HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 1110 CC SPC ITEM 04A%Q 19� 3
7 '
�q /e? 3
MEMORANDUM +
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Jaime Aguilera, Director of Community DevelopmentV--�
Paul Porter, Senior Planner
DATE: October 18, 1993 (CC meeting of November 10, 1993)
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT EIR,
AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO
REFLECT AMENDED LAND USES, AND AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT AMENDED LAND USE REGULATIONS OF
THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY.
Background
On October 13, 1993, the City Council opened the public hearing and
took testimony on the amendments to the Carlsberg Specific Plan and
EIR. The public hearing for this project was continued to October
27, 1993. Prior to the meeting of October 27, 1993, staff received
information that the legal notice of the City Council meeting held
on October 13, 1993, had not been published in the newspaper. As
a result, the public hearing was renoticed and the public hearing
scheduled for November 10, 1993. Per the City Attorney's
direction, a verbatim transcript of the public hearing held on
October 27, 1993 will be provided as an attachment to the staff
report to be made a part of the permanent record of the public
hearing in order to bring forward the public testimony received on
that date.
Discussion
During the Council meeting of October 13, 1993, information was
provided to the City Council indicating that the City will have
2,600 additional jobs as a result of the project build -out. Staff
has requested the applicant to provide the Council with more
specific information regarding this issue for the meeting on
October 27, 1993.
Another issue discussed by the Council was how the density of the
proposed project compares to the existing density of the property
located west of Spring Road. Staff has included information
showing the density of the existing residences west of Spring Road.
Also attached is a lot study prepared for the applicant by Ramseyer
and Associates.
PP10:18:93/10:59aM:\270CT93.cc 1
During the Council meeting of October 13, 1993, the City Council
requested a comparison summary of the acreages and number of
dwelling units of the approved Plan versus the proposed Plan. The
following is an analysis of the approved and proposed Specific
Plan:
COMPARISON OF APPROVED PROJECT VERSUS PROPOSED PROJECT
Approved Plan Amended Plan
Land Use Gross Dwellings Gross Dwellings
Acres Units Acres Units
S.F (Planning Area A) 55 55 40.0 145
S.F. (Planning Area B) 46 115 46.0 138
S.F. (Planning Area C) 15 45 32.0 160
S.F (Planning Area D) 21.5 65 37.0 109
S.F (Planning Area E) 25.0 125 0 0
Institutional 7.0 7.0
BP 25.0 0
BP/SR/C 0 27.0
Subregional Retail 39.0 43.5
and Commercial
Commercial Restaurant 2.5 2.5
Park 6.5 9.0
Open Space 237.0 221.4
Primary Roads 17.5 17.5
Totals
Acreage 497.0 482.9
Dwelling Units 405 552
In addition to these proposed changes, the applicant has also
requested a substantial reduction in required landscaping. Another
change between the two plans relates to the extent of the grading
easterly of Spring Road in the area of Planning Area D. For
example, the new proposed plan will require grading of a Type 2
ridge (ridgelines that serve tributaries within a watershed and are
PP10:18.93/10:59a=A:\27OCT93.CC 2
less visually prominent than major ridges) which is located in the
westerly portion of Planning Area D. This will result in
approximately a 30 foot cut of the ridgeline. The previous plan
did not include any earthwork on this ridge.
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTION AS RESULT OF PROJECT BUILD -OUT
Public Testimony at the City Council meeting on October 13, 1993
indicated that this project will produce approximately 2,600 new
jobs for the City. Staff requested the applicant to provide the
source for this projection for the Council's information. The
applicant indicated to staff on October 19, 1993, that these
statistics were taken from the "Carlsberg Fiscal Impact Report",
dated May 15, 1990 prepared for the Carlsberg Specific Plan. The
study was based on 60 acres of business park. These figures were
modified by the applicant to reflect additional employment with the
increased acreage as shown in the proposed plan.
PROCESS FOR CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
Prior to Certification of the EIR, the public hearing on the EIR
must be closed. After closure of the public hearing, staff will
direct the consultant to prepare all of the responses to comments
regarding the EIR and to prepare the final document for
distribution to the commenting agencies and the City Council. It
will take the consultant approximately 16 working days from the
time they are instructed to prepare the final document until it is
received by the Council and the commenting agencies.
State law states that the City Council cannot act to certify the
EIR for at least ten (10 ) calendar days after the Agencies that
commented on the EIR receive the Final EIR. The Final EIR will
include comments and responses from the Planning Commission
hearings only. Any additional comments at the City Council
hearings related specifically to the EIR will be addressed verbally
by the consultant and will be part of the final EIR. As it will
take approximately one month from the time the public hearing is
closed until the City Council will be able to take action regarding
certification of the EIR, staff recommends closing the public
hearing on November 10, 1993 City Council meeting.
Recommendations
1. Open the public hearing on the Subsequent EIR and proposed
revisions to the Carlsberg Specific Plan.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Continue the meeting to a to a date determined by the City
Council.
PP10:18:93110:59aa8:\270CT93.CC 3
Attachments:
1. Ramseyer and Associates, Inc. lot study, site vicinity zoning
map and density information.
2. Fax from applicant dated October 19, 1993.
3. "Carlsberg Fiscal Impact Report" prepared by PBR dated May 15,
1990.
4. Planning Commission Recommendations
5. Estimated Employment Calculations
6. Verbatim Transcript (to be provided under separate cover)
PP10:18:93110:59aa&:\270C293.CC 4
ATTACHMENT 1
Ramseyer & Associates, Inc.
Lot Study, Site Vicinity Zoning Map
and Density Information
■::car:! ► A-...�
OR
YYYY
rs
Lq, I
1; kA
kA to
M.
14
ATTACHMENT 2
Fax from Applicant
(Carlsberg Financial Corp.)
dated October 19, 1993
f lCl 1,?/a3 10:41 $ 213 450 5313 GHF..L_?ERG FIN. 01
`ter
CARLSBERG FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2800 28th Strut, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 450-9700 PAX (310) 450-5313
FAX PHONE NO:
FROM:
COMMEN
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE z2 L'I'll
r
T I ME
PAGES TO FOLLOWS:+
Summary 3
" RLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
f ecurring Revenues and Ex
Annual Revenues:
Property Tax
Sales and Use Tax
Franchise Tax
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
Miscellaneous Revenues
TDA Article 8A
Total Annual Revenues
Annual Expenses:
Table 1
ses W- General. Fund
Police Safety
General Government
Community Development --Planning
Community Development -Building & Safety
Community Services
Parks Maintenance & Improvement
Recreation
Community Center
Streets Main. & Improv.--Traffic Safety
Streets Main. & Improv.--Street Improv.
Total Annual Expenses
Annual Surplus (Deficit)
$145,187
540,334
22,290
58,419
19,085
50,781
$836,097
$153,800
119,881
31,613
23,497
6,472
1,853
6,461
6,755
4,283
131,312
$485,928
$350,168
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC FLAN Table 7
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Estimated Emoloment Calculations
Total
Area
Bldg
Per
Area
Employee Estimated
Land Use (S.F.)
(S.F.) Employment
Business Park 341,075 300 1,137
Sub Regional Commercial 326,700 350 933
Neighborhood Commercial 68,607 350 196
Neighborhood Office 96,050 325 296
TOTAL 832,432 2,562
Source: Economic Development Handbook
ATTACHMENT 3
Carlsberg
Fiscal Impact Report
City of Moorpark
May 15, 1990
DRAFT
CARLSBERG
Fiscal Impact Report
City of Moorpark
May 15, 1990
I
I
i
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT ON
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Contents
1.0 SUMMARY
1
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Statement of Limiting Conditions
1
1.3 Report Organization
1
1.4 Net Fiscal Impact
2
1.5 Analytical Methodology
4
1.6 Report Assumptions
4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6
2.1 Location
6
2.2 Development Program
6
2.3 Phasing
11
3.0 ANNUAL REVENUES
13
3.1 Results
13
3.2 Revenue Estimates
14
4.0 ANNUAL EXPENSES 19
4.1 Results 19
4.2 Expense Estimates 20
5.0 SELF-SUPPORTING SERVICES 23
APPENDIX A-1
I
II
List of Tables
Table No. Page No.
1 Recurring Revenues and Expenses - General Fund 3
2 Proposed Development Program 7
3 Annual Recurring Revenues - General Fund 14
4 Estimated Development Value 15
5 Projected Sales Tax Revenue 17
6 Annual Recurring Expenses - General Fund 19
7 Estimated Employment Calculations 27
8 Sales Taxes Generated from New Residents 28
9 Recurring Revenues - Per Capita Multiplier Method 29
10 Recurring Expenses - Per Capita Multiplier Method 30
iii
' List of Exhibits
Exhibit No. Page No.
' 1 Regional Location 8
2 Vicinity Map 9
3 Land Use Plan 10
4 Grading Phasing 12
I
Prepared for:
City of Moorpark
Prepared by:
PBR
Financial Services Division
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, California 92714
(714) 261-8820
FISCAL IMPACT REPORT ON
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
IMay, 1990
Summary I
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This report projects the fiscal impacts to the City of Moorpark at buildout of the
Carlsberg Specific Plan. This 497 acre mixed use project provides for residential,
business park, and commercial uses. It is located in the west portion of the City near
the intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and the Moorpark Freeway.
The project's fiscal impacts involve both the expenses incurred by the local jurisdiction
in providing services to the project, and the revenues generated by the project to the
General Fund. The report identifies the annual recurring revenues and expenses
occurring to the city's General Fund at buildout of under the provisions of the Carlsberg
Specific Plan. The recurring revenues analyzed include property taxes, sales tax, business
license taxes, and other major sources of revenue. The recurring costs analyzed and
projected include police services, public works operations and maintenance, and general
government administrative overhead.
The analysis has been prepared using the Per Capita Multiplier Method and the Case
Study Method as defined in the Appendix. The Per Capita Multiplier Method is an
average costing technique, while the Case Study approach determines the marginal cost
associated with new development.
1.2 Statement of Limiting Conditions
PBR has prepared this report based on information supplied by City staff, including the
FY 1989-1990 City Budget. In addition, PBR prepared a market study which, in part,
served as a basis for the inclusion of certain land uses in the Specific Plan. Based on
its own independent judgment, the City has included some land uses not included in
PBR's market report.
1.3 Report Organization
This report is presented in 5 sections and a technical appendix. Following this section,
Section 2 provides a brief description of the project area and proposed land uses.
Sections 3 and 4 describe the analysis of annual city revenues and expenses related to
the project and their fiscal impacts on the City of Moorpark General Fund upon buildout
of the project. Section 5 describes one-time development -oriented fees associated with
the project.
The technical appendix includes a number of tables and background information
supporting how the projections were calculated.
Summary 2
1.4 Net Fiscal Impact - General Fund
The project is estimated to have a positive fiscal impact on the city's General Fund
operating budget at project buildout.
o The analysis projects a positive impact to the city's annual budget. At buildout,
the project will generate approximately $349,144 annually to the city's General
Fund.
o The analysis projects the city to receive $835,072 in gross revenues and to have
operating expenses of $485,928.
Table 1 on the following page summarizes the annual fiscal impact of the project to the
city upon project buildout. A more detailed presentation of the analysis is presented in
Sections 3 and 4.
I
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Recurring Revenues and
Annual Revenues:
Property Tax
Sales and Use Tax
Franchise Tax
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
Miscellaneous Revenues
TDA Article 8A
Total Annual Revenues
Annual Expenses:
Summary 3
Table 1
nses - General Fund
Police Safety
General Government
Community Development -Planning
Community Development -Building & Safety
Community Services
Parks Maintenance & Improvement
Recreation
Community Center
Streets Main. & Improv.-Traffic Safety
Streets Main. & Impro,,.-Street Improv.
Total Annual Expenses
Annual Surplus (Deficit)
$144,163
540,334
22,290
58,419
19,085
50,781
$835,072
$153,800
119,881
31,613
23,497
6,472
1,853
6,461
6,755
4,283
131,312
$485,928
$349 9144
I
Summary 4
1.5 Analytical Methodology
This study uses the following information sources for the projection of the city's costs
and revenues:
o Property tax information from the Ventura County Assessor's Office and tax
allocation factors from the city's Finance Department.
o Market data regarding land acquisition costs, development costs, and
projected building valuation provided by PBR, Marshall and Swift Valuation
Services, and the Ventura County Assessor's Office.
o Information on existing, developed land uses within the city provided by
the city's Community Development staff. As of 1990 the existing land use
is distributed as follows:
Residential - 1,789.8 acres
Commercial - 66.0 acres
Industrial - 339.2 acres
o Taxable sales data associated with the support commercial uses from
Dollars & Cents of Sho ing Centers, 1987. Values were inflated to 1990
dollars using an annual inflation factor of five percent.
o Taxable sales data associated with the non -retail or industrial uses from
the State Board of Equalization. Values were inflated to 1990 dollars.
o Revenue and cost estimates and unit cost factors derived from the City of
Moorpark's 1989-90 Annual Budget and from interviews with key city staff.
1.6 Report Assumptions
The analysis of revenues and costs associated with the Carlsberg Specific Plan is based
on the following major assumptions:
o All analyses have been prepared assuming buildout of the project area
within four years. Revenues and costs are presented in constant 1990
dollars with no adjustment for future inflation of either revenues or
expenses.
Summary S
o After project buildout, it is assumed that the projected levels of recurring
revenues and costs would continue, if the major land use, market, and
fiscal, assumptions remain valid.
o The level of government services to be provided to the project will be
equal to those currently provided by the city.
o Projected annual surpluses and deficits are included in a cumulative total.
However, no adjustment is made for interest earnings or municipal
borrowing from one period to the next.
o Projection is based on years ending December 31.
IProject Description 6
1 2.0 DESCRIPTION
PROJECT N
J O
M2.1 Location
The Carlsberg Specific Plan area is a 497-acre landholding situated in southeastern
Ventura County within the City of Moorpark (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The City of
Moorpark is located approximately 20 miles northwest of Los Angeles and 25 miles east
of the City of Ventura.
