HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 9107 N.C.S. 04/06/1981f~~' ~° ,., . RLK:ad 4 2.~_.81 ~~;~ .
. , ~ - , >,. ~
~~. .. . ,. •
~ : _
l~esol~uti~on No.__::~~~~~~ N.C.S. APR 3~ss~ ~-o
~- ~~ of the Cit.y of Petalurna,, Cal'iforriia:
~ ~~
~ .
,RE-SOLUTION AF;PROVING~ RATING 'CRITERIA FO~,R~ .
~., PLRNNED: UN,"I~T ~D;EVELOP~~IENTS (RESIDENTIAL.) ~
~~ ~ ~~P...UR~$IJANT TO SE~GTI~ON 19A'40`0 OF ORDINNNCE
' N;O., :1`072 N.C.S. AS AME~VDED;: ~ ~
, ~ _ . ~, ~ . ~ .
. . - • : -„
, . . ~~ • . • ~ ~
• ' ~y _ ' _ ~ ~
, • ~ _ : . y ? ' " .
_' ~f IT RESOLVE,D that the at`tached Rating Griteri:a., ~marked Exhi bi t
A, for Planned Unit Dev;e~l,o:pment"'Zon,es (Residential~) co~ered .by Section 19A-400
. ~ , ~ ~. ~
_' - of Ord.inance No. 1072 N,C:~S. ~'a's •amended, is hereby appro~ved.
~ ' Under :the power and authority. conferred upoa ~this` ~.Council, by' ;the "Gharter of said City. ~
~ ~• ~I hereby~ cerfify the foregoing Reeolution ivas intcoduced and a8opted by the
Cou"n'cil'<of-tlie City,•of Petaluma at,.a (Regular) (~~ , meetin App,ov io
~ .
) ~ g fo
~ . ;; . on the;. ~.~? ...•--•. day~ of ..••-•~PY'll:~_.......... .. , 19_. gl, by: the. .
, . ~ . -.. . _
_ .:. - 'followirig vote: . - ~ ~ , ~
; _ . • .._ ..; .... . . ........
,~ ° City. Attorney
. ~.
'~ ~ <: . • _
AYES Co ec~lm~eri~,.~P~, Harberson Bond, Bal-shaw, Cavanagh, Mayor Mattei &
-.- V y r Ba taglia. ,.
NOBS: , ~ ~
ABSENT•- ..~' ~ . - - - . .
. _. , .
. . ~;~~~
.. •••,._.. .._~...... ....:
ATTEST: -~ -~ •-----~- -- -- --- - ---•. . .-_- •----•- - ---...._. . ... ........
,. . - - - -~._--. ~ - -•---~--r ...::. ....:.:. ~
City Clerk -~ " ~a'1~ ~,D~ • Mayor ~
COUNCIL F.IL G~ ~ .
. .. _ _ _ _. ...~ . . .. '.
60RM CA:2 1/80' . RES. No: J91OZ . ~,
. ~ ~~ ~ : .
Revised 3/30/81 ~
A~R 3 9989 ~ ~ _
i SUMNIARY INDEX
~ • RATING CRITERIA POINT VAIiUES
Zoning Technical Committee
Allotment Board
Petaluma, California '
Type of Projects Technical
Where Rating ?'.e quired Excellence
Applies 1. Developmerit Siting ~ Points-"R" Points -"TE"
Spec.Feat. la. Protection of Natural ~Features 10 8
l~i. Avoidance of Higfi Risk Areas 6 2
l.a-b Minimum "R" score needed .to
' get "TE''~ poinrs is 12
Total Possible 16 10
All Projects 2:~ Quality of Pliasing Plan 5 -
2. Minimum "R" score 3 points
All Projecfs 3. Street.Circulation and Lot~_Layout
3a. Street Pattern 8 ~~
3b. Pathway.s 5 S
3c. Overall Lot and Dwelling Unit Layout 6 6
3d. Development Pattern near high noise areas 6 2
3.a-d Minimum "R" score needed to
get "TE" is 20
' Total Possible 2~5 20
Attached Housing 3e. Parking Areas - rated f.or attached housing
projects only • 4 4
3e.. Minimum "R" score needed~to
get "TE" is 3
Total nossible 4 4
Hillside Projects 3f. Hillsides - Density location to minimize
grading ' 6 -
3g. Hillsides - Street pattern to r.iiniriize
grading 4 2
3h. Hillsides - Lot and buildin~ design to
minimize grad'ing , 4 2
3.f-h Minimum "R" score needed to ~
gef•"TE" points is 11
~
~,° Total Possible 16 4
-.~ ,. ~ ~ COUNCIL FILE ~~~ ~=
, • a REB. NO. .. '" ~ ~~l~ld~ S'4~_
• ~ . . . . . Page 1 o~f ~20
Type of Projects
Wl~ere Rating
Applies '
Required Technical ~ " "
Minimuin Excellence
Points Point-s
All Projects 4:. Public and Private Open Space ~
4a. Quanitity of o.pen space 8 7
4b. Common Public Areas-Proportions and
location activities ~ 5 5
4c. Quality and q.uantity o'f Common
Public.Areas 6 6
4d. (~uantity and quality of Private Yard '
areas 4 4
4.a-d Minimum "R" score needed to ~
get "TE" points is 18
Total poss~ibl~ :' 2:3 . - ~ 22
A11 Projeccs S. Landscaping ~
5a. Amount and Quality of Landscaping ~. 7~ 8
5a. Ntinimum."R" score neede~ to .
get "TE" points is 5' i
Total possible ~ ? 8
Potent-ial
5b. ~ ' -
Landscapirig for rental units-quantity and
rental projects quality 5 5
only Sb. Minimum "R" score needed to
get "TE" points is 4
• Total-possib'le • 5 5 _
Rate for Hillside
projects only 5c. Landscaping to control eros~ion 3 2
Sc. Min-imum "R" score needed to
get'"TE" points is 3
~ ~ Total possible 3 2
Projects with 5d. Species compatibility to enhance
special features natural liabitat 4 4
only .
