Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-03 - AGENDA REPORTS - DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM (2)AGENDA REPORT NEW BUSINESS DATE: September 3, 1996 City Manager Item to be pre. Rich Henderson SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On June 26, 1996, the attached memo summarizing staff efforts on a Development Monitoring System was given to all Councilmembers. It provides background information you will need for this item. Jim Kushner declined an invitation to attend the study session, but remains available for questions. OPTIONS 1) Council could defer action on this item until Infrastructure Master Plan is adopted. Pro: Initiation of DMS would be as a complete package, with needed facilities and their costs being identified. Con: Implementation would be delayed. 2) Begin using the available urban services analysis reports generated by the County DMS in analyzing current projects. Pro: Initiation of City DMS happens sooner. Con: The data has limited usefulness without an adopted plan which cites the facilities needed and their costs. 3) Begin creating new fields of data by adding additional services to the County DMS for immediate use. Pro: We begin to look at other infrastructure needs. APPROVED A So enda Itftm: - Con: Decision as to which areas to consider would precede the Council prioritization of infrastructure needs which will be based on costs and additional data when infrastructure Master Plan is considered by Council. Regardless of the option chosen by Council, the City will simply be using data provided by the County unless an item is budgeted to produce a new DMS program. In option three, substantial research may be required to create meaningful new fields of data. County departments or other agencies may be required to cooperate and may need to be compensated for research. For example, the Los Angeles County Sheriff has not produced figures relating fair-sharecosts of producing a sheriffs station based on need -generation per home or per acre of commercial land use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council receive the report and provide direction to staff. Attachments June 26, 1996 Memorandum Notice of Community Workshop for June 17, 1996 Guest Register from Community Workshop of June 17, 1996 GAC:RH:Iep council\dmsagn.rpt CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Boyer and City Councilmembe FROM: George Caravalho, City Manager DATE: June 26, 1996 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM BACKGROUND In March, the City Council directed staff members to (1) discuss the development monitoring system with each of the service providers encompassed by the County's DMS and (2) hold a community meeting to gather information on the community's needs and interests for a City development monitoring system. COMMUNITY MEETING A meeting was held in the evening on June 17th, and 11 members of the community attended, including one newspaper reporter. Three Planning staff members were present. Suggestions were made that the six areas monitored by the County DMS could be expanded to include services for parks, the arts, solid waste, and sheriff: General agreement was reached that the City's Infrastructure Master Plan will be a valuable component in determining and justifying fees and other exactions on proposed development. The community members were of the opinion that the City should begin to use the available data from the present DMS system immediately, as an extra tool for analysis of all projects, even without the plan being adopted. Discussion centered around the accuracy of information being provided by the service providers, with some skepticism being evident. SERVICE PROVIDER INTERVIEWS Representatives from each of the service providers encompassed by the County DMS have been interviewed to gain insight of the process. Other potential service providers who may be candidates for a DMS have also had representatives interviewed. The sewer districts created their own DMS, even calling it by the same name, and have been using it for about five years. They make information available to the County DMS, but for their own DMS they only plug in data when a property is proposed for annexation. This occurs after any subdivision or zoning approvals and only if the project is likely to be built. The Fire Department. relies on a fee of 18 cents per square foot of construction in the Santa Clarita Valley to fund future stations. The money being collected presently will finance a new fire station in Stevenson Ranch to replace the temporary station behind Camping World. The Fire Department does not rely on the DMS for its planning. The school districts fill out a form once a year and mail it to the County DMS, to provide information on the costs of providing schools, per student. The superintendents feel that they are now doing better with the big developers. They want the City to continue to ensure that developers must satisfy district needs, to the satisfaction of the districts, regardless of whether the City operates a DMS. Comments included a need to update multiple -family generation factors (students per dwelling unit) and having a DMS which gets a minimum fee with the understanding that the developers and district will negotiate upwards from that base rate. County planners are disappointed in the monitoring of schools under the DMS in that schools in this region are not maximizing their capacity with year-round attendance. Therefore they are not providing true figures for existing facility capacity. The water companies provide annual information for the DMS. They are concerned that the DMS isn't updated to show current capacity, given CLWA's additional purchases of capacity in recent years. They feel most of the master planning for water is performed by the CLWA. Their major concern isn't for capacity, but for knowing when and how large projects will be phased so they can plan the infrastructure to avoid redoing or upsizing repeatedly. They presently communicate directly with developers for this information. They don't believe the County's population projections are accurate, since the population isn't rising as fast as originally predicted. They also