HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0818 CC REG ITEM 10LCITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
1I + - r.
rrEM
Cit Us.:�100 K, %Rk, CALTF ;FUNIA
Ciiv Council Niecting_
uf' —oeia I
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Developmen�4e
Prepared by: John Libiez, Principal Planner /Advance
DATE: August 9, 1999 (CC meeting of 8/18/99)
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REPORT ON OPTIONS FOR PROCESSING A
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE WORK
PROGRAM
BACKGROUND:
On July 21, 1999, City Council requested that staff prepare
information for Council consideration related to the limiting of
development applications.
This report provides information to the City Council concerning
the planning process, general plan amendment requests and
entitlement processing and an update to the status of pending
applications. Additionally, a discussion of alternatives for
dealing with current development activities and a proposal
concerning special project study areas that if implemented could
address development pressure and impacts within the City has been
provided.
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion has been divided into four distinct areas
in order to 1) provide City Council a snapshot of the status of
General Plan Amendments and the staff work load; 2) outline the
new General Plan screening process and its effects on workload; 3)
provide information relating to the concept of establishing
Special Study Areas within the City, the results of which would
serve as a guideline for future development; and, 4) alternatives
to deal with current development.
000305
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 2
1) What is currently occurring ?:
No new General Plan Prescreening Applications have been
received within the designated time frame for application
submittal for the 1999 Cycle No. 2, which ended May 30, 1999.
The next available opportunity to submit requests will be
Cycle No.l for the year 2000 which has an application
submittal final due date of November 30, 1999. The lack of
new submittals at this time will allow staff to apportion
time to existing projects and any backlogged General Plan or
Municipal Code Amendments as well as special issues of
concern with regard to any pending General Plan amendments.
In March there were fifteen active General Plan Amendment
(GPA) applications, of which 6 were complete, 6 were under
review, and 3 were pending action. Additionally 6 projects
were identified which would need CPAs. As of this report
date, there are 9 approved applications, 1 in public hearing
consideration (SP -2), 5 under Staff and Planning Commission
consideration, 2 pending public consideration (SP -1 and SP -8
modifications), 2 pre - applications under Affordable
Housing /Community Development Committee (AF /CDC)
consideration (exempted from new screening process by City
Council consensus), and 1 with no application filed but
previously listed for future consideration (Moorpark Unified
School District property). Attachment A reflects the current
status for General Plan Amendments. In addition to those
listed in Attachment A, the City may desire to consider
appropriate designations for the City property received from
SDI, the property west of the Archstone project site, and the
parcel adjacent to the east side of the Cabrillo residential
project on Poindexter Avenue.
Provisions of State Law limit the number of times that a
mandatory element of the General Plan may be amended to four,
per calendar year. More than one property or proposal can be
considered within each of the four amendment periods provided
that all are scheduled, advertised and heard at the same time
as one General Plan Amendment by both the Planning Commission
and City Council. The General Plan element most frequently
amended, is the Land Use Element. The other mandatory
elements include: Housing, Circulation, Open Space,
Conservation, Safety and Noise. State law permits local
agencies to combine elements that have similar purposes,
which has been done by the City through adoption of the
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0003 0 9
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 3
OSCAR, which combines the mandatory elements of Open Space
and Conservation with the permitted (optional) Recreation
Element.
Of the mandatory seven elements, only the Noise Element has
been comprehensively reviewed and updated since the 1992
update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The
Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for the 1992 General
Plan Update recommended that the Noise Element, Housing
Element and the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation
Element (OSCAR) be periodically updated. The Noise Element
was updated in 1998. The OSCAR is currently being updated,
with adoption likely to occur by the end of 1999. The Housing
Element under provisions of State Law is required to be
updated to achieve compliance with State Guidelines and
adopted by local agencies not later than June 30, 2000. Staff
is currently reviewing work program submittals from qualified
consultants that would update the Housing and Safety elements
by June of 2000 and a recommendation to retain consultant
services will be forwarded to City Council in September. In
summary the status of the General Plan Elements are:
Land Use
- Updated
1992 - update
needed.
Circulation
- Updated
1992 - update
needed.
Housing-
Update
required by
6/30/2000; RFP /RFQ
reviews
in process.
