Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0216 CC REG ITEM 11GTO: FROM: ITEM E I . 7� _ A G E N D A R E P O R T C I T Y O F M O O R P A R K ►� The Honorable City Council Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Development Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner ::T�j DATE: February 10, 1994 (CC Meeting of 2- 16 -94) SUBJECT: CONSIDER DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DEVELOPED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE Background On December 9, 1992, the Mayor nominated and the City Council ratified the appointment of the following public members to a Measure F /Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee: Ellis Green, Bob Heitzman, Joyce Thompson, and Dorothy Ventimiglia. In addition, two Councilmembers (Perez and Wozniak), and two Planning Commissioners (Brodsky and May) were appointed to the Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee was given direction by City Council to look at the existing Measure F Ordinance (Attachment 1), make a recommendation whether that ordinance should be extended beyond its termination date of December 31, 1995, and to develop a new ordinance if determined appropriate. The Ad Hoc Committee met 15 times over the past year and drafted a new growth management ordinance (Attachment 2), which represents the unanimous position of the Ad Hoc Committee. It was the Ad Hoc Committee's opinion that the different growth management perspectives (including both pro - growth control and anti - growth control perspectives) were represented on that Committee. In addition, public input was received from several Moorpark residents who were in favor of growth management, as well as from the development industry including the Building Industry Association. The City Attorney reviewed a preliminary draft ordinance developed by the Ad Hoc Committee, and the following Discussion section includes a summary of some of her comments. A copy of the attached draft ordinance has been forwarded to the City Attorney for additional review and comment. Following is a discussion of some of the issues analyzed by the Ad Hoc Committee in the development of the attached draft ordinance. dst- 02- 04- 9415:44pmC: \WP51 \STFRPT \CC2- 16.RPT The Honorable City Council February 10, 1994 Page 2 Discussion Issues: The more significant issues analyzed by the Ad Hoc Committee included the following: 1. Is there a continued need for growth management? The Ad Hoc Committee's opinion was that growth management was necessary for the reasons outlined in the preamble and Findings sections of the attached draft ordinance. The City Attorney has identified that in the event of a challenge to a growth control ordinance, the City would have to bear the burden of proof. To shift the burden of proof back to the plaintiff, the City would have to prove that there is a reasonable probability that regional housing requirements can be accommodated for as long as the ordinance is in effect. It is the opinion of the Ad Hoc Committee that regional housing requirements can be met through the sunset date of the new ordinance, based on the yearly allocation of development allotments and the applicability exemptions (see Section 2 of draft ordinance). Projects which are proposed to be exempt from the new growth management ordinance include all dwelling units reserved for very low income, lower income, or senior citizen households. 2. Should growth limits be based on public service and infrastructure standards or limits? Inadequate information was available to establish or determine what constituted acceptable levels for all public services or the adequacy of existing infrastructure. Any study to determine such information would be costly and would probably take a considerable amount of time to produce. Such a study might also be inconclusive, due to the idea that development fees are required in order to pay for infrastructure. The City Attorney did identify during her preliminary review of the draft ordinance that proving that a numerical growth control ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the population of the City requires the presentation of evidence in the form of facts or of opinion relating to fact, and that a recitation of findings by no means suffices. 3. How many development allotments should be available yearly? This issue was given close scrutiny by the Ad Hoc Committee and was discussed at almost every meeting. The final decision was that 250 allotments should be available yearly through the dst- 02- 04- 9415:44p;C: \WP51 \STPRPT \CC2- 16.RPT The Honorable City Council February 10, 1994 Page 3 proposed termination date of the new ordinance (Year 2005). The justification for the yearly allocation number is attached as Exhibit A to the draft ordinance. 4. How many yearly development allotments should carry over to a subsequent year if not allocated; and how long should a project be able to keep awarded allotments before they expire if unused? The Ad Hoc Committee determined that the maximum number of carryover allotments at any one time should be 500. Similar to Measure F, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that after 24 months, the City Council may rescind all or part of the development allotments originally awarded to the RPD project. Any allotments rescinded by the City Council would be added to the pool of development allotments available for allocation, not to exceed 500 total, as previously discussed. 5. What will happen to non - allocated and unused allotments available under Measure F? The City Attorney's opinion regarding non - allocated development allotments available under Measure F is that those allotments will automatically expire when Measure F terminates in December 1995. It is also the opinion of the City Attorney that Measure F allotments already allocated to specific projects will expire unless the developer has a "vested right" for the buildout of a project. A project may be vested if a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a building permit issued by the government. A project's allotments may also be vested if there is an approved development agreement that guarantees that the project development allotments will not expire when Measure F terminates. It was the Ad Hoc Committee's opinion that allotments that have never been allocated to a specific project should not carryover to a new ordinance, and based on the information obtained from the City Attorney that those allotments would expire upon termination of Measure F, no language was added to the new ordinance regarding carryover. Section 3 of the draft ordinance does address the issue of unused allotments. If any allotments previously awarded to a project are rescinded by the City Council, those unused allotments shall be added to the pool of non - allocated development allotments available for award during any calendar year, subject to a limitation of 500 total non - allocated and rescinded allotments. dst- 02- 04- 9415:44pmC: \NP51 \STFRPT \CC2- 16.RPT The Honorable City Council February 10, 1994 Page 4 6. Should a new ordinance be City Council approved or submitted to the voters for approval? The Ad Hoc Committee unanimously agreed that the City Council should adopt a new growth management ordinance. An advantage of City Council adoption is that it would save money. Also, the initiative and referendum process is still available to voters, and regardless of whether of not the ordinance is adopted by the City Council or by initiative, the City would be required to defend such ordinance in court. