HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2005 0504 CC REG ITEM 08ANOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
A duly noticed closed public hearing regarding:
Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05,
Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No.
2001 -02 for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres
Located Generally North of Moorpark College and
State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of
Moorpark Municipal Boundaries, on the Application
of North Park Village LP.
was held on May 4, 2005, at which time the City Council continued
the closed public hearing to a Special City Council meeting to be
held on May 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Center located
at 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California.
Dated: May 5, 2005.
Maureen Benson, Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss
CITY OF MOORPARK )
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Maureen Benson, declare as follows:
That I am the Deputy City Clerk of the City of Moorpark and that a
Notice of Continuance of Closed Public Hearing regarding:
Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05,
Specific Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No.
2001 -02 for 1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres
Located Generally North of Moorpark College and
State Route 118 on Land Immediately Outside City of
Moorpark Municipal Boundaries, on the Application
of North Park Village LP.
continued from May 4, 2005, to May 10, 2005, was posted on May 5,
2005, at a conspicuous location near the place of the meeting:
Moorpark Community Center
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on May 5, 2005.
Maureen Benson
Deputy City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Honorable City Council
ITEM 9. A.
CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
Of- �l-�- 0204.9-
ACTION: &ys •• -� d4o4of-
#-), s- Yo - Aao - -
BY: L
Barry K. Hogan, Community Development Direct
4)t�5
Prepared By: David A. Bobardt, Planning Mana
April 27, 2005 (CC Meeting of 5/4/2005)
SUBJECT: Consider General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -05, Specific
Plan No. 2001 -01, and Zone Change No. 2001 -02 for
1,650 Housing Units on 3,586.3 Acres Located Generally
North of Moorpark College and State Route 118 on Land
Immediately Outside City of Moorpark Municipal
Boundaries, Applicant: North Park Village, LP
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2005, the City Council took additional testimony on
the North Park project General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan,
and Zone Change applications, closed the public hearing, and
continued the agenda item to May 4, 2005, to allow for
deliberations on the project to begin. A draft Development
Agreement, prepared for Item 9A of the City Council agenda, is
also discussed in this report because of its close relationship
to the project applications.
DISCUSSION
The following information is provided in response to comments
and questions raised during the April 20, 2005 hearing.
Arroyo Simi Water Flow
At the April 20, 2005 City Council meeting, questions were
raised about the amount of water that would continue to flow in
the Arroyo Simi with the project's use of recycled water from
the Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant. Information in
response to this question is taken from Appendix I of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the North Park project,
interviews with Kennedy Jenks staff (the preparers of the water
V`VV001
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 2
supply report for the North Park project), Ventura County
Watershed Protection District staff, and City of Simi Valley
Department of Public Works Sanitation Services Division staff.
The Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant currently produces
about 9.5 million gallons of recycled water per day, almost all
of which is discharged into the Arroyo Simi. The plant is
designed for and permitted to discharge up to 12.5 million
gallons per day. The only current user of the recycled water is
the Simi Valley Landfill, which uses about 30,000 gallons per
day (about 0.30 of recycled water produced) . If the North Park
project was fully built and the recycled water was used to its
full capacity for the project, as well as for Moorpark College
and Rustic Canyon Golf Course, an additional 1.6 million gallons
per day of recycled water from the Simi Valley Water Quality
Control Plant would be used. This represents about seventeen
percent (170) of the recycled water produced by this plant.
The Simi Valley Water Quality Control Plant is required to send
a minimum of fifty percent (500) of its recycled water to the
Arroyo Simi to maintain water flow in the stream course.
Recycled water from the plant currently accounts for almost all
of the flow in the Arroyo Simi during the dry season. The North
Park project, in conjunction with future recycled water use by
Moorpark College and Rustic Canyon Golf Course, would reduce
current flow of the Arroyo Simi by about seventeen percent
(170). This would be offset by future growth of water treated at
the plant.
Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure No. 5 in Section 3.9 of the Revised Draft EIR
is offered to be amended with the following strikeout /underline
language to ensure that procedures similar to those followed by
William Lyon Homes are required for this project. This change
would require the preparation of a mitigation program plan to
address site monitoring, data recovery, and resource ownership.