2.2 Development Program
I The development program assumptions including land uses, density, and project phasing
are in accordance with the Carlsberg Specific Plan and additional project information
I made available by the project proponent. The Land Use Plan (Exhibit 3) identifies the
location of the residential, business park, and commercial uses. The major intended uses
within each of these industrial land use subcategories are described below and in Table
2.
o Residential - Three detached products are included. These are 5,000 s.f., 9,000
s.f., and 1 acre lots. The projected sales price for the housing to be constructed
on these lots is $255,000, $350,000, and $500,000 per unit respectively. The
Specific Plan also provides for 12.6 acres of multi -family housing at a density of
15 d.u.'s per acre. A total of 363 detached units are permitted while multi -family
is permitted 189 units.
o Business Park - This designation permits a variety of office, light manufacturing
and service uses. For purposes of this analysis we have assumed that the 17.4
acres of business park use are exclusively manufacturing. Based on an FAR of
.45, the allowable building square footage in the business park is 341,075 s.f.
o Sub Regional Commercial - This 30 acre site will accommodate a 3.26,700 s.f.
community level shopping center.
o Neighborhood Commercial and Office - This 12.6 acres will accommodate 139,657
s.f. of neighborhood serving retail and service uses.
Project Description 7
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Table 2
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Proposed Development Proeram
Total
Square
Gross F.A.R./ Footage/
Land Use Type Acres Density;: Units
Single Family - 1 Acre
55.0
I 0
55
Single Family - 9,000 sf
64.1
Single Family - 5,000 sf
43.1
3.
z67
Multi Family
12.6
I' 0
189
Business Park.
17.4
0.45.
341,075
Sub Regional. C-,.imercial
30.0
0.25
326,700
Neighborhood Commercial
6.3
0.25
43,607
Neighborhood Office
6.3
0.35
96,050
Totals 234.8 807,432 s.f.
552 units
` CASTAIC DUCE
'-- PROPOSED
00 ON
� •• SM SAn FERNA MW
_-� y�y FAY 118
� 11 a SIMI VALLEY
VPMJRA FWY.
CAMARILLO
MOORPARK
�
THOUSAND
OAKS
RlC MOORPAFWY.
,a '
___
OPT HWY.
?Pow C
E--Gr,ElOfv
RAL LOCATIOfV
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLA
CITY • MOORPARK
EXHIBIT 1
SITE
S'00,10
SPAR
`'
SAGA RSA
RO.
VmN11 U u MAP
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF MOORPARK
StO-SAN FERNAtDO
VALLEY F W Y.
lqe�� .. �\
EXHIBIT 2
O N
r r
N N T Q
N
��QDDDQDQQQQ
Cl)
FM-
W
0
z
Q
_J
a
U
LL
U
W
�a
0
C�
Y
MW p,
WQ
O
�J�
U�
Project Description 11
2.3 Phasing
The project phasing schedule is based on an anticipated four year development program.
Land acquisition and limited site development is planned prior to 1991. The first phase
of construction is assumed to begin in 1991 and completed by 1993. Phase two of
construction is anticipated to begin in 1992 and completed by 1993. Phase three is
scheduled to begin construction by 1992 and to be completed by 1994. The Grading
Phasing Plan (Exhibit 4) depicts the proposed phasing areas of the Carlsberg Specific
Plan.
0
Z
d'
F-
LU
n - N M
W W
W
IIC/.17
W
O
Q Q Q
d a a a
JI
Annual Revenues 13
3.0 ANNUAL REVENUES
3.1 Results
The analysis projects that the city will receive a total of $835,072 in annual revenues
upon project buildout. Table 3 details the annual revenues expected to accrue to the
city after the three-year buildout period. Information and estimates that form the basis
for this projection are presented in the following sections.
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Table 3
Annual Recurring Revenues - General Fund
Property Tax
$144,163
Sales and Use Tax
540,334
Franchise Tax
22,�90
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
58,419
Miscellaneous Revenues
19,085
TDA Article 8A
50,781
ANNUAL REVENUES $835,072
■
Annual Revenues 14
3.2 Revenue Estimates
The General Fund finances the majority of ongoing governmental operations that are
not funded in restricted revenue funds. Based upon current tax assessment records, for
every $1.00 of property taxes collected, the city of Moorpark receives approximately
.0788 cents for the city General Fund. Detailed below are the estimates of the major
revenue sources of the General Fund by class of revenue.
o Property Taxes - Secured -- Secured property tax estimates are based upon
average tax rates for the governmental jurisdiction in which the project is
located. The land encompassed by the project occupies Tax Rate Area
(TRA) 10-058. The property tax assessment is based on the value of land
and improvements. The total assessed value costs is estimated at
$182,947,610 (see Table 4). Based on a tax rate of .0788 percent of one
percent, property taxes to the city's General Fund are estimated at $144,163
annually for the total project (see Table 3).
1
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Estimated DevelODment Value
Land Use
Single Family - 1 Acre
Single Family - 9,000 sf
Single Family - 5,000 sf
Multi Family
Business Park
Sub Regional Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Neighborhood Office
Total
Sq. Ft./
341,075
326,700
43,607
96,050
TOTAL 8079432 s.f.
'SS2 units
* Includes land value.
Valuation *
per
i. Ft./
$500,000
350,000
79,73b '.
................................::
62
74
54
59
Annual Revenues 15
Table 4
Total
Estimated
Valuation
$27,500,000 .
49,350,000
37,575,000
15,070,064
219219,552
249248,714
2,340,478
5,643,802
$182,947,610
Annual Revenues 16
o Sales and Use Tax -- Sales and use tax is calculated based on estimates
of the amount of taxable retail sales generated by the retail/commercial
and industrial components of the project. The estimate of taxable sales
generated by the retail uses in the project is based on an estimated taxable
sales per square foot. The data for taxable sales is obtained from Urban
Land Institutes's Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers: 1987, which
includes sales tax information for a variety of retail, restaurant uses, etc.
Sales tax is collected at the rate of 6 percent within the city, of which one
percent is returned to the local jurisdiction in which the sale occurred.
The project generates sales and use tax revenues from retail uses of
$50,605,816 per year upon buildout. In addition, the Carlsberg Specific
Plan will also generate another $3,427,625 in resident spending based on
the addition of 1,871 new residents (see Appendix, Table 8).
The calculation of taxable sales for the industrial uses on the project site
is based on figures from the State Board of Equalization for the County of
Ventura. Non -retail uses generated $180,550 in taxable sales within the city
in 1988, the last full year for which figures are published by the State
Board of Equalization. This amount is 2.3 percent of total taxable sales.
This percentage was applied to the city's 1990 budgeted amount for sales
tax revenue. The estimate of taxable sales attributable to the project is
based on a per acre factor for all such uses within the city. According to
the Community Development Department, current developed acreage
allocated to non -retail and non-residential uses totals 17.4 acres, which
calculates into $51,376 per acre or $2.62 per square foot (GLA) in taxable
sales. The Carlsberg Specific Plan is estimated to generate annual sales tax
revenue of $540,334 to the City of Moorpark upon buildout. Table 5
presents the calculation of estimated taxable sales for all project uses.
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Projected Sales Tax Revenue
Annual Revenues 17
Table 5
Total Area
Annual
Generating
Taxable Total
Sales Tax
Sales Sales
Land Use (S.F.)
per S.F. Revenue
Business Park
Sub Regional Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Retail Generated Revenues
Revenues Generated by
New Carlsberg Residents.
TOTAL SALES REVENUE
Moorpark Sales Tax Revenue Q 1 %
341,075 $2.62
326,700 $124.00
43.607 * $211.00
711,382
* Actual sf. is 68,607. 25,000 sf. has been removed from the total
to account for the non-taxable sales of the proposed grocery store.
** See appendix, Table 8.
Source: Urban Land Institute, "Dollars and Cents of Shopping Center": 1987
$893,939
40, 510, 800
9,201,077
$50,605,816
$35,427,625 **
$54,033,441
$540,334
Annual Revenues 18
o Franchise Tax - The calculation of these revenues is based on the
assumption that such revenues will increase in proportion to the amount
of developed acreage in the city. Currently there are 2,195 acres of
developed land excluding streets. Development of Carlsberg Specific Plan
represents an 11 percent increase in developed land. Therefore, revenues
from these sources are estimated to increase by the same percentage
or approximately $22,290 annually (see appendix, Table 9).
o Motor Vehicle in Lieu - The calculation of these revenues is based on the
assumption that such revenues will increase in proportion to the amount
of population within the city., Currently there are approximately 27,200
residents is Moorpark which reflect a per capita tax amount of $31.22.
Based on the population generation projections of the Carlsberg Specific
Plan, the estimated additional annual revenue accruing to the city's general
fund at buildout will be $58,419.
o Article 8A - The city receives 1/4 cent per dollar of State collected sales
and use tax. This amount is allocated to cities and counties on a per capita
basis. The revenue received by the city is designated for street repairs and
maintenance.
Annual Expenses 19
4.0 ANNUAL EXPENSES
4.1 Results
The analysis projects the project to generate a total of $485,928 in annual expenses to
the city upon project buildout. Table 6 details annual expenses by city department.
Information and estimates that form the basis for these projection are presented on
subsequent pages.
CARI.SBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Table 6
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Annual Recurring Expenses - General Fund
Police Safety
$153 800
General Government
119,881
Community Development -Planning
31,613
Community Development -Building & Safety
23,497
Community Services
6 472
Parks Maintenance & Improvement
1,853
Recreation
6,461
Community Center
61,755
Streets Main. & Improv.-Traffic Safety
41283
Streets Main. & Improv.-Street Improv.
131,312
ANNUAL EXPENSES $485,928
Annual Expenses 20
4.2 Expense Estimates
Total operating expenses for the City of Moorpark as determined by the city's 1989-90
Annual Budget are estimated at $1,356 per acre of incorporated territory. The projected
expenditures by department which are attributable to the Carlsberg Specific Plan are
analyzed below.
The 'Per Capita Multiplier" or average costing approach is used to evaluate the project
impacts on all the city departments. Department operating expenses are divided into the
number of acres within the city to determine an average cost per acre. The project's
impact is based on the assumption that department expenses attributable to the project
will be in proportion to the current cost per acre associated with each department's
operations and services (see appendix, Table 10).
o General Government - For the purposes of this analysis the following depart-
ments have been combined and treated as general government overhead expenses:
City Council
City Manager
City Clerk
City Attorney
City Treasure
Finance Department
Administrative Services
Based on the projected expenses associated with these departments for fiscal year
1989-90, approximately $484.57 per city acre was spent for citywide overhead and
general government expenses. General Government expenditures include salaries,
benefits, maintenance, and operation capital. General Government overhead
expenditures associated with this project are estimated at $119,881 annually.
o Fire Protection - Fire protection service are provided to the city by the County
of Ventura. Revenue to fund these services is derived from a separate property
tax levy. As such, it has no impact on city revenues or expenses and has not
been included in this analysis.
Annual Expenses 21
o Public Safety - The City of Moorpark currently operates their Police Department
under an officer/population ratio of 1/1000. Given the additional population the
Carlsberg Specific Plan would generate (approximately 1,871 residents), Lieutenant
Richard Rodriguez of the Moorpark Police Department, anticipates the project
would require an increase in policing staffing of approximately 1.8 officers in order
to meet the current service ratio. The city's anticipated 1990-91 staffing cost will
be $76,000 per officer annually. The cost of purchasing and equipping an
additional patrol vehicle will be approximately $17,000. Based on the case study
method, the estimated annual expense as it relates to the Carlsberg Specific Plan
totals $153,800.
o Community Development - The city's Community Development Department is
responsible for processing all applications for new developments within the city
and provides planning and code enforcement services to assure code compliance.
The department is broken down into two departments; Planning and Building and
Safety. The 1989-90 budgets for each department equalled $280,481 and $208,475
or $127.78 and $94.98 respectively, per development acre. Based on the average
costing method, the estimated annual expenses related to the Carlsberg Specific
Plan total $31,613 and $23,497 respectively.
o Park Maintenance and Improvements - The Parks Department is responsible for
maintaining the grounds and facilities of the city's parks. The department is also
responsible for planning new parks. The 1989-90 budget for the department
equalled $18,975 o, °10.60 per residential acre. Based on the average costing
method, the estimat; d a-;,..,ual expense related to the Carlsberg Specific Plan totals
$1,853.
o Community Center - The Community Center Department is responsible for
maintaining the Community Center for public meeting and private rentals. A fee
is charged for private use of the Community Center. The 1989-90 budget for the
department, less rental revenue, equalled $59,935 or $27.31 per developed acre.
Based on the average costing method, the estimated annual expense related to the
Carlsberg Specific Plan totals $6,755.
o Streets Maintenance and Improvements - The Streets Department is responsible
for maintaining all city streets. The department is broken down into two
departments, Traffic Safety and Streets Improvements. The 1989-90 budgets for
each department -squalled $38,000 and $1,231,048 or $17.31 per developed acre
and $10,258 per curb mile respectively. Based on the average costing method, the
estimated annual expenses related to the Carlsberg Specific Plan totals $4,283 and
$131,312.
Annual Expenses 22
o Community Service - The Community Service Department serves as the ad-
ministrative arm for the following departments: parks, recreation, street
maintenance, community center, crossing guards, and landscape maintenance.
The 1898-90 budget for the department equalled $57,423 or $26.16 per developed
acre. Based on the average costing method, the estimated annual expense related
to the Carlsberg Specific Plan totals $6,472.
Self -Supporting Services 23
5.0 SELF-SUPPORTING SERVICES
There are a variety of development -oriented, one-time fees generated by the project.
