HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1999 0908 CC SPC ITEM 04ATO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
-112- , `i ( 3) + -112 .5 (L±
ffEM A .
�.i_ -•` ,i[)t �':4st�?, CALIFORNIA
ACI a'r
CITY OF MOORPARK
AGENDA REPORT
BY:
Honorable City Council
Wayne Loftus, Acting Director of Community Developmen 4ite
Prepared by: John Libiez, Principal Planner /Advance<�
August 27, 1999 (CC meeting of 9/8/1999)
BACKGROUND
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING AND
PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
RELATED TO RECESSION OF ORDINANCE 244
A resolution has been prepared for City Council consideration
that would direct the Planning Commission to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Code related to recession of Ordinance
244 and a recommendation for a replacement zoning designation as
appropriate. Adoption of the attached resolution will permit
the Planning Commission to conduct the appropriate study, and
hearings in order to consider said amendment to the Zoning Code.
DISCUSSION
The attached Resolution for Council consideration will allow the
Planning Commission to consider the requested code amendment.
The requested amendment would delete all zoning designations and
development standards from the Municipal Code and Zoning Map of
the City pertaining to the Hidden Creek Ranch Specific Plan,
Specific Plan No. 8 /Specific Plan No.93 -1 (Messenger Investment
Company). Secondarily, the amendment may consider and recommend
an appropriate replacement designation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 99-
ATTACHMENT: A. Resolution 99-
M:\ JLibiez\ M\ Sp- 8 \244recessionstfrptresoccpc.doc 000001
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK,
CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SET A
PUBLIC HEARING PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT OF TITLE 17 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO RESCIND ORDINANCE 244 ZONING
DESIGNATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND TO CONSIDER A
ZONING DESIGNATION TO REPLACE THE DESIGNATIONS) UNDER
ORDINANCE 244 RELATED TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8 /SPECIFIC PLAN
93 -1, HIDDEN CREEK RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 17.60.020 of the Municipal Code provides that
the City Council may initiate proceedings to consider amendments to
the Zoning Code by the adoption of a resolution of intention
requesting the Planning Commission to set the matter for study, public
hearing, and recommendation within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.04.030 of the Municipal Code requires the
application and compliance with zoning regulations for all properties
within the City of Moorpark;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby authorize the
initiation of proceedings to consider amendments to revise the Zoning
Code for the purpose of rescinding Ordinance No. 244 of the City of
Moorpark related to Zoning designations applicable to the Hidden Creek
Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan No.93 -1, and to consider new zoning
designations for said properties.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission is hereby directed to
study, set a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the City
Council pertaining to amendments to the City of Moorpark Zoning Code
for the Purpose of considering said recession of Ordinance 244 and
designation of appropriate zoning for said properties.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the
book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1999.
Patrick Hunter, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah S. Traffenstedt, City Clerk
M:\JLibiez\M\Sp-8\RESOLUTIONccperescind244.doc ATTACHMENT &0002
CITY OF MOORPARK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: John Libiez, Principal Plannel�-
DATE: September 7, 1999 (CC meeting 9/8/99)
SUBJECT: Consider Environmental Coalition Written Comments
Regarding City Council Action Related to Ordinance
No. 244.
The attached comments from Roseann Mikos, President of the
Moorpark Branch Environmental Coalition, were received after the
agenda item related to recession of Ordinance No. 244 was
prepared. Council may wish to include consideration and /or
reference to the Coalition's comments during discussion of the
agenda item.
Attachment: Environmental Coalition Letter, September 3,
1999, with attachments,
00000;3
ENVIRONMENTAL
COALITION* MOORPARK BRANCH
September 3, 1999
Wayne Loftus, Planning Manager
Honorable Mayor and City Councilpersons
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
SUBJECTS: Testimony Transcript from July 21, 1999 Moorpark Council Meeting for Roseann
Mikos, comments about 7/21/99 and 8/18/99 council meetings and staff reports, and suggestions
for language for the upcoming resolution that is designed to move the process forward to repeal
out -of- compliance Ordinance #244, and related issues.
