HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0803 CC REG ITEM 09Bof
A %ON:
-j�
DRAFT ITEM
.3,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF —
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING By
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 ca'pa`city 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 ad
equacy 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
e 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;
m 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 wiiidh 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 rf�sidential 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 ora 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 Lnits are created.
E. Dwelling units reserved for very low income, lower
income, or senior citizen households pursuant to an
affordable housing Ec development agreement.
F. Projects of residential dwellings with a minimum lot size
of five acres per dwErcling.
G. Second dwellings a� 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 t,ist 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 6, 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 un 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 comE- I first
Ordinance No.
Page 7
G. If the property owner or developer of a RPD project fails to
snhmit 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 resolutic '1 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_p,1rovided,
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 tc 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 :,hall 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 housir7 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 >ased 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" 1 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 , . n 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 fol 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 t rie 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 allc ation during any calendar year,
subject to the restrictions ,pec; fied in Section 3 of this
ordinance .
SECTION 10. TERMINATION OF ORDINANCE
This ordinance shall remain. zn effect only until December 31,
2005, and as of that date shal expire, unless earlier repealed,
amended, or extended by the ' i ; nunci] .
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 4f Moorpark, and which is hereby
designated for that purpose.
PASSED AND ADOPTED thisday of
1993.
Mayor of the City of Moorpark, California
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Hare
City Clerk
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 tc bl 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 dwell ag 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':. 3 . 78 .40 du's requiring
allotments
3,758.40 du's / 15 years { i996 through 2010) = 250 .56
du's required per year throgh 201C
Round to 250 yearly allotments
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera ' Director of C ommunity Developme qo,,,�
DATE: June 27, 1994
SUBJECT: NEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The public hearing for the new growth management ordinance was
continued to the July 20, 1994, Council meeting.. Attached is a
comparison table, which is intended to assist in the City Council's
review of the proposed new growth management ordinance. The
attached table compares the draft ordinance to existing Measure F.
The differences between the existing and proposed
ordinances are only briefly summarized in the attah management
ch dtable. The
primary difference between the two ordinances is the proposed
change to the development allotment award process, including the
proposed bonus point system.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed ordinance, please
contact me.
Attachment: Comparison Table
JRA /DST
cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager
Lillian Hare, City Clerk
COMPARISON TABLE
6/94
MEASURE F VERSUS PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMEMT ORDINANCE
Existinc Measure F
Written as an initiative
ordinance
Does not include Findings
as a component of ordinance.
6 exemptions
Exemption for low income and
senior housing is limited to
government subsidized
programs.
270 yearly allotments (1989 -94)
Maximum of 500 building
permits are available for
non - exempt dwelling units.
All unused allotments are
carried over until awarded.
Requires a point system to
Prioritize projects; intent
of rating system is to achieve
amenities /superior design. A
minimum point requirement was
included.
Implementing resolution
restricts any one applicant
to not more than 60% of total
allotments, unless the number
requested is less than the
annual allotment, or the project
is found to provide outstanding
community improvement benefits.
No grading regulations in
Measure F; such regulations
are included in implementing
resolution.
City Council may, after a
hearing, rescind all or part of
the development allotments, if
construction is not initiated
within 24 months after award.
Amendment requires a four -
fifths vote of City Council
after a public hearing and
providing amendment is
consistent with intent of
ordinance.
Provosed Ordinance
Written as a City Council
ordinance
Does include a Findings
section in ordinance.
7 exemptions (added 2nd
dwelling unit exemption as
required by state law)
Does not include funding
restrictions for exempt
affordable /senior housing;
however, an affordable housing
or development agreement is
required to obtain exemption.
250 yearly allotments (1996 -2005)
Same provision.is included.
Maximum number of carryover
allotments shall not exceed
a total of 500 at any time.
All approved RPD projects are
eligible for allotments; bonus
points could move a RPD project
higher on the Development
Allotment list. Intent is to
use the RPD Permit process to
determine project design.
No single applicant may be
awarded more than 50% of all
allotments available in any
one year.
Grading regulations included in
ordinance are the same as those
contained in Measure F
implementing resolution.
Same provision; in addition, for
a one -year period following a
decision by the City Council to
rescind allotments, no applica-
tion for new allotments shall be
accepted for the project which
had its allotments rescinded.
Amendment requires a public
hearing.
1
BIA
GREATER LOS ANGELES / VENTURA CHAPTER
Building Industry Association of Southern Cdlifornia, Inc.
24005 Ventura Blvd., Suite 102 • Calabasas, CA 91302
(818) 591 -2001 • (805) 659 -4745 • FAX (818) 591 -0072
July 20, 1994
Honorable Mayor Lawrason and Councilmembers
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: Proposed Growth Control Ordinance
Dear Mayor Lawrason:
In speaking with City staff and Councilmembers, it is our
understanding the tonight's City Council meeting will likely run
very late into the evening and may possibly result in continuing
the discussion on the growth control ordinance. For this reason,
BIA would like to submit the following general overview of changes
in the development review process tonight, in lieu of orchestrating
testimony from related industry experts. If, after reviewing our
comments, the City would like to schedule a future meeting with a
panel of experts, we would be delighted to
with you, coordinate something
Over the past ten years, the development industry has undergone
increasing regulation and control from updates to many federal,
state and local legislative policies. Significant among these are
the State Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Water Act.
legislative programs require extensive review and mitigation These
development project's potential impacts on both air and water for a
quality. In addition to new permitting requirements, with each
revision, the acts more clearly delineate the mitigation
requirements for development projects.