Noise
- Update
complete as of
3/98.
OSCAR
- Update
to be adopted
by 12/99.
Safety
- Update
required - RFP /RFQ reviews in
process.
Staff's work load is currently high and is likely to remain
constant during the coming calendar year. Attachment B
reflects the status of major project applications. It should
be noted that this table does not reflect minor permit
activity such as Zone Clearances, Administrative Permits or
Sign Permits. The map in Attachment C provides locational
information on major project activities.
2) General Plan Pre - screening process- effect on workload:
Implementation of the General Plan Amendment Pre - Screening
process adopted in March 1999, will allow both staff and the
City Council to be more aware of the overall anticipated
impact to the community. This process establishes a time
frame for General Plan pre- applications to two time periods
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc O O O u i o
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 4
per year, ending on November 30 and May 30 preceding the
review by the Affordable Housing Community Development
Committee (AH /CDC). November applications are referred to
the AH /CDC for consideration in January and forwarded to City
Council with recommendation for consideration between March
and May. May applications are referred to the AH /CDC for
consideration in July and forwarded to City Council with
recommendation for consideration between September and
November. City Council consideration of the pre- screening
application results in rejection or acceptance of the
proposal for processing. Approved pre- screening applications
permit the filing of formal General Plan Amendments which are
scheduled for consideration through the City's standard
processing procedure including public hearing before the
Planning Commission and City Council and including
environmental impact analysis.
The adoption and implementation of the new General Plan pre-
screening process provides benefits to the City. Staff work
load regarding major projects that involve General Plan
Amendments combined with Zone Changes, CUPS, etc. can be more
effectively reviewed, evaluated and scheduled. Since the
pre- screening process is intentionally selective, more direct
time by staff and decision makers is devoted to proposals
that best fulfill the goals and policies of the City's
adopted General Plan elements. This process will add a large
measure of certainty to the planning process for the City and
potential applicants. The pre- screening process will not
reduce staff workload, but it will provide a greater level of
efficiency to allow staff to accomplish the workload and will
provide more information to decision makers at the pre -
application level. However, it can be observed that the land
use /entitlement application process, in general, is driven by
market forces and fiscal incentives and that there will
always be peaks and valleys depending on the extent of those
forces or incentives.
3) Areas of Potential Special Study Efforts:
Areas exist that may be appropriate to consider for special
study with results to be included within the adopted
capital improvement plan and the General Plan. The benefit
of special study areas is that the City engages in
proactive planning and predetermines the types and mix of
compatible land uses within particular neighborhoods, and
geographic areas. This provides additional definition to
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0003.11
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 5
the process rather than having staff and decision makers
responding to uncoordinated, piecemeal approaches to
development requests and community development issues.
Some potential Special Study areas that City Council may
wish to consider are identified briefly below. Attachment
D provides a map to indicate suggested boundaries for each
Special Study Area.
a) Walnut Canyon Corridor. This study area would include
all properties which access Walnut Canyon Road from
Charles Street to the north City limits. Concerns to
study include: drainage, circulation, utilities
extensions, density/ intensity of development, Hillside
Management, habitat issues, and safety improvements to
SR -23. This Special Study Area would involve all non -
Specific Plan developable properties in this corridor,
with the exception of Westpointe Properties, Toll
Brothers properties, and Sun Cal.
b) East Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. This study area
would extend from Spring Road east to the Princeton
Avenue freeway interchange on both sides of the
roadway and southeasterly to the Arroyo Simi including
City property obtained from SDI and all properties
southerly of the railroad track, but excluding any
Specific Plan properties. Issues in this corridor
include regional strip park /trails, land uses and
mixes of uses, circulation, neighborhood blight,
drainage, and impacts to sensitive habitat areas.
c) East Corridor Study Area. This area would include
all properties northerly and southerly of the SR -118
from Princeton Avenue to the east City boundary (Simi
Valley interface) . Concerns in this area relate to
potential development of the Unocal property,
circulation alternatives, land use mix, densities and
intensities, environmental constraints, and potential
impacts from light sources on the Moorpark College
observatory.
d) Center -City South Project Area. This is an area
southerly of Los Angeles Avenue (Highway 118), north
of Arroyo Simi, east of Moorpark Avenue and Westerly
of Spring Road. This area offers opportunities for
retail /office uses along Los Angeles Avenue,
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0 0 0 u_:.'42.