5d. Minimum "R"' seore needed to
get~"TE" points is 4
Total possible 4 4
Common or Public
Landsca,pe area only 5e. Landscape screening 3 2
Se. Minimum "R" score needed to
get "TE" points is 2
Total possible 3 2
COUNCIL FILE
' b RES. NO. 91 07
.Page 2 o'f 2 p ~~~~~~~ ~
' .. i . . , . .. . .
` Ty,pe; of. Rrojects
. ~.~ Whez-c Ra;t=ing: `
~ ~*~pl~ies~_ -_ -
N, ~
~:~~ ~'ti~ . . i~M~ ..rt ~. '' ..
Techriical
Required Excellence
Points Points
All Projects 6. Ar_.chitectural Design Ouality
~ 6a. Relationship to Building Spacing: 7
, 6b. Architee:tura~l Style and details 17
6c. Relationship of building types and sizes 8
6d. Stora'ge ar,eas 4
6e. Safety and security features 3
6, a-e Minimum ''R'" score :ne'eded to
' get "TE" points is_31
Tot'al possible 39
-;-_ _ . . . _ --. .. .... , . .
All Projeets 7. So'lar Ace,ess,; arid~ Energy Information _~
', 7a. Energy'.Gonse~vation ' ' 4
~ 7b. Protec`ting Solar access-building orientation 5
~
7.a-b Minimum "R" score needed to
~ get'"TE." points is 7.
~ ~ Total'possible 9
~ 7c. So-lar.. Energy Systems - Acti~e and passive
7c:.No Minimum "R"~.p'oirits ~required
AL1 Projects 8. Incorporation of mitigation measures~ 5
8 Minimum "R',' score needed to
get "TE"`points_is.4
' Total.possible 5_
,:,
, 'i ~ . ` . .
8
8
4
4
2
26
5
5
10
8
5
5
couryci~ Fi~e
. ~ J .. C RE8. NO. `~~~~ a,~ I~ ~
L~rl
. ~ ~ Page 3 of ~.20.`' .
Revised Mar. 30, 1981~
ZONING TECHN.ICAL COi~ITTTEE'
AND ALLOTr1ENT' B'OARD ~
Rating Crit;er.ia
Type of Proj;ec.ts
where. Ra'ting.
App:lies ' l. Development S,i~t,ing
Rat•ed for aTl, la, Pr,otec;tion, of Na~tural Features of Sit.e
pro~ects 'contairi- . ~
ing:applicable Design works with natural site char.ae_t'eristics to
protect and.enhance desirable featu'res, worth 're-
areas ~
. taining. Pro`tects .na'tur;al draina'ge. ~swales and °
channels, iiidividual t:rees~and gr,oves,; riparian
areas.; wildlife habitat, open hill to,ps natur.al
landscape, water;bodies, etc,. Locates development
well 'below crest of h;ills, out of h-ighly v~isib=le
. areas worth retainin'g as open areas; and proposes
. to leave these~areas. as common and scenic open
. space avaiTabie to the publie,: Uses~ exi~s"ting s:ite
..- character,istics for s:creening as much as- p~ssib;le
w-ithou't des:truction of natural features ,wo:rth pre-
serving.. Add's new ~isual screening~ in ;areas where
possible to s.upp`lement and enhance,,(rather~than
.
replace) ,exist-ing screenin;g.. Where larids'caping is
propo:sed :adjacen.t to or- in conjunction witli, exis'tin~
. vegefation-, evaluate i'ts compatibility as to type,.
and locat-ion wi'tli the exzsting varieties:
. , .
Is;water quality,and q:uantity, and rupoff`condition.s
, going to remain, the same or be impro;ved based' on the
methods, and type.s o,f plant materials; propos,ed t`o
slow runoff r,ates (helping,to preven;t erosion and,
.
d'ownstream s_iltr-ation;):? Are those areas wh-icli pr'o~ide
both Shelter. and..Food Gathering Habitats going to b,e
detrimentally affe'e,ted o:r enhanced`?`. ~ Fo,r habitat, areas
e~aluate fhe proposed:lands capacity to p;rovide sfi'ade,
cover• , edible .seed., be•rry, 'nut, and f'odde~r mat'erials
for w'i'ldlife enhancemerit. . ~
1OR
8TE
Rates .for proj.ects Ib. Avoidance~ of High,Risk Areas_
where fiigher r.=isk
Avoids ,de~e~loping iii ar•eas of higher; risk•, and a-rch'ae-
areas .exis:t ological or ecologically sensiti~e ar.eas - flood plains,,~ 6R.
s1i'd'e areas,, fire haz_a_rd areas, ste'ep slopes, drainage 2TE
ar;eas, and hi~storica`'1 ,areas or sites :or othe"r a.reas
shown ;in (a) above. '
Sec. 1 a=b - Min, Req. ''R" S'co,re Needed' to "Get Technieal Excellen,ee "TE Po'ints 'is 12
Tota1 P-ossib:-le;: 16 "R'" 'Points., 10 TE~ Points
_ _ - -. _ _
2. Quality of P,hasin'g Plan '~ ~ ~
Rated for all 2~a: Review the projec.t,phasing plan to d:etermirie the adequacy ,5R
projects of any,phas:ing plan to sf'and on its own in ,the even;tuality
. , _,
•~ . ~ ~ ~COUNGIL FIILE - ~ -- - •
. .
.. .
1
" .+` . ~. RES. NO 9 ~ O"7 ~° ~° f~
. . ~ Fim~~~~~'~~~ !l. 8°~1
Pa;ge 4_~ of 2`0
_ - ~ ~ _ ' . . .. *t ~ p~ ." ~ ~ ..:Y ;r.~ ~: •~t. . ~
.~. , .~ . . . ' V
: ~ • .~ . .i . ~ ' . i ' ~ . .
. • ~ ~
, ~ there is failure o'f an approved pr.oject's later phases
~ to be completed. Is each phase fully developed to
s.tand on its own separately, or,,are~.tHere potential
' pr.oblems in publie fa_cilities, grading, park or amenity
, de~elopment,, etc., which can occur with a p.oorly
develo.ped p.hasing plan?
