HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1994 0504 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM•
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
TO: The Honorable City Council r
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community Developmenz
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Senior Planner
DATE: April 28, 1994 (CC Meeting of 5 -4 -94)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DEVELOPED BY
AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND AS REVISED BY STAFF TO INCORPORATE
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
Background
A City Council public hearing was held on March 23, 1994, to
consider the draft growth management ordinance developed by an Ad
Hoc Committee. At that public hearing, staff was given the
following direction: 1) schedule a subsequent public hearing on
May 4, 1994; 2) obtain additional City Attorney comments on the
draft ordinance and on a letter received from the Building Industry
Association (BIA); 3) make revisions to the draft ordinance to
respond to the City Attorney's prior comments; 4) contact the
School district and Waterworks District No. 1 and invite
appropriate representatives to the next hearing; and 4) advertise
the continued public hearing and opportunity for public comment.
Staff has responded to all of the Council's directives as discussed
below.
Discussion
Attached to this report is a revised draft ordinance which includes
minor corrections to Sections 1, 5 and 6, as shown by "redline" and
"strikeout" shading. Those minor revisions were made in response
to comments received from the City Attorney prior to the last
public hearing in March. Subsequent to that hearing, additional
comments regarding the BIA letter, California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) clearance, and legal defensibility were received from
the City Attorney, and those comments have been provided to the
Council under separate cover.
Staff is requesting Council direction regarding whether an Initial
Study (pursuant to CEQA) should be prepared by staff based on the
current draft ordinance, or whether staff should delay preparation
of an Initial Study and the environmental clearance document until
after the Council has provided preliminary comments to staff
regarding those sections of the ordinance that would determine
future housing supply. The language in the draft ordinance
pertaining to exemptions, limitations on yearly development
allocations and building permits, and limitations on carryover
allocations, would determine future housing supply. Regional
The Honorable City Council
April 28, 1994
Page 2
housing supply cannot be shown to be significantly impacted by a
growth management ordinance, or the validity of that ordinance
could be easily challenged.
If the conclusion of the Initial Study is that the proposed
ordinance would not significantly impact the environment, then a
Negative Declaration would be prepared, and a minimum 21 -day public
notice and review period would be .required.
For the Council's information, staff advertised the May 4 public
hearing by placing an approximately one - fourth page ad in the
Moorpark News Mirror, by publishing and posting a standard public
hearing notice, and by placing a scroll ad on the City's cable
channel.
Staff also sent letters to Tom Duffy, Moorpark Unified School
District, and Reddy Pakala, Waterworks District No. 1, inviting
their attendance at the May 4 public hearing. Mr. Duffy's
secretary has verbally confirmed that he will be in attendance.
Staff has also received verbal confirmation from Mr. Pakala that he
will attend.
Recommendation
Continue to accept public testimony on the draft growth management
ordinance, and provide direction to staff regarding preparation of
an Initial Study and the scheduling of a subsequent City Council
public hearing.
Attachment: Revised Draft Growth Management Ordinance
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;
dat- 09- 28- 99 12:OSPMC: \WP51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 2
0 Attain a balanced City growth pattern which
includes a full mix of land uses;
• Provide a variety of housing types and
opportunities for all economic segments of the
community;
• Prevent further significant deterioration in the
local air quality;
0 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.
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05pmC: \WP52 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
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.
dst- 04- 26- 94 12:05PMC: \WP51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
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,
the number of development allotments available yearly as
described in Section 3 of this- e��i���; a�3d
I. The City's projected population for General Plan buildout
(40,856) and an estimate ef 3.39 per6eft,B
through the vear 2010::...."d;...�: .bo.. f --dw 1:
nave Deen usea as tine aetermining raczors
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.
dat- 04- 28- 94 12:05pmC: \WP5I\ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 5
F. Projects of residential dwellings with a minimum lot size
of five acres per dwelling.
