and the other from subsection B of this section, ar- ranging the developments in each list in order from that ... ,0 , • receiving th~_ greatest total number of cva!u_ation ~~i)1},M#fi{R(/: to that rece1vmg the lowest number. In add1t10n to l~,til1gt.q,.;_;_ << the number of actual points awarded in each subcat~·gor/·:'?.'.)}?}J£ of both parts, each part will be totaled and the tot~il shall ; ;: ·.·.:1: then be expressed as a percentage of the maximum 1\'iimbcr of points ;iwardablc. The maximum number of points awardable shall not include those elements of the criteria found to be not applicable. D. Having evaluated each development in accordance with the criteria set out in this section, the board shall publish in appropriate ways the rating given to each development on 480-293 (Camarillo J (~lf'J ) § 9-7.09 SAN JuAN CAPISTRANO MuNJCIPAL CooE § 9-7.09 rating and unit allocations described in subsection (2) of this subsec- tion and in subsection (e) of this section are completed. (2) Point ratings. During concept reviews, the Planning Commission shall assign point ratings to projects for which it recom- mends approval. Ratings shall be made by means of the criteria of the PRS described in Table 1 of this section. The Planning Commission rating shall be an overall rating, using both the specific and general crite.ria in the PRS. The Planning Commission shall confirm the ERB rating on the specific criteria and shall confirm or modify the ERB recommended rating on the general criteria. TABLE 1: PROJECT RA TING SCALE CRITERIA (a) Specific criteria. (1) The proximity of the nearest developed public park or other public recreation facility (for example, junior high or high schoolr; (2) The proximity of the nearest public elementary school•; (3) Whether the project site is located in attendance areas served by schools designated as overcrowded; (4) Whether the project requires the extension of com- muter or arterial roads for access; (5) Whether the project provides dual access co devel- opment; (6) The variances requested co accommodate the pro- ject; (7) The General Plan amendment required to accom- modate the project; and (8) The consumption of land designated for Resource Conservation and Production in the General Plan (percentage of site area). (b) General cn·teria. (1) The bnd form alteration, sensitivity of grading con- cepts, and the ridge line preservation; (2) The provision of open space, public and private; (3) The provision of private recreation facilities; ( 4) The reduction of fifty (50 % ) percent or more below the maximum General Plan density; (5) The overall quality of design (innovation, architec- tural quality, amenity, and the like); (6) The unusual public benefits from the project••; and (7) The provision of low or moderate income housing. • Measured from the nearest boundary of the most distant lot (or dwelling unit if there are no individual lots) in the project_-Jo the nearest boundary of the park or school site. ~J~ {__,,b.,J?l<:7~ C-~ITeJ?,IA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RATING SHEET Project Name ____________________ _ Rating Date ____________ _ Raters Signature __________________ _ Project Types: All, Attached Housing (Att. Hsng), Hillside Projects (Hill), Potential Rental Projects (Rental), Projects with Special Features (Spec. Feat.), Con~on or Public Landscaoe Areas (Pub.Landscape) 2/6/81 r--..• 0 ~10 O'I N w • 6 .J 0 ii: z O'I .J ui u w OJ z a: CJ) :::i ,u 0 a.. u Rating "TE" Technical Excellence Points Weighting Tz:ee Category Spec.Feat. la Spec.Feat. lb All 2 All 3a All 36 All 3c All 3d Att.Ilsng 3e Hill 3f I! i 11 3g Hill 3h All 4a All 46 All 4c All 4d All Sa Rental Sb Hill Sc Spec.Feat Sd Protection of Natural Features Avoidance of High Risk Areas Quality of Phasing Plan Street Pattern Pathways Overall Lot and Dwelling Unit Layout Development Pattern nr, high noise areas Parking Areas Density location to minimize grading Street pattern to minimize grading Lot and bldg. design to min. grading Quantity of open space "R" Points l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 Common Pub.areas-Proportions and location activities l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 pub.areas l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 yard areas l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 Quality and quantity of Common Quartity and quality of private I Amount and quality of landscaping Landscaping for rental units-quantity and quality Landscaping to control erosion Species compatibility to enhance natural habitat l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 l-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5- N/A 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 N/A 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 1-2-3-4-5 ~ j _r l>'r R{TE 1/ 1. 6 .6/.4 .5/N/A . 8/ 1. 4 .5/1 . 6/ 1. 2 . 6/. 4 . 4/. 8 .6/NA .4/ ,4 . 4 /. 4 . 8/ 1. 4 .5/1 .6/1.2 . 4/. 8 .7/1.6 .5/1 . 3/. 4 .4/.8 ~ (·ft ..... [O --:r: >< w ~:a' -~~~~'.