The change would also be made in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
5. Prior to the approval of grading plans fer any su �e-i��
issuance of the first grading
permit, a soils report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director for review and approval identifying
000002
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 3
the types of soils that will be exposed to
grading/ disturbance activities. Along with this report, a
paleontological mitigation program plan, outlining
procedures for site inspections, paleontological data
recovery, and resource ownership, shall be prepared and
submitted to the Community Development Director for review
and approval. The program shall include sufficient
monitoring of the potential fossil - bearing areas of the
site during grading operations with procedures for resource
recovery to ensure that paleontological resources are not
lost during grading operations. Paleontological resource
requirements shall be incorporated as a note on the grading
plan cover sheet. For most grading activities, a qualified
paleontologist shall be retained by the property owner or
the City of Moorpark, at the expense of the project
applicant, to monitor, and, if necessary, salvage
scientifically significant fossil remains during grading
operations. The duration of these inspections shall be
determined by the paleontologist and shall depend on the
sensitivity of the rock units, the rate of excavation, and
the abundance of fossils. The duration shall be determined
by:
a. Grading activities in geologic units of high
paleontological sensitivity shall require full -time
monitoring by a qualified paleontologist.
b. Geologic units of low or moderate paleontological
sensitivity shall require part -time monitoring. If
significant fossils are observed during grading, full -
time monitoring shall be implemented.
c. The paleontologists shall have the power to temporarily
divert or direct grading efforts to allow for evaluation
and any necessary salvage of exposed fossils.
d. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units described in this assessment are not
present subsurface or, if present, are determined upon
exposure and examination by qualified paleontological
personnel to have low potential to contain fossil
resources.
Oak Tree Relocation
Mitigation Measure No. 4 of Section 3.6 (Biology) addresses the
loss of 709 oak trees from project implementation by requiring
0 0) G) 0 i)
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 4
avoidance, relocation, or replacement of the trees with trees of
similar value. It includes a clause that, "Oak trees relocated
into landscape areas of the Specific Plan site shall not count
toward meeting the mitigation obligation of the project." The
intent of this clause is to ensure that the oak woodland habitat
is restored and that the trees are not just used as individual
specimens in landscape areas of the project, such as parkways or
medians, where their habitat value is limited. The clause does
not discourage tree relocation; instead, it encourages
relocation to areas where oak woodland habitat is being
preserved or restored.
Traffic from Grading Operations
The applicant has estimated a maximum of 100 workers on site
during the grading of the first phase of the project, before
building permits are issued. This would not require mitigation
to the intersection of Collins Drive and Campus Park Drive or
the SR -118 interchange at Collins Drive to avoid an adverse
traffic impact. For this reason, staff is recommending that
these improvements be completed prior to the issuance of the
first building permit.
Ballot Options
The following information on options by which the project could
be placed on the ballot was prepared by the City Attorney, and
presented to the City Council in the January 19, 2005 staff
report. At the May 4, 2005 meeting, the City Attorney will give
a presentation on the anticipated future decisions that the City
Council will consider in conjunction with the project and
Development Agreement, as well as the scope of public comment
associated with each of the decisions to be made by the City
Council.
Decision Options
The SOAR measure approved by the Moorpark voters created the
CURB line, generally coterminus with the current City
boundaries. The provision of public services outside of the CURB
line requires a vote of the Moorpark electorate to amend the
City's general plan. The proposed North Park Village project
also necessitates several other discretionary entitlements that
could be approved either by the City Council, or by the voters.
Accordingly, the City Council will have a few options in
determining what should go to the voters:
U00r 34
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 5
a. The most narrowly defined ballot measure would simply
submit a general plan amendment to the voters, extending the
CURB line to include North Park Village. Under this scenario,
the City Council would either approve all entitlements subject
to the successful General Plan amendment vote, or have the vote,
and then consider the entitlements for approval. This approach
presents certain problems in that if the General Plan amendment
language is too broad, other projects could be submitted once
the General Plan amendment is approved. It also creates a
circumstance where the entitlements approved by the Council
would be subject to referendum, effectively allowing two or more
votes on the project.
b. A second approach would be to submit to the voters all
entitlements that are subject to ordinance and /or resolution:
General Plan amendment, Zoning amendment, approval of the
Specific Plan, and approval of the Development Agreement. These
would be submitted in the form of one ordinance to be approved
by the voters. This approach has the benefit of providing the
voters with the most say in approving the project. It also
confines the amendment of the General Plan to the project at
issue — North Park Village. Further, rather than being
potentially the subject of a referendum action, the vote by
Moorpark resident registered voters would resolve approval or
denial of the project definitively — barring any problems with
the LAFCO annexation of North Park Village to Moorpark. With
this option, the Specific Plan and /or Development Agreement will
need to clearly set forth those circumstances where modification
to the project can be approved without a vote of the people.