In addition, a heightened interest in the Federal Endangered
Species Act has not only raised the issue of species
but has resulted in additional review of properties protection, to i
avoidance or mitigation against habitat loss to developmentnsuIn
fact, in 1990, the State introduced into law the Natural Community
Conservation Plan to encourage multi - species habitat planning,
which has had a significant impact on land availability within
Southern California.
An Affiliate of the NAHB and the CBIA
Mayor Lawrason
7/20/94
page 2
Outside of state and federal land use related policies, the
building industry has been greatly impacted by the Federal
Government's imposition of new regulations on the lending industry.
Known as FIREA, the federal act restrict's the extent to which a
lending institution can participate in the development of projects.
Whereas, large outlays of cash for land acquisition, infrastructure
and construction work were readily available to builders in the
'80s, today's lending environment has restricted builders to
smaller projects and phasing requirements. The current recession
further impacted the bank's interest in loaning on Southern
California projects, which has cause the building industry to seek
out multiple bank "gap" financing and other complicated funding
mechanisms to move projects forward. Thus, today the progress of
a development project is dictated greatly by its lending
arrangement.
Our current recession has had obvious impacts on the development
activity in the City of Moorpark. Unlike conditions in 1986, the
City currently has an overabundance of permits available as a
result of the overall decline in building activity.
When the original growth control measure was initiated in Moorpark,
the City was transitioning from a rough County imposed General Plan
to one of its own. Today, the City of Moorpark can be proud of the
sophistication with which the General Plan has been revised to
effectively map out the future development of Moorpark. Crafted by
the City with extensive community input, the Plan significantly
directs the pattern and rate of growth for the City.
As the Plan has been updated, and development patterns have become
more established, the City has gained a greater understanding of
its own infrastructure needs, which has helped identify measures
needed to effectively accommodate increases in population. The
Nolan (nexus) Case in 1986 helped to clarify the limits of
mitigation, but in fact the overall evolution of user fees
replacing property tax revenues has resulted in greater mitigation
to fund capital improvements as numerous entities have identified
relationships between new users and services. Since the enactment
of the original Growth Measure in 1986, new home fees have
increased roughly 300 %, such that today the entire downpayment for
a house goes to cover fees.
In concert with the development of the General Plan, the citizens
Of Moorpark have enjoyed and increasingly _enhanced
participation process. CEQA mandates the public
environmental review by the public to ensure that any rand all land
use decisions are appropriately debated by affected and interested
parties. Expanded notification
procedures, advancements in
Mayor Lawrason
7/20/94
page $
communication technology (television and news coverage), and a
general increase in overall public interest has greatly enhanced
the public's role in project approvals.
Each of these factors contribute to a dramatic change in the
development process for the City of Moorpark since 1986, a change
which affords much greater control of local land use decisions and
allocation of resources. We believe that these and other factors
invalidate the need for an extension of the -growth control
ordinance, and urge the Council to carefully consider these issues
before moving forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would be happy to
Provide the City with additional information, through scheduled
testimony or whatever_ format you may prefer.
Sin rely,
ee Zinke
Executive, ,6fficer
LAW OFFICES
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
VENTURA CO U NTY OFFICE 611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500
2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
CAMARILLO. CALIFORNIA 93010
I B 051 987-3468
1213) 236 -0600
ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE TELECOPIER 12131 236 -2700
3200 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 640
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
(714) 545 -5559
March 10, 1994
Jaime Aguilera
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Re: Growth Control Ordinance
Preliminary Draft
Dear Jim:
RECEIVED
MAR 1 11994
City Of Moorpark
CorgQJNR A�C�1WRlaebRe9at.0,r,AAR
LIGHTON PLAZA
7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD
SUITE 220
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66210
(913) 339 -6200
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
213- 236 -2721
OUR FILE NO. 01359 -001
By memorandum dated February 11, 1994, you have requested
review of the above - described ordinance no later than March 14,
1994. My comments are noted below
A. Section 1 Findings
I call your attention to the fact that the number of
building permits rather than the number of development allotments
that are available per year will actually determine the housing
supply. (Government Code § 669.5(a).)
B. Section 4 Development Allotment Lists
The "Department" is not defined.
With respect to subdivision C, Government Code Section 6008
does not define "weekly newspaper of general circulation ". I
also question the rationale for requiring that the list be
published in a "weekly" newspaper. (See also § 6.D.)
C. Section 6 Bonus Points
The phrase "prior to the last working day" in the first
paragraph is inconsistent with the phrase "no later than the last
working day" in subdivision A.
With respect to subdivisions E and F, there is no appeal.
Also, given the fact that the City Council is to hold its hearing
on the second Wednesday of February, the ordinance does not, in
IAX:85904.1