Dear Mr. Loftus, Mayor, and Councilpersons,
RE: July 21, 1999 City Council Meeting (Item 10E)
First, let us set the record straight about the personal testimony given by Roseann Mikos to the
council at the July 21, 1999 council meeting regarding Item 10E.
Upon reviewing the August 10th staff report for Item l OH, prepared for the meeting of August
18th, Mikos saw a transcript of her testimony from July 21 st that is in error (Attachment "B" on
stamped page 000283). The transcription provided substituted the incorrect word "in" for the
correct word "and" that Mikos used when referring to suggested new language for Section 1 of
the resolution being considered on July 21 st.
As a result of that mistaken transcription, staff concluded that Mikos' remarks were "not
accurate" and could "hamper" the efforts the council directed. Mikos did not state that the
Zoning Map and Zoning Code were part of the general plan, as the staff report says. Rather she
suggested wording that referenced amending the Zoning Map and Zoning Code and (not "in')
the General Plan. While we can understand how a transcription error might occur, the EC feels
it is important to correct the record. And we respectfully request that the City do so in the
official record of Mikos' testimony.
Here is the actual text of her most pertinent comments regarding the specific wording changes
that she originally requested in the resolution that you considered for Item IOE on July 21, 1999:
WHEREAS, Section 65860 (c) of the Government Code of the State of California provides that
"In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of
amendment to the plan, or to any element of the plan, the zoning ordinance shall be amended
within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended. "; and
WHEREAS, Section 65350... (same as first whereas paragraph in staff draft); and
POST OFFICE BOX 378 • MOORPARK, CA 93020 00000 4
To: Wayne Loftus and Moorpark City Council Page 2 of 4
From: Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch, and Roseann Mikos, Ph.D.
Date: September 3, 1999
RE: Comments re: Items 10 E on July 21, 1999 and Item 10 I on August 18, 1999
WHEREAS, Title 17.70 of the Moorpark Zoning code, adopted as Ordinance #244, is not consistent with
the current Moorpark General Plan, as amended as of the passage of the Moorpark SOAR on January 12,
1999. and
WHEREAS, Section 17.60.020... (same as in staff draft)
NOW, THEREFORE — .(same as in staff draft)....AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council does hereby authorize the initiation of proceedings to
consider whatever steps may be necessary to bring the Zoning Map and Zoning Code of City of Moorpark
into compliance with the General Plan Amendment that was adopted on January 12, 1999 and became
effective on February 13, 1999, as part of the voter approved citizens' initiative, Measure "S" (SOAR),
including but not limited to considering amendments to the Zoning Map and Zoning Code and the General
Plan, for the purpose of establishing land use designations, zoning districts, and other appropriate
provisions -- especially as it may apply to those properties situated within the boundary of the former
Specific Plan No. 8, known as Hidden Creek Ranch.
The last two sentences of the City's transcript of Mikos' testimony on stamped page 000283
( "She stated ... Sections 1 and 2. ") are acceptable to Mikos for the remaining comments.
The EC does however point out that the staff report on page 000279 got two words mixed up,
under bullet #3 at the top of the page. In fact, per the transcript, and per what Mikos actually
said —she recommended substituting the word "enforce" for the word "implement" and not vice
versa, as stated in the staff report text.
Having said all of the above to set the record straight, both Mikos and the EC realize and accept
that the council decided to pass the resolution as originally drafted by staff and to disregard any
suggestions made by her.
Neither the EC, nor Mikos has a problem with this, now that the most important action needed to
comply with the SOAR General Plan Amendment and state law— namely the repeal of
Ordinance #244 —has been separated out from the long, arduous task of updating Moorpark's
outdated general plan.
RE: August 18, 1999 City Council Meeting (Item 10.I.)
The EC would like to re- iterate a few comments made at the August 18th meeting by either
Mikos or Richard Francis. When appropriate, we will add comments in an effort to assist the
city in drafting (1) the appropriate resolution for the Sept. 8th special meeting and (2) the
subsequent new ordinance(s) to repeal the out -of- compliance Ordinance #244; and, replace it, if
necessary, with one that is in compliance with the Moorpark General Plan.