G. Second dwellings as
Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 3. YEARLY AT —VENTS
defined in the City of Moorpark
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 Community Development 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.
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05pmC: \WP51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 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.
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 an adjudicated
newspaper in and 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 Community Development Department for one development allotment
for each non - exempt dwelling unit n 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.
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05pmC:\WP5I\ORD\GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 7
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- eeaBisteat —with
6eetiea 6008 e€ the --Gene e�� d i
fiearirig, the City CoUhd11 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.
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 Community Development 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
dst- 09- 28- 99 12:05pmC: \WP51 \ORD \GROWTIJ.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 8
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.
B. A noticed public hearing, shall be held by the Planning
Commission on b 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
the GeereaEede�tc.:.ln . ,ate „!dtca c
-Ing. Tne rlanning commission snail maxe 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.
dst- 04- 18- 94 12:05pmC:\WP52\ORD\GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 9
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.
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
dst- 04- 18- 9412:05pmC:\WP51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 10
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.
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.
dst- 04- 18- 94 11:05pmc: \Wp51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 11
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 by a
minimum of 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 mere -man
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 the Planning Commission's
preliminary bonus point assignment and revised Development
Allotment List in an adjudicated newspaper in and for the City
of Moorpark.
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 a.ny; *, puk>� zG . �r fQ? the ,
award�tg of bonus points.
dat- 04- 28- 9412:05PMC:\WP51\ORD\GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 12
F. Following publication of the preliminary bonus point
assignment, the 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
the 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 or
..................
before the second Wednesday of FebFua y 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
c t t f Ae hE Ar'11 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
dst- 04- 26- 94 12:05pmC:`WP5I\ORD\GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 13
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.
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05pmC: \WP51 \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 14
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.
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 _ day of
1994.
Mayor of the City of Moorpark, California
ATTEST:
Lillian E. Hare
City Clerk
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05PMC:\WP51\ORD\GROWTH.ORD
Ordinance No.
Page 15
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
dst- 04- 28- 94 12:05pMC: \WP5I \ORD \GROWTH.ORD
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D.
14371 E. Cambridge Street • Moorpark, CA 93021 • 805 - 529 -4828 • FAX 805 - 529 -3216
May 3, 1994
Mayor Lawrason and Honorable City Councilmen
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Mr. Mayor and Messrs. Councilmen:
I heartily support the proposed ordinance drafted by the Measure F /Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Ad
Hoc Committee to extend growth control protection to our city from 1996 -2005.
As a supporter of the original Measure F who worked hard to help get it passed, I remain convinced that it is up
to us (and you, as our representatives) to protect our current quality of community life against the damages of
too rapid development.
Development will (and should) occur in our city. However, it should not occur at anywhere near the rapid pace
that Moorparkers saw in 1986 when developers rushed to begin building huge numbers of homes before
Measure F made it to the ballot, passed, and was enacted. I believe that Moorpark has not vet recovered from
the excesses of that "too rapid" development which did occur. Furthermore, I do not want to take a chance that
it could happen again if we let Measure F expire without a new ordinance to replace it.
1 would also like to congratulate the members of the Ad Hoc Committee who worked on the draft ordinance for
taking their job so seriously as they deliberated the pros and cons of all sides of the growth control issue. I
attended one of their meetings as an interested citizen some time during the middle of their tenure on the
committee. From that meeting, I could see that the points of view of the committee members were still
evolving. At that time, they did not agree on exactly what to recommend for the ordinance. They were
seriously and thoughtfully grappling with the issues in a careful way.
Later, when the media reported their final recommendation. I was pleased and impressed that they were able to
come to mutual agreement about what to recommend; and, that it was to control growth similarly to the
original Measure F. I admit that when I was at the meeting with them, I did not think they would be able to
reach a consensus. The fact that they did reach consensus on this ordinance is very significant. Why? Because
the members of the committee represented all sides of the issue: those who were more "pro- growth," those who
were more for "slower growth," and those who fell somewhere between those extremes.