It is assumed the fees are set to fully recover the cost of providing related services. As
such, they have no fiscal impact on the City. Examples of one-time fees include:
specific plan processing fees
subdivision map fees
plan check fees
building permit fees
mechanical permit fees
electrical permit fees
plumbing permit fees
fire inspection fees
Appendix A-1
APPENDIX A-1
LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS CONTACTED
City of Moorpark
Planning Christopher Thomas
Administrative Services Larry Ehrheart
Finance Carol Coney
Police Department
Fire Department
Bill Meyrahan
Allen Wapner
Debbie Alcorn
Appendix A-2
APPENDIX A-2
EXPLANATION OF ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
PBR Real Estate Financial Services uses two analytical methodologies in the preparation
of Fiscal Impact Reports (FIRs). These are the "Case Study" and 'Per Capita Multiplier"
Methods. Each of these is described below.
CASE STUDY
The Case Study Method is intended to serve as a form of marginal cost analysis. It is
based primarily upon service standards that establish service levels for given units of
measurement (i.e., open space per 1,000 population, police officers per 1,000 population,
etc.). Property taxes and sales and use tax were analyzed using the Case Study Method.
PER CAPITA MULTIPLIER
The 'Per Capita Multiplier" Method of fiscal analysis is an average costing technique
that estimates the operating budget impacts of new development. Specified governmental
operating revenues and expenses are calculated as per capita or per acre amounts.
These figures are derived from estimated revenues and expenses for FY 1989-90.
The Per Capita Multiplier Method assumes that current service levels and their respective
revenue -expense relationships will remain constant throughout the projection period.
Ile, ise, this method allocates revenues and expenses irrespective of the marginal
revca;ues and expenses generated by the specific development under review.
Appendix A-3
APPENDIX A-3
TABLES
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Table 7
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Estimated Employment Calculations
Total
Area
Bldg
Per
Area
Employee Estimated
Land Use (S.F.)
(S.F.) Employment
Business Park
341,075
300
1,137
Sub Regional Commercial
326,700
350
933
Neighborhood Commercial
43,607
350
125
Neighborhood Office
96,050
325
296
TOTAL
8073,432
21,490
Source: Economic Development Handbook
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Sales Taxes Generated from New Residents
Table 8
Average
Total Household
Total
Residential Unit Type Units Income
Income
Single Family - 1 Acre 55 $166,667 *
$9,166,667
Single Family - 9,000 sf 141 116,667 *
16,450,000
Single Family - 5,000 sf 167 75,000 *
12,525,000
Multi Family 189 40,000 **
7,560,000
TOTALS 552
$45,701,667 A
Carlsberg Residents' Spending Assumptions
60% of total income (A) used as disposable income:
$27,421,000 B
50% of disposable income (B) spent on taxable items:
13,710,500 C
50% of taxable dirpos „ble income (C) is spent in Moorpark:
6,855,250 D
50% of Moorpark spending (D) is spent outside proposed dev.:
$3,427,625
* Based on 1/3 of purchaes price.
** Based on average household income for the City of Moorpark.
C!'uTILSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Table 9
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Recurring Revenues - Per Capita Multiplier Method
Revenue Item
1989-90 Per Unit
Budget Amount
Esimated
General
Fund
Revenue
Franchise Tax
$1973,760
$90.10
per dev. acre
$22,290
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
849,150
31.22
per capita
58,419
Miscellaneous Revenues
2772411
10.20
per capita
19,085
TDA Article 8A
738,134
27.14
per capita
50,781
O
U
co
H
L=+
>
)
cM
t--
N
N
dam'
M
OHO
—
ct
W)
tn
M
N
N_
M
M
b4
U4
�
.o
sy
CIO
aaaaaaa
•�
o
t—
tn
4t-
0000
r-
01
4�
N
o�--�.-�rn
�
ON
M
M
tn
a<
�
(V
N
O
w
to
M
O
d
CN
00
[�
oc
�6
C
06
.--�
00
N
W)
.-�
110
W)
M
O
NO
N
64
as
0
E
4'
.�
a
0
0
Cl.
0
a
0
°�
a
c.
U
[
�QQrn
U
V
►0
-
C
C
Q
O
C
a�
.c
E
E
a
E
' ;
Z
o
0
0
w
E
a
�.
�.
W
C7
V
V
V
a.
�
V
v�
v�
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Environmental Impact Report be certified as
being complete and adequate.
2. That a 100-foot buffer be established from the seasonal
pool high water mark, that the seasonal pool be fenced
with wrought iron with an appropriate access gate, that
other appropriate provisions of the Rare Plant Management
Plan (ie., including but not limited to implementation of
the dual drainage system) be incorporated to ensure the
continued protection of the sensitive plants that occur
in or near the pond, and that the pond and site drainage
be maintained and managed by the homeowner's association
or other entity as approved by the City Council.
3. That within 30 days after excavation, all borrow sites
shall be hydroseeded, contour graded and irrigated with
a temporary above ground system until such time that the
vegetation is well established, and that the borrow site
be graded in such a manner as to minimize use of
rectilinear forms.
4. That bike and hiking trails shall be shown on the
Specific Plan.
5. That the City Council consider utilizing a portion of the
BP (Business Park) designation be utilized for multi-
family housing units.
6. That the City Council consider utilizing the I
(Institutional) land use designation for senior housing.
7. That homes along the perimeter of housing area D which
parallel Spring Road be limited to one-story structures
to reduce visual impacts. Two story homes may be allowed
if the rear setback is increased to a point where the two
story house will exhibit the same profile as the one
story house as seen from Spring Rd. The caveat to this
condition is that the amount of grading of the Spring Rd.
slope may not be increased in order to accomplish the
larger rear setback.
8. The 552 dwelling units requested by the applicant be
approved, and that an additional 15 units be approved as
moderate income homes in order to encourage a diversity
of housing unit types to provide for the diverse needs of
the community. The developer agreement shall be used as
the tool to implement the details of the housing
assistance program and attachment "A" may be utilized as
a guide for the assistance program.
ATTACHMENT 4
PP11:01:93112:11pM.\13C.REC
CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN Table 7
Annual Fiscal Impact at Buildout
Estimated Employment Calculations
Total Area
Bldg Per
Area Employee Estimated
Land Use (S.F.) (S.F.) Employment
Business Park
341,075
300
1,137
Sub Regional Commercial
326,700
350
933
Neighborhood Commercial
43,607
350
125
Neighborhood Office
96,050
325
296
TOTAL
807,432
2,490
Source: Economic Development Handbook
ATTACHMENT 6
Verbatim Account of Carlsberg Public Hearing of Moorpark City
Council Meeting of October 13, 1993:
***********************************************************
TAPE 1 (SIDE B)
Mayor Lawrason convened a special meeting for a public hearing on
ITEM 9A, CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CARLSBERG SPECIFIC PLAN
AND DRAFT EIR, AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN TO REFLECT AMENDED LAND USES, AND AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE AMENDED LAND USE REGULATIONS UNDER
THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. Staff.
JIM AGUILERA: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. As
you know, on October 24, 1990 the City Council approved the
Carlsberg Specific Plan. The Carlsberg Corporation on June 5, 1992
submitted a request to amend that approved Specific Plan. And the
City then began preparation of a supplemental EIR for consideration
of the proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
originally was approved for 405 units. The proposed Amendment to
the Specific Plan proposes an increase of the number of building
units to 552. And it also includes an increase in the area for
commercial businesses and more subliminally, it includes a
reduction in the landscaping at approximately a cost savings to the
applicant of $2 million in landscaping costs.
The Planning Commission did hold several public meetings. And on
June 20th, recommended approval of the Carlsberg Specific Plan to
the City Council. The recommendation of the Planning Commission
included several items which it wished the City Council to
consider. The first of which was that they found the EIR to be
complete and they recommend the City Council certify the EIR as
being complete.
The Planning Commission also dealt with the issue of the buffer
around what was discovered to be a vernal pool on the side
containing a species of endangered grass. Condition No. 2
indicates a 100 foot buffer which is different from the
recommendation of the Department of Fish & Game, but which staff
and the Planning Commission feel is adequate to protect that site.
Recommendation three from the Planning Commission was that within
thirty days after excavation, all barrow sites be hydroseeded,
contour graded and irrigated and that the grading of the barrow
sites minimize where the layer forms.
Recommendation number four was that the applicant add bike and
hiking trails to the plan.
Recommendation five regarding the business park area was that the
Council consider removing some of the business designation and
1
instead replace it with a multi -family designation.
Recommendation six was also that the Council consider using the
institutionally zoned area for senior housing -type of zoning.
Recommendation seven was that the permitted homes along the
perimeter of Area D, which would face Spring Road, be maintained at
a level not visible from Spring Road, other than the rooflines.
Recommendation eight was that in addition to the 552 dwelling units
that an additional 15 dwelling units be allowed from the applicant
for the purpose of creating moderate income housing at a cost to be
borne by the applicant and the specific conditions of that process
to be created during the Development Agreement portion of the
applicant's application.
The recommendation tonight is that the Council open the public
hearing, accept public testimony regarding the draft EIR and the
proposed revisions to the Carlsberg Specific Plan, and that at the
end of the meeting, the Council continue with their regular meeting
of October 20th. That is the end of the recommendations.
JIM AGUILERA: Mr. Mayor, we do have a short presentation of the
environmental issues by Mr. Eric Sackowitz. Mr. Sackowitz.
ERIC SACKOWITZ: Thank you Mr. Aguilera. My name is Eric
Sackowtiz. I represent Impact Sciences, 501 Marin Street, Thousand
Oaks, California. As you are aware and as Mr. Aguilera has
identified a number of environmental topics were addressed as part
of the draft EIR that was prepared for this project. And they
included issues associated with topography, hydrology, biology,
traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, land use and housing.
A number of issues were addressed within each of these topics. For
example, the issues of topography dealt with ridgelines,
development within areas of 20 percent slope, and typical of that
particular topic, a number of issues were addressed for each of the
environmental topics that were identified. What is most important
in the range of topics addressed in the EIR, is that mitigation
measures were identified that reduce the impacts identified in the
EIR to levels of insignificance.
Again, as Mr. Aguilera has identified, the draft EIR was subject to
substantial scrutiny by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission concluded that the draft EIR in combination with our
verbal testimony at the variety of hearings we attended, did
provide the information necessary to make an adequate and complete
assessment of the impacts associated with the proposed project and
to make an informed recommendation on the project to the City
Council.
Should you have any questions regarding the EIR, its content, I'm
here to answer them. That concludes my presentation.
2
Mayor Lawrason: Are there any questions for the staff? Hearing
none. This is a public hearing, and I will open the public hearing
at this time.
L. HARE: We have a speaker card from the applicant, Mr.
Tankersley, and twelve others.
MAYOR LAWRASON: Mr. Tankersley, why don't you proceed.
RON TANKERSLEY, CARLSBERG: My name is Ron Tankersley, 2800 28th
Street, Suite 200, Santa Monica, California, representing the
applicant, The Carlsberg Financial Corporation.
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, Staff, and residents of
Moorpark: Tonight I'd like to focus your attention on several
matters related to the proposed Amendment. I will try to be as
succinct and to the point as I can to allow the members of the
public time to speak as we have a number of them here tonight.
I wonder if I could ask staff to put up the land use exhibit,
please. And while he is doing that . . . .
In the Amendment of the issue to the project, I would remind
Council that the decision to amend this project was primarily
prompted by the applicant's determination that the original plan in
this configuration as approved, for various reasons, was not
financially feasible. Specifically the southern ownership of the
property, 300 acres, lacks sufficient land use to permit absorption
of the related conditions for off -site and on tract improvements.
So in the Amendment, we are attempting to address that by
increasing the residential density. Secondarily, and also as a
part of the cost analysis, it was determined that we should address
the landscape plan in order to try to achieve a more cost-
effective, and what we felt would be a more compatible landscape
element, taking into consideration the rural setting and the
significant amount of open space associated with this project.
Thereby using landscape techniques that would integrate the open
space into the landscape plan in a more appropriate manner than we
felt was addressed through the first landscape plans. And through
that, not losing sight of the fact that we always have to be
cognizant of drought tolerance and water use for landscaping. That
was also a goal we were trying to incorporate into this plan.
Secondarily, we wanted to address the issue of phasing the plan to
reflect what we feel is today's market. The goal there was to
allow the various elements of the plan, mainly the residential
and/or the business element of the plan, to proceed either
concurrently or independently as the market would dictate. And
develop the associated conditions with respect to off -site
improvements to go along with that phasing plan. And we also
wanted to, as a result of subsequent information, allow for the
3
possibility of acquiring existing right-of-way that Caltrans owns
at the corner of Los Angeles Avenue and the 23 Freeway. And,
finally, we wanted to also establish some regional, commercial
overlay zoning which would allow some regional commercial uses on
the BP designated portion of the plan. We felt that that . . and
the attendance environmental issues we described to you -- noise
and air quality -- had to be addressed. As it had in our
estimation become obscured. Or some reasonable wording -- that a
commercial project at this location; the project would necessarily
have to be large enough to attract a regional type user; therefore,
that was the reason for the BP SRC/C Commercial Overaly.
We went back -- as background, I would like to acquaint you briefly
with the statistical summary. Jim did mention it. From a no loss
standpoint, the FRCB (Free Commercial Business) uses are increasing
from an area of 66.5 acres to approximately 73 acres. The
residential single family detached densities would increase from
405 units to 552 units. The overall open space and park area,
previously 243 1/2 acres would be 230.4 acres of the revised
planning area. This still represents approximately 48 percent of
the overall specific plan area. And finally, deleting from the
planning area 20.6 acres to reflect the middle school acquisition,
subsequent to the original specific plan approval.
In arriving at the land use configurations that you will see
tonight, we should mention the constraints that we felt were
inherent in the design of this project. Mainly recognizing the
sensitivity of the project to the residents along Spring, we
imposed a self -constraint, meaning that we would require a minimum
of three hundred foot buffer between Spring and any development
along Spring, relative to Planning Areas D and B, those residential
areas.
s
Finally, as it relates to the environmental issues that came up
here during the EIR review, Area C is limited. And development on
the east side by a riparian corridor, which allowed us only to
increase the size of that area to 32 acres. We did discover in the
midst of the environmental review, in addition to the known
community of Onychia (NOT SURE THIS IS SPELLED CORRECTLY????), the
rare grass, California Orcutt grass and accordingly we had to
provide an additional open space area to preserve that vegetation
and buffer the surrounding and by a natural buffer
surrounding that area.
