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'
-~~~~'.