It shows that people who really study the issues involved and focus on the facts, instead of on one or another
persons' opinions, can set aside personal feelings and arrive at a consensus on an issue that has historically (in
Moorpark) evoked very different opinions from different council members and from the general public over the
years.
The members of the Ad Hoc Committee should be proud of themselves for a job well done. The City Council
and the general public should be proud of them too. They took the time to examine all the issues for us and
they made their best recommendation. We owe it to them to respect their good judgment and to NOT water
down their proposal. I urge you to accept the proposed ordinance "as is" and to enact it
Sincerely,
C
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D.
Independent consulting services
Training and Education • Proposal Development • Organization Development • Systems
Freelance photography and writing
Date:
The Honorable City Council, City of Moorpark,
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Honorable City Council:
I support the proposed ordinance drafted by the Measure F/
Comprehensive Planning Ordinance Ad Hoc Committee. I think it is
very important to protect our current quality of community life against
the damages of too rapid development. I want the City to carefully
manage its growth.
Respectfully Yours,
Name and Address
,� i N'1 L _: -� r`r � _ L'AYLis1•i �.� -Qxi�.
MOORPARK _
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRK.,T
30 Flory .Avenue, Moorpark, C,ihfrrn. •,-
May 4, 1994
Jaime R. Aguilera
Director of Community Development
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Dear Mr. Aguilera:
(805) 378 -6300
RECEIVED
MAY C 41994
City of Moorpark
Thank you for your letter dated April 14, 1994 «hich conveyed the invitation of the City
Council requesting that I attend the public hearing on the subject of the proposed new
growth management ordinance. I appreciated the opportunity which you provided me to
discuss potential concerns of the Moorpark Unified School District related to residential
development and the proposed growth management ordinance. Below I will outline and
discuss the current student housing capacity of the District, the needs of the District in the
area of capital outlay, the financial options a\ailahle to school districts in California in
meeting increases in student enrollment and tl r really of the availability of such options
to the District, the current financial abil;t} (,I' the District to provide adequate school
housing for a growing student population ants comment, on the proposed new growth
management ordinance.
CURRENT MAXIMUM SCHOOL CAPACI -1 Y AND ENROLLMENTS
Grades K -2/K -3 C'apa, ltd i I ) Enrollment
Campus Canyon 000 5o
Mountain Meadows 7�() 1
Peach Hill 7 (1 "'>8
Grades 3 -5/4 -5
Arroyo West 720 05
Flory 870* 5411
(1) Capacities of classrooms are calculated at maximum capacities which would
become realistic with the elimination of computer labs and other specialty
classrooms.
*This figure includes the use of the relocatable buildings at Flory and Chaparral.
Once the modernization of Flory and Chaparral is complete the relocatable buildings
will be returned to the State of Californi -i .
BOARD OF EDUCATION: PAMELA CASTRO, President; GREG BARKER, Vicc President; CLINT D. HARPER, Ph.D., Clerk;
TOM BALDWIN, Memhm GARY CABRIALES, Memhcr rHoklAS G DUFFY, Ed D , District Superintendent
An Equal Opp, nunvt f m;,h ,ei
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
May 4, 1994
Page 2
Middle Schools /6 -8
Chaparral 1500 1291
Mesa Verde 864 0
High Schools
Moorpark High /9 -12 18 011 1366
Community High /9 -12 75 71
CAPITAL OUTLAY NEEDS
The District will need a new elementary (K-2/'K-3 and 3- 5 /4- 5)school in the near future; all
District elementary schools are at or near capal:it\ for classrooms, toilet rooms, food service
and multi - purpose and other ancillary uses. f=uture development within the District will
require full mitigation of student housing needs. State Emergency relocatable buildings
have been used effectively to deal with growth � Ithln the District and will continue to be
used as a temporary solution to student enrolls )ent increases but cannot be relied upon for
permanent housing needs.