And finally, in general terms, while not listed as an endangered
species, we became aware that there is concern about Coastal Sage
and Cactus habitat which grows primarily on the west and south
facing slopes. And accordingly we took that into consideration in
our design and did provide for restoration of any that had
vegetation, it would be removed from the developed areas so as to
achieve a net/net or no loss situation with respect to that native
habitat.
I would like to touch briefly now on the residential portions of
the land use element. These are the more sensitive elements of
this plan, based on the past public hearings and meetings before
Council, and the original specific Plan.
I would like to ask Paul Porter to put on the screen Planning Area
A. I will additionally cover each of the four residential planning
areas and give you some of the highlights of the statistics.
If you look close at identifying Area A -- you can refer to your
handouts and/or the land use data here -- it is the planning area,
residential area in the southeast quadrant of the project. It was
provisionally 55 acres in area, having been reduced to 40 acres due
to the sensitive habitat in Area A. The current plan calls for 3.7
density units per acre. That compares to an overall density of 55
density units on the original plan and it would be 145 density
units under the current plan. Under the current plan and according
to this lot study, which has been prepared by our engineer,
Ramseyer & Associates. Those lots would range in size from 6500
square feet to 8500 square feet.
Plan Area B is the residential planning area located in the
northwest quadrant of the project under the original plan that
represented 46 acres of development. The original plan called for
115 density units. Under the new plan it would have 138 density
units for an overall density of 3.0 density units per acre.
Area C originally 25 acres in the approved plan, has been increased
to 32 acres with a density of 5.0 density units per acre has been
retained. However, the overall density of this has been increased
from 125 units to 160 units and those lots will range in size from
5,000 to 7,000 square feet.
Let me back up just a moment. I didn't give you the size of Area
B lots. Those will range in size from 6,000 to 7,500 square feet.
And finally, Area D, which is in the southwest quadrant of the
project, under the original plan this represented a planning area,
development area, of 21.5 acres. That area has been increased to
37 acres. Overall density remains at 3.0 density units per acre,
however, the total units increased from 65 density units to 109
density units. And the lot sizes will average from 8,000 square
feet -- will range from 8,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
We have prepared a scaled grading model that shows the project in
its after preliminary grading configuration, as well as an overall
lotting and preliminary landscaping layout which is located on this
side of the . . .
END OF TAPE
BEGINNING OF TAPE 2 (SIDE A)
RON TANKERSLEY, CARLSBERG:...... land use here on the easel. This
is the planning area/residential area in the southeast quadrant of
the project. It originally was 55 acres in area having been
reduced to 40 acres, due to the ...... habitat. In Area A the
current plan calls for 3.7 density units per acre. That compares
to an overall density of 55 density units per the original plan and
it would be 145 density units under the current plan. Under the
current plan according to this lot study which is has been prepared
by our engineer, Ramseyer & Associates, those lots would range in
size from 6500 square feet to 8500 square feet. Planning Area B.
Planning Area B is the residential planning area located in the
northwest quadrant of the project under the original plan that
represented 46 acres of development. The original plan called for
115 density units. Under the new plan it would have 138 density
units for an overall density of 3.0 du's per acre. Area C. Area
C originally 25 acres in the accrued? plan is increased to 32
acres. The density of 5.0 du's acre has been retained; however,
the overall density has been increased from 125 units to 160 units
and those lots will range in size from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet.
Let me back up just a moment. I didn't give you the size of Area
B Lots. Those will range in size from 6,000 to 7,500 square feet.
And finally Area D which is in the southwest quadrant of the
project. Under the original plan, this represented a planning area
development area of 21.5 acres. That area is going to increase to
37 acres overall density remains at 3.0 du's per acre; however the
total increased from 65 du's to 109 du's and the lot sizes will
average from 8,000 square feet will range from 8,000 square feet to
10,000 square feet. We have prepared a ......grading model that
shows the project in its after preliminary grading configuration as
well as a an overall lotting and preliminary landscaping which is
located on this side of the Council chambers and with that. That
is the conclusion of our plan presentation. We are available for
questions and will remain so at the conclusion of the comments from
the public. Are there any questions?
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: I have one, Mr. Tankersley. On Area C I have
that that is previously 15 acres.
RON TANKERSLEY: I think C under the old plan, I should say, Area
E under the old plan is now Area C. The Area C under the old plan
is what is now the middle school. Any questions over that?
RON TANKERSLEY: Thank you.
PAUL LAWRASON: Okay. John Newton.
JOHN NEWTON: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council,
John Newton. My business is at 165 High Street, Room 380. I am
typically before you representing projects such as this, but
tonight I am speaking as a private citizen, a long term community
volunteer, past President of Chamber of Commerce, past President of
Rotary, past President and Founder of Boys and Girls Club, owner of
John W. Newton & Associates, Inc., local land use consulting firm,
and a local resident since 1977. I first became aware of the
Carlsberg project and property when I worked as a County
Supervisor's Administrative Assistant in 1975. Four or five master
plans since then have passed through the community in one form or
another, uh, as a vice chairman of the 1979 General Plan Update
Committee considering land use on this property we once again
considered what should eventually go there. I have observed Mr.
Tankersley's efforts since incorporation and I think his leadership
has finally invited a project that strikes a balance between the
company's needs and the City's objectives. Land use from a
historical perspective is something that might be of help to you in
your deliberations. In the 1972/74 General Plan my calculations
indicate that without the civic center that was once considered for
that site which is now here. Without that the density would have
resulted in about 810 units with the land use designation that was
provided for on the property in that General Plan. In the 1979
General Plan Update the low density calculation with its density
range would have provided about 770 units on this same piece of
property. In the mid 80's or somewhere in there to my best
recollection is that the when the property owners brought forward
a request for zoning consistent with their land use designation,
the net result after a lot of deliberation was the now incorporated
City Council was a designation of specific plan with no specific
densities. Since that time the City has seen numerous specific
plan revisions including the previously approved project at
approximately 400 units in 1990. Tonight you are considering an
amendment to that specific plan to 552 units. I'm using the
residential density unit numbers for reference because I wouldn't
want anyone else to think that from a land use designation point of
view that this is a request for a large increase in density. I
don't see it that way from a historical perspective at all. It is
my understanding that the applicant has provided documentation
detailing the economic facts of life in support of why that number
of units the 552 under this particular plan is necessary to make
the project viable. Some more notes that I'd like you to consider
is this is in the City. It's infill, in essence, it's been in the
incorporated boundaries since�1983. There has been long term
recognition that this property was General Planned for development
for approximately 10 years at a density of 700-800 units. High
density affordable housing does not trade one for one with single
family dwelling units if that becomes part of your deliberation.
The Planning Commission supports the project. Neighbors on Spring
Road west must in all fairness accept densities at least equal to
what they now occupy. Development of this project at these
densities is not new news. The examples throughout the community
over the years are in terms of that
accommodation. When I lived in Park Springs condominium we needed
to consider and accommodate the Willow Creek Apartment project next
door. When I lived in Buttercreek, we needed to consider the
similar densities in the development of the Griffin Harrowood
project to the east. When I lived in Regal Park, the Palmer
project, 375 apartments, as you now know it to be LeClub, needed to
be considered and needed to be accommodated based on the land use
designations that existed there. We live in Creekside now. We've
accommodated and considered the condominium projects up in Mountain
Meadows and in West Village around us. When Ranch developed
which subsequently was the cardinal of Steeple Hill projects west
of Spring Road the original Peach Hill tract in Countryside Homes
needed to consider and accommodate what had been long planned for
those properties. Seeing a steady rate of growth and development
in Moorpark is healthy. This project is ready to proceed. Others
are not. In one respect that provides economic infill for the city
in terms of jobs, commercial expansion, General Fund income. The
construction site stride between New L.A. Avenue and Tierra Rejada
Road will be another link in our circulation element relieving
traffic congestion and providing improved access between south and
central Moorpark. Under Mr. Tankersley's leadership, the company
has begun to take its community responsibility more seriously in
particular contributions to our Boys and Girls Club, have been
consistent over the last two years. Our comprehensive youth
services program involving over 1200 Moorpark young people. I am
confident that the steady stream of Moorpark community service
organizations can report that same experience to you as well.
Finally, I think it's time to approve a Specific Plan for the
Carlsberg property. It appears to me that a satisfactory level of
public acceptance has been achieved by the developer. It would be
unrealistic on the environmental economic plan of today to expect
100% support from the great diversity of interests involved. That
is why you the City Council have the responsibility to make the
final determination. You have the facts and technical detail
before and have studied them extensively on our behalf. I
recommend you approve a Specific Plan that you are comfortable with
at the density level proposed. It is hundreds less than could have
been there. Thank you very much.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: I have one question, Mayor Lawrason.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Mr. Perez
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: John, you mentioned that as far back
as 1972 up to 800 dwelling units could have been considered for
this plan. Since that time period there's some pieces of the
property of the planning area have been removed for one reason or
another. Would those areas have comprised some of those 800
dwelling units?
JOHN NEWTON: Well, let's pull out the old plan. I keep these
things you know. No, I understand what you're saying. Yes, I
8
think some of the church sites and the middle school are now
located in what in those days in 72 74 would have been designated
medium which was 15 to 20 dwelling units medium density range. The
low density range was 5 - 15. We changed things a lot. You know
what range is now is scrunched right down. You have to keep all
this in mind. Yes, some of the property, the property, if I
remember right we were dealing a little more than 500 acres at the
time and we're now dealing with 4 what 60.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Four hundred and seven acres ?
JOHN NEWTON: So the acreage has been reduced and the density
ranges have dropped, but to answer your question is yes some of
that property was slated for residential development where now sits
two churches and a middle school proposed institution.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Okay, thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Carla Robertson
CARLA ROBERTSON: Carla Robertson, 165 High Street, Moorpark.
Would just like to uh uh briefly make a statement to the Council
tonight. I would encourage the Council to conclude the approval
process in favor of this project as quickly as possible. This
project was before the City years ago when plans for Moorpark's
second middle school was taking place. uh this school is almost
complete now and it will be ready for occupancy soon. This is due
in part to the cooperation of Carlsberg. Carlsberg is beginning to
take its place and play an important role in support of important
community projects and events which is welcome right now in this
kind of economic climate we've got. I would encourage you to
approve Carlsberg's project.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Sandy Brown
SANDY BROWN: Sandy Brown, business owner at 484 E. Los Angeles
Avenue. I would like to personally commend Carlsberg plan for all
the creative dollars spent at the drawing board. I hope this
proposed plan will move to completion soon as deserved because I
think its a win win win situation for Moorpark. Not only do we
need more economic development and jobs. We gain new business
spaces that generate valuable sales tax revenue which support
Moorpark city services and then as a bonus the residential units
will bring single families to shop in Moorpark. In a recent Daily
Newspaper report that I got a couple of weeks ago about a source of
State Board of Equalization, they have some charts and they showed
the Ventura County retail sales put into the different communities.
Moorpark did not even win a block on one of these charts. We are
unlisted..... but we didn't make it. Ojai got a list, but we didn't
make it. I think that we need the Carlsberg plan so that we can
have a really neat? situation in economic development for Moorpark.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Tom Piehn
TOM PIEHN: Mayor Lawrason, City Councilmen. My name is Tom Piehn,
12177 Cherry Grove, Moorpark. I would like to address you of
course on the amendment to the Specific Plan the 552 unit
development in particular. Um I've reviewed the Carlsberg
Specific Plan that I've carried around with me for the last several
months here. Lloyd gave me a copy and I carry it around with me
and I've read every word and every page of it. I'd like to
encourage that the City Council approve this plan as it is with the
552, of course, noting staff comments. They have some legitimate
concerns there and I think those can be worked out. I think the
nuts and bolts can be hammered out worked through. I look at the
project from three different perspectives as I read through the
Specific Plan. Number one is a virtual neighbor. Number two as a
co -developer for a brief period and number three as a resident and
I'd like to share with you some of those perspectives. As a
virtual neighbor, what I mean by that. Intermittently involved in
the Presbyterian Church right next door which is essentially the
project wraps around it our church program. Some of the time at
the church site and as a co -developer we worked with Carlsberg.
Had a unique opportunity that probably most residents hadn't been
able to expose themselves to Carlsberg in such a way. Uh, we
worked through our project, did a lot of the grading, offsite
developments integrally with Carlsberg. It was not feasible to
separate our two projects when it came to developing the extension
of Peach Hill and some of the grading so we had a mutual project
there so we got to actually work arm in arm together and got to
know Lloyd and his folks quite well and worked with them and had
the unique opportunity to see the way they operate and I'm
favorably impressed and I'm very satisfied with our City working
with the Carlsberg group. Ummm I found Lloyd of course to be very
patient, flexible, very nice man to work with and I think the City
will find the same thing. As a resident, I'm comfortable with the
project at the 552 level. I don't have any problem with that
whatsoever as we've heard it could have been more around 7 to 800
units. Bringing it in at 552 less of course some of the
considerations that the properties have been broken off for school
and church projects. I'm still very comfortable with that as far
as its impact on the community. I think the real significance and
the visual impact of the project will really be seen through the
subregional center. The major element of their amendment seems to
be mostly focussed on the 552 as opposed to 40511 but I think the
real impact is going to be in the subregional center. I don't have
a particular sensitivity to the increase at this point in the
number of homes. Density is no problem there, I have something
very common to that in Mountain Meadows. As far as the project
itself, it of course would be a gateway to Moorpark. I think it's
important that it look good, have a proper appearance, that it is
an economically feasible project. I think that as I talked with
Lloyd he mentioned that they did some counting on this and came up
with the revised 552 as an economically feasible objective. I see
10
no reason that we as a City should force them into an economic
corner squeezing them down to a project that is marginally or even
unaffordable unprofitable to them. We all know the consequences of
that. I would perceive it that if we back them into a corner we
would find them here about 2 to 3 years saying "guess what?" and
we'd go through a major modification process. We don't need any
kind of extrapolated legal process or any kind of lawsuit type
thing. I don't think that serves anyone's interest whatsoever.
