Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0902 CC REG ITEM 10D'71 a • 3 (1 0) ITEM 10 • D • AGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOOR-PARK, CALIFORNIA CITY OF MOORPARK City Council Meeting 9 8 TO: Honorable City Council r o v eol S f aff ACTION: � FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Develop ' 1-e t a nn ►yl e n d a. f-i v n l�. Prepared by: John Libiez, Principal Planner RV•�' DATE: August 21, 1998 (For City Council Meeting of September 2, 1998) SUBJECT: CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SCREENING PROCESS DISCUSSION The Affordable Housing/ Community Development Committee (Mayor Hunter and Councilmember Perez) reviewed two requests for General Plan Amendments ( PA 98 -1 and 98 -2) at the June 24, 1998 meeting. After discussion of these requests, the Committee recommended that the applications not go forward at this time, and that staff review the General Plan amendment screening process and develop a draft procedure to be evaluated and discussed at a future meeting for possible adoption. The committee suggested that the process might contain a bi -annual cycle for pre- screening applications and define criteria to determine how to select those applications for General Plan Amendments which should be allowed to go forward as formal amendment applications. One additional pre - application has been received since the committee meeting (PA 98 -5). Staff has advised all applicants that the pre - application requests were being deferred pending Council's determination on the screening procedure. City Council last reviewed and adopted Guidelines for the Screening of General Plan Amendments in August, 1994. Resolution 94 -1055 (Attachment 3) rescinded previous criteria for the approval or denial of General Plan Amendment pre - application screening requests. Attachment 2 provides a list of potential General Plan amendments. Attached is a draft suggested review process (Attachment 1)that addresses the request of the committee. In developing this draft procedure staff reviewed previous City procedures and contacted the County of Ventura and cities of Camarillo and Simi Valley to discuss their screening processes. Common features of pre- screening processes seem to be; 1) an established application period, 2) some guidelines for deciding merit of the application, 3) inclusion of maps and statements to define the request, 4) limitation of request to general plan issues without future development plans being shown, 5) all heard by City Council, 6) required formal GPA within set period after pre - screen review, 7) limitations on re- applications when a denial is given or the decision is not to process as general plan amendment 8) some level of CEQA review to provide focus for subsequent actions, and 9) fees that address cost recovery . ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION The City Council may wish to consider the following items in developing the pre - application review process: 1. Should regular public hearing format apply to pre - application reviews, with public notice, or action/discussion item with notice to surrounding property owners? 2. To what extent, if at all, should development plans and proposals be a part of the presentation and pre - application? 3. Other criteria City Council may wish to add for consideration of pre- screening requests. 0000815 General Plan Pre - screening Process City Council Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 2 MR-IMIMUINY Refer the draft procedure and any comments to the Affordable Housing/Community Development Committee to develop recommendations, and direct staff to work with the committee to prepare a final process and criteria for Council future consideration. Attachments: 1. Draft General Plan Pre- application Review Request Procedure 2. General Plan Amendment/Request Table 3. Resolution 94 -1055 () () C (;86 SUGGESTED CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PRE - APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURE PURPOSE: To provide a process that property owners, or their agents, may use to present information to the City Council related to proposals for changes in land use designations on property under the applicant's control. SUBMISSIONS: • Submitted to the City on the forms and with the prescribed fees and exhibits to support the pre - application. • Pre - applications submitted without appropriate fees or required attachments considered incomplete and will not be scheduled for review until proper and complete documentation is received. PRE- APPLICATION PERIODS: • Two pre - application periods each calendar year Period 1: January 1 through March 31, annually. Period 2: August 1 through October 31, annually. • All pre- applications should be filed as early in the period as possible to permit proper scheduling of the pre - application for public review and preparation of reports and hearing materials. PRE - APPLICATION HEARINGS: • Considered upon the City Council's regular agenda as an action/discussion item, with notice to property owners within 300 feet. Period 1 pre - applications heard at May City Council meeting. Period 2 pre- applications heard at January City Council meeting. • Council receives and considers written and oral reports from the planning staff, verbal presentation from proponents, and testimony from the public. • City Council determines if a proposal will be accepted for General Plan Amendment processing after consideration of the written and oral evidence received. EXCEPTIONS: • Exceptions to permit review of pre - applications outside the annual application cycle will be made only when recommended to the City Council by the Community Development Director based on the following criteria: • The proposed amendment has the potential to provide, through the project approval process, public improvements, public services, public