FINANCIAL OPTIONS TO DISTRICTS FOR MEETINQ STUDENT HOUSING NEEDS
The State Building Program
The Leroy Greene Lease Purchase Law of 19.76 has provided SS billion to school districts
throughout the State of California since 1082. This program is substantially under funded
relative to the needs of school districts throughout the State but has been the most stable
and reliable source of income to rapidly growing districts and those districts needing
modernization funding for schools that are 30 years or older. The competition for these
State dollars has brought about changes in law and regulations which make it very difficult
to access unless a district can provide 50c'e of the cost for a project and /or provides year
round education (YRE) or reduces its eligibility. voluntarily, in order to receive State
funding.
*This figure includes the use of the relocatable buildings at Flory and Chaparral.
Once the modernization of Flory and Chaparral is complete the relocatable buildings
will be returned to the State of California.
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
May 4, 1994
Page 3
Developer Fee Income
Developer fees which maybe assessed by the action of a board of education is limited by
statute to a per square foot amount which was based on the 1986 standard of $1.50 per
square foot for residential construction and 25 cents per square foot for
commercial /industrial development. These amounts have been increased according to
statute through the action of the State Allocation Board and the districts may now assess
a maximum amount of $1.71 per square foot for residential housing and 29 cents per square
foot for commercial /industrial development upon following the notice procedures outlined
in the Government Code.
MIRA /IJart /Murrieta Development Mitigation
Through case law, specifically the MIRA /Liar; /Murrietzi cases, school districts have sought
and achieved additional mitigation or total mitigation of development beyond the statutory
fee allowed by the Government Code to hoard, of education with the cooperation of cities
or counties using their police power to conditlim development to provide for capital outlay
funds to school districts beyond the statutory 11mit. Case law has provided that the statutory
fee is limited but that there is no limit, other than demonstrated need of the district, to the
school impact mitigation which may be redu red through the development approval and
zoning entity.
Financing of Capital Outlay Projects
School districts may utilize certificates of participation (COPS), equipment leases and other
non -voter approved borrowings to meet capital outlay needs. These mechanisms are limited,
however, to the ability of districts to pay back the borrowed funds with interest over short
term or long term periods. Developer fee inco-,ne has been used by many districts to repay
such debts, however, the general fund of the school district is the measure utilized in
securing such loans.
General Obligation Bonds /Parcel Tax Measures
School districts may place before the electorate general obligation bonds for school
construction or a parcel tax proposal for school construction and other non capital needs.
The level of voter support to secure such mechanisms is 66 2/3% of those voting. Many
districts have attempted to secure such mechanisms for capital outlay purposes, fewer than
50% of the districts that attempt such measures have had them approved by the local
electorate.
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
May 4, 1994
Page 4
Sale, Lease or Rental of Surplus Property
School districts in California have an opportunity to secure income from surplus properties
by outright sale of such properties to public and private entities. Many districts have
embarked upon an asset management strategy in order to lease and /or rent properties for
short term or long term periods to fund borrowing such as COPs or equipment leases with
the payments on the debts incurred by the district being met by the income of the
management of the school district property asset. Many districts have entered into unique
relationships with residential and /or commercial /industrial developers in joint ventures to
secure such income.
Redevelopment Income
Many districts in California have agreement, with redevelopment agencies to provide
income which may be used for the construction of new facilities, the renovation or
modernization of existing facilities, or the pur, teasing of furniture and equipment for new
or modernized facilities.
FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE MOORPARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOtISING
The Leroy Greene Lease Purchase law of 197( has been the foundation for the District in
meeting the needs of a rapidly increasing school age population. The District has obtained
an excess of $55 million for the acquisition ,)f school sites, the building of classroom
buildings and other facilities including playgroL:rtds and athletic fields. This State program
is extremely competitive and annually becomes a less viable option for school districts
because of the demand and the limited resourCCI, that are provided through Statewide bond
funds.