Every project has some level of modification that becomes
necessary once design progresses and work in the field commences
— so some level of discretion for modifications will have to be
preserved to eliminate the need for voter approval of every
minor modification to the project.
C. A third approach would be submittal of some, but not all,
of the entitlements to the voters. The Council could, in its
discretion, decide to reserve to itself approval of one or more
of the discretionary entitlements, for example, the Development
Agreement. While this is certainly an option, there does not
appear to be much logic in such an approach. If the Council
wishes to control the entitlements for the project, option "a"
above would provide that control —voter approval of some, but not
all, of the entitlements would only tie the Council's hands with
regard to discretion over the entitlements.
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 6
d. The fourth approach would be a voter - initiated ballot
measure. Were the Council to decide not to submit the project to
the voters, the developer (or others) could collect signatures
to force the project to be placed on the ballot. Under that
circumstance, the developer (or others) would define the
project, and could eliminate certain aspects of land use
control, for example the Development Agreement, as part of its
project.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Considerations
Voter - initiated ballot measures do not require compliance with
CEQA procedures. Thus, option "d" above does not require an EIR
or any CEQA review for that matter. Matters placed upon the
ballot by the City Council (options "a ", "b ", or "c"'), however,
do require CEQA compliance. In the instance of this project,
the City Council will have to certify the EIR for the project,
make findings on significant effects, adopt a mitigation
monitoring or reporting program, and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for unmitigated significant impacts,
in order to place the project on the ballot.
While the Council may wish to leave a decision on this project
entirely up to the voters of the City (as described in option
"b" for example), the Council will have to determine that the
benefits of the project outweigh any unmitigated significant
impacts on the environment prior to submitting the project to
the voters for their consideration.
Deliberation Process
With the close of the public hearing on April 20, 2005, the City
Council requested an outline of project issues to assist in the
deliberation process. The following outline is recommended to
organize these issues beginning with the project plan and
including the proposed changes to the General Plan, the Specific
Plan document, the pre- zoning of the land, and the Environmental
Impact Report. Copies of the latest land use map and land use
plan are attached.
• Project Plan
➢ Overall Project Layout and Design Approach
➢ Grading
➢ Architecture
0 r0 00 fi
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 7
➢ Landscaping
➢ Phasing
➢ Public and Private Improvements /Infrastructure
➢ Residential Planning Areas (Market -Rate and Affordable
Housing)
■ Overall Project Density
■ Range of Lot Sizes
■ Affordable Housing Sites (PA -9 and PA -49)
➢ Neighborhood Commercial Center
➢ School Site
➢ Fire Station Site
➢ Parks (Public and Private)
■ Location
■ Size
➢ Lake
■ Size and Shape
■ Permitted Uses
■ Maintenance
■ Swimming Lagoon
➢ Open Space and Nature Preserve
■ Layout
■ Restrictions on Uses
➢ Trails
■ Lakefront Trail
■ Nature Preserve Trails
➢ Circulation System
■ SR -118 Interchange
■ Public and Private Streets
• General Plan Amendment
➢ Land Use and Circulation Element Text
➢ Ballot Issues (Changes that Moorpark Voters would
Decide)
• Specific Plan Document
➢ Organization of Document
➢ Development Regulations
0100037
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 8
➢ Design Guidelines
• Pre - Zoning
• Environmental Impact Report
➢ Unavoidable Significant Effects
■ Loss of Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing
Land
■ Scenic Views
■ Urbanization of "Natural" Land
■ Increased Night Lighting
■ Traffic Impacts at Spring /High Intersection
■ Traffic Impacts on SR -118 and SR -23 Freeways
■ Loss of Raptor Habitat
➢ Project Benefits Proposed in Statement of Overriding
Considerations
■ Nature Preserve and Open Space System
■ Housing
■ Local Transportation Improvements
■ Parks and Recreation Facilities
■ Fire Station
■ School Mitigation
■ New Observatory Site
➢ EIR Areas of Controversy
■ Wildlife Corridors
■ Oil Wells
■ Valley Fever
■ Construction Impacts
■ Traffic Impacts
➢ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Mitigation Wording
• Responsibility for Overseeing Mitigation
■ Timing of Mitigation Measures
■ Monitoring Action
0 00)8
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 9
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Format
A draft Development Agreement is attached to the staff report
for Agenda Item 9A. Due to the numerous issues unique to the
North Park project because of its size, the Agreement is
presented as a clean copy (not in legislative format to
illustrate the changes from the last Agreement approved by the
Council as is usually done). Sections 1 through 5, 8 through 18,
and 20 through 32 include standard language used in all of the
City's Development Agreements, with minor changes as appropriate
for this project. Sections 6 and 7 list the agreements by the
Developer (North Park Village, LP) and the City respectively.