I'm firmly convinced that their 552 number is an economically
feasible value. Something that they can work to and not have to
come back to us and say "guess what you did to us" we need to
reconsider. We certainly don't want a half finished project to be
negotiated. Forty-eight percent open space, I think that is very
much of interest. It will make for another attractive project. In
conclusion, I'm comfortable witli the Carlsberg project from all the
various ways that I've looked at it and I would encourage you to
pass the amendment and approve their plan.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Thank you. Pat Basso.
PAT BASSO: My name is Pat Basso, 3940 Southhampton Road, and I
guess I'm the first one that has some reservations about this
project. I'm going to try to do a little bit of reading here and
I'm going to shortcut and take some of it out because it's way too
long. First of all,' I'd really like to thank the staff and the
Carlsberg representatives for listening to those of us that came to
the Planning Commission meetings and moving the public hearing sign
away from the corner behind all the construction and over to Spring
and Christian Barrett so that the people who are most directly
impacted by it could see the sign. As you know I've been here
hundreds of times it seems. Many of my concerns tonight are still
the same ones I had before and I'm just not real sure they have
been taken care of. I'm not against the project. I want to see it
go, but my main concerns are things like traffic. I mean,
obviously with that much commercial business, a school and housing
-- there's going to be increased traffic. And one of my pet peeves
all along, all of you know, I still think that interior road, the
extension of Science Drive, orb , should have been
four lanes. I still perceive with the school traffic a lot of
problems. In the morning hours and evenings hours a lot of the
commercial and business is opening basically about the same time
school is going in and out. You're gonna have children walking.
You're gonna have parents picking up and dropping off children.
This is a middle school. I am a parent of a 12 year old and I know
this group. They are a little bit rowdy, a little bit oblivious to
what is going on around them, and the boys are a bit daring. And
I really have some grave concerns about their safety. I think if
that interior road were four lanes.
11
I don't know how that can be at this point. I think it would
alleviate some of the traffic along Spring. I really have grave
concerns about that.
The next thing I'm concerned about is the fact that our hillsides
and ridgelines have been under discussion for years, as long as
I've lived here -- 9 years. We still don't have an ordinance. We
don't even have any guidelines for the staff, the Council, or the
developers to go by. And now this Amendment, one of the things
that several years ago you really decided you didn't want to do was
interrupt a ridgeline. Now all of a sudden, we're chopping it down
30 feet or so, and moving that soil towards Spring Road. As an
acquaintance of mine, who lives in Design additions (? ? ?) said,
"Aw Oh". Because her home is one of the houses that is falling off
the hill because there's so much fill. So if this is going to be
the way it's going to be done, I just want to be certain that it is
really handled properly and that this doesn't happen to another
group of residents -- that their houses start cracking and they go
into years and years of litigation.
Another one of my pet peeves all along has been densities and lot
sizes. I'm happy to hear there are some tentative lot sizes. I'd
like to see them be minimum lot sizes. When I was at many Planning
Commission meetings, after the public comment was all over and
done, I was very disturbed by some of the discussion that went on
among the Planning Commissioners and I don't know if it was that
they were just -- didn't have enough background on the project or
whether they were referring to the residences across Spring Road as
being seven units per growth acre. And that they couldn't
understand how the residents could be upset as this project only
had three to five units per growth acre. And that the Mountain
Meadows area was about five units per acre. And that there really
wasn't any other recent development in the City, you know in the
close part of the City, that was any less dense. Well, I did a
little bit of homework on Steeple Hill, where I live. And because
we have no common ground; we have no clubhouse, pool, etc.;
basically we're just all houses. And for example our lot, because
it is flat, is about 7700 square feet. And our side yard is about
12 feet. Which measures about 25 feet between our houses; some of
them are a little less, some of them are a little more. And the
hilly areas of the tract up on Lane and Donnybrook,
Deering -- I refer to there because of all the terracing -- some of
those side lots are 30 or 40 feet. And yeah, a tremendous amount
of distance between houses. Some of those lots are probably
approaching a quarter of a acre. But saying that our density was
seven units per acre, really angered me. Just kind of looking at
-- I've been in a lot of the houses in our neighborhood, and I
would say that the range in Steeple Hill is somewhere between about
7,000 square feet and eleven, and that the average one would be
about between eight and nine, which is four to five per. In
showing some of my neighbors this map, when they looked at this and
it said three units, they go "Oh, third acre lots." Well, they
12
don't understand. And so I would like somewhere here to explain to
the people here tonight and those listening, because I know a lot
of people are listening to this who aren't able to come. Just how
this works, because I'm not even totally clear on it. I know that
common ground pathways and all that are included, but are
sidewalks? And is it to the middle of the street? How does all of
this work? So that we have a better sense of what they are really
getting and what they are going to be looking at. Now, some of the
pictures we have seen here tonight, over there -- you know --
showed us a little bit better. And eased the mind of those who
could look at them. But I still have some concerns about that.
Other concerns that came to mind at the time of the Commission
meetings when they were talking about the institutional use,
perhaps being senior housing; my first thought was, "Oh that's a
good idea." Next to the church. And then I went, "Wait a minute,
it's across the street from a middle school." That's not a good
idea. I don't think seniors and middle school students will get
along too well when they are directly across the street. If it
were a distance away. I think the idea of senior housing on the
property is okay but maybe just not there.
Another thing that was just in the discussion at the Planning
meetings was a way of putting affordable or low cost housing in
there. I don't necessarily think this is the right place for it.
I really think that that should be in an area where they have more
access to grocery stores, to public transportation. And from an
economic standpoint, I don't know why a builder would want to put
-- what are categorized as low cost or affordable housing
intermingled or next to more upscale housing, because I don't think
the projects will go. I just don't think it will work. I don't
think it is economically feasible.
I think that's basically all my concerns. I just want you to not
increase the densities any more. I think that this is more than
adequate. I want to be sure that the landscaping, kind of buffers
and hides the houses. I don't want to see -- just a wall
I think the houses that are south of Terra Rejada on the ridge
look terrible. That's my personal opinion and I would rather not
have seen them there. And we are starting to see that happen again
because it is a gateway to our City and I think that we should try
to make it as attractive as possible. Thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Thank you. I have a question. You began
your comments by saying you weren't necessarily against the
project, were you referring to the project with 405 or 552.
PAT BASSO: I'm not against a project going in on that property.
I do have concerns. To be real honest, I was not thrilled to death
with the one you people approved before. I thought there were
potential problems with it. As I said, the road only being two
lanes, that sort of thing. I kind of have a problem with 552,
13
because I have to look at D. I'm sure I'll have a problem with
that, but I, you know, if it's done right, I won't have such a
problem with it. It's just; I've said before with the same people,
I don't like the way much of Mountain Meadows looks. I mean the
houses are so incredibly close together, it looks like a bunch of
townehouses. And I just don't want -- I don't want to look at
that. And I know a lot of people who don't. But that's my pet
peeve.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: So you're not necessarily against 552.
PAT BASSO: If it looks right.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Okay. Gotcha. Now it's Francis Okyere.
FRANCIS OKYERE: My name is Francis Okyere, President of the
Chamber of Commerce, 530 N. Moorpark. I've been
(unintelligible) to Paul Carlsberg on this project. I've had
several meetings with (unintelligible) , records manager,
and worked out some of the details that we have in this project.
As I said before, I am a representative of the Chamber, which I
hope all of the members know, I looked at the dollar figures that
is going back to Moorpark and I get excited. Although we cannot
say for sure, probably about 2600 jobs will come into town, which
is what -- almost 10 percent of what the population is of Moorpark.
Also, they will be $500, 000 in terms of fees submitted to the City.
Maybe the City Council can weigh the market and how much market is
here before we get that. (Unintelligible) And I look at this
project from an economic standpoint, and I think that Moorpark is
going to grow. And the quicker we take this to heart and make it
work, the faster Moorpark will reap the benefits.
Sandy made a comment here about our failed dollars. We are way
under the scale and I think that any stretch of genius in making a
step in the right direction will count immensely to our
infrastructure and bring more dollars into the City.
I've already mentioned this twice, you know, whatever the 500
margin for the homes and the 400 -- I mean this is economically,
from a business standpoint, the project has to work. You have to
earn some dollars when you there. We have not. We have
not, again, tried to structure them some building down, to meeting
quotas, that is not feasible, and therefore not viable. I mean the
fact is that when the figures are penciled in, that is when the
developer can make a genuine return on his return investment.
That's why I propose an addition that the date be moved up and
it'll go ahead as soon as the developer wants it to be because it
will also benefit the City. I look at it from a very, very
positive standpoint, and I would hope you will approve it.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: I have a question for Francis --
Where did the figure 2600 come from?
14
FRANCIS OKYERE: I did some work with Carlsberg and we both thought
some of the jobs and discussed the family units, 150 units, if you
talk about a lower fourth to take it over a time period and when
that is done, due to the commercial impact. When you say business
is coming, in a long span, that figure was what we imagined it
would be.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: You probably want to talk to Laycook
about these numbers.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: I guess I'm confused. Are you talking about
2600 acres or 2600 workers or 2600 jobs?
FRANCIS OKYERE: 2600 jobs.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: And that will come from the business and
commercial development?
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: From construction to when it's done.
My understanding of it was from construction to when it's done, and
that's the amount of jobs it will offer. Is that right? And, it
will give that amount of people working there until it is done.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Will ask that question to the Carlsberg
people as that's an astounding number.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Okay. How did we do on the business
program to business program down the line?
FRANCIS OKYERE: Excellent.
MAYOR LAWRASON: Barbara Loczi
BARBARA LOCZI: My name is Barbara Loczi. I live at 11658
Blossomwood Court. I come to you as a volunteer, a parent and Vice
President of MACC. In a year and a half since I joined the MACC
organization, we've been intently trying to earn money to put an
athletic complex in the community of Moorpark. We've come across
a whole cooperative purview in that venture. And we found some
detractors. And it's not without its political bottleneck. You
gentlemen are accustomed to this all the time you work. In the
midst of what frequently became°what seemed like a maelstrom, there
were a few braces of calm support and hope. In an attempt to plan
to have a concert on behalf of the athletic complex. And one of
those bolsters was Carlsberg, and specifically Mr. Ray Cook. When
the paper caught wind of the consideration of our original site for
15
the concert being changed, and they caught wind of the fact that
other locations were not gonna fit to be considered. I felt like
the MACC and as an individual, we had a lot of egg on our face,
because we had not approached the Carlsberg people to see if they
would be amenable, on their part, to our using their property.
When in fact we did approach them, they were extremely cooperative
and offered their support in any way that they could. Which, to
me, reflects an advance indication of the way they propose to
behave within this community. When we have a volunteer effort,
such as the one we are undertaking, it is immensely important to
have the people who do business in this community become involved
with that project in many different ways. It has been the
historical perspective of MACC that Carlsberg has been willing to
work with us in every respect from Mr. Tankersley through to Ray
Cook. And as the representative of MACC, I am encouraged by that
perspective, and their willingness to work with us as a non-profit
organization.
One of the main areas that I want to bring to your attention is the
fact that when we look at what's happening, having concerts time
after time unapproved sites. One of our main and primary concerns
is the leasability of the property for that event. And again, the
representatives of Carlsberg indicated that they would do anything
within their power to make that land useable. To grading roads, to
making access, ingress and egress feasible for that event. To
giving -- possibly even financial support, if necessary. So it's
that kind of I guess attitude that is so encouraging to me as a
volunteer within this community. And I know that members of the
Council worked with out seminar in that they found Carlsberg
equally as acceptable. So I can't speak with credibility to the
project and the size and whatnot. I'm aware of it and I believe
that people who are much more knowledgeable than I about it. But
I would encourage you to engender an on -going cooperative
relationship with people like Carlsberg because these people have
made evidence of their willingness to work with this community, and
especially with the MACC organization.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Thank you. Patty Waters.
PATTY WATERS: Good evening Mayor and Council Members. My name is
Patty Waters. I live at 10865 Broadway Road. I'm speaking here
tonight as a long-time resident -- over 20 years, as a MACC
President, and as someone who has watched our City grow in the last
23 years or so. When I first moved here, we were told that the
community was going to grow. And basically, people were upset and
didn't want it to grow and didn't want it to change. But I think
the changes and growth have been a benefit to all of us in a lot of
ways. And most of that growth came through Urban West communities
whom I had the opportunity to work with very closely for six years.
When you have a quality company come into your community, they
become a part of your community and that company, will give to the
community, make your community a quality community, which we have
16
now. When you look at all the statistics, the people of Moorpark
have -- we're the safest community. We're economically viable.
Everything we have -- our schools are good, our police department
is good -- everything that we have in this City is good because it
was done right, and it was planned, and it was done correctly. And
it was done by a company that cared about the community that it
came into. Urban West has done that. They supported everything
that made this community good. In the little bit of time that I've
had to work with Carlsberg, I see them in this community as a
company exactly like Urban West. They will come into this
community and improve the community with what it does. I'm not a
person whose basically for growth, or for massive growth. But I do
look at it. This property is inside City limits. Anyone that
believed or thought that property that was inside the City limits
would not be developed is basically crazy. If it's not going to be
developed, it should not be inside the City limits. Therefore,
this -- anyone would know that this is going to be developed. And
we would know that it is going to be developed with densities that
are compatible to being with inside the City. Not densities that
would be in a rural area. So I think that you need to look at
those densities, which you have, and what they've done is
tremendous. 48 percent of their property is in open space. That's
almost like farmland -- part of it. So, you know, I think that
they have been extremely generous with Moorpark and with the
community, even just in saying that they are willing to work with
us to give us 48 percent open space. And the amount of time and
amount of money they have already put into this project is
incredible. $2 million. You know, you have to be a huge company
in order to do this. And, while the figures tend to make things so
terribly difficult, would exclude anyone who is not a big company.