Sec. 2a - Min. Req. "R" Points ,is 3R
Rated for 3. Street,_Girculation and Lot Layout
all projec;ts ~ .
3a. Street,Pattern
- Deve'lopes.internal street and circulation-patterns
recommended by City Staff, having interest•, safety, and 8R
privacy while p.romoting efficient traffic flow where 7TE
, ,needed, Separates cars and people,. and provides
, interesting~street pa'c'terns such~curvilinear ann
branching srreet patterns,. rather.than grid iron
i patterris: (Use of cul=de-sacs,,.3-way intersections,
~ avoidance of conflict with exist:ing intersections and
!
~ street stubs, etc.)
Provides for botfi principal and alternative access
where.n,eeded into the subdivision for both the general
publio and emergency vehiales, and develops major
' access to local arterials wFi'erever;;subdi~ision size and
~ ~ conditions warrant it. Limits the number of access
; point`s along.maj~o.r roads. Provides for both.safety
and visual amenities at main entranees,.as well as
locational identification., or Seiise of Pla'ce.
3b. Pathways
Rated for all. Provides for bicycle and pedes;trian walks, and pathway
proj:ects ~ systems for circulation and recreation in addition to, SR
i or as an alternative to, s;idewalk systems commonly 5TE
abutting or adjacent to a street system. Prdvides a
; lot layout conducive to installation and use of walk/
~ pathiaay systems.
Rated £or 3c. Overall Lot and Dwelling Unit Layout
all projects •
Lotting pattern-: Does the development propose a single
family plotting pattern which provides for a variety of ' 6R
lot sizes, dimensions and shapes, or are lots or dwelling 6TE
.. sites clustered in PUD'S to imp,r:ove.efficiency~ improve
cost efficiency, generate common open space? Does the
overall design concept create a development pattern
with small, interliriked neighborhoods promoting both
• privacy and public safety.
Is there a relationship between .the proposed open space
areas or lot'ting scale and pattern, of any subdivision
_, 2
- _ .., . . - ` -~..~~_. .. ' .
., ~ . . . ~~ ' '' ~ ,
COUNCIL FILE~
REB. NO. 9107 ~
Page 5 of ~ ~~~~~~~ d~
adjacen.t to an urban greenbelt;_ (on the outer edge of
the City growth area) which promotes a transition from
an urban en~ironment to a rural one?
Rates'for • 3d.~ Development Pattern Near High Noise Areas
all px:oj ect~s .
Nois'e protection.: Ts the developmerit designed to locate
lo:ts and dwelling.sites 'away from liigher,noise _eontours 6R
of 70 LDn or higlier (Ldn - Level.in dee"ibels o~er a 2TE
day/night we'ighted.average) and to provide eff:ectiue
buffering for dwellings and ericlosed yard areas fo.r Ldn
contours of 55 to 70 decibels?
Sec. 3 a-f - Min. Req. "R"' Score Needed to ,Get T'eehniea-1 EXCellence "TE" Po:ints`
is 20.Points - To.tal Possible: 2;5 "R'' Points, 20 TE Points
Rated for Attached 3e. Parkin~~Areas = Ratecl for Attached Housing ~nly ~
Ho.using Projects ~ ~
Where Common Paricirig ' Judge the adequacy,.number;~proposed placement
is P.rovided, ' (location), oueraTl visual impact, po,tential cqnflict 4R
with o.ther amenities; and privacy of all proposed • 4TE
parking, drive and load'ing areas, .
Has staff recommerided that there is adequate parki•ng
for botli occupants and guests? Are the parking areas •. ..
approximately located'to permit full screening `f.rom: '
the street? Do the parking areas or individual,dwellings
interfer.e. witfi. tfie '~isual qiialities of. tfie s.tr:eet scape.
or project area?
Sec. 3G - Min. "R" Score Needed to get "TE"~Points id 3- Tota1 Possible: 4"R'' Points
" 4 "TE" Poirits ' '
Rated for Hillside
Proj ee.ts Only
3f. Hillsides - Densit,y Locatiori to Minimize.,Grading_
For hi-llsicle development s Dwelling densit~es "v,.
sTope -.Is there a variation in development densities
on hillside ar,eas to plaee higher densities on ;the
flat.ter areas and avoid develo,pment, or minimize
development densities on the s.teepe•"r ar.eas~?
3
6R
COUNCIL FILE ,
RES. iVO. v o 7 -
Paae 6 of 20 . ~~~~~~°~° ~ ~
' , (". i
~ . , '•~=". , ~ s:' . . .. l,. .
~R`,ted for Hillside 3g. Hillsides -•Street Patterns to Min'imize Gradi
For hillsi.de development: streets a.re laid out follow-
ing existing natural contours with a minimum of grading 4R
(outs~ or fiTl). Rapid changes •in grad'e are kept to a "` ~' 2TE
minimum and steeper grades changes-are avoided (over 15%).
:,
Type of Projects
Where Rating
Applies 3h. Hillsides. - Lot and Buildin Design to Minimuze Grading
Rated for Hillside For hillside development: does the proposed lot layout
Projects Only pro~ide_lots which are developable based on the natural 4R
, grade, with dwelling foundations f•itting the natural 2TE
~ slope, and garage or parking areas and driveways located
~ to minimize grading (such as near the street in steepe~~
ar_eas)? Does the development proposal'avoid the creation
of building pads by :zillside cerracing, the use of major
I cuts or fills, and the piacement oi long bui]_dings across
; contour lines?
Sec. 3f-h ' Minimum required "R" Score needed to get "TE"'Points is 11 Total possible:
16 "R" Points, 4 "TE" Points
4. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
4a. ~uantity of Open Space
Judge the overall pr-ovisions for both public and private
open space, recreational areas and where applicable, the ~3R
gr,eenbe-lts (urban/rural separators) provided for in the 7TE
Environmental Design Plan.