Moorpark Unified School District has, under the fees permitted through SB 201 through
1986 and AB 2926 from 1987 through the current period of time, sought and received a
maximum allowable developer fee income permitted under State law. The District has also
negotiated with various developers to provide additional support in infrastructure or through
funds donated by the developer above the maximum statutory fee. The District developer
fee income has annually paid for the retirement of the COPS debt assumed in 1985 -86 for
the construction of the Mountain Meadows School. The District has also used developer
fee income to pay leases on relocatable buildings provided through the State of California.
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
May 4, 1994
Page 5
In November of 1990, the Board of Education asked the electorate to support a $25.5
million bond measure to assure the construction of needed facilities at Moorpark High
School, the new middle school and other facilities around the District. Although 56% of the
electorate approved of the measure it fell short of the 66 2/3% requirement. The District
was able to receive State funding in excess of the $25.5 million which provided phases 3 and
4 of Moorpark High School, the Mesa Verde Middle School, including site acquisitions and
off site developments, and 50% of the cost of the construction of the new science wing at
Chaparral Middle School.
The District has attempted for a number of years to find interested parties who are willing
purchase, lease or joint venture with the Disti ict on portions of the Moorpark Memorial
High School property. As of this date no suhs, antive sale, lease or joint venture proposal
has been secured by the District.
The District has entered into an agreement .vith the local redevelopment agency and
anticipates the receipt of limited redevelopment dollars beginning at the latter part of this
decade. Redevelopment dollars - cannot be reh,!d upon to finance outright a capital outlay
project or to provide an adequate deht repayn cnt income stream at the present time.
An important option to Moorpark Unified Sch,,ol District, which has been communicated
to the City of Moorpark in past years, is the utilization of the City's police power to secure
full mitigation of future development to make up the difference between the income
provided by the statutory fee levied by the Board of Education and the actual cost of new
facilities. The expectation of the District is that all of the measures that have been
employed to date by the District to meet the adequate housing needs of students will not
be available to the District and, therefore, the assistance of the City Council in conditioning
development to include the projected need, of -he District to house students is imperative.
The District is ready and willing to provide adequate documentation u> demonstrate its
need.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Two areas must be noted by the District those I)eing Section 1 Findings, Subsections D &
G and Sections 3, and 7.
Section 1, Subsection D states that "current State lark restrictions on the maximum amount
of money that projects can be conditioned to pay does not insure that adequate school
facilities and services will be available when needed." This is not entirely accurate, State
statutes provides a limit on the fee that ma'\ he assessed by action of the Board of
Education. This, as noted above, is a square f, „,t calculation for
Mr. Jaime Aguilera
May 4, 1994
Page 6
residential /commercial /industrial development. Case law emanating from the courts in
California provide that the statutory fee assessed by a board of education is limited but that
the police power of a development approvai and zoning entities such as the City may
provide, through the conditioning of development, up to full mitigation of school impacts
beyond the board of education levied statutor fee
Section 1, Subsection G indicates that the current property tax funding is inadequate to meet
the needs of the City's existing residents regarding library services. I concur with the finding
and suggest that this be addressed in sonic manner as future development occurs and it be
noted that library services are an important re->urce utilized by students within the District
particularly those in grades 6 -12.
Sections 3 and 7 relating to the yearly allotmer;, of 250 residential units with the maximum
carryover allotment not to exceed a total cif 501i units at any given time require a comment
and a proposed suggestion regarding impacts l xln the District. It will he more difficult to
secure adequate funding through the SB 20-0 st Mlt(�r�. fee levied by the Board of Education
with such a limitation of 250 or 500 onus at a,ly given time. This could be addressed
through two concepts, the first being the application of MIRA /Hart /Murrieta conditions
being applied for full mitigation of school imp,rcts and /or a recognition that a project that
would exceed the 500 unit allocation may, due :o the provision for school and library needs,
receive bonus points or some other positi,e mo:n<ltion to provide infrastructure funds to the
District in advance of completion of �t suh,tant.al pkirtion of the project. It is important to
note that a small development or several shall developments totalling 250 or 500 units will
not generate sufficient revenues on their m, n under the fee levied by the Board of
Education to offset impacts that will he felt it each and every grade level. With the
implementation of the provisions of Sections a nd 7 - arefU! negotiation must occur between
the City, the District and the developer(,,) to -.. el.rk adequate housing of students.