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.6, a numerical growth control ordinance must contain public health, safety and welfare "findings" that "justify" reducing the housing opportunities of the region, unless the ordinance is adopted by initiative. However, this advantage is essentially negated by the fact that State Evidence Code Section 669.5 subjects both initiative and legislative numerical growth control ordinances to a presumption of impact on the supply of residential units available in an area, and unless the court finds that the defendant city has rebutted the presumption, places the burden on the city to prove that such ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare of the population of the city. To shift the burden of proof back to the plaintiff, the City would have to prove that there is a reasonable probability that regional housing requirements can be accommodated for as long as the numerical growth control ordinance is in effect. The Ad Hoc Committee did include public health, safety and welfare findings in the attached draft ordinance, and the opinion of the Committee was that regional housing needs could be accommodated based on the proposed exemptions for affordable, senior and rural (five acre and larger lot size) housing, General Plan buildout projections, the number of yearly allotments available, the proposed 2005 termination date of the ordinance, and the provisions for carryover of non - allocated allotments under the new ordinance (not to exceed a maximum of 500 at any time). 7. Should the prior project ranking system be maintained for determining which projects would receive development allotments? It was the Ad Hoc Committee's opinion that the prior point system was very subjective and that the design of the project should be determined by the planned development process not the growth allocation process. Under the attached draft dst- 02- 04- 9915:44pmC: \WP51 \STFRPT \CC2- 16.RPT The Honorable City Council February 10, 1994 Page 5 ordinance, projects would be eligible for development allotments based on the approval date of a residential planned development (RPD) permit. A list of approved RPD projects would be established (referred to as the Development Allotment List), with the RPD Permit that had the oldest approval date at the beginning of the list and the most recently approved permit at the bottom. The ranking of a project on that list could not be changed after passage of the base year in which the RPD Permit had been approved, unless a project was awarded bonus points during that same year. The application and evaluation process for bonus points is described in Section 6 of the draft ordinance. It was the intent of the Ad Hoc Committee to make the bonus point system as objective as possible. Bonus points could be awarded for infrastructure /amenities to be provided in excess of any RPD permit requirements. One or more bonus points could also be awarded if a project includes affordable housing units (the actual affordable units would be exempt if targeted to lower and very low income households), as well as for a project which includes rural development (1 to 4 acre minimum lot size). Recommendation Direct staff to schedule a City Council public hearing for review of the draft growth management ordinance. Attachments: 1. Measure F 2. Draft Growth Management Ordinance dst- 02- 04- 9415:44pmC: \NP51 \STFRPT \CC2- 16.RPT CITY OF MOORPARK MEASURE F (Facsimile of Measure F as Amended Not an Official Reproduction) INITIATIVE ORDINANCE AN INITIATIVE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 SEC. 10.01 Findings: The people of the City of Moorpark hereby find and declare as follows: A. The City of Moorpark has adopted a General Plan and city ordinances relating to the regulation of residential development. B. The City of Moorpark is experiencing a period of intense residential development which is adversely affecting the capacity of the streets and local freeway system to meet traffic demands, the capacity of appropriate schools to absorb children, the semi -rural character of the community, the quality of life prevalent in the City of Moorpark and its sphere of influence, and the cost to households of some utilities and municipal services. C. It is the intent of the People of the City of Moorpark to achieve a steady, rather than a fluctuating, overly rapid, rate of residential growth each year in order that the services provided by City, School, Park, utility and /or service agencies operating in the City can be properly and effectively staged in a manner which will not overextend existing f a c i l i t i e s , and in order that deficient services may be brought up to required and necessary standards while minimizing, by means of long range planning, the avoidable costs of short sighted facility expansion. Measure F Page -2- D. It is the intent of the People of the City of Moorpark to establish control over the quality, distribution, and rate of growth of the City in order to: Preserve the semi -rural character of the community; Protect the agricultural land and open space of the City; • Provide a suitable living environment for all citizens of the City; • Ensure the adequacy of municipal school, utility, recreation and park facilities and services; • Facilitate a balance of housing types and values in the City that will accommodate the housing needs of all economic segments including families of low and moderate income, and older families on 'limited and/or fixed incomes; • Ensure the balanced development of the City; • Prevent further significant deterioration in the local air quality; • Ensure that the traffic demands do not exceed the capacity of streets that are in haracter with the City's semi -rural nature; • Ensure that the City does not grow in a pattern that places a severe strain on the local freeway system; Ensure the adequacy of fire protection; and Ensure adequate water and sanitary sewer systems. E. The people of the City of Moorpark have considered the effect of this ordinance on the housing needs of the region in which it is situated and have balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. It is hereby found and determined that this ordinance will not reduce the housing opportunities of the region and this ordinance is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. It is further found and determined that, to the extent this ordinance may be determined to reduce the housing opportunities of the region, the findings contained herein as to the public health, safety and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of this ordinance, justify any such reduction in the housing opportunities of the region. Measure F Page -3- F. It is the purpose of this ordinance to augment the policies of the City of Moorpark as recorded in the General Plan and City Ordinances relating to the regulation of residential development; and G. In order to accomplish the above purposes, the city must be able to control the rate, distribution, quality and economic level of proposed development on a year -to year basis. To this end the following Residential Development Management System for the City of Moorpark shall be in effect from and after its effective date until December 31, 1995. Sec. 10.02 Applicability of the Development Management System. The provisions of the Residential Development Management System shall apply from the effective date to all residential development including mobile homes in the City of Moorpark with the exception of the following: A. Projects of not more than four residential dwellings, limited to only one such project per developer per calendar year. B. Fourplexes or lesser numbered multiple dwellings on a single existing lot. C. Single family residential units on a single existing lot. D. Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing dwelling or conversion of apartments to condominiums so long as no additional dwelling units are created. E. Dwelling units of any low income or senior citizen projects funded or subsidized pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal state or local laws or programs. F. Projects of residential dwellings with a minimum lot size of five acres per dwelling. Sec. 10.03 Establishment of Residential Development Evaluation Board. In order to administer the system set forth herein, and especially to make the valuations set forth in Section 10.06 below, a Residential Development Evaluation Board (here after called the Board) is hereby established, consisting of the duly appointed members of the Planning Commission of the City of Moorpark. The procedures and by -laws of the Board shall be developed by the Board subject to the approval of the City Council of Moorpark (hereinafter called the City Council). The Planning Department of the City of Moorpark shall serve as the staff of the Board. Measure F Page -4- Sec. 10.04 Establishment of Annual Residential Development Allotments. In addition to any residential development allotments carried over from previous years, the number of residential development allotments available for award each year in the City of Moorpark, except for dwelling units exempted pursuant to the provisions of Section 10.02 or pursuant to a final court order, shall be as follows: A. Calendar year 1986, no allotments for any dwelling units; B. Calendar years 1987 and 1988. a ! lotments for 250 dwelling units; and C. Calendar year 1989 and all years thereafter through December 31, 1994, allotments for 270 dwelling units. Any allotments that are available for award in any calendar year but which are not awarded in that year for any reason whatsoever shall be carried over to each ensuing calendar year until awarded and such allotments shall be in addition to the allotments that are otherwise available per calendar year pursuant to this section. The annual allotment shall be continuously applicable to the city's jurisdictional boundaries and shall not be modified by reason of annexation or additional territory. Section 10.05 Development Allotment Application. No building permit for a residential dwelling unit which is not exempt pursuant to Section 10.02 or pursuant to a final court order shall be issued unless a residential development allotment for the unit has been awarded; provided, however, that such building permits shall not be issued in excess of 500 per calendar year. If any of the 500 building permits which are available for issuance in any calendar year are not issued in that year, they shall not be carried over to any ensuing calendar year. At any time prior to obtaining a building permit for a non - exempt residential dwelling unit, the developer shall apply for a development allotment as set forth herein. The approval of all tentative subdivision maps shall be conditioned to comply with the provisions of this Residential Development Management System. Sec. 10.06 Development Allocation Evaluation. The Board shall consider annually all applications properly submitted and shall make recommendations to the city council based on the criteria set forth below: A. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. The Board shall examine each application for its relations to, or impact upon local public facilities and services, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating "very poor, "ten indicating "excellent ") on each of the following attributes: Measure F Page -5- 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 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 development without system extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer. 4. The ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to the established response standards of the City without the necessity of 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 need of the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading the existing street system, and the availability of other public facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, etc.) to meed the additional demands for vital public services without extension of services beyond those provided by the developer. 7. The capacity of Highway 118 and 23 within the city limits to provide for the traffic needs generated by the proposed development without substantially altering the level of service, including Freeway access. 8. Developments which have received Tentative Tract Map approval from the City of Moorpark prior to the effective date of this Residential Development Management System shall receive for each calendar year after 1984 an additional ten points. B. Quality of Design and Contribution of Public welfare and Amenity. The Board shall examine each application which has not been withdrawn by the applicant for failure to meet criteria A, and shall rate each development by the assignment of from zero to ten points (zero indicating "very poor, "ten indicating "excellent ") on each of the following attributes: Measure F Page -6- 1. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height, color and location with existing neighboring development. 2. The amount and character of open -space and slope landscaping. 3. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the 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 the needed public facilities such as critical linkages in the major street system, school rooms, functional parks, or other vital public facilities. 7. Site and architectural design quality which may be indicated by the amount and character of modification of the topography, including quantity of grading, extent of natural slopes cut and /or filled and impact on ridgeline. 8. Absence of deleteriou,, impact on trees and archeological sites. 9. The provision of significant water conservation features. 10. The provision of energy generation and conservation features such as additional insulation, house siteing and design, solar techniques and other innovative techniques. 11. Absence of deleterious impact on the physical and /or aesthetic environment. 