4b.. ~ommon Public Areas - Proportions and Location of Activities
Are the common open spaces of large enough dimensions and
of such a quantity, in relationship to project size, to 5R
serve a full variety of useful functions and age groups? 5TE
Are all the major open areas well linked to the minor
open areas, to each other, and to the buildings they serve?
Are the higher activity areas, where.noise or glare may be a
problem, located far enough away from the majority of the
dwelling units, and located so as not to disturb any
ex-isting or potential neighbors? Are play areas and
- eq.uipment for small children physically located near their
homes and other areas where their parents might congregate
(such as near a pool or wash house)?
4
. . . . .t.:
COUNCIL FILE
RES. t~o. g107
Page 7 of 2~J
, ~~~~ ~,
Type of Proj.ects ~
Where Rating 4c. Quality and Quantity of Common Public Areas
Applies =
All Projects Evaluate the proposed ar:eas for both passive and
active activities, in relationship to proj'ect type 6R
and size, for individuals, small groups,, and team 6TE
games. Evaluate the quality and quantity of any
proposed facilities for these areas such as common
garden areas; club houses, swimming p.ooTs, tennis
~ or basketball courts, pienic, educational and
entextainment areas, baseball, volleyball qr soccer
field areas, etc:. Evaluate the quality and quantity
of play areas for small children to ensure that.there
are adequate hard, as well a soft surfac:es to play
on, and that there ~.s sufficient we'].l"des,igned,, durabTe.
and saf.e, p:lay eq.uipm.ent, •Do the recreational.areas
proposed a~n~ain a~ae.:~uate walks,.~ be~ehes, trash .
containersy fountairis, pools, lights; ete? ~
4d, uantity and Quality of-Private Yard Arzas ~
Al1.Projec.t_s Are there a'dequate areas for each dwelling unit, both
, for active and passive uses? Do the dwellings have 4R.
~ patios, scr.eened fenci:ng, areas for gardens, and areas 4TE
for landscaping? Ar:e the private yard areas located ~
so as to have sunlight.mo"st of the day in a majority
of the yard.areas? Is there adequate access to all
• yard areas for maint'enance activities?. Are:the private'
yard areas f ully protected both visually and acoustically
~ from neighbors y.ards and windows and balconies, and .
from existing noise s:ources (both vehicular and
s,tationary)? i.,e., if, y.a,rd areas are proposed where
exterior sound levels are 55 to 65 Ldn (Lev.el in
decibels., over. a day/night weighted average), solid
acous.tical barriers may assist in reducing• sound'levels
iri private yard areas. '.Dwe1T•ings should generally be
diseouraged where exterior sound levels exceed 65 Ldn
and excluded from any area where the Ldn levels are 70
Ldn or'higher:
Sec 4a-d - Min. Req. "R" Score needed.to get Technical Excellence "TE" Points is
18 - Total possible: 2:3 "R" Points 22 "TE",Points
5
COUNCIL, FILE
REB. NC.. ~ ~ ~~7
Page 8 of 20 ~~~~~~~ ~
~ ' • . ~Fy.~ j ~> , ~~f:
. , ... ' - b~. . . ~i.~';' Y- . .
~ ~ ~ 'Type of Projects 5. LANDSCAPING
5a. Amount and,_ Quality 'of` Landscapin
Rate the landscaping plan by the amount' and quality of
landscaping and screen.ing p;r"opos'ed tq be instal•led in 7R.
.common areas; and publicly visible portions of private 8TE
y.ard areas. Evaluate.the number,,seasonal color, sgacing
and.varieties of trees. Compare their lir~b spread, Iight
and shadow patterns against their proposed locations. The
same sti"ould be done for shrubs and ground covers in an
effor;t to determine the o~.erall landscaping plan quality.
", 5a - Min.~"R" - needed to get "TE".Points is 5
Rate for 5b ~Landscaping for Rental Uni.ts - Quantity and Qua.lity
Poteritial
' Rental Pro'jects For -rental. dwellings' e~aluate •the° ainount ancl quality SR
I •of landscaping and screening in all yard areas. 5TE
' ,
5b - Min. ~,"R" - needed ta get ''TE".Points is 4
. ~
. i -
5c-. Landscaping to Control Erosiori - Hillsides
: ~
' ' Ro.r hilly areas,. rate the me'thod's and type of plant
~ materials proposed to slow•runoff ;rates (helping to 3R
', prevent er:osion and downstream siltation). 2TE
5e - Min. 'i'R" - needed to ge,t "TE" Poirits is 4
Type of ProgecPP
Where Ratin A lies 5d. Species Gomparibility of Enhance Na;tural..Habitat
~ ~ - ~
Rated for Projects Where:landscap,ing is proposed adjacent to or in con-
Containing junction with existing vegetation, evaluate its 4R
Special compatibility as to type and location with the existing 4TE
Features varieties. For habitat areas evaluate the proposed lands
Only capa'city ~to grovide shade, cover, edible seed, berry, nut,
and fodder materials for wildlife enharicement.
Sec. 5d -.Min,. Req. "°R" needed to get '"TE" .Points if 4
Rated;for 5e~. Landscape Screenin~
Proj'ects witfi
Common or"public Rate the amount, height and dens-i.ty~.of landscaping used
~areas onl fox screening, including sereening of undesirable 2R
y' ~ features. 3TE
ec. 5e - Min.. Req.""R" need'ed to get "TE" Poirits is 2.
~~ ~ ~ ~ COUIVCIL.EIL'E 7
F2E8. NO. g.~ O /
Page 9 of 2Q
.. ~ 6 ~,E7C~~~~`~' A
Ra t,e :al l
Projects
Rat'e all
Proj'~ects
Rate a11
P'ro jrec,ts
Rate all
Eroj ects
6. _ ARCHITECTURAL :DESIGN QUALITY': Arcti~ite'ctural d'esign quality
shal:l be rated.in.accordance w:'itti considerat;ion given to the
follotaing fact~or,s;
6a. Rela~tionship, of Building S.pacingc Is tNer_e a var:iety
~ and pleasing quality in tFie ~s.pacimg ~or attachmen•t o`f the
buildings to eacli. other?. Judge tlie adequacy in the
variety of _yar:d widtli's, ~sett~acks.; buildin'g orient'ation
to each ot:her arid to eommon~open areas, and v~isual
resour.ces_. 'Do the buildings proportions fit ttie natii~r'al .
laridscape without sibnif.ic~an;t grading or; alteration?