I. On stamped page 000286 of the August 10th 10.I. staff report (for the meeting on August
18th), the following statement is not true: "The subject property, Hidden Creek Ranch
(Specific Plan 8) is currently designated by the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) as
Specific Plan 93 -1 /Specific Plan 8 and is zoned Specific Plan."
000005
To: Wayne Loftus and Moorpark City Council Page 3 of 4
From: Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch, and Roseann Mikos, Ph.D.
Date: September 3, 1999
RE: Comments re: Items 10 E on July 21, 1999 and Item 10 I on August 18, 1999
Rather, the subject property (the former Specific Plan 8) is designated in the city's LUE as
"Open Space 10 acre +," per the current Exhibit 4 of the LUE, as amended. Contrary to what
Mr. Loftus said on August 18th, there is not a blank spot without a land use designation for
the former Specific Plan 8 area.
See the enclosed copy of page 15 of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities that was
filed by the City Attorney, Cheryl Kane, in support of the city's demurrer to the first amended
petition and complaint in the "takings" lawsuit filed by Hidden Creek Ranch Partners and
Messenger Investment Co. against the City. She gives a clear explanation supporting a
"floor" of 'open space 10 acres' for that property. She also explains how that IS consistent
with Measure S's required minimums.
2. There is no longer a designation in the Moorpark General Plan at all for any approved
potential development area called Specific Plan 8. Any references in the staff report
suggesting that Specific Plan 8 exists today in the City of Moorpark are inaccurate and
should be corrected. The area in question could be called the "former Specific Plan 8" but it
is not accurate to continue to discuss that land area as if it still has a current specific plan
designation.
The EC respectfully requests that all such references be corrected and that the resolution to
be drafted for the meeting on Sept. 8th, and the subsequent ordinance to repeal Ordinance
#244 (and any other subsequent ordinances or official city documents) be worded carefully to
ensure that such incorrect designations for the former Specific Plan are not perpetuated.
3. Both Mikos and the EC respectfully request that the following language be used in the
"Whereas" section of the resolution being prepared by staff for the Sept. 8th council meeting
that directs the planning commission to have a public hearing and make a recommendation
on the repeal of Ordinance #244:
WHEREAS, Section 65860 (c) of the Government Code of the State of California provides that
"In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of
amendment to the plan, or to any element of the plan, the zoning ordinance shall be amended
within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended. "; and
WHEREAS, Title 17.70 of the Moorpark Zoning code, adopted as Ordinance #244, is not consistent with
the current Moorpark General Plan, as amended as of the passage of the Moorpark SOAR (Measure S) on
January 12, 1999; and
The above two "WHEREAS" statements address the fundamental reasons why the Planning
Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to repeal Ordinance #244 and should be
included. If the words are changed somewhat, but the substance remains, that would be fine.
If there are other "WHEREAS" statements that staff feels are important to include in addition
to the above, this is fine too.
The intent of providing this information at this time is to assist staff in preparing the
necessary documents for the council and to assist the council in understanding this
000000
To: Wayne Loftus and Moorpark City Council Page 4 of 4
Frorn: Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch, and Roseann Mikos, Ph.D.
Date: September 3, 1999
RE: Comments re: Items 10 E on July 21, 1999 and Item 101 on August 18, 1999
sometimes contentious issue.
4. Finally, when preparing the actual ordinance to repeal Ordinance #244 and deciding what
designations to give to the former SP8 area, consider the following:
• If staff and the council consider that the former SP8 area is outside the city limits of
Moorpark (and it is, based on Judge Hutchins' final ruling on August 20, 1999 for Case #
SCO21825 to overturn the annexation of the subject property), then the land reverts back
to the pre - existing county land use designations, because it is not in the City's
jurisdiction.