Section 19 includes the effective term of the Agreement, which
for this project, due to its size, is recommended for thirty -
five years, or until the final market -rate house is built,
whichever comes last.
Development Fees
A Property Fee is included in the draft agreement (Item 6.19)
that would require the payment of $30,000 or 20 of the purchase
price of each house at the time of sale, whichever is greater.
This is the method staff believes would be the most dependable
method of recovering as much of the difference as possible
between property taxes that will actually be received by the
City from the project (about 3.4 percent of property taxes) and
property taxes that would be received if the project were
already within the City's municipal boundaries (about 7.4
percent of property taxes). Other fees are consistent with the
fees used in previously approved development agreements,
adjusted for inflation.
Affordable Housing
The draft Development Agreement (Section 6.11) requires the
provision of 180 affordable housing units in addition to the
1,500 market -rate units, totaling 1,680 housing units. The
applicant previously proposed 150 affordable housing units. The
180 units include ninety (90) single- family for -sale housing
units of three (3) to four (4) bedrooms and ninety (90) senior
apartment units of one (1) to two (2) bedrooms. This is above
the ten percent requirement of the City's Housing Element as the
senior apartments are smaller than what would normally be
000009
Honorable City Council
May 4, 2005
Page 10
expected from a project like this, and they are also attached
units. Should the City Council call for public hearings on the
draft Development Agreement, the notices would include language
to acknowledge the additional affordable housing units.
Ad -hoc Committee Recommendation
The City Council Ad -hoc Committee (Mayor Hunter, Mayor Pro Tem
Harper) appointed to negotiate the development agreement with
North Park Village, LP on this proposed Specific Plan project
most recently met with the applicant on April 27, 2005. The Ad-
hoc Committee and staff continue to meet with the applicant to
resolve certain points and to revise language in the agreement
as needed. Staff is recommending the referral of the
Development Agreement to the Planning Commission and the setting
of a City Council Public Hearing at a date certain in June, 2005
in Agenda Item 9A.
STAFF RECOMONDATION
1. Discuss the project and direct staff as deemed appropriate.
2. Continue the agenda item with the closed public hearing to
May 18, 2005, for further discussion.
Attachments:
1. Land Use Plan
2. Land Use Map
0000 0
Norf6 Park
Campus
G
-! (PropasedJ
NOIBe:
1. This map illustrates phasing of development and
U//
Palk Drive
,
Moorpark
infrastructure necessary to support development
within each phase. The map does not depict the
_ YL% MterChaRge
y
phasing of the conveyance of the Nature Preserve,
SR-
the phasing of which is described in the text.
-- -'
2. While the phasing plans depict the development
of the interchange as part of Phase B, the
Specific Plan prohibits the issuance of any
occupancy permits in Phase B until the interchange
is completed.