Do. physica-l conriect-ions bet~aeen dwellings (i_f any) ;promote
a ser,ies of varying .and useful visua'1 spaces~ and y,"ard, '
ar,eas? Is .there signif.ican~t visual psiuacy b'e't.we'en one
unii: and another~? .~(i..e~.., do the buildings rela-t'e to- one
another ~o create a:ser•ies of•variations in vis.ual s;cale`
and detail, as w,e11 as excitin.g.spatial relationships,'
o:r is theie u.ni{°orm~:ty• to tfie ooint ~f monotony:?;)
6b. Architect:ur;al S;hyle :and D;ef;ai_ls: Judge .fihe over:all
archit`ec~tural style (s) p,rgposed for the d`evel'opmen't.
`Is there s'i~ni.f;ican_t-. irinovation and quali~ty to be, found
in the excexior ele~a~,tions in terms of their ouerall .
style or theme? Are plot:plans and elevations in these
projects ~significan•tly varied to produce b:oth variety„
and enhance interes;t~., even thaugh a n_umber of:materials
and de'sign elements may ,be common and lin.k, 'the> proj;ee`t .
togeth.er? Judge the adequacy and quality of~ the di.f.ferent
build-ing style:s proposed.. Is there significan~t quality
2R
3TE
7R
STE
17R
8TE
and variety:in th'e sfyles;,p•roportion, si-ze; height; number
of stories; bulk, basic shape;' roof pitch; roof styLe; ouer-
hangs;, window size,and pr,oportions; rhyfhm an'd;p•roportions,
of iaindows an.d doors., .to building facad'e dimensions:; use of
trim; variation, of cl;epths in _faeade elemen,t~s; ('exterior:
walls) ; windows,, roof,s)-: '[~That is the quality o.f the fence
mater,ials pr.oposed'?
6c. Rela'tionstiip 'o'f :Build-ing: Types and S'iz'es:' J;udge the a~lequacy
in the size range,s o:f build=in~gs prqp:osed wi~tHin th'e develop- 8R
ment; in terms of lo.cation and type ,for uarious buy;er=,groups 4TE
(single persons, f'amily groups, couples„ etc:,,);. Is the•re
compatibility'.,and'-ha-rmony in tYie various s~tyles .and sizes
.. , of units~,,' and i:n their ,placement within th`e deuelopment:,
without;creatino excessive or dreary unif,o,rmi~€y? -
6d,. Storage Areas:. Ar-e there adequa;te, cove_red,-well designed,
and ~enc:los,ed s.torage sp~aces for the average family for
household goods;, yar;d.tool's and equipment.,, refuse motor 4B
uehicles . hobb~y , e,qui;ginent , f-i'replace wood , mail,, e'tc,. ? Is 4TE,
there adeguate off-street parking for each :dwelling,°type,
(i,.e,,, family, size,), and for' guests wi:thin a reas:onab;le
distance from.each dwel_ling? , '
7'
COUNCIL ~FILE , - _
REB. NO. '07 '
. ; ., , ~ ~ ' Pa;ge 10' o,f 20 '~~
~ ~ `_:~. ~ HI_~IT` A
. ,
.. _ . - .. .. y p,~.~~:~y,. _ ).~..,4:. ~(~~'~ .'•~~L"- -~. . ~ _.._
' . . . ~. Ik~ ~~' •~' ~ ~ . ~
~~ ~ ., ~ . . . . . . .
R'a'te „all~ ~ 6e. Saf'ety and S.eeuri~ty Featur"es: Rate the desi~gn and place- . ,
Projects i ment of buildi.ng entrances, gates, feneing and~nei~ghbors,
~ to promote good v-isual seeurit.y of the garage, yard and 3R
' ~, dwell'ing entrances. ,,Can any.recreat~i'onal ar:eas be seen 2TE
' by a security officer~~w_ithou;t leaving his uehicle? Are
' there, adequ~~te escape routes,and warning;devices within
eac,h d~aelling in ease o•f f-ire~? Are the exterior doors ~
~ and w,.indows provided w.ith dead bolwt'~-locking devices,
including.garages and ga.rage doors and stor,age rooms (.this~
~ ; • includes inter-ior :doors leading into a'ttached ~garages)?
Are gates,i~n fenees equipped w,ith secure lotking devices?
' Are there adequate exterior lights on"dwellings, streets,
' I pathways, etc.,'proposed? '
~ ~
_ See. 6a-e - iriin. "R" Points ne:eded t'o get "T~" Points is 'l,T'ota-1 possib_le:
(~~R~~ 39 ~ ~~TE~~ 2.6• -
. I . ,
, .
i 7. Solar Access and:Ener.gy Systems
~~Rate all ~ '
~ 7a. Does the developer propose en,er-gy conservation features in
' Projects ~ addition to insulation weatherstripping and other energy 4R
~ ~ conservation:measur:es required:by.the Buildirig Code? Is 5TE
.. ~ exterior glazing less than the maximum~a_llowed by code
~, ~ or will thermal,; tinted, or •reflective glas_s be used? Are
: hot.water pipes in.unheated spaces°(.other than interior
walls, or„between floors)~insula-t'ed:to minimize heat loss?
Rate all ~ 7b.,Proteeting Solar Acces;s =_ Building Orientation
Projects
Are 65-75% °o~f all propos'ed build-ings pr,oposed t'o be oriented
~ ~ with the longest building side~facing within 2212° of due 5R
• south (;for best solar access)'? Do...build~ings have southern STE
roofs (for so:lar collectors) and southern walls (.for passive
• I systems)?,- Are they proposed to be located out. of the
w,inter sh'adow (Dec. 21) of any existing or prop:osed buildings
or trees? Is solar access to ma~or p•rivate yard areas pro-
tected' in,the project design?~ Sun„expos,ur,e is.desired for
" i windows, roofs and walls at the winter t'ime sols,tice (Dec 21)
Sec. 7a=d = Min. "R'' Points'needed to get "TE" Points is 7` - Total P,ossible:
9R, 10 TE
Rate all 7c Solar_En_ergy S'ystems - Active_and P.ass.ive
Projects . ~ _
Rate th"e pro~ect in terms of any pro,posed',gassiue or active
solar ener;gy systems for uTater ,fieating, space hear-"ing and 8TE
~ coolin;g.