amenities, and/or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. • The proposed amendment has potential for significant economic benefit to the community. PRE- APPLICATION DECISIONS: • City Council consideration of the General Plan Pre - application Review request to allow initiation of a General Plan amendment. • Possible decisions: DENIAL- 0 Denial of the pre - application review means that no formal General Plan Amendment Ooccs' ATTACHMENT. application for the project site will be accepted and that the property will not be eligible for reconsideration for one year after the denial decision. A request will be denied when it fails to meet adopted criteria. APPROVAL- Approval means that the applicant is allowed to prepare and submit a formal application for General Plan Amendment to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council following submittal of the formal application. Council may prescribe additional considerations, materials, and/or studies to be included within the formal application as a condition to approving the pre - application review. Approval of the pre - application review is not an approval of the General Plan Amendment and does not imply approval of the formal application for General Plan Amendment once filed. ACTIONS FOLLOWING DECISIONS• After City Council decision on a pre - application review, the following actions likely will occur: DENIAL- Applicant advised in writing of the decision of the Council. Applicant advised of the limitation on any further General Plan Amendment requests. A new pre- application review submittal required for subsequent filings. CONTINUANCE- Applicant will be advised verbally at the pre- application review of the date and time for continuance and the materials or requirements necessary to aid the Council in its final decision. One continuance may be permitted. Failure of the applicant to provide any required material or data should result in an automatic denial at the appointed continuance hearing date. APPROVAL- Applicant advised in writing of the decision of the City Council. • Applicant files required forms, fees, environmental information and materials to compile a complete formal General Plan Amendment. • Applicant required to submit formal applications for a new specific plan, or amendments to an existing specific plan, and/or applications for change of zoning necessary to ensure consistency of these items and the requested land use designations of the proposed General Plan Amendment. CRITERIA FOR DECISIONS ON PRE-APPLICATION REVIEWS: The following criteria is suggested. The City Council may wish to utilize these criteria in reaching a final determination on any pre - application. DENIAL: Marked similarities between pre - application and previously considered requests denied within the last twelve months in the same general area, or on the same property or portion thereof. Requests for intensification or densification within the boundary area of any project, 00 CUSS specific plan or planned development approved less than one year prior to the pre - application date. • Creation of an island of substantially higher urban density, inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, in an area of more rural character. • Requests which are clearly incompatible with adjacent uses or may induce conflict and/or incompatibility. • Requests that induce significant impacts upon viable agricultural uses or diminish prime agricultural lands unless agricultural uses are determined to be uneconomical or impractical due to limitations such as water availability. • Requests that significantly impact prime habitat areas for endangered, threatened or protected species. • When the request site is located in an area where the Council has initiated a General Plan Amendment, zone change, or land use study scheduled for a public hearing within the next twelve months. APPROVAL: • Request demonstrates conformity with the adopted goals, policies and implementation strategies of the adopted General Plan. • Request provides potential for compatibility with existing and planned uses in the area. • Requests which facilitate provision of affordable housing. • Requests facilitate achievement of goals related to jobs/housing balance. • Projects submitted by other agencies which will enhance the public health and safety of the community. • The proposed amendment has the potential for conformity with other City Council adopted policies, such as economic development. • The proposed amendment has the potential to provide, through the project approval process, public improvements, public services, public amenities, and/or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. (10 t S1 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STATUS APPLICATION REQUEST /STATUS Specific Plan No. 1 Hitch Ranch ( Land Use amendment to reflect final approved plan.) Staff is reviewing environmental documents and preliminary diagrams/plans to help applicant begin specific plan document. Specific Plan No. 2 Morrison - Fountainwood- Agoura (Land Use and Circulation Element amendments to reflect final approved plan.) Joint City Council/Ptanning Commission workshop scheduled for September 23, 1998 to discuss specific plan and EIR. Specific Plan No.8 Hidden Creek Ranch (Land Use and Circulation Element amendments to reflect final approved plan. Plan approved July 15, 1998. Development Agreement adopted August 19, 1998) General Plan Amendment Pacific Community Builders, Inc. (Land Use element density increase to develop residential No. 96 -2 project.) GPA recommended for approval by Planning Commission. Pending Planning Commission recommendation on Development Agreement. General Plan Amendment Related to Tract 4928, Bollinger, pending Council review for reversion of property to old No. 96 -3 General Plan designations. General Plan Amendment Anderson/Bums (Agricultural to Medium