So when we do have a big company coming in and they do planned
communities and they do the planning, and they make the future,
fighting tooth and nail and all the way, it behooves you to support
them also. And this has been going on for a long time. Their
plans have changed this way and that way -- back and forth -- at a
huge expense to the company. They've come up with a very viable
project here and I think that you need to look at it and to accept
it as it is and move on with it. I think they'll be able to move
into the community and support the community with the type of
things that the other people tonight have also mentioned. In
supporting the activities that are going on for the youth, for the
seniors, for everyone. I think these are all quality things that
we need in this community. I will have to take exception to one
comment from Mrs. Basso when she said that senior housing and
middle schools don't go well together. My oldest son was in 6th
grade, he had a fantastic teacher, Judy Garrison. And one of the
projects that they did was that their class adopted a senior
housing group, which happened to be in Thousand Oaks. And we
schooled the children -- actually she did -- she schooled them in
manners, talking to seniors, and then they went over and visited
the seniors. And many of those seniors adopted our children and
the children that went over to visit them. And they became
17
surrogate grandparents and the children would go over and visit
with them and back and forth. And I think senior housing could --
maybe possibly it's a very creative way of getting more volunteers
into our schools and getting people to understand -- young people
to understand seniors and seniors to understand young people. The
other one is also integration of low income housing scattered
around -- throughout the whole entire project. I think that this
is one of the things that we have tried to do with our community in
a lot of ways, especially in our schools, is integrating students.
And mixing everybody up and saying that we don't have to push these
people over here just because they don't have money. We can
separate them. We can all live together, and maybe we can all
learn from each other that way. So, I think that's another very
innovative idea.
And last, well not last actually -- linear foot buffer space --
Item D from the road. I came before you a long time ago when you
were doing something up in the hills over here and said you know,
we're a farm based -- you know, we made our money in farming. And
asked for a buffer zone, which at that time they were talking about
a buffer zone of 50 feet. And, after they got into this they said,
"Oh yeah, that's true. We better give them about 100 feet." Well
this is 300 feet inside the City limits. That's extremely generous
I think and the company should be commended for that.
And the last one is that as a property owner, I have great concerns
with the taking of public lands. And however that is, it's made to
happen, one of the ways. that it happens most often is when Congress
bungles and fools with environmental impacts and endangered
species. I just happened to run across in a doctor's office, must
have been reading then, (Laughter). I ran across this in Reader's
Digest, September 1993, says "When a Law Goes Haywire". It talks
about environmental impacts and the endangered species, when we
talk about the grass that was discovered up there, and not knowing
that it was there. And now we have to protect that grass. And I
look at the number of acres that surround Moorpark all the way into
LA County, and through LA County to the 405 freeway and I wonder
how many other areas of undiscovered grass there are there. But
you have to protect it. I would like to read to you just a few
things out of the Digest. "No one knows how many species exist.
Estimates vary from 3 million to perhaps 100 million. The
scientists know that nature itself has destroyed about 90 percent
of life forms that have ever populated the planet. Extinction is
an inevitable fact of evolution." Then it goes on and it says,
"The lie on public lands -- about 20 percent -- about 30 percent of
American land is owned by the Federal Government. Why not use
already protected lands, preserve or reintroduce endangered
species? In Missouri, a Botanical Gardens signed a U. S. Forest
Service Contract that includes collecting seeds, propagating rare
plants, and redistributing them on public lands." This might be
something that we would want to look at and use in this community.
And it says, "Curtailing private land taking -- In another 50
18
years, government cannot take away a citizen's property without
just compensation. But that's just what the ESA (Environmental SA)
has allowed, the Fish and Wildlife to do for years. Some legal
analysts will say that we're going to do a taking by . putting
it on those taxpayers at enormous risk. We're acquiring private
property owners to provide habitat for endangered species without
compensation, raising for serious Constitutional crime, explains
Paul Kramer, Executive Legal Director of the . . . .
END OF TAPE 2
BEGIN SIDE B of TAPE 2
PATTY WATERS CONTINUES: . . . of the Savings and Loan Bailout. To
compensate landowners on a scale similar to the Savings and Loan
Bailout. I think that's something that we need to think about
because whenever we -- and you are the government agency here --
force someone to do open space in order to make the project viable,
that is in some ways taking private land. And, you know, down the
road when there's enough of it and enough people get upset, and
enough things happen, we could end up in that same type of
situation. So I think that it behooves all of us to work together.
And when we have a company as good as Carlsberg who has worked and
come into the community and wants to make this community and
continue to make this community good, we need to support them.
Thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Thank you. Tom Duffy.
TOM DUFFY: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I'm
Tom Duffy. I'm the Superintendent of the Moorpark Unified School
District and I'm here representing the school district this
evening. You are beginning to see before you -- I think -- more
often than you have in the past, as you consider projects of this
nature, because of the financial school impact. I want to talk
about school impacts and would also like to talk with you about the
relationships that we have had with Carlsberg. I think you know of
that, but it may be important to refresh your memory about that
this evening. You gotta recall that we began our relationship with
Carlsberg by first causing them to change their plan when we
identified the middle school property and we were in a process with
you and there had not been a determination as to what would exist
on this property. We specifically, through the action of the Board
of Education and approval of the State Department of Education,
identified the middle school project on the property which is being
constructed today. Although we caused Carlsberg to change their
plan, they still liked us anyway and worked very cooperatively with
US. I would say easily that we have had an excellent working
relationship with Carlsberg. We have done so also with the other
major developers in town, including Urban West and Griffin.
19
The commitments that Carlsberg made through our school district,
they kept -- they consistently worked with us in coordinating their
project and our project. The daily work, almost daily work of Mr.
Ray Cook in working with school district personnel in solving
problems where site development side -by -side sometime came in
conflict were resolved and resolved easily, amicably. I'm very
pleased to see that.
The impacts of this project on the school district are something
that are important to consider. The middle school itself
represents the relief of certain impacts, not just with the
Carlsberg project but elsewhere in our school district and even
into the future. But it's important to address that because all of
the impacts are certainly not taken care of by the middle school.
The people yield, as we can project it, and I have discussed that
with you and with other Councils in the past -- we're fairly good
at projecting students population growth through residential
development and even commercial/industrial development. But the
yield from this project if it is approved as presented would be
approximately 386 pupils. I can break that down for you into the
groupings that reflect the configuration if you'd like to do that.
But one area that will be an area of concern is the elementary
population. A middle school being constructed will allow us the
capacity to grow, having the Chaparral Middle School, which is
about 1400 pupils currently. And we need additional space to grow
into. Moorpark High School is having recently completed additional
square footage there. Our elementary schools are near levels that
we have to keep them at, although they have actually been a lot
bigger in the past. I don't know if you can recall but Peach Hill
School, which is currently at about 750, was over 1,000 pupils --
about 1,100 -- when I first came to the school district in 1985.
We do have the ability to accept with our sites
and we do that effectively, creating a very positive and effective
educational environment. What the Carlsberg project represents it
turns out, an impact on our enrollment programs is that they will
contribute certain funds to us through the developer fee
contributions that hopefully matched with other funds, will assist
us in building the next elementary school. And I see that
occurring at the north end of the City. I think that is the proper
place to site it. That the school because of the populations that
will eventually go there and also to have eventually an even
distribution of new facilities in the older and newer areas of
Moorpark. But because the project does not present the number of
students that will cause a new elementary to be built on its own.
And that's an important thing to identify. For in a year or so,
since I will come back to talk to you about a new project and
recall what I said about the Carlsberg project and the pupil yield
from that project. The themes that will be generated if the
project is approved as presented with the number of homes and with
the estimates of square footage and relying upon no change in the
developer fee statutes, the numbers we accepted would be
20
approximately $2.7 million or $4 million. The $2.7 is based upon
$1.65 a square foot for the developer fee contribution; the $4
million is based on $2.65 a square foot contribution. The reality
today is the $2.65. By the time this project is ready to move and
they are ready to pull permits, we don't know exactly what the
developer's amount is but I would expect that there will be things
that are changing noticeably. In California there are items that
are on the ballot, of course, and I think you are aware of those.
So, it presents certain opportunities, a lot of them. One of those
is the simple majority vote which is Proposition 170. And because
I'm in an official role this evening, I can't advocate for that or
tell you to vote for that or tell you not to vote for that. But
what I can tell you is that if in fact that proposition is
approved, there will be the ability to have a simple majority vote
election rather than a two-thirds vote election for schools, which
is something that would be considered, I think, about whether we
need further new school construction in the future.
But the call for the project, getting back to that, that project
when it begins would see a new middle school in existence that will
open next September. The high school is at max capacity and we do
have the capacity for most of our elementaries by adding
relocateable buildings. We are in a gray area, however, and we do
need to move forward with another elementary school and discuss
that with our Board. But formally and informally we also have an
architect who has conceptually looked at a new building
configuration. The site in the future is the important thing for
US. I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have them.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Councilman Hunter
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Mr. Duffy I just wanted to tell you
that I appreciate very much what you've told us. And very much
hope that you'll be with us much more regularly. It would be a
great help to us as we consider additional projects. I would like
to go ahead and ask for a handle on that detail on the number of
pupils.
TOM DUFFY: These are estimates.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Do you have it handy now?
TOM DUFFY: I'm sorry. At the end of the day today, between
several other things, I was able to construct this. I would submit
it as part of the record, in a typed version if that's something
that would help anyone.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: That would be fine. Yeah, I would
like to see that very much.
TOM DUFFY: Here is there a plug -- just a little plug -- for where
they are going to locate that elementary school, I think it would
21
be an excellent conversation piece between City representatives and
school district representatives and it would be a good opportunity
for them to cooperate. And I'd like to do that. Thanks.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Mr. Perez.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Thank you. Tom, (unintelligible)
making your way through the City channels. You used one word in
your presentation that piqued my interest. And your mentioning
that the school paired fees are just a little more longer than
other firms, and please identify who those other firms may be. You
used the word "hopefully". Hopefully we will finance the needed
new elementary school. The school district has been very
successful to date in providing the needed classroom facilities to
accommodate the growth in the City of Moorpark. I'm not sure what
(unintelligible) facilities required the use of your professional
expertise as well.
TOM DUFFY: Thank you. (Laughter)
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: What my question is -- can we look
forward with some degree of comfort to achieve your continued
success in pending legislation, etc. etc. Is there something that
has happened or may happen that causes you concern and that caused
you to use the word "hopefully"7
TOM DUFFY: It's something that I've stated here before and over
and over again in other presentations, especially through our
Board, Bernardo. One of the most difficult things to do in
California today is to construct schools -- to have enough money to
construct schools. There is a huge backlog for construction and
modernization projects. We also have two modernization projects --
as an example -- that are in need of funding. We've gotten our
funding subverted -- unfortunately on that also today. The term
"hopefully" was used because we cannot predict what the Legislature
of California will do in the area of school construction. To let
you know, there was a piece of legislation that was sponsored by
the (unintelligible) Legislature actually, which we know it does
and can so authorize. And that was because it was an onerous piece
of legislation to some people and those no doubt were school
people. That piece of legislation did -- positive and negative --
provided an opportunity with another piece of legislation for the
simple majority vote item to go to the ballot. But it also caused
a sunseting of the State School (unintelligible) Aid Program. The
program that we have so successful in gaining money from -- in
fact, we've gotten about $55 million from that program -- that
program will sunset in 1996. Through an organization that I have
been very active in and served in this past year, the Capshaw
(unintelligible) Organization, we filed the legislation that would
create a new State help and aid program. Originally the Governor's
seek something to balance out this -- we have different views on
many things and particularly this saga. We have tried to craft a
22
piece of legislation that would be there. So the term "hopefully"
has to do with hopeful that we will continue to be successful in
lobbying for a type of legislation to provide for school
construction.
Another reason for the word "hopeful" would be that the future
projects that are on this end of the City will -- and I've had
conversations with the two developers on Section Three -- on this
end of the City just in the past few weeks. The timing of those
projects will provide two things. One the plans to construct --
the first thing is the time to construct -- and the other is the
children that will enter those schools. The timing and the ability
to master all of the demands that will be there at that time will
be critical. We can only do that to this point and that is because
we worked successfully with Council and the Councils in the past,
and even before I came here. I've been a traditional planner. And
what you were saying Scott and what you were saying Bernardo about
what the City has done and what I have done, I appreciate very much
because . . . . fortunately with this construction I think we can
assure and the "hopefully" maybe taken away from the miracle level.
I' d still say I have to say it because we can't always predict what
the State Legislature will pass.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: In the past, the concept of doing
something along the lines of v. Mira, that decision.
Do you see with the growth that is projected, or requested, that
the school district may come to the point where they would initiate
some action that would then enable the City to effect Mira -like
fees from the developers?
TOM DUFFY: I appreciate you're asking me that question. This was
on my mind and getting added into the Section C or three????,
because I didn't think it would be applicable to this particular
project. But, I think that -- depending upon future factors --
maybe -- just so the rest of you will know and understand what that
is -- it is that the Mira case, a decision of the Court that has
led school districts to go get their own statutory fees, developed
the $1.65 and $2.65 fees that I talked about -- in that it's been
an identification that a Council may approve a project and say you
haven't really taken care of all the school impacts and therefore,
what you must do before we approve your project is have the school
district assure us that there will not be school impacts that are
negative. And because the level of the fee is set by the Board of
Education, the Mira conditioning would be something that would be
congruent with regular developers fees to provide a project.