S.ec: 7E - No. 1~1in,. "R" P'oints N'eeded
Type of Projects
where Rating • -
Applies '8: Inco~r.poratiori o'f: rSit`i~gati~ Measur,e.s ~
, ~
Evaluate "tfie, a"d'equacy deg=r.ee of success!ful mitiga~tion
measures ~i;neorponated in~to• the project whieh may be listed ~5R'
in ~the Draft E'nvironmental ~D,oeumemtation, and ;no~f ~ 5TE
~ previously j~udged liereiri..' These include,, but are not
limited.to mitiga'tion,me.asures ori noi_se,; gTare;., enh'ance,=
~ ment and protect:ion o;f' flora and' f'auna,, reduction of ,
physic'al impac,ts, on ~hills~id"es, ,pro`tectio_n o;f on=site '
~ ~ Historical and, A-rchaeological siltes, facilities and
'a_reas:~ er,o'sion contro~l and s"lide prevention., reduc,t-ion, ~
. of tra~ffic impac.ts; avoid'ing potential for' incr•eas`ed
' siltation:; water quality pr,ot'ect;ion to dowristreain water-
s'neds; ~ad~'ustmenf of overall densities; and s:o for,th.,
Sec.:~ ~`3 - i~I-in, ''K" Points ne: d2d ~.o ~g~t '''TE" P'oint's yis 4., Total, po'ssible~; '' " °
' SR ~nd ;5.`T:r . . .. ~. . ~... . ,. .... .. . . .,. ..
. _ . . . ..
• _ _ _ ._ _ ,
_ ~
' 9
' . ~ .. . - ~ ~ CCUNCIL F.ILE ~~~
, REB.'NC. _ - _
' . ~ . _ , Pa~e~ 12 of 20 ~~~~~~~ ~
,. , .
d
a
BONUS POINTS FOR TiO~ERATF MTD LO~tiT IIVCO*iE }IOUS ING
The following tat~le sha11 be used at the zoning stage to determine the bonus
points to be:received for permanent moder~zte, low and-very low income housing.
.proposed. ror housing proposed to be utilized for tempo"rary moderate,J_ow,or
very low income izousin.g (for a perio~i of at leust 5 ye~rs), the umount'of
boius points sho~,m in the table shall be halved. For developments donating
cash in lieu of structure's for lo~o or moderate income,housi.ng, the amount of
structures dedica_:ted^.wilT'be based on the actual cost of the land and total
i
construction value of the'site and structures pr,oposEd. The bonus points
received shall be reduced by 1/3 (33%) to account fo.r added public costs in
time, materials and inflation factors to create the units. Proposed donations
of'fees to create partial structures shall receive an equal and partial pro-
poition of bonus points after adjustment as indicated above
Maximum bonus points reeeived cannot exceed 20 points or raise the total
technical rating above 11`O points
i .
. . . „ .,~.~ _. ~ • " > •:~ ,~
r . .: ' ~ . .
.,~; "~'- .~ '.
10
, Page 13 of 20
COUNCIL FILE~ ~ +
REB. NO. 9 ~ ~/ __
~~~~~~~ ~ '
_ ~
:~'i
'r ~
~' .
~
'~
W ~
..1
Z ,
~° '
~
,~ 'W" Pr@~I
U
Z ~
~I
,. .
I7
~
c~"'
U'
_ ~
v.
t- .
_
~
'G''.`.. ' . ..
. ..
,
- ~
~1 .
i .foc.,~.• i,,.~,~„
~ r,~iiir_s C;l
~ . . I~y Ir„ ,. .
. I ••i.i. I,.~ii~ts ll..i
~ 1 .r In4 )n~ ~r~r .
' F, ! ~nt~.l~,'..,7
, ,;
i ] 5 6 7
-
~_ & = 9 ~ l0 11 1'?
---~ -'
- 1~3 14 15 1G 17 ~ lR I9 20 2l 22 27 ?5 28 26 27 28. ~?9 d0 i`1 3? 37 l~ 75 ~ ~
- - - ~ --
----
-?5 50 -
;S I
(~U -
~
'
'S I
50 i:9S ~:
•
OU 5~ 50
~, ~'
75 1
AU t
25 f
~50~ ~75
3 00
'~ 5
~25 5
50 ~~
~75 00
~ ~
'LS i
50' i
75 ,
00 ~~
25 i
~
SU ~
15 00
~~ 5 ~
i(1 7~
'7~ 8
0( ~8~
I2' d~
~
51 ~
8
75-
. .. . .. .
_ . .
,
I ~
~
I. I . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ . . . .
_ . . . . . . .
, .
.
5~
JO
..OS
._~~
I.:''ii
.
1.1.5~
...10
.v5
I ~^'
~
~ OIf.l5~I~1.50~
:.8 '
_ ~~.~ ,I
.. . I
~
7..35
~.'...
.?
...Sg
5.
_
~ .~
1_90
.?5~
~ ..
~
>.b0
~
.
>~95'~
.~30
.
-
.
r.(i5
..00
~
i~.:JS
'
F:70
_
'
,.OS
.40~~
.ZS
.,1~0
45:~
'
).BO
.
~~U.I'.
~
..
:il 5~
.,.
tQ:~$'
,
LL2'
. ~
L1:5`
,
i:9~
?:25`~
. ,
,
~
~
,
~ I
~ . .
.
~ .
.
- I .
. . . , ' . -
~,ii~ I-.2i) i.-s0 7.s0 f':1i0, i.Gp
- ..~~0
~ ,~.BO ~ ~01l~ ~qp
.; .
~ s~I.vs-~--..
