CFE 011303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�9 DRAFT 2 Land Use Councils in June and October 2002 , The Schools and Land Use Councils and School Facilities Task Force have discussed the MOU and model ordinance in great detail during the past six months . Perhaps the issue that required the most discussion and scrutiny by all parties was how to initiate the Ordinance without inducing a defacto development moratorium while maintaining equity of standards between the two school systems . Any defacto moratorium would likely have only affected the Orange County School District because their Middle School segment presently exceeds the 107 % Level of Service standard contemplated in the MOU ( actual OCS middle school student membership is at approximately 111 % of capacity ) . The County Attorney has prepared proposed addenda to the MOU and proposed changes to the model ordinance that would address several concerns raised throughout the SAPFO review process , particularly the one noted above about avoiding a defacto moratorium at the middle school level in the Orange County Schools system . The Attorney will review the pertinent points on this subject that he outlined in his attached November 27 letter to the Planning Director . The Attorney has also suggested possible changes to the model ordinance on this subject , and can respond to questions on that point . However , it should be noted that the Board is not expected to act on the model ordinance until early 2003 . The only Board action contemplated at this December 10 meeting is approval of the MOU . During numerous public meetings and from various items of correspondence that the County has received , many excellent questions have been raised about the mechanism and implications that would be involved in the implementation and administration of SAPFO . Staff have compiled a " Frequently Asked Questions " ( FAQ ) list that restates and answers many of these questions . Staff plan to use the FAQ list as an important component of the public education effort that will be essential to successful implementation of the ordinance . Additional questions (with answers to be developed ) to be incorporated in the FAQ list are welcomed from the BOCC , other elected officials , and interested citizens and community groups . Questions have also been raised regarding the implications of delaying the implementation of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance system to a date other than the February 15 , 2003 date established in the Memorandum of Understanding . A change is possible if the Memorandum of Understanding is appropriately modified by all parties . An implementation date of April 15 , 2003 could be pursued with the understanding that the following implications of changing the date might be experienced : 1 . School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data would still be collected and analyzed as noted in the original schedule ( Fall of each year) ; 2 . School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data would not be acted upon as early , meaning some data may become " old " as the student membership numbers are dynamic through the year . 3 . Developments in the pipeline or in the concept stage may be able to proceed without being subject to the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ; t 4 . An important product of the School Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance data is to use it as a tool to develop school Capital Investment Plan needs which are developed in the first part of the year . It is likely that even without