LEGEND
21 PLANNING AREA DESIGNATION
(PA NUMBER)
Land Use
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
LAKE
10.6 UNITS PER ACRE
ED 70 x 120 (LOT SIZE)
0 NATURE PRESERVE
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC
Exhibit 4
80 x 120
OPEN SPACE
SCHOOL
90 x 120
EF1 PARKS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTEF
LAND USE MAP
E] 100 x 130
INSTITUTIONAL
48
CC ATTACHMENT 1 00 01A. 1
Planning
Area
Land Use
I Designation
Land Use Description
Gross Area
(Acres)
%
Units
Density
RESIDENTIAL
PA -1
R
Single Family Residential
77.1
125
1.6
PA -2
R
Single Family Residential
100.5
162
1.6
PA -3
R
Single Family Residential
73.3
130
1.8
PA-4
R
Single Family Residential
5.4
9
1.7
PA -5
R
Single Family Residential
6.5
13
2.0
PA-6
R
Single Family Residential
5.9
11
1.9
PA -7
R
Single Family Residential
3.1
8
2.6
PA-8
R
Single Family Residential
16.4
42
2.6
PA -9
MF
Multi - Family Residential
8.5
90
10.6
PA -28
R
Single Family Residential
35.8
73
2.0
PA -29
R
Single Family Residential
20.2
46
2.3
PA -30
R
Single Family Residential
6.6
9
1.4
PA -31
R
Single Family Residential
86.4
246
2.8
PA -32
R
Single Family Residential
21.7
44
2.0
PA -33
R
Single Family Residential
45.4
111
2.4
PA -56
R
Single Family Residential
32.3
60
1.9
PA -57
R
Single Family Residential
40.1
74
1.8
PA -58
R
Single Family Residential
25.9
63
2.4
PA -59
R
Single Family Residential
66.9
111
1.7
PA -60
R
Single Family Residential
71.1
163
2.3
RESIDENTIAL TOTAL
749.1
21%
1590
______�j
CC ATTACHMENT 2
C: \Documents and Settings\DBobardt \Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files \01_K3 \1_and Use Summary Table.xls
4/18/2005
Planning
Area
Land Use
I Designation
Land Use Description
Gross Area
(Acres)
Net Area Acres
PARKS and OPEN SPACE
PA -10
P
Community Park (public)
27.3
26
PA -11
P
Nature Park (public)
4.5
PA -12
OS
Open Space
43.6
PA -13
OS
Open Space
13.3
PA -14
OS
Open Space
59.6
PA -15
OS
Open Space
4.2
PA -16
OS
Open Space
38.2
PA -17
OS
Open Space
17.5
PA -18
OS
Open Space
19.0
PA -19
OS
Open Space
4.7
PA -20
OS
Open Space
3.5
PA -27
NP
Nature Preserve
2,123.0
2,123.00
PA -34
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
2.8
PA-35
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
0.6
PA -36
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
2.9
PA -37
P
Public Park (public)
9.3
PA -38
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
0.3
PA -39
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
0.5
PA40
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
0.4
-
PA-41
OS
Open Space
2.6
PA-42
OS
Open Space
2.9
PA-43
OS
Open Space
7.5
PA-44
OS
Open Space
27.1
PA-45
OS
Open Space
11.9
PA-"
OS
Open Space
24.7
PA-47
OS
Open Space
10.7
PA-48
L
Lake
52.0
PA-48b
L
Lake Buffer
15.9
PA -54
OS
Open Space
16.7
PA -55
OS
Open Space
8.7
PA-61
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
11.8
PA-62
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
1.2
PA-63
P
Neighborhood Park (private)
0.3
PA-"
OS
Open Space
5.5
PA -65
OS
Open Space
25.4
PA-66
OS
Open Space
87.6
TOTAL PARKS & OPEN SPACE
2,687.7
76%
C:1Documents and Settings\DBobardt\Local SettingsJemporary Internet Files10LK31Land Use Summary Table.xls 4/18/2005
0a00-Ioa-
�
Planning
Area
an se
Designation
Land Use Description
rose a
(Acres)
Square Feet
OTHER
PA -21
S
School
20.5
785,240 (18.0 AC)
PA -22
p0
Day Care
0.6
6,000
PA -23
PO
Fire Station Site
1.6
65,405 (1.5 AC.)
PA -24
I
Fire Service / Helispot
2.0
PA -25
I
Water Tank Site
2.3
PA -26A
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
7.6
PA -268
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
PA -26C
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
PA-49
MU
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Center
5.0
90 units
45,000
PA -50A
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
111
PA -508
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
PA -50C
I
Water Tank Site Alternative
PA -51
I
Water Tank Site
5.8
PA -52
I
Water Tank Site
1.2
PA -53
I
Water Tank Site
6.5
PA-67
I
Observatory Site
2.0
—
--
Roads
40.7
TOTAL OTHER
107.5
3%
PROJECT TOTAL
T3,544.3
100%
C: \Documents and Settings\DBobardt \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK3 \Land Use Summary Table.xls 4/18/2005
00U u�.4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ITEM I • A •
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and
Members
Joseph Montes
May 4, 2005
City Council CC: Steven Kueny, Barry
Hogan, Dave Bobardt,
Debbie Trafenstedt
North Park Village: upcoming decisions and public participation
This memo is intended as a brief procedural roadmap with regard to the issues that will
be presented to the City Council for determination in connection with the above project. It is
also intended to provide some direction as to the scope of public participation associated with
these determinations. It is anticipated by staff that while these determinations may come to the
Council over the next few weeks, the Council will probably want to make the ultimate
determinations all at one time.