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 6
redevelopment of some properties with high density
residential /affordable housing projects, and
implementation of circulation alternatives. Concerns
in this area relate to traffic, affordable housing,
land use changes that impact revenue to the City, and
drainage.
e) Area of Interest /Sphere of Influence Study. A study of
the City's future ultimate growth area would seem
appropriate given recent approval of the Initiative
Measure NN S" and concerns for greenbelt
management /intrusion. Efforts such as the recent
response to Ventura County regarding Open Space and
Agriculture- exclusive greenbelt zoning would be studied
to define properties suitable for such designation and
to determine those properties upon which clustered
estate or ranchette development consistent with
applicable policies within the City's Area of Interest
might be permitted. The study could look at regional
recreation and circulation development as a means to
improve the local economy and reduce impacts to major
arterial roadways. Environmental issues including
habitat, open space conservation, grading and drainage.
4) Alternatives to deal with current development activity:
The following alternatives have been identified for City
Council consideration and discussion:
a) Amending a General Plan element or Zoning Code provision
on a project by project basis.
The current approach to amending the General Plan or
Zoning Code is to respond to individual requests. This
approach does not allow a comprehensive analysis of the
cumulative impacts that may result on multiple project
applications. This approach supports a philosophy of
first in, first considered, rather than supporting
selective consideration of requests which enhance
community goals and policies including adding to the
City's economic base. Some developments may not receive
the consideration they deserve and project sponsors
abandon a project that could enhance the quality of life
and improve the economy of the City.
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0 0 0 3 .11 3
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 7
b) Limit development permits during review of Special Study
Areas.
This approach would allow the normal entitlement and
permit process to continue city -wide, except within a
declared Special Study Area. The restriction within a
Special Study Area would apply during the time necessary
to perform the study and analysis leading to preferred
land use options for the areas under study. The
limitation on application reviews /actions could be
complete or it could be limited in such a manner that
would allow certain uses such as affordable housing, or
non - profit community service uses to proceed while
temporarily suspending all others until the area study
were complete and adopted by the City Council.
C) Suspend all development activity pending comprehensive
plan revisions.
This alternative would have the effect to halt receipt
and /or consideration of development applications until
such time as a master revision to the General Plan
and /or Development Code were completed. Effectively
this implements a limitation on all development with the
consequences that fiscal growth and balance of the
community may be negatively impacted. Progress toward
achievement of community goals and implementation
strategies may be inhibited.
There are some pertinent considerations related to this
option that decision makers and the community should be
aware of if an ordinance to limit development is
considered:
A. The State Evidence Code Section 669.5 places the
burden of proof on any city that adopts an
ordinance to: 1) limit the number of building
permits for residential construction, 2) limit
development of buildable lots which may be
suitable for residential purposes, or 3) which
changes the standards of residential development
on vacant lots that renders the governing bodies
zoning in violation of Government Code Section
65913.1 (see later comment)
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 8
B. Burden of proof referenced by the Evidence Code
means the ordinance must be necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare of the
population of the city, county, or city and
county.
C. Voter approved ordinances adopted by Referendum
or Initiative prior to date of E.C. Section 669.5
which establish fair share population growth
limits based upon statewide average population
growth or consistent with the statewide
population growth rate as a whole are not subject
to Section 669.5.
D. Referenda or Initiatives that do not inhibit
provision of low and moderate income housing are
acceptable.
E. Government Code Section 65913.1 requires cities
to designate properties for the development of
residential uses and in relation to growth
projections of the General Plan meet housing
needs identified in the General Plan.
F. Government Code Section 66452.6 (Subdivision Map
Act) establishes the time limits for approved
tentative maps to record. Imposition of any
development limitation has the effect of
automatically suspending the time clock on the
map for the period of the limitation.
Development limitations are limited to five years
by this section. Upon the close of the
limitation period the subdivision map time clock
restarts with the expiration being equal to
whatever amount of time remained when the
limitations were imposed.