That's something that developers are not necessarily excited about
but which they are paying attention to. And thank you for
listening carefully to this. But to answer your question very
truthfully and precisely -- yes I think it is something that we may
discuss with the Council. You may recall that in responding to the
General Plan as the District -- with the District as the property
owner -- we specifically identified where or how near we are to the
23
three court cases, the trilogy, as something that we would like to
discuss with the Council and rely upon.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: I think you are aware our General
Plan language was incorporated 401 with that. And in a way my
question is relevant because anytime we look at our increased
densities, that really gets us closer to having something that is
necessary that much sooner. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Yes, Mr. Wozniak.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK: Tom, you talked about the funds that
you would be collecting from this particular project. When you add
these into your accounting, is that separated in any way so it's
only used for the future elementary school site or is that put in
the General Fund?
TOM DUFFY: Yes, that's a very important question. It is
segregated. We have a number of funds within the school district,
just as I'm sure you do. These funds would go into what we call
Capital Facility Funds, and by law we are restricted on how we can
expend these. We cannot expend these for salaries, as an example,
except for salaries for those who, like our construction inspector,
are directly in these projects. And so, when those dollars go in,
they must go for a project like this. In the District we have the
option as to how to spend those dollars in terms of needing
facilities elsewhere. And we may, in fact, reduce the impact of
the project so that it would not have to be spent necessarily on
the elementary school inside the project, it can be spent on an
elementary school outside of the project because children from the
new project would go to the school in the older project. So there
is a lot of flexibility.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK: But all the money would have to be
spent on what impact that project had on whatever school it
happened to be.
TOM DUFFY: But it could be split up into more than one project,
but we would identify that. Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK: Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: One more question, Mr. Mayor. Would
that be only for new facilities or could it go to existing
facilities?
TOM DUFFY: That's a very good question, Bernardo, one that the
effect of that question didn't answer. I have consistently said
that if in fact I can present to the Board of Education a plan that
identifies impacts on existing schools, and those schools need to
24
be modernized to receive children coming in from a new project,
then yes in fact we can. There are others who would argue
vehemently about that. I think because of their education that the
authority levied the fee. When education has the authority to
determine that there are impacts that will come from reconstruction
of housing that will impact existing schools.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: You aren't going to retire the
existing schools are you?
TOM DUFFY: Retire existing schools? The way that they have been
levied in the past is -- that actually happened -- They retired
existing school, which is a school that was closed in this school
district in this County.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: No, I mean can retire the debt of
the existing school.
TOM DUFFY: Oh. Yes. Yes, it was used to retire the debt. We use
developer fees on such debt.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Thank you Tom.
TOM DUFFY: Thank you very much gentlemen.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Dan Wallman.
DAN WALLMAN: Dan Wallman, 4210 Laurelhurst Road. I'd like to
begin by thanking the Council members and the staff tonight for
having this, I guess, special meeting. As you all know, a few
years ago -- I was 20 and now I'm 32 and (unintelligible) -- it
got to the point where we weren't all real awake. So this is very
helpful. I'll keep it brief. Basically, you might be surprised
but I think this amended plan is pretty effective. In a lot of
ways I think it will work real well. The only Section that I've
got a slight problem with and I'd like to go back to this is
Section D. And before I get to that, put across an idea that I've
tried to put to you guys before. And that is that in certain
sections of this development there's no way you can get around
seeing this development. It's there. And specifically Section B
which is on a mesa. No matter what you do with this development,
on Section B you're going to see it when you turn down Spring Road.
Section A the same. It's up against a hill. There's nothing you
can do. Obviously Section C, how could I have a problem with that,
it is inside the development. Section D is the one that bothers me
somewhat. And it's really only that they are chopping 30 feet,
supposedly, off the hilltop. And there is a way to get around
this. I talked to Ron this evening. One way he mentioned was the
possibility of putting a road on the outside of that section. My
idea would be that it would cut 20 homes out of this development
and you might be able to put them somewhere else. It's just
crunching it down a little bit and bringing it off that hill. Once
25
again, I'm getting back to chopping the hillside down. This is the
one section of this project that as far as I can see, if we were to
not build on top of that ridge, it'd be left natural. It would be
left the way it has been for ever since the beginning of time.
That's the way it's been. So as far as I'm concerned, we're
talking about 20 homes, possibly. And if I could have the D
section put up here, I could show you what I mean. But I think you
get the idea of crunching it down somewhat. Would that be
possible?
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Yes.
DON WALLMAN: Okay. While you are doing that, I just have a
question. Can you tell me what the institutional area is? What
does that mean?
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Staff can provide that. Can you give him a
description of what the institutional area is gonna be.
DON WALLMAN: It's a pretty large area. I don't know how many
acres that is.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: It's seven.
UIM AGUILERA: It is normally a public or semi-public buildings,
anything from a civic center to a church, to a school, whether it
be private or public.
DON WALLMAN: Well, I doubt there will be another church there.
We've got two right next door so . . .
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: You never know. I don't see a Lutheran
Church up there.
DON WALLMAN: I guess what I'm saying. It's hard to see. Is if you
take a couple of homes out of each street, here, here and all the
way along. (Laughter) No, I'm just saying if you cut out a couple
of homes, maybe two or three homes in each of these sections and
bring this back, you're not going to lose that many homes. There's
four here, four here; I mean I counted maybe 20. I don't know how
far you'd have to go, but it's possible that you could lose 15 to
20 homes or maybe put them somewhere else in another part of the
development and not lose what I'm talking about which is this
ridgeline. The other thought was what Ron said tonight, was
bringing this street along this edge. I don't know if that would
mean that the whole thing would move back or what. I don't know
how you feel about this, but you know three years ago we went
through this ridgeline problem. I'm back here again and I'll be
here every night until we finished with it. It sounds like you
don't have a lot of opposition tonight, so you guys might be able
to close it if you act real quick. One other thing that I would
like to ask, and I asked the same thing of the Planning Department
26
but I guess I didn't ask them to ask Carlsberg. Was the -- I think
it's the third rendition -- the third one there on the table, has
a view that isn't perpendicular to the curb as the others are. And
it's odd that it came out that way. But all the other views,
you'll look directly at the curb and you are seeing straight up the
hillsides in many cases. In that third picture, you don't. I
don't know if you guys have a shot of that. It's kind of at an
angle to the south. Anyway, what I guess I would like to ask is,
I imagine we'll have another meeting. I wonder if you could get
Carlsberg to have that rendition done so we can see -- and possibly
without trees, because we're looking at this rendition with trees
in the way. And you know, I don't know whether I'm even opposed to
this project. But I don't see any homes up there, and I'm
certainly not gonna be opposed to it. That's why you have to see
me again. So I'd love to see a little different view of that last
rendition. Thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Thank you. Kevin Mock.
KEVIN MOCK: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I have a kind
of a new perspective on this to go over again with you. Unlike
some of my neighbors and other people that have spoken tonight,
I'll get to see almost all of it, since I'm looking down on it from
my home. I'm on a hill -- I know, my hard luck -- hilltop already.
And I'm going to be honest with you -- as much as I enjoy the hill
and living there, if I could move away from there and put the hill
back the way it was, I think I would be willing to do that. I'm
concerned about the prospect of seeing the rooftops of homes
sticking across the top of the ridgeline, especially a ridgeline
that has been modified by a DA CAT. I really think that we have to
recognize, and I assume the property owner will have to recognize
that this is not a regular piece of flatland, like we've got in the
San Fernando Valley, where you plop down houses on every square
inch of it. And there's some obligation to those who combined us,
our children and our children's children, to leave some idea of
what this place once looked like. And those hills are part of what
this area is. We've seen communities go through and concrete over
rivers, and take them out. We've seen communities go through and
bulldoze hills and trees and oak trees that are centuries old. And
I think there has to be a time when we say, there's enough of that.
So I'm really concerned about the incursion into the hill rise that
disturbs the top of the ridgelines. And I think that perhaps as
suggested here, some compromise in reducing the volume at least in
those sections that infringe on those hills, might be a viable
solution.
The second reason I'm here is the same reason I spoke to you the
first time we went through this adventure -- has it been three
years? -- is regarding traffic. Am I in the right -- when I'm not
here, I investigate accidents for a living, so perhaps I should be
in favor of this project because it would be close to home and I
could have a ready set of pictures and would not have to drive as
27
far and do my work. But I'm going to suggest that the
environmental impact report, as I read it anyway -- I just don't
think those numbers work. And I especially read it to mean we're
going to see a lot higher volumes of traffic on these roadways and
the collision count that's going to have Lt. Dean and his people
quite busy, and eating up a lot of your City resources in doing
that type of work. These are not straight streets. They're not
level streets. We have some unique characteristics just by virtue
of the design -- and it is the design that we want to look at -- of
the community. We're using mostly residential, institutional,
school, business uses along basically a single stretch of road. We
have an intersection at Deshell that's certainly less than a
standard straight key intersection, at least as far as the curved
nature as you're approaching the signals from the project. So
there's a lot of aspects of this that are not real pristine. And
I'm not trying to get one of these straight gridlock streets like
we used to build, but on the other hand, these streets and the
volumes that they are likely to carry can cause some serious
concern. And any increases of density -- residential density or
automobile density -- increases the likelihood of that being a
problem. I don't know what the solution is. I'm not sure forming
a ridge is any more viable; it's more desirable to look at
certainly. But on the other hand, we're in a situation of -- I
think the numbers I've seen anyway -- suggest to me that -- I've
only been doing this for about 20 years -- but I see a couple of
spots in there where I would be out there with my camera waiting
for the accidents to happen. And throwing business cards on the
ground, I guess. I don't know. But it's an interesting problem
and I don't know how you're going to solve it. I'm not against the
project. Matter of fact I was quite pleased when the project was
originally approved in that if something is going to happen there,
and we had some resolution of the issue. I don't make it a living
from the developers or Carlsberg. They haven't given me anything
or done anything for me. I just -- I'm just concerned that we're
going to make a mistake and that we as a community and then go back
and try and fix it over and over again. I think we've seen that in
a number of our communities and other communities, where we're
having to go chase a buck from developer X to fix what the previous
developer did. And I can see that happening here. And we already
have the next developer banging on the door. So I guess we do have
a ready source of fix it money, but maybe if we don't break it in
the first place, we won't need that money. I don't know how to
tell you to react. I'd like to ask you to fix the ridgeline or try
and preserve that ridgeline in its natural state. And I'd like to
suggest to you to be truthful with increasing densities, because as
you increase that density you increase a lot of other things on
that roadway and a lot of things that weigh about 2,000 pounds and
go real fast and hurt people. So just consider those things.
Again, the environmental impact report, I don't understand how they
can make some of the conclusions they made. And I've read a lot of
those and I think the biggest thing environmental impact reports
have done for our community over the years is result in a lot of
28
trees getting chopped down, making books about this thick!
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. Mock, I wanted to ask you
a question. You mentioned -- and I wanted to take advantage of
your expertise for a minute -- to cover those spots that have the
potential to be a sore spot for us in the future. Could you maybe
point those out to us?
KEVIN MOCK: All right. The lights I see here are probably -- this
intersection here obviously caused me some concern -- as far as
just the configuration of it.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: That would be Science Drive and
the extension of Peach Hill Road.
KEVIN MOCK: And the second was (unintelligible) -- There were some
driveways. I don't know which rendition I'm looking at now. This
is a lot smaller, but it was in this area. And the last thing is
just the fact that this is going to be a thoroughfare, or whatever
you want to call it. It's going to be a thoroughfare and the
behavior of motorists on thoroughfares, especially when they have
both vertical and horizontal curves in them, you have a potential
for problems. The site distances become difficult and particularly
with the propensity to speed.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Thank you. I appreciate your help
on that.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK (? ? ?): At this time you had two very
real concerns. One was being opposed to ridgeline development.
And the streets that you were concerned about. That's two. And
I'm concerned about those also. It's like we said in the past, a
result of the developer agreement might be we see the truth that is
possible to the topography, which only the developer eyes at this
point. So it's going to be interesting discussion when we get to
that part.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Okay. Jim Stueck.
JIM STUECK: Mr. Mayor and Fellow Councilmen. My name is Jim
Stueck and I live at 4767 Elderberry. And I speak to you as a
volunteer of too many things according to my wife. I'd like to say
that I support the plan as Carlsberg is bringing it to you for the
amendment. I believe that because of the work out there, and that
they're a business and they need to make a profit, and I bet they
have looked at it a number of different ways. I served with Tom
Pines on the Building Committee of the Presbyterian Church and as
a result, had a lot of interface with the Carlsberg people and Mr.
Ray Cook. I probably did more on a daily basis. I was working
here in town and as we built our church, as we took it through the
process with the City and a number of different issues, I probably
got involved the most. And I must say that Roy provided a lot of
29
insight and a lot of help and very honestly was a very calming
influence on me personally, because I do tend to get a little
excited. And I think that they have helped us and I think even
back then -- how many years ago we started that project? About
three years ago? 1989. So we've had a chance to work with them.
A couple of issues have been brought up that I would like to make
mention to. That is the traffic. If I (unintelligible). I
believe there was a traffic study done for our Church site and a
couple of you were on the Council at that time. If you'll remember
we took Spring Street from two lanes to four to two lanes and added
meandering sidewalks and took them out, with all costs to the
Church. About $50,000 to redo the engineering drawings. If I
recall, and you can go back and look in your minutes, there was a
traffic study done that included the Carlsberg project and the
discussion that I recall that evening was to make it a four lane
road would increase these and cause worse problems. Because if I
remember right, we were talking about the extension of Peach Hill
to go four lanes, which impacted Carlsberg and we didn't have a
traffic study done on that and I believe it included approximately
how many units we have on that side. So, I think you might get
some background on that, for whatever help that is.
And the other issue, a couple of issues. The institutional site --
located kind of next to our Church. We'd like to have another
Church there. That'd be nice. The Lutherans, however, bought the
Church next to the Texaco station, the Texaco Car Wash, as I
understand. But there might be a couple of others. A synagogue.