Thank you again for requesting my participati:)n in the review process for this proposed
ordinance and for taking the time to meet with me .n your office to discuss this important
matter as it relates to the needs of the Scl coo! I)i,t ict.
Sincerely.,-,
omas uffy, d.D.
District Superintendent
cc: City Council
Mr. Steve Kueny
MUSD Board of Education
May 4, 1994
Statement to the City Council, Moorpark, CA
Item 9.13. consider a Growth Management Ordinance
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council,
Whenever the growth of our community is publicly debated, one fundamental question always
needs to be addressed: will the anticipated growth improve or debase the quality of life al-
ready existing in Moorpark. The answer to this question always depends on the status of the
person who will answer. Certainly growth will improve the life of some while devaluing the
living standard of others. As councilmembers you have the difficult task of seeking a balance
between the needs of the few and the needs of the many.
Look at our community today: low crime, a good variety of housing, continuing commercial
growth, excellent schools, improved traffic circulation. Certainly there is room for improvement:
too much industrial space stands empty, our downtown areas still need revitalization and public
services still need improvement. But we have come a long way since incorporation in 1983
and you the members of the present city council, and those of us who served before, can be
rightfully proud.
With Measure F soon to sunset, we all have a choice to make: how fast should our community
grow? I advise to proceed with caution. Take the conservative point of view. As the old adage
says "don't fix it if it ain't broke." There is very little in our community that will be improved with
another rapid spurt of growth as we saw in the 1980's
As a member of the current School Board, but more importantly as a parent of three public
school children, I would like to make some personal observations about educational impacts.
Moorpark has a fine public school system that is steadily improving. But with the current
funding crisis in California there is precious little funding for new school construction. Without
a local dollar- for - dollar match Moorpark has little chance of obtaining new site construction
funds. Keep in mind that the price tag for new schools is staggering:
Elementary School - about $6 million
Middle School - about $ 15 million
High School - $25 million to $30 million
To place 50% of this magnitude financial burden on new construction will be onerous. Simi-
larly, to attempt to tax the existing community for new school construction caused by growth
will be unpopular to say the least. If Measure F expires and the Moorpark City Council allows
a spurt of new residential development, how will we pay for this new construction?
The school district could handle some growth without developing new school sites. We could
saturate our existing schools by moving more relocatable buildings onto school fields and
parking lots. We could institute double sessions, go to year -round school. But I would con-
sider this to be a shame, just as our schools are finally enjoying some elbow room and over-
crowding is being alleviated.
You have a tough decision to make, I know I've been in your shoes. You have received and
will continue to receive inordinate pressure from development interests to let the managed
growth ordinance lapse or weaken it to the extent that it is meaningless. My hope is that you
will consider what is best for the many rather than for the few. Think of our schools, our police
service, our fire protection, our traffic circulation. Moorpark does not have to emulate large
cities. Bigger is not necessarily better. In my mind, quality is generally preferable to quantity.
If I was still serving on the City Council my position would be the following:
• Extend measure F for at least an additional 10 years.
• Adopt a yearly allocation lower than the suggested 250 units per year.
• Don't allow banking of the allocation, prevent growth surges,
• Submit the ordinance to the voters to give it some permanence.
We have a great community, we used to have a great city plan with an eventual population of
about 36,000 residents. Don't open up the flood gates again. Keep the lid on run away devel-
opment. Act responsibly as our representatives, not as proponents of special interest.
Sincerely,
Clint D. Harper, Ph.D,
4044 Oak Glen Court
Moorpark, CA 93021
(805) 529 -3860