G. Any ordinance, Initiative, or Referendum should
be supported by substantial evidence and findings
both in the record and the ordinance that the
limitation is necessary to protect the health,
safety and general welfare of the population
affected. Development limitations need to be
clearly defined and time restricted and need to
be sensitive to the legislative mandate of the
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 000-3-1- 5
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 9
State for the provision of affordable housing and
may not reduce or deter those opportunities.
(d) Comprehensive Revision to General Plan
Since the General Plan Update in 1992 incremental
amendments have been granted. Incremental amendments
or updates frequently result in internal
inconsistencies. One approach to avoid the potential
for internal inconsistency is to consider a
comprehensive rewrite of the entire General Plan
document. Through a comprehensive update, goal and
policies can be evaluated and restated to reflect the
current community vision and information presentation,
document format, data exhibits, and graphics can be
standardized such that the final document is
internally consistent, comprehensive, reflects current
development and land use trends and is more user
friendly. The most recent amendments such as Noise
and those proposed for completion before June 2000,
(Housing, and Safety) should have their format
converted to the document standard preferred for a
comprehensive rewrite. A comprehensive update of the
General Plan would require approximately 12 -18 months
and result in a more current reflection of community
needs and vision for the next 10 years.
IMPLICATIONS•
A. Selectively targeted development limitation measures
may not be consistent with Due Process requirements.
B. Development Limitation measures require
factual /evidentiary justification to assert validity
in the face of challenge. Some direct connection to
technical studies or overriding policy issue related
to or directly concerned with the health, safety, and
welfare of the community is advisable. A rational
nexus should be demonstrable between the purpose of
the limitation /restriction and the lands affected and
the time imposed for the limitation /restriction in
order to limit opportunities for taking claims.
C. Development limitations have the potential to severely
impact community economic growth. Shut down of one
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0 0 ® 0 r G
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 10
form of development may have repercussions on other
uses or investment opportunities as limitations are
often seen as roadblocks. This could affect such
activities as willingness to finance rehabilitation
efforts or invest in downtown revitalization or
expansion.
LIMITATION IMPOSITION:
Limitations generally come about through voter Initiative
or Referendum, or by adoption of a legislative act by
state, county, or local government agencies /districts.
Most commonly they are adopted by ordinance of the City
Council or Board of Supervisors.
Limitations tend to be adopted for technical reasons such
as lack of adequate sewer capacity, limitations on the
availability of water, lack of or inadequate flood control
facilities, hazardous waste, or similar issues. While some
limitations are adopted jurisdiction -wide, many are adopted
for specific geographic areas or portions of communities
for specified time limits to facilitate completion of
facilities to ameliorate the conditions for which the
limitation is imposed.
Growth Management is often adopted as a means to control
rapid development, synchronize provision of services with
development demands, preserve physical features of a
community, determine phasing for expansion of the community
or establish control over planning areas within Spheres of
Influence. The most effective long term method to adopt,
implement and regulate growth is through the comprehensive
General Plan.
Government Code Section 65858 provides that "the
legislative body, to protect the public safety, health, and
welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure (415 vote
required) an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which
may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan,
specific plan or zoning proposal which the legislative
body, planning commission or the planning department is
considering or studying or intends to study within a
reasonable time." Urgency ordinances are valid for a
period of 45 days from the date of adoption. Subject to
legal notice and public hearing an urgency ordinance may be
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0 0 0 3111 11/
City Council Agenda Report
Development Limitations
August 18, 1999
Page 11
extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days (total one
year). One additional extension for one full year is also
allowed subject to notice and public hearing. All
extensions require a 4/5 vote. Sub - section c of Section
65858 states: "The legislative body shall not adopt or
extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section
unless the ordinance contains legislative * ** findings that
there is a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare, and that the approval of
additional subdivision, use permits, variances, building
permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which
is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance
would result in that threat to public health, safety or
welfare." Interim ordinances do not require Planning
Commission reviews or recommendations to effect or extend
them.
STAFF RECODMENDATION:
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS: A. Status of General Plan Amendments
B. Major Projects Listing
C. Locator Map for A & B
D. Map of Potential Special Study Areas
M: \KSchmidt \M \City Council Agenda Reports \81899CCstfrprtGPZCZs.doc 0003--41L.8
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
APPLICATION
NO.