Industrial) Property west of Gabbert and railroad. No. 97 -2 and 97 -7 Planning Commission Resolution 352 adopted recommending approval. General Plan Amendment Security Pacific Capital Trust. (Land Use element to change from General Commercial to No. 97 -3 Very High Density Residential) Applicant currently revising application. Downtown Specific Plan Land Use element amendment to reflect revisions to land uses and densities. City Council directed staff to return the Plan to consultant for finalization and return on October 7, 1998 PRE- APPLICATIONS IN PROCESS Specific Plan 9 Moorpark Unified School District. Land Use element amendment to increase density for former high school site. Pre - application No. 97 -1 West Pointe Homes for the former Tentative Tract 3217 (Rasmussen) property on the west side of Walnut Canyon Road, south of Tentative Tract 4928 (Bollinger). Land Uses element amendment to increase density. Pre - application No. 98 -1 Caneo,LLC. Property west side of Liberty Bell, south of Los Angeles Ave. Land Use element amendment from general commercial to High Density Residential to permit 43 unit planned residential development. Pre - application No. 98 -2 Mike Sanders. Property north of new Walnut Canyon School (50ac.) On Casey Road and west of Walnut Canyon Road. Land Use element amendment to change from Rural Low and RE to allow a 75 unit master planned village. Pre - application 98 -5 Mike Sanders/Stephen Anderson. (Canyon Estates) Property north of Gabbert storm drain basin, south of the westerly portion of Moorpark Country Club Estates. Land Use element amendment from Rural Low to Medium Low Density Residential, to develop 76 lot gated community. OTHERS Gisler Field Redevelopment Agency property on Poindexter. Land Use element amendment to reflect final density granted by City Council/Redevelopment Agency Sphere Of Influence/ Application submitted to LAFCO for Sphere Change and Annexation of Hidden Creek Ranch Annexation property into City of Moorpark. U00(!J0 ATTACHMENT: RESOLUTION NO. 94-1055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -209 AND ADOPTING NEW GUIDELINES FOR THE SCREENING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -209 established guidelines for the screening of General Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Resolution No. 85 -209 should be revised; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65300 directs the adoption of ' a comprehensive, long -term General Plan for the physical development of the City and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65358 provides for the amendment of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it desirable to continue to pre- screen all requests for General Plan amendments and determine, based on adopted criteria, those requests for which the City shall accept a formal General Plan amendment application. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 85 -209 is hereby rescinded in its entirety. SECTION 2. The following criteria will be used by the City Council as justification to deny the processing of a General Plan amendment request: 1. The proposed amendment request shares significant similarities with other amendment requests for properties located in the same general area of the City or its Area of Interest, and those other amendments have been previously considered and denied by the City Council within the preceding twelve- (12) month period. 2. The proposed amendment request site is located in an area or is the site for which the City Council has initiated a General Plan amendment, zone change, or land use study scheduled for a public hearing within the next twelve - (12) month period. 3. The proposed amendment request would create a spot land use designation inconsistent with the planned land use for the surrounding properties and inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 000La1 ATTACHMENT: 3 Resolution No. 94- 1055 Page 2 SECTION 3. The following criteria will be used by the City Council as justification to approve the processing of a General Plan amendment request: 1. The proposed amendment request is consistent with or has a potential for consistency with the City's General Plan, including applicable goals and policies. 2. The proposed amendment request is compatible with or has a potential for compatibility "With either existing or planned uses for the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed amendment request has the potential for conformity with other City Council adopted policies. 4. The proposed amendment request has the potential to provide, through the project approval process, public improvements, public services, public amenities, and /or financial contributions that the City Council determines to be of substantial public benefit to the community. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and shall forward a certified copy of said resolution to the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 1994. ATTEST: 17th DAY OF AUGUST 0,uhr, AVtyl-- �. Mayor of the ity of M park MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF VENTURA ss. CITY OF MOORPARK ) I, Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk of the City of Moorpark, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Resolution No. 94 -1055 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Moorpark at a meeting held on the 17th day of AITCITST , 1994, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS HUNTER, MONTGOMERY, PEREZ, AND MAYOR LAWRASON NOES: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER WOZNIAK ABSTAIN: NONE WITNESS my hand and the official seal of said City this 18th day of AUGUST , 1994. illian E. Hare City Clerk (Seal) PAUL W. LAWRASON JR. PATRICK HUNTER SCOTT MONTGOMERY BERNARDO M. PEREZ JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern ' Counciltnember Councilmember Concilmember WXC93 Printed on Recycled Paper