EIR/Statement of Overriding Considerations.
a. Council Determination: The Council will have to certify the EIR and
approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt required findings
and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program via resolution
as a prerequisite to placing the project on the ballot.
b. Scope of Public Participation: The Public hearing on the GPA, Zone
Change and Specific Plan has been closed, so further testimony on the
EIR/SOC in connection with that hearing is not appropriate. HOWEVER:
i. The EIR also applies to the Development Agreement, so when the DA
appears before the Council in its own public hearing, oral testimony on
the EIR/SOC would be appropriate in the context of that hearing; and
ii. I had indicated that the public can no longer provide written comments
on the EIR. This is incorrect. Under governing case law, the City
must receive written comments through the issuance of the Notice of
Determination on the EIR (after the Council's certification of the EIR).
HOWEVER, the City is not under any legal obligation to respond to
comments received after the close of the public comment period
Cases suggest that responding to the comments is a prudent practice, to
help the record in the event of legal challenge. In speaking with staff,
it is my understanding that the practice in the case of Hidden Creek
LA #4851- 8814 -8736 v1
May 4, 2005
Page 2
was for staff to continue to receive written comments, and then make
oral reports to the Council on the comments received, indicating
whether and where those comments are addressed in the EIR
document. In light of this past practice, plus the fact that the public
will have another opportunity to offer oral testimony on the EIR (the
DA public hearing) I would suggest that you continue with the same
practice you followed for Hidden Creek.
2. GPA, Zone Change, Specific Plan
a. Council Determination: SOAR requires a vote of the Moorpark electorate
on the GPA. Staff has recommended that the GPA, Zone Change, Specific
Plan and DA all be approved by the electorate'. If this is the Council's
preference, these determinations will be included in an ordinance that will be
submitted to the voters. The Council would need to approve resolutions for
the calling of the election (described below). Otherwise, the Council will
need to approve the Zone Change by Council ordinance and the Specific Plan
by Council resolution.
b. Scope of Public Participation: The Public hearing on these items has been
closed. Further public comment (written or oral) would be inappropriate. The
public will next participate when/if this matter is submitted to the voters.
3. Development Agreement
a. Council Determination: The Council will first consider the development
agreement as a regular agenda item to refer the matter to the planning
commission for public hearing. The purpose of this first look at the
development agreement is to ensure that the staff has the essence of the deal
points correct before the agreement is set for public hearing by the planning
commission. Once the planning commission has considered the matter, they
will refer it to the City Council. The Council will then consider the
Development Agreement at a public hearing. Approval of the Development
Agreement would require a Council Ordinance, unless the approval is
included in the ballot measure to be submitted to the voters, which is staff's
recommendation.
1 The specific land use entitlements proposed are: an amendment to the Land Use, Circulation, OSCAR (Open
Space, Conservation and Recreation) Elements of the General Plan, including a CURB (City Urban Restriction
Boundary) amendment; Specific Plan No. 2001 -01; Pre -zone of the property, subject to annexation and adoption of
a new chapter of the Zoning Code containing standards specifically applicable to the Specific Plan area; Pre -
Annexation Development Agreement.
LA #4851- 8814 -8736 v
May 4, 2005
Page 3
b. Scope of Public Participation: The Council must entertain any public
comment when the DA appears before the Council for referral to the planning
commission. As the public hearing will not be open at that point, the Council
should encourage anyone with substantive comments to provide those to the
PC and or City Council during the public hearings to ensure they are part of
the record for consideration of the DA. At the public hearings, as indicated,
the public may comment on anything within the scope of the DA (essentially
the entire project) as well as the EIR and SOC.
4. Election Resolutions
a. Council Determinations: As a prerequisite to calling the election on the
project, the Council will have to certify the EIR and adopt the SOC.
Assuming that is done, the Council will be asked to determine the scope of
issues to be presented to the voters (entire project, GPA only, etc.), as well as
the date of the election. There are four resolutions associated with the
election:
i. Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special
Municipal Election for the Submission of an Ordinance to the
Qualified Voters
ii. Resolution Requesting the County of Ventura Provide the Election
Services
iii. Resolution Setting Priorities for Filing a Written Argument Regarding
a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an
Impartial Analysis
iv. Resolution Providing for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for City
Measures Submitted at Municipal Elections
b. Scope of Public Participation: The calling of the election does not require a
public hearing. The resolutions would be a regular agenda item and the
Council would accept public comment as required by the Brown Act prior to
taking any action on the resolutions.
LA #4851- 8814 -8736 v1