REQUEST APPLICANT
UNITS
!i NUMBER
AMENDMENTS IN PROCESS
—T—
REFLECT SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-:
A.
GPA 93.02
MILLIGAN TRUST
415 -620
1 HITCH RANCH)
MORRISON
REFLECT APPROVED SPECIFIC
B. GPA 95.02
FOUNTAINWOOD
598
PLAN (SP -2)
AGOURA
GPA 96.01 VERY HIGH DENSITY
PACIFIC
C.
247
(APPROVED) RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITIES
GPA 97.03 VERY HIGH DENSITY
D
ARCHSTONE
312
(APPROVED) RESIDENTIAL
E. GPA -99 -01
REDESIGNATE SP -8 AREA
CITY OF MOORPARK
2400 -3221
PACIFIC
F.
GPA -99 -02
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
37
COMMUNITIES
GPA -99 -04
_ --
TEXT CHANGE PER
G. REPLACES 94 -01
TOLL /BOLLINGER 216
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(TT -4928)
H. GPA -98 -01
RURAL LOW DENSITY
SUNCAL
154
I. GPA -99 -03
RURAL HIGH DENSITY
WEST POINTE
250
GPA 97-2
J.
AGRICULTURAL TO INDUSTRIAL AB PROPERTIES
N/A
(APPROVED)
PRE - SCREENING - OLD PROCEDURE
K. PRE -APP 98 -02
MEDIUM LOW DENSITY SANDERS
67
L. PRE -APP 98 -05
MEDIUM LOW DENSITY ANDERSON- SANDERS
98
PRE - SCREENING - NEW PROCEDURE
TRILIAD (BUGLE _l
M. PRE -APP 99 -02 CPD TO M -2
N/A
BOY)
OTHER POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS & MINOR CORRECTIONS
N. GPA /ZC /TT /RPD
REFLECT APPROVED DENSITY
CABRILLO
59
GPA /TT /RPD
—
0.
VERY HIGH DENSITY
FARWEST HOMES 80
(BURNETT)
P.
Sr- -9 AREA
INCREASE DENSITY
MUSD UNK
MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO
CONSISTENCY
INSURE MAP AND ACTURAL
Q.
CITY OF MOORPARK
ACTIONS
SITE DEVELOPMENTS ARE
CONSISTENT
Data prepared as of 8/10/99
Notes: UNK = unknown
ATTACHMENT A
0®0u --_g
Community Development Department Major Project Report
August 10, 1999
ATTACHMENT_ lam' _
City of Moorpark, 799 Moorprk Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021, 805.529.6864, Extension 228
000.3 i ... 0 iJ
-7
UNITS OR
SITE
PERMIT
STATUS
USE ACRES APPLICANT/ DEVELOPER
L
SQUARE FEET
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SF /MF 2 GOLF
RPD94.1 CUP94.1
TRACT APPROVED,
COURSES
TOLL BROTHERS
1 GPA94.1 TR4928
PD PERMIT IN
216
655
EQUESTRIAN
(BOLLINGER DEVEL., INC.)
ZC94.1 LDM94.1
PROCESS
STAGING AREA
TRACT APPROVED,
2
TR4975 RPD98.3
SFD /MFD 145
110 LENNAR HOMES
PD PERMIT
3
TR4976 RPD98.4
IN PROCESS
SFD 160
83 LENNAR HOMES
TRACT APPROVED,
4
TR4977 RPD98.5
SFD 109
57 LENNAR HOMES
PD PERMIT
TRACT APPROVED,
LENNAR HOMES
5
TR4980 RPD98.6
SFD 138
gp
PD PERMIT
(WESTERN PACIFIC)
FAR WEST HOMES (PREVIOUS
6
RPD98.1 TR5133
IN PROCESS
MFD 76
9
KAUFMAN & BROAD)
7
RPD98.2 TR5130
IN PROCESS
MFD
154
70
SUNCAL COMPANIES (SP 10)
8
RPD98.7 TR5161
APPROVED
SFD
59
7
CABRILLO ECONOMIC
9 RPD99.1 TR5181
IN PROCESS
SFD
1.2
MANNY ASDURIAN, JR.