12. Design and features which contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost given economic and environmental factors, the public health and safety, and the need to facilitate the development of housing for persons of low or moderate income. Measure F Page -7- C. After having studied each application in accordance with parts A and B, in regard to each of these criteria, or so many of them as may be applicable, and having assigned evaluation points on a scale of zero to ten in accordance with their finding, the Board shall prepare two lists, one documenting points awarded from part A and the other from part B, arranging the developments in each list in order from that receiving the greatest total number of evaluation points to that receiving the lowest number. In addition to listing the number of actual points awarded in each subcategory of both parts, each part will be totaled and the total shall then be expressed as a percentage of the maximum number of points awardable. The maximum number of points awardable shall not include those elements of the criteria found to be not applicable. D. Having evaluated each development in accordance with the foregoing criteria, the Board shall publish in appropriate ways the rating given to each development on each of those criteria. The Board shall then schedule a public hearing to be held within 15 days of classification of any point assignments made by the Board. Any applicant may request the Board, at said public hearing, to re- evaluate the point assignment made on any or all of the criterion. The primary criteria for the Board to alter their point assignment on a particular development is demonstration by the applicant that there exists pertinent information or a project redesign which the Board was not aware of at the time of the original evaluation 2. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the Board's re- evaluation may submit written notification of such dissent, which will be furnished to the City Council prior to the awarding of Development Allotments. E. Having evaluated each development and clarified all point assignments to the applicants, the Board shall present their lists of evaluations, along with the decisions reached on any appeals, to the City Council for the awarding of Development Allotments. F. The schedule for the submission and consideration of applications shall be established by the City Council. G. The criteria set forth in this section 10.06 are for the purpose of addressing the findings, intent and purpose of this ordinance as set forth in section 10.01 and are not to be construed or used for the purpose of rendering infeasible the development of housing for all economic segments of the commiinity. Measure F Page -8- Sec. 10.07 Development Allotment Awards. A. The City Council shall consider, at a public hearing, the recommendations and rankings of the proposed developments on each of the above described two lists, along with any action taken by the Board concerning appealed decisions, and shall compile one list ranking each of the proposed developments, and shall award development allotments from that list. 1. Development Program Allotment. The number of dwelling units for which Development Allotments shall be issued shall not exceed the allotments established in accordance with Section 10.04 herein. 2. Allocation Limitation. No single developer shall, in any one year, be issued a development allotment for dwelling units in excess of a number to he established by resolution of the City Council. 3. Minimum Point Requirements. The City Council shall eliminate from consideration any development which has not been assigned a minimum of 49 percentage points under Section 10.06, subparagraph A, herein, or a minimum of 70 percentage points under Section 10.06, subparagraph B. If in a given year the highest ranking development does not at least meet both of the minimum point requirements, the City Council shall make no Development Allotment for that year. B. The City Council shall make the annual Development Allotments at a time to be selected by the City Council. C. An application may be amended upon submittal of an additional application made in the same manner as the original application. In addition, the application for an amendment shall set forth the reasons for requesting the amendment. The City Council shall review such an amendment application in the same manner as an original application and may grant the amendment as requested. modify the amendment, or deny the amendment. 2. An amendment or modification may be granted only if the City Council after reviewing the proposed development in relation to the criteria set forth in Section 10.06 subparagraphs A and B shall find that the modified development has earned as many or more evaluation points than the original development for which the Development Allotment was issued. Measure F Page -9- D. Should a developer fail to initiate construction within twenty -four months after award of the Development Allotment, the City Council after a hearing may by majority vote, rescind all or part of the Development Allotment. Sec. 10.08 Additional Regulations. Should the arrangement of projects as provided in Section 10.07 subparagraph A produce the situation in which two projects have equal evaluation point scores, but only one project can be permitted with the quota, the City Council may offer those applicants a pro rata share of the number of units available with the quota, or may dispose of such a tie in any other manner deemed equitable by the City Council. Sec. 10.09 Judicial Review. Any legal action to challenge any decision or denial of the Board or any other governmental body performing a function under this ordinance must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction within thirty days immediately following the action challenged. Sec. 10.00 Modification. The City Council may, after a public hearing, by a four -fifth vote, change any part of this Residential Development Management System by amendment, providing the amendment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the validity of the remainder of this ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Residential Development Management system shall be considered as adopted upon the date that. the vote is certified by the City Clerk, and shall go into effect immediately thereafter. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WHEREAS, Initiative Ordinance Measure F was adopted by the voters of the City of Moorpark in November 1986, and established a Residential Development Management System; and WHEREAS, Initiative Ordinance Measure F includes a provision for termination as of December 31, 1995; and WHEREAS, Initiative Ordinance Measure F was adopted in response to a period of intense residential development in the City of Moorpark which adversely affected the capacity of the streets and local freeway system to meet traffic demands, the capacity of appropriate schools to absorb children, the suburban -rural character of the community, the quality of life prevalent in the City and its sphere of influence, and the cost to households of some utilities and municipal services; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to achieve a steady, rather than a fluctuating, overly rapid, rate of residential growth each year, thereby minimizing the avoidable costs of short - sighted facility expansion; and WHEREAS, managed residential growth will ensure that the services provided by City, School, Utility and /or service agencies operating in the city can be properly and effectively staged in a manner which will not overextend existing facilities, as well as ensure that deficient services can be brought up to required and necessary standards; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Moorpark to establish control over the quality, distribution, rate, and economic level of residential growth in the city on a year -to -year basis in order to: • Preserve the suburban -rural character of the community; • Protect the agricultural land and open space of the City; • Provide a suitable living environment for all citizens of the City; • Ensure the adequacy of municipal, school, utility, recreation and park facilities and services; • Attain a balanced City growth pattern which includes a full mix of land uses; Ordinance No. Page 2 • Provide a variety of housing types and opportunities for all economic segments of the community; • Prevent further significant deterioration in the local air quality; • Ensure that the traffic demands do not exceed the capacity of streets, highways, and freeways; • Maintain consistency with adopted Ventura County population forecasts for the Moorpark growth and non - growth areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Moorpark has considered the effect of this ordinance on the housing needs of the region in which it is situated and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. It is hereby found and determined that this ordinance will not reduce the housing opportunities of the region and this ordinance is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs. It is further found and determined that, to the extent this ordinance may be determined to reduce the housing opportunities of the region, the findings contained herein as to the public health, safety and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of this ordinance, justify any such reduction in the housing opportunities of the region; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Moorpark General Plan and City Ordinances relating to the regulation of residential development; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS The following findings justify the adoption of this ordinance by the City of Moorpark in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare: A. Growth management is consistent with goal, policy and implementation language in the City's General Plan, which address the need for balanced community growth patterns; maintaining suburban rural community character; and preservation of important, natural features, agricultural areas, and visually prominent hillside areas. Ordinance No. Page 3 B. Growth management is consistent with the Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. The rate of population growth is an integral assumption in the forecast of future air pollutant emissions in the County. The County of Ventura is currently a "non- attainment area" for ozone based on the state and federal ozone standards. C. Growth management is consistent with the 1978 Ventura County 208 Water Quality Management Plan and the July 1993 Draft Ventura County Water Management Plan. Long- term water availability is of concern for Ventura County. The proper management of water as a limited resource is vital to meet the current and future demands of urban, industrial, agricultural, and other water uses. Currently countywide water demand is greater than locally available water. This condition has resulted in the overdraft of groundwater resources and increasing dependence on imported water supplies. State imported supplies depend on snowpack and rainfall. During the recent drought, state water purveyors mandated use cutbacks, making state water a somewhat unreliable source. Local surface water supplies also suffer during a drought and cannot supply water at volumes previously supplied. These conditions point to the fact that even several water sources cannot be relied upon to meet countywide water demands during a drought. Current conditions illustrate the need for growth management to continue planning efforts to ensure an adequate and reliable water supply in the short term, long term, and during drought conditions. D. Growth management is necessary to ensure the adequacy of school facilities and services. Current state law restrictions on the maximum amount of money that projects can be conditioned to pay for schools does not ensure that adequate school facilities and services will be available when needed. Growth management allows a school district to more accurately plan facilities and services to meet projected needs. E. Growth management is necessary to ensure that roadway and transit facilities in the City and region are adequate to accommodate demand without significant impacts to levels of service. Currently several intersections in the City are operating at inadequate levels of service based on the City General Plan and Ventura County Congestion Management Plan standards. Growth management will allow the City and the region to more accurately plan transportation facility improvements to meet the demand without significant impacts based on adopted standards. Ordinance No. Page 4 F. Growth management is necessary to ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available for the region. Inadequate landfill capacity is available in Ventura County to meet the projected solid waste disposal needs of County residents and businesses. G. Growth management is necessary to ensure that adequate library services are available. Library services in the City are currently provided by Ventura County, and the current property tax funding is inadequate to meet the needs of the City's existing residents. H. Growth management will not impact the City's ability to provide its fair share of regional housing based on the exemptions as described in Section 2 of this ordinance, and the number of development allotments available yearly as described in Section 3 of this ordinance. I. The City's projected population for General Plan buildout (40,856) and an estimate of 3.39 persons's per household through the year 2010 have been used as the determining factors in this growth management ordinance as documented in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. APPLICABILITY The provisions of the Growth Management System shall apply from the effective date to all residential development including mobilehomes in the City of Moorpark with the exception of the following exempt residential development: A. Projects of not more than four residential dwellings, limited to only one such project per developer per calendar year. B. Fourplexes or lesser numbered multiple dwellings on a single existing lot. C. Single family residential units on a single existing lot. D. Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing dwelling, conversion of apartments to condominiums, or conversion of mobilehome parks to condominiums, so long as no additional dwelling units are created. E. Dwelling units reserved for very low income, lower income, or senior citizen households pursuant to an affordable housing or development agreement. F. Projects of residential dwellings with a minimum lot size of five acres per dwelling. G. Second dwellings as defined in the City of Moorpark Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance No. Page 5 SECTION 3. YEARLY ALLOTMENTS The number of new residential development allotments available for award each year in the City of Moorpark, except for dwelling units exempted pursuant to the provisions of Section 2, shall be two hundred and fifty (250). If all or a portion of the two hundred and fifty (250) allotments that are available for award in any calendar year, are not awarded in that year, those non - allocated allotments shall be carried over to each ensuing calendar year, subject to a limitation that the maximum number of carryover allotments shall not exceed a total of five hundred (500) at any time. Such carryover allotments shall be in addition to the allotments that are otherwise available per calendar year pursuant to the preceding paragraph. If any allotments previously awarded to a project are rescinded by the City Council, pursuant to Section 9, those unused allotments shall be added to the pool of non - allocated development allotments available for award during any calendar year, subject to a limitation that the maximum number of rescinded allotments plus non - allocated carryover allotments, described in the preceding paragraph, shall not exceed a total of five hundred (500) at any time. The number of annual development allotments shall be continuously applicable to the city's jurisdictional boundaries and shall not be modified by reason of annexation or additional territory. SECTION 4. DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT LIST The Department shall keep a list of approved residential planned development (RPD) permit numbers in chronological order based on date of permit approval. This list shall be known as the Development Allotment List, and shall begin with the RPD Permit that has the oldest approval date and end with the most recently approved RPD Permit, unless otherwise positioned due to the use of bonus points as provided for in Section 6. A. The Development Allotment List shall contain the following information: 1. The project RPD permit number. 2. The total number of project dwelling units requiring development allotments. 3. The number of allotments awarded for each RPD project. 4. The date of RPD Permit approval. Ordinance No. Page 6 B. The ranking of a project on the Development Allotment List shall not be changed after passage of the base year in which the RPD Permit had been approved. C. If a residential project is awarded bonus points during the base year of RPD Permit approval, pursuant to the process described in Section 6, the List shall be updated within two working days of the decision to award the bonus points, and the updated list shall be published in a weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark. SECTION 5. DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT AWARD PROCESS The owner or project developer (hereafter called applicant) of a property, for which a RPD Permit has been approved and included on the Development Allotment List, shall be eligible to apply to the Department for one development allotment for each non - exempt dwelling unit in the approved RPD project. A. Each applicant for development allotment(s) shall apply on a form provided by the Department. B. A completed application for development allotment(s) must be filed with the Department no later than the last working day of each calendar year. Any application deemed incomplete by the Department will not be considered as accepted for filing. C. Allotments for the previous year, pursuant to Section 3, shall be awarded each calendar year no later than the last working day of March. D. Allotments shall be awarded for a RPD project based on its position on the Development Allotment List. E. The City Council shall consider at a noticed public hearing the rankings of the proposed developments on the Development Allotment List, along with any action taken by the Planning Commission concerning the award of bonus points pursuant to Section 61 and shall award development allotments from that List. Notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with Section 6008 of the Government Code. After closing the public hearing, the City Council shall award all allotments for which it has received application, not to exceed the maximum number of allotments available as established in Section 3 herein. F. If the first RPD project on the Development Allotment List does not utilize all of the allotments available, then the next project on the List will be eligible for award of allotments. This process shall continue until there are no allotments available or until there are no more RPD projects on the List, whichever comes first. Ordinance No. Page 7 G. If the property owner or developer of a RPD project fails to submit an application for development allotments, no allotments shall be awarded that project. H. If a RPD project, for whatever reason, is not awarded development allotments, or is awarded only a portion of the allotments required to develop the project, that project shall maintain its position on the Development Allotment List until all required allotments have been received. I. No single applicant may be awarded more than 50 percent (50 %) of all allotments available during a single allotment year. SECTION 6. BONUS POINTS Any RPD project which is on the Development Allotment List may have its position on the List improved if bonus points are obtained. Bonus points will be awarded in recognition of a project's contribution to the achievement of the goals of the Growth Management Ordinance. As provided for below, the owner or developer of a property for which a RPD Permit has been approved may submit an application to the Department for bonus points at any time prior to the last working day of December of the calendar (base) year that RPD Permit approval is received. As identified in Section 5, RPD projects approved during the same calendar year will initially be ranked on the Development Allotment List, in chronological order, based on the date of approval of the RPD Permit. If a RPD project receives a bonus point, it will increase its ranking on the Development Allotment List for the base year of RPD Permit approval. The RPD project with the most bonus points will be placed at the beginning of the List; other RPD projects with lesser points shall follow in descending order of points. If one or more projects receive equal bonus points, those projects would be ranked in chronological order, based on the date of RPD Permit approval. The application and evaluation process for bonus points shall be as follows: A. Applicants for bonus points shall apply on a form provided by the Department. A complete application and a processing fee must be submitted to the Department no later than the last working day of December of the base year that the RPD Permit was approved by the city. In order for an application to be deemed complete by the Department, it must include all components required to allow a determination of eligibility for bonus points as described in subsection C of this Section. The processing fee to be submitted with the application shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Ordinance No. Page 8 B. A noticed public hearing, shall be held by the Planning Commission on the second Monday of January for the purpose of evaluating applications for bonus points and finalizing a recommendation to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with Section 6008 of the Government Code. The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation decision no later than 15 days from the date of the public hearing. C. The following criteria shall be used by the Planning Commission to evaluate applications for bonus points and develop a recommendation to the City Council for bonus point award. 