We all worked on this together. I like the -- and unfortunately
Patty stole my thunder -- I think a senior citizens center would
look great, and would go great. We have a couple of seniors at the
high school -- senior citizens at the high school working with some
disadvantaged children there. And that project worked very, very
well. And very honestly when I heard that we were considering
that, I thought it was a great idea, especially with junior high
schoolers because as Patty mentioned, they are growing and need to
have some training in manners and things like that. I think having
that kind of a project there.
Also, I'm curious, the CR designation, it's my understanding
there's supposed to be a restaurant at the site. I'm not real good
at marketing, but that seems to be kind of "in" from things. I
just know we have trouble keeping restaurants in this town to begin
with -- Oh, I forgot Tony Roma's, right. Yeah, we could go through
that many restaurants Thursday! Anyway, I think we might want to
take another look at that from that standpoint.
I am for planned growth. I don't think that's a secret. I think
that this town -- the efforts of the Council and Planning staff has
been to plan that, and I know that's inevitable. When I moved here
in 1980, I believe there were 9800 people. And I knew and I think
a lot of us that moved here, knew that this town would grow. But
30
we hoped that there would be prudent planning and I think that's
what we're seeing here. I think we need that. I think we need the
business development. We need the extra jobs. I assured, my son,
thank goodness there are some good people in this town that provide
him work but unfortunately they weren't the kind of opportunities
that existed when I was a teenager. I think there are a lot of
children -- a lot of students in this town that need the experience
of working and so on. And I believe business development -- I know
that we had one at the K-Mart Center and so on coming in -- and so
we have more people grow and more people -- young families move in,
our Church has so many young families and young kids. You know, I
see that and that's something we have to plan for, and I think that
this accomplishes it. So, I support it and I ask you to give it
your careful consideration and approve it. And let's get on.
On another quick matter, Patty Waters asked me to ask the five of
you and to make the announcement that Friday Night is the stadium
dedication for the new stadium -- the new football stadium. I
don't know how many of you have had a chance to come to the
football game. Those of you who have, and were seated down in
front, know that. It is a dedication and we are asking the Council
to join us for dessert at about 6:30 p.m. They are having a Donors
Dinner which is everybody that donated $1,000 or more to the
building of the stadium. And we are having dessert about 6:30 p.m.
and we ask if you, the Council, would join us for dessert. It's
Friday, and will be at the High School Gym Area, the old high
school gym area. If you can attend, if you would call Barbara
Loczi or Patty Waters. Barbara asked me to give you her number
529-6863. So we'd like to see all of you attend the game. I know
I'll see a couple of you, but it should be a good game and it will
be fun to have a dedication of the stadium. Thank you.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Mr. Chairman.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: On the 20th, I'll be out of town and
I'll miss it. But I really am interested in the performing arts
program.
JIM STUECK: Oh yeah, that's pretty. It'll be at the beginning of
the open house there about 3. That's going to be outstanding.
Thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: That's the final public speaker. Mr.
Tankersley, would you like an opportunity to respond?
RON TANKERSLEY: I'd be happy to answer any questions.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: I have a question for Mr.
Tankersley. A couple of times tonight I've heard mention of low
income housing within this development. Are there plans for low
31
income housing.
RON TANKERSLEY: The recommendation of the Planning Commission and
staff was and Tim can restate this if I don't state it properly.
Staffs initial analysis was that 10 percent of the added units
should be in the form of units that would meet the moderate income
affordable within the County of Ventura. And those units would be
in -filled units. At that direction, we went back and analyzed what
that would mean in the way of costs. And, the in -filled units,
while essentially look no different than any of the other units,
it's just that the price is subsidized down to a level that it
would meet the affordable formula. And at 15 units, depending on
what the moderate income level was determined to be. I think there
was about a $500, 000 impact -- between $500, 000 and $700, 000 --
that would have to be subsidized in some form. Either a builder
reduction in price, a financing vehicle made possibly by the City
in the form of a second trust deed which would ensure the on -going
affordability formula, and it would give a mandate for enforcement
if you will. As a result of that, we concurred that it was
possible, however, if it was an builder subsidy that we requested
and the Planning Commission concurred that we ought to get an
additional density to offset that cost. And I think that's where
you see the 15 unit increase in the density recommendation that
came from the Planning Commission.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: In the document, attachment 13, I
guess its statements you prepared for tonight's hearing. The last
page shows favorable statements regarding proposed amendments.
Number three is for the project to provide affordable, safe
residential neighborhoods including homes for moderate income
families. Not meaning that those homes for moderate income
families are already incorporated within the 552 unit plan. Is
that correct?
RON TANKERSLEY: I think we had already been incorporating the
recommendation in that statement, as it was coming to the Council.
I guess. And maybe that's . . . In the sense that, in coming to
the Council, something has to be done in the way of subsidy. And
I'm not dictating a formula here. I'm just suggesting that yes, we
can do something that would be moderate income levels. We request
that you consider that if we have the need to provide 15 additional
units, what we'd like to do is find out how we would finance that.
And we wanted to do that . . .
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: .........mention of low income
housing within this development. Are there plans for low income
housing?
32
RON TANKERSLEY: in a sense that sure we recognize with the Council
something has to be done in the way of subsidy and I'm not
dictating the formula here. I'm just suggesting that, yes, we can
do something that would meet moderate income levels. We'd request
that you consider that if we have the need to derive 15 additional
units what we'd like to do is figure out how we finance that. One
way to do that would be through the density bonus and another way
is the reduction of fees. Another way is direct financing.
There's a lot of different ways and I'm open to discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: (Unintelligible)
RON TANKERSLEY: .....within the 552 units without additing density
then it would have to go to some alternate means of financing the
subsidy.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Within the 552-unit plan that you've
33
5
brought forward, do you anticipate that there will be homes for
moderate income families in that plan?
RON TANKERSLEY: I anticipate that based on the recommendation that
I have heard that we have to do something and I don't know exactly
what?
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: No, forget the 15 additional.
RON TANKERSLEY: Without the 15 units then I'm just saying we need
an alternate funding mechanism to accomplish it and I'm not going
to propose a solution to that.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Have anyFquestions?
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Ron, Mr. Wallman has some concerns
with the grading on the hillside on the west side (can't understand
two words) ... and he proposed a solution as I see it that on its
face seems very workable and that is to remove some of the dwelling
units from the interior of Area D thereby reducing the width of
Area D and the amount of destruction of that hillside that would
become necessary. Is that a plan at least on its face that appears
to be plausible to you?
RON TANKERSLEY: The answer to that is qualified, but I will
qualify it by saying that we were working within a number of
constraints when we were trying to discover the feasibility and
trying to ultimately determine how to achieve feasibility on this
project. The physical constraints of the project that limit where
we can put units, .......said that units were removed from D,
unless they were replaced somewhere else in their fiscal financial
impact and I am telling you that I don't think even the removal of
three units is something that I would say doesn't have a
significant impact to it, so we looked at that Area D in I can't
tell you how many configurations we've looked at, but the
constraints as it relater to our development areas
...................(unintelligible). I do believe that the
proposal that staff and we've worked jointly with staff in trying
to address this very concern. I mean we were aware of it coming
in, we've known about it, frankly, working with the resources that
we got in terms of what available land areas we had to work with
this is a compromise. There's no question it's a compromise in
that what we're doing is moving some of that hillside as the
residents know it, but what we're also saying to them is when we
finish based on the grading constraints, I should say, grading
guidelines established by the planning department the form type
grading the additional landscaping, the additional setbacks that we
the availability of those structures would be insignificant where
they just would be as compared to anything that is being built in
that neighborhood today. I've
34
looked at other ways to try to achieve even a greater degree of
softening and one of the ways I suggested was possibly moving
street to the outside which would add in one other I think in this
case...............could be asanuch as another 36 feet, I believe,
curb to curb, not including sidewalk so that again would move the
houses further back from the ridgeline. I just think it is
impossible to achieve no visual impact near this. It's not
something we can do. Also what we're trying to achieve is a
balance of those concerns. I guess we could increase density in
other areas, but that would mean smaller lots, if you're trying to
put 20 units somewhere else, yea, you can spread 'em around to the
point that you can do it, but you would probably end up with
smaller lots.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Yet you said the removal of twenty
dwelling units from D would cause a significant financial impact on
the project.
RT: I think we're working with margins that are below normal
margins. Anyway, that has been further impacted since we developed
this plan by further deterioration of real estate values and I am
concerned it would cause a significant impact.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: So then could I assume that any
compromise between the 405 and the 552 is unacceptable to you?
RON TANKERSLEY: I'd have to study it, Patrick. If you're telling
me that we're going to have to look at some alternate
configuration, I guess I'm here tonight without knowing what it is
exactly you're proposing, but that's acceptable nonacceptable. I'm
just telling you there's a margins on this project are not
significant relative to what we experience in other areas and
certainly relative to the decline in ...... that we've seen in
residential properties all of which basically impact the land
value, because nothing else really changes. Fees don't change,
cost of materials don't change, so when a change really occurs is
what developers are willing to pay for land, so it's a difficult
battle.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: One of the speakers mentioned that as
they understood it we were talking about the removal or the
reduction of about 30 feet of hillside from Area D. Is that an
accurate statement? Is that an accurate figure? If not, maybe you
could explain in more detail how that would be proposed.
RON TANKERSLEY : Maybe you could put Area D on the projector. Turn
it over. shuffle shuffle The ummm issue is that essentially there
is a prominent feature about in this area. The elevation of that
feature is about 810 feet at its high point, then it dips down and
this is all lower and gradually rises and the skyline if you will
or the daylight line of the property runs kind of along this area
here. So when you're viewing from Spring all that sloping up to
that is pretty gradual. Under the grading plan that we have,
35
I think this cul-de-sac or this corner is about 700 it's gotta be
about 780 feet is my recollection so, yes, thirty feet is coming
off that. But what is also happening is we're moving that forward
toward Spring. The same thing is true here. We're bringing that
forward to this level so the perspective that you're going to
receive if anything is as high or higher than what they're seeing
from Spring right now, it's just that it is changing, so the
manufactured slope from a perspective standpoint would be closer
but yes it will be slightly morq than this existing high point, but
this is significantly higher than what it is today. I think if you
look at the photos we've issued you'll see that from a perspective
standpoint that ridgeline. There still is a definite ...........
The only difference is somewhat of a manufactured?? It is a
manufactured slope.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: In looking at the computer generated
photo, it almost looks as if the removal of that ridgeline
constitutes more than 30 feet, just in looking at photos. It just
looks as if that corner that you speak of almost represents a
removal of more than 30 feet of ridgeline.
RON TANKERSLEY: It's only 30 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: A maximum of 30 feet.
RON TANKERSLEY: At that high point.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Okay. Would that run across the
length of the ridgeline then? We can expect a maximum removal of
30 feet.
RON TANKERSLEY: I'm focusing on that one point. I don't have the
specifics on each cul-de-sac. Now we did give that to the Planning
Commission and if you'd like to have that a before and after as
part of the next presentation. I can give you key elevations and
key cul-de-sacs if that is something that the Council would like to
have.
COUNCILMEMBER PATRICK HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Next order of business here. We have two
letters that have been received by the Council dated October 7.
I'd like to put those in the record. One from Roy and Mary Brown
and a letter from Greg and Sharon Dietel.
LILLIAN HARE: Mr. Mayor. I've also received another letter from
Lisa Wells which I will distribute to the Council.
PAUL LAWRASON: Okay, let's enter that into the record as well.
LILLIAN HARE: And another letter from Gail and Jack Reiter.
36
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: Okay.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Mr. Mayor, if I may. The other
thing that was asked by a member of the public was that third
rendition. Is there anything you can do about that? Giving us a
rendition that's perpendicular to the curb, Ron?
RON TANKERSLEY: I can do it, but it'd take a few weeks....
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Might take a few weeks, but if you
start now you'd probably be done well before the process is
finished. If you wouldn't mind. It's not that bad an imposition,
is it?
b
RON TANKERSLEY: (Can't hear the response. Not at microphone)
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Okay. Appreciate it. I think the
plan here is to receive public testimony and then perhaps
assimilate it. It'd also give a chance at some later date for the
public to continue to comment so to continue this to a date certain
where the public hearing would remain open. I'm sorry, did
I ... okay. Staff is recommending continuance to October 20. Was
that for purposes of on October 20th then continuing it to the
27th?
JIM AGUILERA: Yes, it's staff s understanding that you need
to —that you cannot continue to a meeting past a regularly
scheduled meeting so we would say continue it to the 20th and then
continue it again at that point to the 27th.
STEVEN KUENY: I think actually you can continue the public hearing
to that date being October 27th. We can either ... we would just
call another special meeting so you can do it either way.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: I know that we have in the past
continued the regular meetings because we needed to ... because of
exactly what Jim said, but I guess we're okay. The smart thing to
do would be to continue it to a date that we're actually going to
hear it and let them know.....
STEVEN KUENY: Continue the hearing to the 27th and we will simply
call a special meeting for that purpose.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MONTGOMERY: Move continuance to the 27th with
the situation the public hearing will remain open direct staff to
provide any additional information as requested by Council as
indicated this evening.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN WOZNIAK: Second.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON: All in favor.
37
COUNCIL IN UNISON: AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: I have one question. Staff referred
to one of the conditions for the ......... (unintelligible)
homeowners' association or some other suggestion approved by the
City Council. Could they bring forward some other recommended
actions for that, please?
JIM AGUILERA: If I may address that, there was only one other
consideration on the part of the Planning Commission and that was
that the Fish and Game the Department of Fish and Game would be the
recipient of funds and were to maintain this property and then,
usually what the Department of Fish and Game does is then they
would somewhat sub that out to a nonprofit organization who would
do that for them, but the one organization that the Planning
Commission was the Department of Fish and Game; however, they
wanted to handle that recognizing that there is a very large uh
financial requirement of the applicant if it is done in that
manner.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNARDO PEREZ: Okay, thank you.
MAYOR PAUL LAWRASON:
City Council at this
recessing to Closed
END OF TRANSCRIPT
We'll reconvene the adjourned meeting of the
time and Redevelopment Agency for purposes of
Session.
38