RPD 99.4 VTT
_8
ISKAN, LIBERTY DEVELOMENT
10 5204 GPA 99.2
IN PROCESS SFD 37
4.8
(NELSON CHUNG)
ZC 99.1
RPD 99.2 TR
SFD 250
350
11
4620
IN PROCESS
WEST POINTE HOMES
- - --
RPD 99. TR 5201
12
APPROVED SFD 10
2
PEACH HILL, LLC
ZC 99.2
13 RPD 97 -1
I'
APPROVED APTS 312
18
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES
RPD 96 -1
14
APPROVED SFD 305
35
PACIFIC COMMUNITIES
TR 5053
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
15
CPD98.1 IN PROCESS
PINECREST SCHOOLi
27,774
3
THREE -D ENTERPRISES
HEALTH CARE
16
CPD98.2 APPROVED
50,987
4
DAMON GROUP RAMSEYER
FACILITY
CPD 95 -2
17 PM 5036 APPROVED RETAIL /OFFICES 57,300 4 DEE WAYNE JONES
ZC 96 -1
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
18 TR5115 IN PROCESS
15 LOTS
300,000
33.9
CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORP.
19 TR5147 IN PROCESS
17 LOTS
;35.53
A -B PROPERTIES
28,240 &
20 IPD99.1 &2 APPROVED 2 BUILDINGS
3.24
RICE DEVELOPMENT
31,720
IPD 99.3 CUP
21 APPROVED 1 BUILDING
71027
0.44
JEROLD S. FELSENTHAL
99.1
IPD 95-1
22 APPROVED 1 BUILDING
72,000
3.7
% POINDEXTER ASSOC.
TR 4986
ATTACHMENT_ lam' _
City of Moorpark, 799 Moorprk Avenue, Moorpark, CA 93021, 805.529.6864, Extension 228
000.3 i ... 0 iJ
-
I
11z `
O7H
20,x. T.-
mtT
1l,
19J
21
22 8N
MO 117 u �ro NORTH
I
4c 1oFy� .I ... 60 ... s-
� 1,
+ -- - .
15 O
i �Sr( ir'��,T' �mn y. ` �` .....➢Nni -• � t I � j��l[SYI'� � , t� / � i? O � ,
D GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
� R PROJECTS
JECTS O
T �, t,a,� • • LOCATION MAP
D 1
April 9, 1999
-17
K
om
Z
o
o�
C) n
r•,
CITY LIMITS
Vlplll
"jL .S, ��t -�.f0 ^ • ?rl. `A. �,�'uzn,n r;! �Tl �
/d�itI I�
k_if
ul .i.1YpT:
IntlErr ..........
.1 .I 1� 1�•0; 'llpi1111•l � I • � � w
I IIII
F,
_I
5:�`s � • w ,
6 r ^ 11
e�� °����� ������ �,����'rr�g ��J ����9Et�€��liAjrl� E � E �I��ol II ..le . �� � • '� ' . .
...... I .. s
2M, ,. u1�:: �7��►� a��
� ' r ; !/,l+�i L7'p�!�` - \Mlil �r, �r 1111 r'i•i.n.��.;:� %�: �i '�'�1 I1 r'
fII! � r� � Irig� ••.� r :nnrlrr� =r.a � �,�nt� sf. rr...;�. � "� �; ' �
�: { 1•/; "� ;— r
mn . i I1 I F V �1„* F � I� 9�11'; . ' I "I I IIIV I1 •Y � � u l I .,l; i r . .1°t_1le1l1ll1l 1 % / r i� l�; Y4l•a ,! ' �,J: .� , ' %•r � S I{lir 73 GtF l II �F I`I1 I II I II I '�I�:IpIN f� r� 1{1{:{1lU1A �l''�� •; n V � {'f�: HVII .111 11111
...r: ' y F 1•1c.i1� ey � � !L / I N aZ1,:• r / •. �' , . F ••v,e ;. .
...,.,.<... ki
� •r.n �, r��i,� /�,u�o � I �iiltJlit��i[ ��u: {ilw���b 5