,.60
~ - I
.
..~iG^r
7.20
iw....'
~
1.80
i:40.
1.00
,
1~.60'
LU...~
o
.
10.8U
_
11..4(i
.
12.OCi
t_ 60
~~:~ "
.
11.20
.
t3.80
.
.
(4:40 .5~.011
1 3.60 ~.6.':0
•
__ ~~6.8U 7.Gi~ !.a:Ui ~fH.fii
. 19.21~ 9:~Rt
.. .. . 'U.AO
. ., . . ~?O.UU
. .
= 11 /
i'
-, i
.
~: ~
~
~ , fr
~.. .
BOti'L'S FOIITS FOr CO\TRI~L'TIOI~S T(1 P~i•:Fnrl~ PLL'LIC 1'~CILITIF.S
Intent of Section
Bonus points are offered for contributions by develoPments offerin~; to provide
needed public facilities or improvements identified by the City Council and
not req.uired as a p'art of nor.mal subdivision requirements or neeessary environ-
; .. .
mental mitigation improvements. A needed public facilities list will need to
bel~stablished by..the Council and updated periodically:b~y resolution. Copies
of;this list would be.giv.en to interested developers. •
SUIiTiITTAL PROCESS '
i
Developers intere.sted in obtaining bonus points under this category ~oould
submit a pxoposal at the zoning stage to contribute cash or construct physical
improvements for items shown on the needed public facilities list. For
proposals offering to cons:truct physical improvemerits, cost information
relating to the actual construction costs for those improvements would also.
need to be.submitted. .
12
' COUNCIL ~FII:E (1
REB. NO. -- ? ~ ~~
• Page 1~: of' 2'0 ~
~a ~ ., ~
,, _ , . ~ ~~~~~
.. . ~~ - . ~,,,, ~~'~
The proposal would .be r.e~iewed by the En,gineering;, Communit,y. De~,elopment
and Planning, City Attorney and Finance De,partment staff's to determine
that the proposal meets the "intent of this seetion and is a val`id one..
Maximum estimated sale values of all dwelling units within fhe project would
need to be submitted by the developer for incorporation into the,formula,
A develo:pment ag_reement would.be re~uireci of the deyelo,per commit.ting:himself
to the maximum sale values submitted, or in the eventuality that th;e market
place~is such th'at he wishes to raise prices above those f.igures, ;that he
inerease his actual,dedieation in aec;ordance with the formula.
A mona.coring prc~cess would~,be -used iaherein co~~ies oi'. che saTes con~tae;ts .
caould be .furnished L.o.°City ~Iall and the developer- billed in accor-:dar.ce
wi~h the formula'when sales oi uni~s exc~ed his estimated.sales figures.
i
EOUALIZED SCORING~METHOD ~ . ~
S'everal principles underlie the'equ'alized scoring metho~ propos'ed for bonus
points in this area. They are as f~llowsc
1. To en'sure that larger developments~~can't gain undue advantage oyer a
medium or small development due to tfieir ability .to 'generate a larger
total donation. ~
2. To ensure that more expensive developments don't gain an undue advantage
~over a project .containing,affor,dable or lower cost,housing:.
3~. To ensure that bonus poin,ts ar;e giyen in pro.portion to a project's
ability to give on a per dwelling unit basis.
4. The maximum number of bonus po:ints r-eceived' in tfiis manner is limited
to 10 bonus percentage points,
The bonus point.s shall be determi-ned by the following,formula: which relates
both donation per sq. ft, (average)_ with average sale cost ~er"dwelli.ng unit,
D2 _
- Bonus % Points
40V
1 ~i
COUNCIL,FILE
R~S. NO. _ ~ O 7
' ~ Page 16 of ~ ~~I~~~. ~
.~ ~
_ :~~" • . " ' _ ~ ~ " ~
• D - Average d`edi`cation 'value per dwell~ing' (;all dwell'ings i`n
~ - devel'opmen:t exeept low and mo:der.a'te. income . dwellings) .
~ ~ i ~ ~
~ V - Ave:rage ,ma:cimum es:t.imated sale value {all- ,dwell•ings in
. development);incl~uding low and moderate income dwellings.
Boniis points s'hall,be liMited to a maximum of 15 points.
An example of the typical,average dedication vaTue per. dwelTing needed to
get a certain number of:lionus;pereentage points, based on this formula
can be seen in the followirig table:•
" I . `
' DEDICATION TABLIs
° (Typieal Values R:equired'for Bonus % P,o.ints)
Bonus Point % '
, Averate est. ~
Sa~le Price 1% 2% .. 4%~ ' 6% 8%
~$ '60,000 $ I5.49 $ 219.T $ 309.& $ 3T95 $ 4382
70,000 1673 ~ 2366 3347 4098 4733
'~ 80,000 1Z'88 2530 3578 ~ 4382 5060
90,000 1897 2683 3795 4648 5367
1d0,00'0 2000 2:828 4Q00 4899 5657
110,000 2098 ~. 2967 41'p5 5138 5933
~ 120,000 2191 3098 43;82 536,7 6197 .
135,000 2324 3286 4648 ~ 5692 6573
150,000 ,,. 2450 :3464 4899 -6000 6923
~ -
200,0.00 ~ 2;823: 4000 5657 °~ 692<8 8000
, ~ . ..
,. -. ~k . ~ ~ . . .
~~ , ~s.~,»~ -
. ~ •. ~_~ ~~.,~
_,
Page 17 of 20
10%
$ 4899
5291
5657
6000
6325
6633
6928
7384
77G5
F3944
COUNGIL. FILE • 7 ~ .
~ REB: NO. 9 ~ O/
~~~~~~~ ,~
ALLOTMENT RATI N.'G~ - SUNf:1~ARY of Scoring, (Vl:e~thod'
~ 70% ~
Sum of applicgble min.
.~~"R;;~ Poi_nts '
i ~ : _
,
_ r, ,. _ . . ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~~ '~ ~~ .
~=
'~ . . . _ . . . .
