HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1983 0803 CC REG ITEM 07E C.
o o ° VAES,
°T
IPOOO fl3OO SX aoa MOO 0O G3t?L L3M CA. g 3o2n
(805) 529-6864
CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 1983 LETA YANCY -SUTTON
MAYOR
ALBERT PRIETO
The Honorable City Council MAYOR PRO TEM
City of Moorpark ROGER BEAULIEU
California CLINT HARPER
Proposed Hillside Grading Ordinance JERRY STRAUGHAN
On July 6, 1983, your Council briefly reviewed the subject
ordinance. The matter was continued in order to allow a review
and analysis of the ordinance by staff.
In accordance with your request, the County Public Works
Agency has reviewed the proposed ordinance. The major difference
between the present and proposed grading ordinances have been
identified; although1an extensive analysis was not able to be
conducted. (See attachment A)
Additionally, a letter has been received from the Building
Industry Association on this matter. The BIA requests that prior
to an action to approve the ordinance, it be referred to a study
committee comprised of staff and representatives of the building
industry. The purpose of the committee would be to determine
specifically what are the needs of Moorpark and to tailor the
ordinance to those needs. (See attachment B)
Based on the review of the ordinance by the County Public
Works Agency and my conversations with staff members, there appear
to be a number of outstanding questions to be resolved on this
matter. These include :
-- What would be the effects of the ordinance on single
lot construction, such as in the northwestern hills
and Gabbert Road area;
-- Which projects, if any, would be exempt from the
requirements of the ordinance;
-- How will the additional administrative expenses to
be borneby the County be paid. _
According to. the Public Works Agency, the present County grading
ordinance and the planning review process do offer opportunities for
design regulation. Therefore, if your Council wishes to defer action
on the proposed ordinance at this time to allow for further study
of a hillside grading ordinance, or possibly design criteria to be
used in conjunction with the present grading ordinance, it appears
The Honorable City Council
City of Moorpark
Page 2
August 1, 1983
Proposed Hillside Grading Ordinance
that there would remain sufficient interim regulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
-- Review this report and take appropriate action.
NIALL FRITZ
City Manager;
Director of Community Development
NF:ddb
attachments
' PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
county of vEntura Director
Arthur E. Goulet
Manager—Administrative Services Deputy Directors
Paul W. Ruffin
Ron Brett
Real Property Services
August 2, 1983 Al F. Knuth
Transportation
T. M. Morgan
Engineering Services
Niall Fritz, City Manager G.J. esourc
Flood Con trol/Water Resources
Nowak
Moorpark
P. O. Box 701
Moorpark, CA 93021
Subject: PROPOSED CITY GRADING ORDINANCE
Dear Mr. Fritz:
Per your request dated July 15, 1983, I have briefly reviewed
the proposed grading ordinance you submitted.
The basic differences between the proposed ordinance and the
present County grading ordinance are as follows:
1 . The proposed ordinance is written with emphasis on grad-
ing related to subdivisions. The County's ordinance is
written to address grading related to development of
single lots as well as subdivisions.
2. Height limitations of cut and fill slopes imposed by the
proposed ordinance are not imposed by the County's ordi-
nance, however, such limitation can be imposed by the
Planning Director, Planning Commission or City Council
for subdivisions if necessary through the review process.
3. An appeal of the County's ordinance is reviewed by the
Grading Appeals Board, whose action is final . The pro-
posed ordinance would require Planning Commission and
may require City Council review.
4. The proposed ordinance would require recordation of a
final map or approval of a development plan before a
grading permit can be issued . Also, the proposed ordi-
nance requires a prior award of a development allotment.
The County's ordinance provides for issuance of a staged
grading permit prior to recordation of a map.
In general, the proposed ordinance would require a greater
amount of both Public Works Agency and Planning Division review
800 South Victoria Avenue,Ventura,CA 93009
r LL
Niall Fritz
Moorpark -2- August 2, 1983
than the County's ordinance. Furthermore, some of the require-
ments such as landscaping, height limitations and bonding might
impose unreasonable requirements on single lot grading projects
In conclusion, I feel that the County's ordinance would provide
a sufficient review of grading within Moorpark without the need
for additional staffing . Additional requirements could be im-
posed on subdivisions at the tentative approval stage.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at
654-2059.
Very
truly you
Jo C. Crowley Manager
Development Services Division
Real Property Services
JCC:jg
cc: Arthur Goulet
Ron Brazill
BIA
rigr
santa bathetic - Ventura counties region
building industry association of southern california,inc.
(805)484-2701 --
(805) 659-0027 (805)644-6554 (213)889-6614
(213)889-6637
July 21, 1983
Councilman Jerry Straughn
City of Moorpark
P.D. Box 701
Moorpark, CA 93021
Dear Councilman Straughn:
Several significant issues are facing the City Council of the City of
Moorpark at this time. At the August 3, 1983 meeting we understand that
you will be considering a hillside and grading ordinance similar to those
in Thousand Oaks,
Because of the far reaching implications on proposed, previously approved
projects and projects that are in various stages of grading, construction
and occupancy, the BIA would like to suggest that no action be taken on
these items that evening. In fact due to the complicity of the issues the
ordinances should not be enacted as an urgency measure. We would like to
suggest that the BIA work with your public works department and your plan-
ning staff to consider all aspects and practicalities of these ordinances
and their application to Moorpark. It is important that the final action
reflects the needs of Moorpark rather than represent the verbatim adoption
of an ordinance in place in another community that may not apply.
We look forward to working with you on all issues that will affect the BIA.
It should be noted that this practice of cooperation in the forming of new
ordinances is used by public entities throughout the County of Ventura and
the State of California.
We would appreciate an early reply.
Sincerely,
7AP /o--fjer
Lo se Rice-Lawso
E ecutive Director
LRL:jh
cc: Niall Fritz
City Manager
sent to all members of council
601 Daily Dr., Suite 229 • Camarillo, CA 93010
An Affiliate of the NAHB and the CNA