1. One (1) point shall be awarded for every one percent (1%) of value of the infrastructure/ amenity to be provided, which was not required as a condition of the RPD Permit approval. Said percent shall be calculated as a percent of the appraised value of the project (at the time of RPD Permit approval), and the appraised value of the contribution. a. The "infrastructure /amenity" shall be defined as a list of projects which is compiled by the City Council on a yearly basis and which is considered to be important to the attainment of the goals of the Growth Management Ordinance. This list is to be known as the Growth Management Goal Attainment (GMGA) list, and shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The GMGA list shall be in order of priority. b. The applicant may either build the infrastructure/ amenity or may contribute monetarily to the GMGA fund. All contributions made to the GMGA fund may only be used to capitalize projects on the GMGA list. C. The appraised value of the project and any "infrastructure /amenity" shall be based on an appraisal report. The appraisal report must be completed by the deadline for application submittal pursuant to subsection A, above. The applicant shall bear the cost of preparation of said appraisal report. Appraisals shall be conducted by a qualified appraiser, selected by the city, pursuant to the following process: d. The City shall maintain a list of qualified appraisers, and shall make said list available to applicants. Ordinance No. Page 9 e. The applicant shall request in writing that the Department obtain informal bids from three appraisers, selected by the applicant, from the City's list of qualified appraisers. f. The City shall then request informal bids from the three appraisers relative to the value of the applicant's project and any "infrastructure / amenity" to be provided. g. The lowest bidder shall be awarded the task of preparing the required appraisals of the project and the proposed improvement as listed on the GMGA list. One of the other bidders may be awarded the appraisal contract if the City and the applicant mutually consent to do so. h. The applicant shall deposit with the City, an amount equal to the appraisal bid plus the City's contract administration charge, as established by City Council resolution. i. The product of the appraiser's work shall be given to the applicant for his inclusion with the application for bonus point(s). 2. One (1) point shall be awarded if the project is considered to be an "in- fill" development. An in -fill development is defined as a RPD project which is surrounded on three sides by existing development and does not require the extension of water, sewer, electric, utilities or street infrastructure to the site. 3. One or more points shall be awarded if affordable rental or for - purchase dwelling units are provided within a RPD project consistent with the following criteria: a. One (1) point shall be awarded if a minimum of 5 percent (5 %) of the total RPD project dwelling units, in excess of any inclusionary zoning requirement, is made affordable to either very low or lower income households pursuant to an affordable housing agreement. b. Two (2) points shall be awarded if a minimum of 10 percent (10 %) of the total RPD project dwelling units, in excess of any inclusionary zoning requirement, are made affordable to either very low or lower income households pursuant to an affordable housing agreement. Ordinance No. Page 10 C. One (1) point shall be awarded if a minimum of 15 percent (15 %) of the total RPD project dwelling units, in excess of any inclusionary zoning requirement, is made affordable to median or moderate income households pursuant to an affordable housing agreement. d. One (1) additional point shall be awarded if a minimum of 5 percent (5 %) of the total RPD project dwelling units are made affordable to moderate income households, in addition to the provision of very low or lower income units pursuant to either subsection a. or b., above. 5. One or more points shall be awarded if a minimum of 25 percent of the RPD Permit area includes rural development, with the lot size requirements and point allocation to be as follows: a. 1.0 acre minimum lot size = one (1) point b. 2.0 acre minimum lot size = two (2) points C. 3.0 acre minimum lot size = three (3) points d. 4.0 acre minimum lot size = four (4) points e. If a minimum of 25 percent of the RPD Permit area includes mixed rural lot sizes of one to four acres, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council for award of bonus points for the project; however, the total number of bonus points for a mixed rural lot size development shall not exceed three (3). 6. One (1) bonus point shall be awarded if the overall density of the RPD Permit project site is reduced 10 percent below the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. One (1) additional point may be awarded by the City Council if the density of the RPD Permit project site is reduced by more than 10 percent below the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. D. Having evaluated each development in accordance with the foregoing criteria, the Planning Commission shall make a determination of bonus point assignment and recommended revisions to the Development Allotment List, and the Department shall then publish in a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Moorpark, the Planning Commission's preliminary bonus point assignment and revised Development Allotment List based on that assignment. Ordinance No. Page 11 E. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the Planning Commission's preliminary bonus point assignment may submit written notification of such dissent within fifteen (15) days following the publication of the revised Development Allotment List. Such written appeal notification will be furnished to the City Council prior to the awarding of bonus points. F. Following publication of the preliminary bonus point assignment, the Community Development Department shall schedule a City Council public hearing for the final award of bonus points, and shall provide the council with the Planning Commission's recommendations for preliminary bonus point assignments and revised Development Allotment List, as well as any written appeal notification received from applicants. G. The City Council shall hold a noticed public hearing on the second Wednesday of February, prior to making a final determination of the award of bonus points and revision of the Development Allotment List. Notice of the hearing shall be provided consistent with Section 6008 of the Government Code. The City Council shall make a decision as to the final award of bonus points no later than 15 days from the date of the public hearing. SECTION 7. BUILDING PERMITS No building permit for a non - exempt residential dwelling unit shall be issued unless a residential development allotment for the unit has been awarded; provided, however, that such building permits shall not be issued in excess of five hundred ( 500 ) per calendar year. If any of the five hundred (500) building permits which are available for issuance in any calendar year are not issued in that year, they shall not be carried over to the ensuing calendar year. SECTION 8. GRADING PERMITS No grading permit for a project containing non - exempt residential dwelling units shall be issued unless there has been an award of development allotments for the project. When the award is for less than the entire project, grading beyond the immediate area of the lots for which the applicant proposes to utilize the development allotments may be allowed in accordance with the following: A. The applicant executes, in a form approved by the City Attorney, a waiver of any claim of a vested right to be exempt from the Growth Management System as a result of grading beyond the area for which the development allotments have been awarded and an acknowledgment that the applicant assumes any risks that may result from commencement of grading prior to the award of allotments for the entire project; and Ordinance No. Page 12 The applicant has been awarded development allotments for at least 15 percent (15 %) of the number of non - exempt residential dwelling units in a project consisting of not more than one hundred and seventy -five (175) lots, in which event the grading may be carried out for the entire project; or B. The applicant has been awarded development allotments for at least 15 percent (15 %) of the number of non - exempt residential units in the first phase of a project consisting of more than one hundred and seventy -five (175) lots, in which event the grading shall be carried out in phases. The phases shall be delineated by the applicant on the tentative tract map. No phase shall consist of more than one hundred and seventy -five (175) lots. Grading of the first phase may commence once 15 percent (15 %) of the necessary allotments for that phase have been awarded. Grading of the second phase and each phase thereafter may commence once 75 percent (75 %) of the necessary allotments for the preceding phase have been awarded. C. The City Council may approve or conditionally approve grading in a manner not otherwise provided for in this subsection upon a finding that strict compliance with the provisions of paragraph A or B would work a substantial economic or engineering hardship on the project. D. All graded areas shall be treated with landscaping, as deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development, to prevent erosion and to reduce visual impacts of the grading. A landscaping plan shall be approved by the Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. SECTION 9. FAILURE TO INAUGURATE Should a developer fail to initiate construction within twenty -four months after award of the development allotments, the City Council after a public hearing may, by majority vote, rescind all or part of the development allotments originally awarded to the RPD project in question. Further, for a one -year period following the decision of the City Council to rescind development allotments, no application for new development allotments shall be accepted for the project which had its allotments rescinded. Any allotments rescinded by the City Council, pursuant to the preceding paragraph, may be added to the pool of development allotments available for allocation during any calendar year, subject to the restrictions specified in Section 3 of this ordinance. SECTION 10. TERMINATION OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall remain in effect only until December 31, 2005, and as of that date shall expire, unless earlier repealed, amended, or extended by the City Council. Ordinance No. Page 13 SECTION 11. AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE Any amendment of this ordinance shall require a public hearing. SECTION 12. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption. SECTION 14. CERTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance; shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published once in the Moorpark News - Mirror, a weekly newspaper of general circulation, as defined in Section 6008 of the Government Code, for the City of Moorpark, and which is hereby designated for that purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1993. ATTEST: Lillian E. Hare City Clerk day of Mayor of the City of Moorpark, California Ordinance No. Page 14 EXHIBIT A CONTROLLED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The maximum density based on City General Plan buildout of 14,911 dwelling units; plus an additional 147 dwelling units as requested in a currently filed application for an amendment to the Carlsberg Specific Plan; minus 8,280 existing dwelling units as of 1 -1 -94; minus 948 dwelling units which represent an estimate of the number of allotments that are expected to be made available under existing Measure F and vested prior to expiration of that ordinance; minus an estimate of 1,132 dwelling units that will be exempt from any growth management ordinance based on a prior court decision and rural land use designation requiring 5 acre or larger lot size; minus an estimate that 939.60 dwelling units (20 percent) will be exempt because they will be "affordable ", "senior ", or other exempt units as defined in Section 2 of draft ordinance; and based on the City's General Plan buildout year of 2010, the number of dwelling units required over a 15 -year period is then calculated: Maximum Density of City General Plan = 14,911 du's (1992 Land Use Element) 14,911 du's + 147 Carlsberg Specific Plan du's (552 -405) = 15,058 du's 15,058 du's - 8,280 du's (total du's in City as of 1 -1- 94) = 6,778 du's not yet constructed 6,778 du's - 948 du's (Measure F allotments already allocated or expected to be allocated by 1995) = 5,830 du's 5,830 du's - 1,132 du's (estimate of units exempt from new ordinance based on prior court decision and rural land use designation requiring 5 acre or larger lot size) = 4,698 du's 4,698 x 20% (percentage of all other new dwelling units expected to be exempt because they will be "affordable ", "senior ", or other exempt units as defined in Section 2 of ordinance) = 939.60 exempt units 4,698 du's - 939.60 du's = 3,758.40 du's requiring allotments 3,758.40 du's / 15 years (1996 through 2010) = 250.56 du's required per year through 2010 Round to 250 yearly allotments