Fi~~~L sco~E~ ~
~
• 1. 70% bf projects; s.core = sum. of ap;plicabl~e m'inimum '".R" p`oints
(i.e..; sum. o`f ,appli'cable' minimum "R" s'cores 'needed to g"et
~~TE~~ points) .
2. 30% of; p`roj'ects seo.re,= sum of remaining, applia'able .p.oints
~no.f inc'luded in the 7;Q% above.
3., .Boniis+ % points ar;e gi~en for:
a. ' Low and ino:d`e,~rate ;inc'ome housing - in accordance ~ai'th~ the ~
t~3b l e . ~
b. Contrib;utions to needed ;publie. fac:ilit-ies - in aecor,dance ..
with the table.. .
~~ Fi:naT scbre canriot exceed 110%: "
~ COL•1NGiL FILE '
~ ' RES. NC: . _~~~ .
P`age l:8 of 20 . ,~'~~~' ~
, ~- ~ • . , ' ~
~
f _ ,
,,.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE• 2/6/81
RATING SHEET
Project Name ^
Rating Date - ° o
~ ~ N
Raters Signature ~
~ ~ o
Pro'ect
~ T es: All Attached
yp , Housin ~_
g(Att. Hsng), Hillside Projeets (Hill), Potentia_ Rental Projects (Rental), ~` z-Q1
~~:,-
P,rojects with Spec=ial Features (Spec. Feat.), Con~mon or Public LGndscape Areas (Pub.Laridscape) u~~
. . Z ,~?.
] rts .
. ' p a
, ~
Rating "TE'°'Technical Weighting
Type Category '°R"Points ~ Excellence :Pa:ints. , R/TE
~
~°"'
~.
~
~
~
~
~
~ Spec.Feat. la ~Protection: of Natural Features 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 1/1.6
" ~Spec.Feat. lb Avoidance o;f High Risk~Areas 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 . 1-2-3-4-5- .6/.4
All 2 Quality o'f Phasing Plan ~ 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 N/A .5/N/A
All 3a Str-ee:t Pattern 1-2-3.-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .8/1.4
All 3b Pathways 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-),0 1-2-3-4-5 .5/1
All 3c Overall Lot and Dwelling Unit Layout 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .6/1.2 „
All 3d Development Pattern nr-.high noise areas 1-2-3-4-:5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .6/.4~
Att.Hsng 3e Parking Areas I-2-3-4-5-6=7-~8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .4/.8
Hill 3f Denslty locatiori to minimize grading 1-2-3-4-5-6-,7=8-9-10 N/A .6/NA "
Hill
3g
'Street attern to minimize g
p gradin 1-2-3-4-5-6.-7-8-9-.10 1-2-3-4-5 .4/.4
Hill 31i Lot and b1dg: design, t'o min, grading 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9'--10 1-2-3-4-5 .4/.4
All 4a Quantity of open space 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .:8/1;.4 .
All 4b Common Pub.areas-Proportions and ' _
location activities 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 ..'S.[1 • ~ ~
A11 4c Quality and quantity of Common pub.areas 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 :,6/1:2• '
All 4d Quart ity and quality of private yard areas 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1=2-3°=4-S .4/.~8.
All 5a Amount and quality of landscaping 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2 3-4.=>5 ,.7J'1:6 '~_
. ;x
enta --
5b-
T,ands'capirig for' "rerital uriits-quantity - -- -- - - - ----- -
`
-~ -
. and quality 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-.2-3-4-5 .5;/I ;`s
~- :;Hill 5c Landscaping to control erosion 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .3/..4 •
,°p:ec:,Feat 5d Speeies compatibility to enhance ~y
" ,
~S w natural habitat 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 1-2-3-4-5 .4/.8 ,
:'1r:
- f'
11. ~{;, . , ' ~ _ . . _ ' . , t . . .. . . . ~ .
''_ ~+ `, - . ' . ~
. ~.
-
R'ating
~~TE~~ Technical p~
Weigh:ting~ "
Type
. C'ategory
:
. "R"Points Excellence Points R/'TE '~'
`
~
Pub. .
Landsc, 5.e Laridscape sc=r,eening ~ 1=2-3-4=5-:6=7.-8-~-10 1-2-3-4-5 .:3/.4 .-'.
~ Al'1 6.a Relationship, to building spacing ~-2-3=.4-5-6'-'?-8 ~=_~.U 1-2-3-4-5 .7/1.6 ~ o
A'1T 6b Archi:tectu,ral style 'and details 1=2-3-~F~5-6=7'-8'-9-ft~ 1-2-3-4-,5: 1.7/1.6 ~
AIl 6c Relationship. of bldg types and sizes i-2-3-4-5-6-7-~3 9--',~ 1-2-3-4=5 .8/>;8
' All 6d Storage areas ~-2=3-4-5-6-7-8--~--1G~ 1-2-3'-4~-5~ ~~.4/.8: m, ~.
~ A11 6e Safety and security :features 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-~-?G 1-2-3-4-5 .,3/.4 ~, Z
J .fQ
All
7~a
Ene~rgy Conservation
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8;-9-10
1-2-3-4-5 U ~
.4/1 ~
__ ~ Al1 7_b Protecting solar access-buiTding ' V
, orientation 1-2-;3-4-5-6-7-8- :';-10~ '1-2-3-4-5 ..5/1
All . 7c Sola"r energy syst_ems-actiue and passive N%~A . 1-2--3-4-5 N/A/1.6 0.
. ~
'` . _:;, o
All 8 Incorporation of mitigation~measures 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-$-9-~0 1=2-3-4-5 '~ .5/1 0
. ~ . °r.' ~ N~
~
.
~ ~.
~
~
.a.
~ '
_=;~-••: . .
`,ti~,~"~~- . -
j ,.,yJ` .,V,,. ,. , -
~ .rf~;r _ t~, _ .
:,rs ~
n:. ti~; 4 ~ ~ ;
,.
i . •, . +
~ ~ !~'~= i~ . -
ts, .~\
i+. -
e ;d
• ., ~ytr~~ ' , ~ ~
, ~ . ....... ~ a ~' - . ~ . . .