need a later horizon year than 2010. They are hoping to all agree on a statement as to their existing capacities soon. A lib fee is presently being assessed on projects at building permit issuance. It is $336 per residential unit, collected only in the unincorporated area and only on projects considered to be urban expansion, such as those which require a plan amendment. In the area of roads, the Cmmty Department of Public Works makes recommendations whether traffic is being fully mitigated on a proposed project, after reviewing traffic studies.. County planners state that there is no underlying assumption that Bridge and Thoroughfare fees fully mitigate, and often improvements are required at time of occupancy. The Sheriffs Department may wish to be part of a DMS, but mostly wish to be involved in seeing all proposed projects. Captain Quinn will make any results known to us if the Sheriff devises a formula for costs of providing services as generated by land uses. County planners thought the Sheriff had an interest in this until their budget approval went well for them recently, and they may have lost interest in this research. The facilities chairman for the Arts Council would like to see DMS include the arts, possibly for new facilities or art in public places. County planners see many projects approved but never built. They suggested that a DMS analysis could be done on approved and recorded projects, maybe as a separate set of statistics. Presently they compute the impacts on a total of all approved, recorded, and pending projects, and this skews the results toward a greater level of impact. Jim Kushner was appointed by the court to referee the land use case which resulted in a computer program for the DMS, His hope was that the service providers would be prompted to get involved in planning for their infrastructure through the DMS. He retains neutrality by accepting no clients, but he readily answers questions about the DMS.. He was disappointed that the County did not adopt a capital improvements plan. He feels that an infrastructure plan complements a DMS, so real goals can be set and monitored. A developer then will know what his "fair share" is and what his fees will pay for. SUMMARY The City may wish to run its DMS separately from the County if it wishes to set different standards. For example, we may disagree with an assumption concerning the amount of water consumption attributable to a single family home, or we could disagree as to an acceptable level of traffic congestion. We may even wish to have districts in the City, whereby different standards apply. A review of the various agencies' methods of conditioning of a project shows that sewer, water, and fire impacts are mitigated by LA County Planning conditions in the same manner as the City does so, regardless of the existence of a DMS. The City's largest project, Porta Bella, would have been conditioned for improvements and fees by the same agencies with or without a DMS. The developer offered a fire station site which was rejected by the Fire Department although the City will acquire the site as part of the development agreement. In the area of libraries, the County would have charged no fee since the area was zoned for urban use, and therefore the project isn't considered to be urban expansion. In the area of schools, both jurisdictions rely on the large developers to negotiate with the districts. The exactions acquired for road improvements emanate from a premise that traffic mitigation must be complete. It is not possible to determine which road improvements would have been required by the County. The City did very well in exacting full traffic mitigation, but it isn't evident how a DMS might have changed this result. It appears that a DMS system is one tool to monitor development and plan infrastructure, that the data ought to be updated, and that the greatest benefit to be derived is the supporting data which justifies fair share exactions to fund needed public facilities as identified in an adopted infrastructure master plan. A study session has been scheduled for September 3. Some of your options will be as follows: 1) Defer implementation of a DMS until the Infrastructure Master Plan is adopted. 2) Begin using the available urban services analysis reports generated by the DMS in analyzing current projects. 3) Create new fields of data by adding additional services to the County DMS for immediate use prior to having an Infrastructure Master Plan. 4) Determine which additional services, if any, should be added to the data. This includes a determination whether the City will collect fees for library construction, and whether the City will be in the business of providing libraries. GAC:RH:lep m"eutAd mem.rh DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM cum5> FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA - The City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development will be holding a community workshop to discuss implementation of a Development Monitoring System (DMS) for the City. The system is envisioned to be a tool that will identify and evaluate the impacts of existing and proposed development on the City's ability to provide infrastructure (such as police, fire, roads, schools, parks" etc.) The public workshop will be held on Monday, June 17, 1996 6:30 pCmn in the orchard'Rooms locafed`at ` Sara, Clarita City Hall,,first floor, 23920 Valencia 'Boulevard Should you have any concems or questions prior to the date ofa workshops, please 'I . contact. Richard Henderson in the City's Community Development Department at (805) 255-4330 �v:!N DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SYSTEM COMMUNITY MEETING GUEST REGISTER Please print your name and address below. The City will use this list to notify you of any subsequent Planning Commission, City Council, or other meetings on this subject. Printed Name Street Address City Zip 1./ Wd, fib; �g?off �J s/vR c�,q s r4(c 913 2. 1�1' - A" z(j /s /�Fo/��� ,� 5 � �! 3S� 3.10'1 V,_> Dt& n n/ SP14. 4/Y Ldem.drou. I N C. c. 9/3S/ 7. /r/Af1A.yuE ✓o GAAs for CA. e'i4/ew Z"e 7/3.C/ 8. 9 �SZ G� �l/ 3 s- 9. 135 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. s:\cd\current\arcrev14.mar