• If staff or the council is still concerned that the former SP8 might still be inside the city
limits, then the designations already shown in the City's OSCAR element for the subject
property should be used (See Figure 3 of the OSCAR): OS -2 (40+ acres) for most of the
land and AG -1 (1040 Acres) for a small portion of the land (the orchards).
In either case, when it comes to zoning (as opposed to land use designation), we suggest that
the safest and easiest thing to do is to maintain either the current county A -E zoning (40
acres/DU) or mirror what is in OSCAR by zoning the OS -2 to be O -S (40 acres/DU) and the
AG -1 to be A -E (40 acres/DU), per Moorpark Zoning Ordinance §17.16.020 (p. 307). Either
option would comply with the respective SOAR measures (B in the county, or S in the City.)
We hope this will assist you in working out the details for both the resolution and any potential
replacement ordinance currently or soon to be drafted. Thank you for your careful attention to
these matters.
If you have any questions, you can contact Dr. Roseann Mikos at 5294828 or our attorney,
Richard Francis at 486 -5898.
Sincerely,
Environmental Coalition, Moorpark Branch
Roseann Mikos, Ph.D., President
/msW
Enclosure (1): Page 15 of Memorandum of Points and Authorities for Demurrer in ' takings' lawsuit.
CC: Steve Kueny, City Manager
000007
From: 805 486 2242[FAX:805 486 2242]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 2:54 PM
To: +1 (805) 529 -4828
Subject: Fax from 805 486 2242
TO: Wayne Loftus
Here is the "enclosure" to cc with the 9/3199 letter from the Environmental Goaiition for you, the 5
council members, and Mr. Kueny.
Thanks in advance for making sure that a copy of this enclosure is provided with each copy of the
letter, including the original
I trust that these copies will go to each council member as part of their packet for the Special
Meeting on Sept 8th.
Thank you verW much.
Roseann
SEP 03 '99 17 31
1 805 529 4828 PAGE.02
000008
N%W
IM
Iresidential (not leas than 20 acre lots) and commercial and
2 industrital (agriculture related). (Pet. Ex. 13, pp. 7 -9.)
3 The fact a "large X" is drawn through Specific Plan No. 8.
4 (Pet., p. 19, 1 61) on Exhibit B to Measure S (Request For
5 Judicial Notice, Ex. 13, p. 20) should not be deemed to render
6 MeasurellS void ab initio, as Petitioners would have it (Pet., p.
7 20, 1 6 }. As the California Supreme Court observed in DeVita,
e it is "ihe duty of the courts to jealously guard" the initiative
9 power of the people. (Devita v. County of Napa, supra, 9 Cal.4th
10 at 776.
11 it is also the duty of the courts to construe an ordinance
12 "to the end that it may be given effect rather than invalidated."
13 (San Bernardino Fire & Police Protective League v. City of San
I
14 Bernardino (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 401, 413.) Such a constrUetion
15 is enti ely possible in this case, since the shaded area marked
16 with the X can be viewed as overlying what is otherwise the
17 "white" area of Exhibit B outside of the City limits. (Pet. Ex.
1s 13, p. 2I0.) With the shaded area deleted by the X, the
19 underlying "white" area comes to the fore. As described in the
20 legend to Exhibit B, the land use designation for the "white"
21 area seis the land use floor at one dwelling unit per 10 acres.
22 That fl or accommodates Measure G's required minimum of one
23 dwelling unit per 20 acres.
24 Gi-�en that Measure S does provide a land use designation for
25 Specific Plan No. S and that Exhibit B can be harmonized with.
26 that designation, Petitioners cannot state a cause of action that
27 Measure S contains an invalid General Plan amendment. Therefore,
28
' 25
Re l. Jf17Q ?OXM" AND AUTHORITIES IN SU PPORT OF DIROTOI
NAMAT! sad rrM AMEX13 CCI D1AM ?OR 12i MR COHDMUTSoB
SEP 03 '99 17 31
WZT or
ZVZZ 984 508 "OOSS`d GNV SIONVdJ WOU-4 Wd9V' Z 6661 —Z0 -6
000009
1 e05 529 4828 PAGE.03